Back to Squawk list

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Derg
Apart from the 747 this is the only aircraft I feel safe in over the oceans. Has a nice turn of speed too.
rooskie13
Have flown AF A340 several times on 9+ hour trips. Every one been boringly routine and on-time. As it should be.
chiphermes
The A340 has been in service for 18 years. In that time, Airbus delivered under 400 and had 5 major accidents with 4 hull losses.

By comparison, the B777 has been in service for 16 years. In that time, Boeing delivered over 950 and had 1 major accident/hull loss.

So long, A340, can't say I'll miss ya.
rooskie13
Argument of A340 vs. 777 safety has no logic. Every A340 loss has been attributed to pilot/crew error. See link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A340
rooskie13
Also- one was blown up by terrorists, one lost due to fire caused by ground crew.
FedExCargoPilot
To Chip
May I ask, how many of those accidents were pilot error or some other cause most likely not the fault of the aircraft? Ill give you a hint, its mostly all of them, just saying...the A340/330 and 777 are all very safe airplanes.
preacher1
Regardless of fault, read John Donaldson's comment up top. With no oders in 2 years, it's a no brainer. The high cost of fuel and those 2 extra engines killed that plane. All $.
chiphermes
So you're saying that with not even half the # of planes and 5x the number of accidents, there's zero correlation?

Do you also believe that the Concorde was the safest plane ever since it only had one hull loss accident?
FedExCargoPilot
the a340 was in service for much longer than the Concorde and and is still around today and for a while. its an older plane, and served its purpose until the 777-200lr came out. its the 340s bad luck that the pilots overran the runway, this has never happened to the 777, and hope it never will.
jamespdodson
According to wiki, the Concorde was in service for 27 years. 10 more than the A-340.
Copterwrench
I was at the first US landing of the Concorde at Dulles in 1976 so it was around for a while
Kawaiipoint2
It is a neat bird just cause of how long the -600 and how efficient the -500 is. But there have been too many issues and production was never to par. I like the A340 and its not like they are retiring right now; just growing old and soon to be extinct.
klimchuk
klimchuk 0
Looks like my children will not fly on airplanes with 4 engines
preacher1
Well, there's still the 747 and 380
canuck44
canuck44 0
...or the Avro RJ 100. The Air Force offers the B1B in dull gray and irregular scheduling.

Alternatively, you could just package them up and ship them Cathay Pacific to Hong Kong on the 747-800F.
hotelgolf718
Your kids might be able to fly aboard a newly refurbished Lockheed Jetstar up for sale:
http://www.cbjets.com/v2/JetStarIISN5229ListingPage.htm
FedExCargoPilot
As far as flying over remote areas without having to be on a 600 pax airplane with 3-4-3 seating and depending on only 2 engines, the a340 will be missed. With the a330 and the 777-200LR, its probably a waste of money. As a passenger, I would rather fly on the a340 than the 777 across the ocean, but the 777 flies over one of the most remote places of the world.Ex EWR to China over the north pole, over the south atlantic and from LAX to Sydney/NZ, and it does its job well. But for airbus, who will compete against Boeings 777-200LR as its long range airplane? I understand that the 777-200LR was more popular than the A345/346 because it saves on fuel.
preacher1
Well, although the "diesel 8" and the convair 880 were out there, the 707 gained control of the skies. Could it possibly be that Boeing has another winner here as they did with the 707. In business competition, in most cases, the customer will dictate the winner as they are the ones that buy it, making money and hopefully profit for the seller, allowing it to stay in business. In this case, Airbus has simply lost.
BenKFIT
It's kinda sad. But then again, it's not.
FedExCargoPilot
It's a waste of money, however I think European airlines will hang on to them, just like US carriers hold on the the 757. Even though the 757 costs more to operate than the 737, they have little details that still prove them to be of use. Ex. More pax on each flight, good range, safe A/C. Same with the A340. They can be more suitable for routes than the 777 based on dependence on alternates, making a more direct route to the destination, less demand for Pax, and that they still do have more range. The future will tell the outcome...

I'm surprised that nobody misses the 2-3-2 seating on the a340. The 777 is much more cramped with its 3-4-3 seating and same with the 747, unless you're on top. In general I prefer Boeing, the 737 compared to the a320 series, but the lighter layout with 4 engines??? I guess I'm alone here..
dbaker
The seating configuration, of course, are an airline choice. For the 777, some airlines operates 3-3-3 rather than 3-4-3. And of course some operate 2-5-2, so you could have two alone on the 777.
canuck44
canuck44 0
Which is precisely why I choose the 763 or 764 when available. I don't mind refueling stops in Dakar or Cape Verde or plane changes in Seattle. With Senior Girlfriend at 92 pounds we have lots of room and arrive only a couple of seconds later than the folks in the front paying five times our fare.
lenosb
I have to agree with you FedExCargoPilot regarding the seating configuration on the Airbus. I love the fact that my wife and can sit together on longhaul flights on the A340 and if you need the loo you don't have to be a contortionist to get past the third passenger. I have always been a Boeing fan but I think the seating configuration really sucks!
chalet
chalet 0
The fight over this segment of airliners was very interesting. At some point Boeing in their desperation to push the 777 offered certain airlines to take their 340s as trade-in payment (Singapore was reportedly one of them). Airbus hit the roof and forced the Seattle crowd to backtrack. Now once the 777 started to outsell the 340 some Airbus blockhead came up with a terrible advertisement claiming that crossing the vast oceans on a 4-engine airplane is much safer than 2-engine aircraft without realizing that it run against their own 300, 310 and 330 aircraft. After shooting themselves in both feet some international arbitration organization (or maybe it was through the courts, I don't remember very well) Boeing forced Airbus to withdraw it to latter´s full embarrassment. The 340 is a fine aircraft, no doubt but it can not compare with the economics of the 777. I know that Iberia, LAN Chile among 340 operators regretted having bought it instead of the 777 and some like Emirates and Singapore ended up having both.
mpradel
Emirates just celebrated those news with a Record number of 777 orders!
StymieHo
Next Gen Engines put this one to the pasture.
michaelselassie
As far as I am concerned, the A340 seating configuration is probably tops in the industry. Flown on A340-500 BKK-DENSPAR (Bali) and it beats its rivals with its spacious cabin. This is where it stops. As far as operating economics is concerned, B-777 ( especially 200LR) just drove it out of business. The A340 was indeed a fine aircraft during its time but its now showtime for 777's ( until of course Airbus comes up with a suitable replacement in its A350-900 or 1000

so long A340 :)))))))
canuck44
canuck44 0
Let me see...no orders for two years as the 777 has 200+ backlog. Airlines can't get rid of them fast enough and they have a backlog of A330s that they want to get out before they are cancelled for A350 or 787s.

No brainer.
Derg
So that leaves me only one aircraft for oceanic trips...the 747.
rooskie13
Argumentof A340 vs.777 saftey holds no merit According to below link, all A340 losses are attributed to pilot/crew error in every case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A340.
preacher1
Well, according to the link only one was really pilot/crew, that being the tail strike. I think like John said above, no orders for whatever reason, in 2 years was the biggest factor, and that was probably attributed to those 4 engibnes as opposed to 2.
Derg
What concerns me on the ETOPS is fuel quality. As they introduce more biofuels into the pumping infrastructure there is a significant chance that water will be picked up into the kero and subsequently freeze. Of course there always will be occasions where engines are just plain "duff" as in the A380 in Changi.
rooskie13
Crew would include ground crew, not just cockpit, hence the refeuling fire and EADS testing staff taxiing into a concrete block can be attributed to crew - still not fault of the aicraft. And the AF loss at Toronto was due number of issues, but starting with the pilot not calling off the landing after losing visual contact in poor weather and landing 4,000ft down a wet 9,000 ft runway.Can't fault the plane for that.
preacher1
Dave you are correct. Roland as far as the ETOPS and the fuel, origin destination notwithstanding, I can't really think of a bad accident as a result of the ETOPS cert and 2 engines. Its been there awhile and my memory may have slipped. I am curious how the biofuel thing is going to turn out too.Not sure about thw water issue but I wonder if it will generate the savings all are hoping for
Derg
Wayne I am a nervous old coot and I just like the four engines over the oceans and the Russian Steppe. The freight guys are good in sticking with the MD-11 but not for passenger use for me. I know for a fact that there is continuing efforts being made to make sure that water is kept out of pipe and tanks that are shared with other fuels. But all it takes is for one or two critical path steps to be missed and you have a problem. Moreover the new engines are kinda fussy about what they are drinking be right on the edge of the perfect burn rate.
preacher1
I know. I like 4 as well, but I flew 2 for years(757) and it did take some getting used to, not only the 2 engines but just 2 of us up front. It felt like we were leaving sombody behind. Even with solid ground and plenty of good diversion under you, it was a bad errie feeling that for me lasted close to 2 years.
Derg
I bet YES.
hotelgolf718
I was thinking the same. The idea of being on a 75 over that much water wouldn't make me too happy. But on the flip side; plenty of mid-size corporate twins, (with very small cabins), do the same long over water trips routinely.
elfynh
Its a shame. I'm a Boeing fan more so than airbus but i did quite like the 340
hotelgolf718
I think the huge challenge for both Airbus and Boeing will be the next generation narrow-bodies. The A320 and B737, although incredibly popular, need replacing as the
carbon-fiber way of building airplanes and their efficiency takes a bigger hold of the market. I wouldn't be surprised if Embraer or an Asian mfg grabs this segment.

The 3+3 configuration is a wide open target at the moment.
canuck44
canuck44 0
Not so much for Boeing as Airbus as they will have a few more years of design, building and using the new technologies. I expect them to introduce lots of carbon fiber to their new 737-max particularly in the non-pressurized segments of wings and tail elements, floors etc. They will get much of their needed weight reduction from these changes without huge interruptions to their production process.
hotelgolf718
PS: Yes, I really enjoy seeing the A340/5/6 gliding onto short finals at JFK. Super elegant looking machines. Sorry to see them out of production.
Orsino24
no!!!! :(
espinete88
i love airbus a340-600 soy español y este avion es el que iberia tiene durante mushcos años para su vuelos transatlanticos es el mejor avion mejor 4 motores que no solo 2
espinete88
i love airbus a340-600 es el mejor avion a mi gusto prefiero cruzar el atlantico con 4 motores que no solo con 2 iberia opera el a340 y no a tenido ni un solo problema amo el airbus a340-600
espinete88
quito fue un reventon de la rueda algo ajeno al avion en si
TXCAVU
La rueda o el neumático?
espinete88
el neumatico para ser mas exacto tienes toda la razon del mundo por cierto elizabeth de donde eres ?
TXCAVU
Viven en Dallas, Texas. Padre es Americano y madres es Espanola. Puedo volar Pipers, Cessna y Grumman.
espinete88
que suerte ojala yo pudiese volar como tu mi sueño es pilotar un airbus o un boeing ser piloto comercial pero es muy caro aca
preacher1
Not trying to sound prejudice, but as English is the Intenational Language, and you are a student pilot, you ought to try and speak it in this column. Just Sayin'
chalet
chalet 0
Elizabeth and Manuel, the Iberia 340-600 accident in Quito was far more complicated than a simple "pinchazo de la llanta". You can ask Mr. Google for the details. The plane was a total loss, sniff, sniff.
preacher1
Not tryiny to sound prejudice, but as English is the Intenational Language, and you are a student pilot, you ought o try and spek it in this column. Just Sayin'
preacher1
Actually I hit the wrong button.LOL. I meant to reply to him. Glad you can speak two languages as I can at least partially understand 2 or 3, and a lot of pilots can. You have to for self preservation at times. but I guess I'm from the old school and nobody gets helped by not using it every chance they get. I realize that home country uses home language a lot, even though they are not supposed to because of interaction with International pilots.
Derg
Yeah Wayne...I too hit the wrong damn buttons...hahah. The Dutch drive me nuts, and Russia is kinda tough too hahaha!
hjfischer1
Before I retired as a 777 Captain I was a passenger on a European Carrier's 340. Gave my Card to the FA and was invited to the Cockpit. Comfortable airplane, great guys up front, but I couldn't help noticing that.....

1. Slower than the 777
2. Burning more fuel than the 777
3. Carrying fewer pax than the 777

Hmmmm....
Derg
I know the 75s and 76s were slower than the 340.
hjfischer1
Vm's, not even sure and doesn't matter a lot. All the later Boeings had a low Barber Pole- none nearly as fast as the good ole 72. What matters is the anm/1000 at various cruise speeds and the individual airline's decision of which speed to use. On the Oceanic Tracks you are assigned a Mach anyhow, and domestically most everybody is between .78 and .84. Doesn't matter a lot.

Flying DA2000's in my "next life" I was headed from the East Coast to LAX. A company Citation X came up behind us just West of the Mississippi smoking along at .90- .92. Doing only a pedestrain .85, I offered to drop down a couple thousand to let him pass.

Fast forward a couple of hours- we we right behind him on final to LAX. This is the real world, not the Reno Races.
preacher1
I just don't think I could ever get used to that joystick. .84 on the 777 cruise, as opposed to .82 normal on the earliest versions of the 340. understandable on the fuel burn with 4 engines.more PAX????????????
TXCAVU
Agreed. The 777 and the A340 are 2 different classes.
Derg
As a passenger I would choose the 34 everytime unless a 74 was more convenient.
TXCAVU
It will be interesting to see how the 74-800 fares against the A380. DFW just announced plans to retrofit a gate here for BA's A380.
Derg
Lets hope they used a tape measure to make sure the A380 will actually fit into that gate at DFW. The A380 can only be be viable if the insurers are convinced the A380 is safe on the apron. At LAX they have to be chaperoned and at JFK an AF A388 already took out an RJ. But as Wayne says I too think the days of the four engines are over in new builds.
TXCAVU
Actually they are building another terminal next to the International "D". These include runway and taxiway shoulder widening, structural analysis of cross-field taxiway bridges, terminal ramp, and terminal facility improvements.
preacher1
Well, truthfully, of all the Hubs in the country, DFW has got the money, space and common sense to do it right. They are just abound complete with their long way around taxiways but they beats hell having to sit there waiting on an in/out and having to make a mad dash across an active to get to a taxiway and ramp.
TXCAVU
Actually DFW known the Wright Amendment is about to expire and DAL has completed a major revamp. American Airlines and DFW are fight to retain passengers.
preacher1
It will all be interesting, especially with the Eagle spinoff looming.
TXCAVU
Don't hold your breath on the Eagle leaving AA for it brings in substantial revenue.
preacher1
Personally I hope it don't and I think it's a mistake for them to even consider it. Talk has died down about it some. I have some friends in DS down there and do fill in for them from time to time if they need help.
espinete88
elizabeth me lees
preacher1
On a long flight .2 mach on cruise, I doubt would be noticable to a PAX. For whatever reason, as John said in the first comment on this, no orders in 2 years made it a no brainer, plus somewhere I thought it said it was sharing the same production line with the A320 and that this would free up space as well.Except on something hi PAX or cube like the 747 or 380, I think it's doubtful we'll see anything with 4 engines anymore.
NZ83
But can a 777 with only c-class make a 19 h fliht sin-ewr. Or jnb-jfk. I think SAA have a two class cabin for this plus 16 h flight.
MichaelMcCarthy
Do I detect " patriotism " wrapped up in bias and prejudice in some of the comments here ? Maybe everything made in the good ole' US of A is good , and all things foreign , bad . But I think that the problem is that Airbus products are , but keep this quiet , SOCIALIST . That's it , definately , no question . It will be interesting to see the effects of the A350 on B777 and B787 sales .
Also , did you hear that Michael O'Leary of Ryanair maybe ditching Boeing and , omigod , buying Chinese aircraft !!! . What is the world coming to ? .
hjfischer1
Micheal, in spite of the dedcidedly Kraut name I am a proud American. For some years I flew a French airplane that was beautifully and thoughtfully designed and built and an absolute dream to fly. Among American aircraft I am, frankly, partial to the Lockheeds (showing my age?) My preference for Boeing over Airbus is a personal one that has nothing to do with Toulouse or Seattle. To break it down- and, again, this is a personal preference- I believe that whenever designers make it more difficult for a Pilot to make an error they may also make it more difficult for him to correct an unforseen problem. When automation gets in the way of dealing with a problem it has gone too far. If the designer prevents me from exceeding an angle of bank by accident, he also prevents me from doing it when necessary.
MichaelMcCarthy
Herb , or should that be Herr Herb , I can't remember the phrase about old and bold pilots but it sounds like you fit into the latter catagory , and all the better for it too . I have always thought that Lockheeds were the Cadillacs and Boeings the Fords of passenger aircraft . Now I'm not sure where we can put Airbus , Mercedes or Volkswagen . In many respects , as you well know , the design philosophies of Airbus are quite different to those of Boeing , but who is to say one is right and the other wrong as both manufacturers produce superb aircraft . Given that their sales figures have been pretty evenly matched for decades , the decision as to which type to buy , often comes down to national prejudice , political pressures and influences which often leads to a poor and unsuitable purchase .The decision to buy Boeing rather than Airbus for the new USAF tanker is a prize example and I think pilot preferences come well down the list .
preacher1
Michael: the phrase is "there are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old,bold pilots". That being said, please allow me my .2cts worth. I feel you are correct in your analogies of each aircraft type and their design philosophies. Airbus has tried to take all that is good from their forerunners and therby not have to contend with the bad. Problem is that I feel most of that has been done from an engineering and computer programming standpoint and not that much input from actual pilots that will fly them. The joystick will take some getting used to but that is not anything compared to a system that locks a pilot out of the loop and not let him exceed the flight envelope. That is a good idea in theory, but, if you fly long enough, don't matter if it's a C-150 or big iron of some type, Mr. Murphy will come in and join the party, and you will have an upset of some type, from which you will have to try and immediatly recover, and in doing so, you may momentarily exceed the envelope for the machine you are flying. It may just be the tad you need. In an Airbus, you can't with out reprogramming and in most case, you don't have time.
Generally on an equipment buy, it is economics this day and time. Included in that are several things other than price/performance, such as additional parts inventory and training for crew and maintenance.
As far as political pressure and prejudice; 1. If we don't take care of ourselves, no one else will. That's how we rose to a position of world leadership in the first place. Lot's of folks may not like us but they will respect us or tolerate us because of our ability. As far as the tanker deal, we didn't commit near as much to Boeing as the Europeans were going to subsidize Airbus, and it was our Air Force; they should do what they are told and that does go back to #1. Your profile does not list your age. All I can say is that if you did not live thru the Vietnam era as a teen ager or older, please read all the history you can. It is hard to tell where you are going if you don't know where you have been. IMHO
MichaelMcCarthy
Wayne , looking at your photo , I think that you and I are very close in age and yes , I remember the Vietnam era very well and was very lucky not to not to have been drafted and I mourne the losses on all sides to this day . The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in D.C. moves me greatly . Unfortunately , history which you mentioned , seems to be repeating itself in Afganistan . First the Brits , then the Russians and now the US , " when will we ever learn " .
Indeed Mr. Murphy hovers in the background to a greater or lesser extent all the time , hence our training and practices .
Wayne , looking after ourselves is fine and dandy but if we take the attitude that we must take care of ourselves at any cost , it will bounce back and hit us hard . If we expect people to buy our products , we must be prepared to buy some of theirs , trade between countries and all that . In this respect , we are not an island . For example , much of the Air France long haul fleet comprises of B777/200/300's . US Airways and Jet Blue both fly considerable fleets of Airbuses and so the world turns round .
Finally , I must appologise to Herb Fischer when I suggested that he could be a bold pilot . I meant to say , with the greatest of respect , old pilot .
preacher1
I agree on the purchases and we have, BUT, if we had not grown to such a great power, those overseas companies would have no ready made market.What bothers me right now is that it appears that we have gone to far the other way as a country, primarily losing focus of what made us great in the first place, and that is keeping Americans working. It is one thing for them to buy our products but we have made it far to easy for our jobs to go there and we are on our way to becoming one of those 3rd world countries if we don't change course. If they want to develop, let them develop and we will probably buy, but I think we are stupid in giving away some of what we have, both in technology and out and out jobs. That is our fault, not theirs though, and only 2012 elections will either change or stay that course.And you notice I did not express any preference in those election.
hjfischer1
Hey Mike- no apology needed. The consummate Pilot, which I never claimed- or even aspired- to be is bold when the reward exceeds the exposure or meek when the equation is reversed.

How many times in my career have I pushed the envelope one way or the other and lucked out! Diverted just before the field went VMC or stayed for a Must Nail It approach!

Risk Management..... what a convienient term for a whole Universe or things that must be learned and- more importantly- understood. I remember pulling a 777 up to the Gate at KIAD on my last airline flight. Before releasing my seat belt, I thought "I'm just beginning to understand this."

Ten Years at Netjets taught me more, but my ignorance still overwhelms me. There isn't enough time in a life to understand all there is to know.

If you start, at 40 or 50, to think you know it all, I'd suggest two things- either accept a position at your Company's Department so you can associate with the other geniusesses- or look at all you don't know!
preacher1
Herb, you got to be talking about the Airbus system of automation and not allowing a Pilot to exceed the envelope. It is a good thought in principle, but like you, I have seen too many times, when Mr. Murphy showed up, that that little tad of excess was just what I needed to pull my #$% out of a crack and recover from an unforseen upset. Never had any time in one but I never met anybody, except maybe an early Electra pilot, that had anything bad to say about a Lockheed. You do show your age LOL, a little but the L-1011 was a nice plane
hjfischer1
Yep, the 1011-500 was just magnificent. The C-130 that still had paint on the rudder pedals when I flew it 50 years ago isn't much different than the ones Pilots who are the age of my Grandkids are flying now.

Only Lockheed I didn't love was the T-33. It flew like a bathtub full of glue.... but- what the hell- for a 1943-44 design- not bad.

And, like a few ladies I've known, so damned beautiful that you could forgive some performance flaws!
TXCAVU
Herb, thank you for the kind words for Lockheed aircraft. FIL would concur with you as he was VP Interior design for Lockheed from the 40's-80's.
preacher1
Best I remember the 1011 had a pretty good safety record too except for that Microburst at DFW that changed the world. USAF 130 training now is at Little Rock AFB and have a low training pattern that brings them up over KRUE and turn back South and East over Petit Jean. Most time they are under 2 grand VFR or VFM.And you are right. They havent changed much, especially on outside appearance.
preacher1
AND, it is a hell of a note that a simple production discontinuance causes 80 comments in this string when Jon Donaldson's very first comment says it all, in that there have been no orders in 2 years.
TXCAVU
48 comments and to avert any more of your comments ie."pull my #$% out of a crack, I suggest we terminate this.
preacher1
Sorry if #$% offended you and my screen at the top said 80, 81 with yours and it will be 82 with mine.
preacher1
I will add that if you fly long enough, you #$% will be there and I hope I don't read you name in an NTSB report
TXCAVU
Michael O'Leary of Ryanair does a lot of to save a dime. If he dumps the 37...some leasing company will snap them up. Like the F16 fighter, the 737/747 will remain a contender because they consistently provide the market's needs.
chalet
chalet 0
O'Leary would say anything, I mean anything just to get his name on the news as that brings his airline free advertisement although the time is coming to be totally ignored as he overreached himself with monster stupidities like one-pilot crewing the 737 is enough, that visits to the loo (aka WC) will be charged X sterling punds and now trying to blackmail Boeing with the threat of Chinese airplanes. Airplanes of that nation have not reached the quality level of Western aircraft, not now, but eventually they will though.
TXCAVU
Awww...and China went to such lengths to "acquire" Western aviation specs.

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료