Non-Sense (and false) Information on A340-600

The Airbus A340-600, is already dead. Now Airbus wants to bring them back to life carrying 475 people in economy 9 abreast!!

But…Wait! 9 Abreast in this “Frankenbus” A346?

Yes. It’s 9 abreast, like AirAsia X (of Mr. Tony Fernandes) A340-300 and A330s. Which is too narrow to put 9 abreast in “Required” 18-inch, putting the seat width probably at 16.7-16.8-inch per seat limit, which of that is uncomfortable.

Now It will hurt the chance of put premium seats (the idea of obligating to have 18-inch seats on economy will hurt revenue of that seats and prejudice company costs and is too limitative (Lufthansa also doesn’t support that, stated Nico Buchholz – confirmed on this Runway Girl report)) on A340-600 and/or freighter conversion, the A340-600P2F, and will put crucial freighter operations like FedEx, UPS, Atlas Air and AirBridgeCargo (Volga-Dnepr Strikes Again!) out of large Airbus Aircraft for years, choosing Boeing 747s, 767s and 777s Freighters and Antonov An-124s or even An-225s (!) instead.

The A340 is already dead, because of:

1. His rival, the Boeing 777 is a twin-engined aircraft, which is capable to carry more passenger and cargo (despite of 10 abreast being cramped on actual seat config, but the 777X will curb that problem and make 10 abreast more comfortable than ever before, and making the 10-abreast project of A350 of AirAsia X and the project of 11-Abreast A380 of Emirates like an amateur thing).

2. The twin A340 brother, the A330-300 is getting better and is hurting the bottom A340-200 and A340-300, making that 2 planes obsolete to operate, due to high costs and lower revenue per seat.

3. The Oil prices helped to kill need for an A340 too. When the A340 was launched, the Oil price was at $25/barrel, now is at near $110/barrel, making near impossible to operate, and also the post-9/11/2001 travel crisis played a role, which airlines started to increasing prices after this attacks due to lower number of passengers carried.

The maintenance costs also played a role on kill the A340. 4 RR Trent 500s are so expensive to maintain and the TotalCare prices are inflexible, unlike the GE’s OnPoint for 2 GE90-115Bs of Boeing 777-300ER, which prices are lower and can be negotiated, like this: http://www.geaviation.com/press/services/services_20100719b.htm (this also included 6 GE90-94Bs and another 2 GE90-115Bs).

This flip-floppings started in the 1970s reclaiming the use of twinjet widebodies, instead of trijets (DC-10s and L-1011 TriStars), and, 20 years later, are reclaiming the use of 4 engines in long haul, instead of 2, and now with the economy crisis is proven wrong. Made the A350-1000, but Airbus was devastated after 777X victory in Dubai. Now, acting in a desperate action to rebirth the A340, the 4 engine aircraft, instead of advancing for an A350-2000 or something else. This is a flip-flopping on the engine number issue, beside of a seating issue, also.

If John Leahy was right, companies like Delta Airlines, American Airlines or United Airlines (or even US Airways, or defunct companies like TWA, Pan Am, Northwest, Continental or Eastern) would getting A380s and A340s instead of A330s, B767s, B777s and B787s.

Now, for the ones which criticizes the Boeing 747, I got bad news for you: The Airbus A380 doesn’t have a certain future after his usable life as commercial passenger aircraft, unlike Boeing 747, which was designed to be reused as a freighter when the failed 2707 SST had been to begun. But was kept for 40 years in passenger use, until now. Not because of the Airbus A380, but of the Boeing 777-300ER (a twinjet), which has taken several routes and relegated the 747 mostly as a freighter, which remains very popular nowadays, and ended up as the thing which has thought to be after his useful life as a passenger airplane, but in other context.

Now the claims:

There is market interest and Airbus has committed to go ahead and do it. It is not subject to a customer commitment but we are having discussions and we’ll shortly have customers signing up for it – Andreas Hermann

The AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter says: Mostly False.

Why? Because of that was said above: High fuel Costs, 9/11 crisis. Does he rembember that or he is lying to have customers. And only will get if they only want to buy an 4-engined fuel guzzling aircraft lacking cargo capacities of the B747 and the lack of capacities of the twin-engined A330 and B777. The charter companies which are using the 747-400 for military operations are probably getting quickly the Boeing 777-300ER or the 777-9X rather than A340-600 or A350-1000.

But it claims the four-engined aircraft can be competitive thanks to its lower ownership costs, which it claims averages $850,000 per month, and by tackling engine maintenance costs. Central to the latter is a pledge by R-R to bring maintenance costs for an A340’s four Trent 500s in line with those of a pair of General Electric GE90-115Bs, which power the 777-300ER.

A presentation given by Airbus at the conference included a slide about engine manufacturer support for the Trent 500 which stated: “Four engines for the price of two (four Trent 500 = two GE90-115)” – FlightGlobal

The AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter says: False.

Why? Because of the Trent 500 being like an RB211 or a P&W PW2000 of Boeing 757 in size, the maintenance costs and fuel costs are superior than the CFM56 of 737 or IAE V2500 of MD-90s, this was the fact of the Boeing ceased manufacture of 757 in 2004. Another fact is the ownership costs isn’t inferior of a 777-300ER with 2 GE90-115Bs. The fuel costs, and the maintenance program, also as referred above (the RR TotalCare lacks the GE’s OnPoint negotiable price) and the fact of the Airbus doesn’t have the Boeing Edge program of the 777-300ERs, which includes GoldCare, that reduces maintenance costs. Combined, these facts kill the myth of A340-600 ownership being inferior of the 777-300ERs, despite the A340-600 being less vulnerable to IFSDs, but this issue happened also in A340-600s (Incident: SAA A346 over Algeria on Feb 17th 2012, engine shut down in flight – Aviation Herald, by Simon Hradecky).

However, Airbus is also offering an alternative two-class layout which uses narrower economy seats to permit nine-abreast seating. This has 18 business-class seats and 457 economy seats, the latter being 16.7in wide. – FlightGlobal

The AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter says: True.

The seat width and fuselage width of the A340-600 is so narrow (16.7 to 16.75 inches seat and 5.64 meter fuselage width) that is better to have a 10-abreast twin-engined Boeing 777-300ER (with 17 to 17.5 inches seat and 6 meter fuselage width) and the seat count is so lower than the 777-300ER (has 500 pax capacity maximum) that will be a trainwreck. Nice try, but another thing Airbus is failing.

Airbus got wrong then on this issue with A340 and A380. Now is being dishonest to put them back to the life claiming that was no wrong with that.

So folks, that is enough time to this show. The Truth-O-Meters are being using to Fair Use, in the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 (17 USC 107), to criticism.