Game: Over
April 8th, 2009
End Of An Era Approaches For Ailing Quad
Will It Be Missed? Not A Chance!
An interesting set of comments appeared from Airbus’ head of leasing at the ISTAT conference held in Arizona last month.
While its right that airframers “talk up” their products to shore up interest, the A340 has had its fair share of critics ever since it emerged onto the world stage - it’s also had its fair share of praise too, from airlines and customers et al.
But then so has the 777.
However, the last 30 years showing the growing use of twin engine airplanes has resigned the A340 to being little more than a patient seeking a grant for euthanasia.
“The A340 has long been yesterday’s news. The market for this four-engined, below-spec compensation queen has gone away and will never return. Irrespective of how many outstanding orders Airbus claims to still have for the type, I’d imagine no more than another four or five will actually be built and sold, and those at knock-down, end-of-the-line or practically give-away prices too, of course,” says Arran Aerospace MD, Doug McVitie.
Indeed, Airbus’ own dilly-dallying on the “four engines versus two” dilemma prior to the A350XWB has meant that while Airbus stuck with the A340, it never really gave it as much attention as it could have done.
(Doesn’t say much for Virgin Atlantic either who boasted the “four engines for long haul” slogan with Airbus only to follow up with a 787 order a few years later…)
And when it did decide to invest in the revamped A340-500 & A340-600, it’s efforts were undone by a combination of stellar economics in the rival 777-200LR and 777-300ER families, the lack of major “oomph” over the older A340-200/-300 and no freighter option resigned the type to being ”the last runner to cross the line in a race” alternative for long haul operations despite its lower sticker price.
Despite that, after its launch alongside the A330 in the late 1980’s, the A340 has had a good innings and will no doubt continue to be the mainstay of stalwart customers like Lufthansa.
Examined another way, Airbus’ decision to push the appeal of the A330 has also undone the A340’s flagging fortunes despite the 2005-7 order boom. The type will fly on for many years with many operators - the reality is that almost a quarter of a century on from its debut, the A340’s commercial sales success is about as successful as Concorde - and that’s what it’ll always be judged on.
A340 who?
Entry Filed under: Airbus, Airbus A340, Airbus A350, Airbus A350XWB, Arran Aerospace, Boeing, Boeing 777, Boeing 777-200LR, Boeing 777-300ER, Boeing 777F, Boeing 787, Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Doug McVitie, Lufthansa
22 Comments Add your own
1. ikkeman | April 8th, 2009 at 11:01
The fact that your basic premiss is correct, the A340 is a still-born, does in no way excuse anyone from putting forth such an article on a website that claims: “FleetBuzz Editorial.com covers major global airline and aerospace news, along with discussion and analysis”
Where’s the news, discussion or analysis. pure controversy mongering is not an excuse.
is that why there’s no author??
2. Vero Venia | April 8th, 2009 at 11:31
The role of quads and tris started to fade away when very efficient and reliable engines became available. Very capable twins now fly long distance routes. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_2_07/article_02_6.html
The 747-8 and A380 need four engines only because they require huge take-off thrust because the take-off weight is so high. Boeing builds the 747-8 because a tweaked GEnx is available at low development cost, otherwise there would not be any 747-8.
I put the following comment at Randy’s blog
http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2009/02/first_flight_40.html#comment-49640
3. MPTA-098 | April 8th, 2009 at 12:21
Hmm, it’s Easter and not much of “breaking” aviation news-stories to report on. It’s much better then, for some “analysts”, spending their time going after that “damned” A340. However, comparing the sales success of the A340 with that of the Concorde is pretty much an apple to orange comparison.
4. boeing investor | April 8th, 2009 at 12:36
“However, comparing the sales success of the A340 with that of the Concorde is pretty much an apple to orange comparison.”
Does anyone have any recent data on how profitable or otherwise the A340 has been for Airbus?
From a business standpoint, neither Concorde or the A340 (on its own, not with the A330) can be considered as successful as say, the DC10 or A320/737 families.
Apple, orange or any other fruit comparison isnt needed here IMHO.
5. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | April 8th, 2009 at 13:43
Try the fifth word in the first sentence and click it
As for discussion, well perhaps you need to know what “Editorial” actually means.
“Articles appearing on a newspaper’s editorial pages represent the views of the (newspaper’s) editor and/or it’s editorial board.“
6. keesje | April 8th, 2009 at 15:00
“..Arran Aerospace MD, Doug McVitie.”
Say no more
Quads like A340 are done & the 747-8 has a lot of potential, unlike the A380.
The succesfull 777-200, 200ER & 200LR will further take over from the A340s in the next decade.
They have a total backlog of 40.
Hello A350, Boeing 777-200 /ER/ LR game over?
7. boeing investor | April 8th, 2009 at 15:19
“Hello A350, Boeing 777-200 /ER/ LR game over?”
Isnt that what the 787 is for???
LOL
You forget the 777-300ER continually racking up sales……
8. Vero Venia | April 8th, 2009 at 16:08
keesje,
Quads don’t have very bright future.
For example, Boeing won’t sell many 747-8 because much of 747’s role has been taken over by the 777-300ER. Air transport liberalization will do the rest.
Modern engines removed many limits and opened new way of flying. More liberalized air transport has changed the business model of many airlines.
Many things have changed. Let’s face it.
9. B380 | April 8th, 2009 at 18:52
Totally agree with ikkeman, this brings nothing to the discussion “table”. So who can you possibly find to interview for it? Step forward Doug McVitie. Oh Lord…. we really are short of news lately.
10. Mike M | April 8th, 2009 at 19:30
Christ, some people (Airbusiers) need to grow some cajones and thicker skin.
Maybe even worth taking schooling in humor too.
As for McVitie, you can hate the man all you like, but what he notes about the A340 is nothing to be scoffed at. He’s not the only critic of that airplane yet just because he’s stated it more recently than others people seem to take aim at him.
Didnt see these same folk on other blogs etc when Aboulafia or when Randy Baseler lambasted the A340. Hmmm.
Maybe the Airbusiers were still in their diapers and have now grown enough to type, but still lack the brains to add any content of their own.
Typical lemmings.
11. Chaser | April 9th, 2009 at 00:16
The 340 had a very unfortunate gestation due to PW abandoning the GTF that was to have powered it.
Had the GTF happened, I believe it likely the 777 may not even have been introduced in its current form.
Be that as it may, it cannot be ignored that the 330/340 were one programme even sharing a common wing with different hardpoints for engine mounting.
With well over 1000 ordered, I do not consider it a failure.
Airbus made the best of a bad job.
12. Anon | April 9th, 2009 at 04:48
So it was co-built with the A330 but it has its own type certificate - so why combine their orders?
The A340 has not hit 1000 orders and is never going to.
13. Mike M | April 9th, 2009 at 06:18
Source - ATW Online
“If I could, I would throw them away. These planes are not efficient at all,” Akbar Al Baker.
http://www.etravelblackboardasia.com/article.asp?id=60781&nav=109
>>>The B777 is up to 9 per cent more fuel efficient than the A340-600 according to industry estimates and outsold it 15 to 1 between 2006 and last year, according to Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group.
“The A340-500/600 versions were better aircraft [than earlier models], but the economics of a twinjet are superior, so the 777-200LR and 777-300ER completely vanquished them, especially as expensive fuel worsened the costs differential,” he said.>>>
Airbus boys comments?
14. B380 | April 9th, 2009 at 11:19
Mike M, you are obviously over joyed by the contents of this article, which gives you an excuse to put some links with the quotes, that are at least a few months old. There is nothing in here, which was not known before, including what Dickie and Dougie think or discussed extensively on other forums.
15. Mike M | April 9th, 2009 at 13:43
JOyed?
Hardly - just see whats written for what it is.
As for links/quotes being “a few months old” - check again.
Qatar Air boss spoke just weeks ago to ATW and the second link is from today (April 9, 2009).
Hardly months ago.
16. keesje | April 9th, 2009 at 17:02
1000?
1018 A330 ordered sofar.
+ 385 A340s. (not so bad for a failure..)
I hate to bring the news but the A330/A340 has been a ongoing success sofar that broke US dominance in the widebody segment.
(after the 800 A300/310 made a good start).
17. Anon | April 9th, 2009 at 17:38
This has nothing to do with A330’s - its about the (385~) sales of the A340 in 22/23 years.
Its anemic.
Shall we add the 767 orders to the 777 orders?
Two type certificates means TWO different order intakes. Not one.
18. B380 | April 9th, 2009 at 17:52
Mile M, you have old information:
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=15907
and an interesting discussion:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4353017/
enjoy…
Dickie’s thoughts are well known and are quite old.
19. Chris Wallace | April 9th, 2009 at 18:21
As a family, the A340 was not very successful, but neither was it a disaster. The A330-300 had similar payload to the MD-11 as well as being more efficient. However, it didn’t have the legs due to lack of TOW driven by lack of total thrust which meant less fuel could be carried.
The A340-300 addressed this by pushing TOW up MD-11 levels thanks to the extra thrust provided by four engines. And I posit those four CFM56’s were still more efficient then the three PW 446x or GE CF6-80C2 on the MD-11. And it leveraged all the systems and design work of the A330-300.
Boeing and their engine suppliers decided to take a big risk and develop a new generation of engines some 25-30% more powerful then any in existence which a pair of them could power a plane with a TOW tens of tons higher then the A340-300/MD-11. When they succeeded, that spent the end of tri-jets and quads for aircraft with TOWs at or under 300t.
That fact protected the A340-600, which started to supplant the lower half of 747-400 operators as the A380-800 looked to take the higher half thanks to both models being more efficient. At least until GE went out and raised the bar to 350t, which was close enough to the 375-400t of the A346 and 744 to end both of them, as well.
The A340-500’s problem is that it just weighs too damn much. It’s scores of tons heavier then a 777-200LR with a couple tons lower payload. So it needs to carry and burn more fuel to lug that dead structural weight around.
20. Anon | April 9th, 2009 at 19:25
B380 -
The ATW article is barely four weeks old, the second was published today yet you claimed they were “at least a few months old.”
Need I say more to embarrass you further?
21. B380 | April 10th, 2009 at 08:18
Anon,
The ‘news’ quotes inserted by Mike are 3 days short of a month, Dickies quote I am certain I had seen much earlier, hence the ‘few months old’ reference. Nothing can embarrass me more than this article and the people’s desire to point out that the A346 is less efficient, YET AGAIN. As I said, it brings nothing new to the debate and is like chewing on an old gum. If you like that sort of thing, then great.
This is a cyclical, competitive industry. One competitor follows the other one in improving their products. For Airbus there is A350, which will replace the A340 and take on the 777. Boeing will have to reposnd, being and aviation enthusiast, I hope with a new product. There is so much to look forward to… 787 first flight and EIS, 748F and then the 350. Instead we get ANOTHER A346 is less efficient.
22. ikkeman | April 10th, 2009 at 13:16
Thanks Chris, for a comment that finally makes this article worth my pixels.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed