Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Future of the Airbus A340

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by DAL767-400ER View Post
    Maybe it's just me, but I haven't seen any major airports capable of handling widebodies that still have gravel runways since the 60's or so. Besides, 4 engines for 2 times the number of FOD risk.
    Many paved runways are in poor condition with loose gravel and part of the pavement is brittle and it can result in that FOD being sucked into the nacelles.
    So claiming a 4-engined plane are more likely to suffer from FOD by 100% more than a 2-engined is a gross simplification, itīs all about engine location over the ground and on the airplane, the strength
    of the vortex from the engine and the size of the nacelles. Neither A340 nor any other plane in similar size got any gravekit as far as Iīm aware of.
    I think thatīs one of the main advantages with a 3-holer, the center engine can operate on taxi far from the ground and is likely to suffer from FOD.
    "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

    Comment


    • #62
      Skidmarks from Melbourne and the Emirate A340,

      Pic nicked from another forum.
      "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

      Comment


      • #63
        This thing sounds like a swine flu incubator:

        DATE:16/04/09
        SOURCE:Flight International
        Lufthansa A340-600s suffer cabin air contamination
        By David Learmount

        Internal reports at Lufthansa reveal that two of its Airbus A340-600 flights to the USA have suffered contaminated cabin air that made the pilots and cabin crew unwell. On one, the flightcrew had to don oxygen masks to land the aircraft safely.

        The airline's internal reports, leaked to German aviation journalist Tim van Beveren, refer to A340-600 (D-AIHO) flight LH452 from Munich to Los Angeles on 15 December, and to another flight by the same type (D-AIHL) from Frankfurt to Orlando on 18 December.

        Both reports were filed by cabin crew. A flight attendant on the Los Angeles flight, Sarah Gallwitz, says the pilots had considered turning back to Munich soon after departure because of oily fumes. Having decided to press on the crew were forced to don oxygen masks during the descent into Los Angeles.


        Đ Airbus


        Gallwitz says the cabin crew reported symptoms of nausea, drowsiness, bad headaches and difficulty in breathing because of narrowed respiratory channels. Headaches and dizziness, she says, were still affecting her five days later, when she filed the report.

        This has all been acknowledged internally at the airline, although Lufthansa has refused to comment on the incidents. The fact that the pilots on the Los Angeles flight had to use oxygen masks makes reporting that event to the aviation authority compulsory, but so far it has not been passed to them.

        A purser on the Orlando flight, Christopher Acevedo, described a smell of burned engine oil or hydraulic fluid, and reported that some passengers and crew members complained about severe headaches, irritated mucous membranes and coughing fits.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Vishal Jolapara
          Its about the future of this beautiful airplane, dont take it off topic with your nonsense.
          Darn now I'm forced to go to address all of the off-topic posts here.

          Completely agree, Vishal. However, it looks like this thread has gone way off-topic and will continue to go way off-topic.

          Let's hope the Airbus A340 is in production for at least a few more years. Unlike so many Boeing 777 fans, I actually really liked the Airbus A340. Sad to see that we are the end for an incredible aircraft. I tried to stop this thread from going off-topic, but was very badly insulted, so I'm not going to bother trying again, sorry Vishal.


          Regards,

          Rohan

          Comment


          • #65
            I too hope the A340 stays in production a while longer. Because having it around makes the 777 look all that much better.

            Comment


            • #66
              Thread cleaned - plz stay on topic and respect the forum rules

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by seahawk View Post
                Thread cleaned - plz stay on topic and respect the forum rules
                Thank you very much for clearing up this thread. Please let's keep this one on-topic from now on. Vishal, have you heard when Kingfisher Airlines is going to get deliveries of its remaining Airbus A340-500 orders? Hopefully, the airline will add some more Airbus A340s as it grows. Does anyone know which other airlines may order the Airbus A340?

                Regards,

                Rohan

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by rohank4284 View Post
                  Vishal, have you heard when Kingfisher Airlines is going to get deliveries of its remaining Airbus A340-500 orders?
                  With the way things are going, probably never .

                  Originally posted by rohank4284 View Post
                  Hopefully, the airline will add some more Airbus A340s as it grows.
                  IT can be glad if they don't end up being merged into or bought out by another airline. They have trouble filling their A330s as is, last thing they need is even larger A340s.

                  Originally posted by rohank4284 View Post
                  Does anyone know which other airlines may order the Airbus A340?
                  I'd say no one.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by rohank4284 View Post
                    Does anyone know which other airlines may order the Airbus A340?
                    At this point, it only makes sense to buy the A340 for airlines that already have the A340 and are in need of a number of long-range planes that doesnt justify buying an entirely new type.
                    Airbus already increased the performence of the -500 and -600 with the HGW variants and apparently it's not been enough. If they cant pull another rabbit from their hats the A340 is pretty much dead. I wouldnt hold my breath for new orders anyway

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by rohank4284 View Post
                      Vishal, have you heard when Kingfisher Airlines is going to get deliveries of its remaining Airbus A340-500 orders? Hopefully, the airline will add some more Airbus A340s as it grows. Does anyone know which other airlines may order the Airbus A340?
                      As much as i hate to say this but Colin is right with all of his answers.

                      I guess we all have to do away with things we like/love the most at certain times, going by history - the 747 slowly killed the Concorde and with the advent of comparatively more efficient airliners available, the A340 is almost guaranteed to become the DC8 of modern times, this & the coming decade will perhaps be the last of its glory days (considering there are more A340's flying right now then there ever were with this latest LH 346 being delivered)

                      Therefore, to answer your quesion about the IT 345's i'm afraid they'll never touch Indian tarmac or not atleast with an Indian reg'n
                      AND the chances seem pretty bleak of em taking delivery of the A388HGW they have on order either, if they do get an A380 anytime soon, Kingfisher Airlines will be 380 feet under the ground

                      There's c/n 886 & 960 gathering dust on the apron @ TLS
                      [photoid=6538896]

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Vishal Jolapara View Post
                        the 747 slowly killed the Concorde
                        What? Concorde was highly profitable for over 30 years. In my opinion the Paris crash and 9/11 is what killed Concorde

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
                          What? Concorde was highly profitable for over 30 years. In my opinion the Paris crash and 9/11 is what killed Concorde
                          Certainly the 2000 crash and 9/11 didn't help (especially the crash, rather than 9/11). However, I think the market was already shifting a little bit away from Concorde services by the 1990s so that demand for the product began to fall even before the crash, and this trend would have probably ended the services anyway. For example, the quality of first and business class services on subsonic flights became such as to challenge the advantage of a 3-hour flight in cramped conditions.

                          Earlier in the history, you could indeed argue, I think, that mass travel wide-bodied airliners were contributory in causing the initial orders for Concordes to fall away due to the change in the structure of the airline industry towards more deregulation.

                          Concorde operations were profitable only on an operating basis, and then not always. A reduction in two or three percentage points in load factors could put the yield under water. Moreover, the aircraft were given to the two airlines for free, so operations did not have to bear any cost towards development and financing. The French were also less successful in making it profitable than were the British, who were more creative in developing demand for charter and luxury non-scheduled flights and increasing utilization rates. The French really lost heart, partly due to the crash no doubt, and in the end pushed the end of providing manufacturer support.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
                            What? Concorde was highly profitable for over 30 years. In my opinion the Paris crash and 9/11 is what killed Concorde
                            Under the little prerequisites that
                            1. the aircraft are for free
                            2. the development including all risks is payed by the federal government
                            3. the airline is more or less federal property, too
                            4. preferably, cost of oil is substantially below 20 USD

                            The operation of the Concorde was modified so it appeared profitable or at least did immediately turn out to be extremely wasteful. By wider economic considerations, it was only slightly more economic than a manned moon program.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
                              What? Concorde was highly profitable for over 30 years. In my opinion the Paris crash and 9/11 is what killed Concorde
                              Where have you been?

                              The Concorde could barely show positive cash flow from flight operations. The entire fleet never generated enough revenue to pay for one aircraft.
                              Don
                              Standard practice for managers around the world:
                              Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Dmmoore View Post
                                The Concorde could barely show positive cash flow from flight operations. The entire fleet never generated enough revenue to pay for one aircraft.
                                So BA and AF kept them around for over 30 years for prestige and amusement? I find that a little hard to believe.

                                Concorde was never profitable for the manufacturer at that number, but that was never the question

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X