Old 01-29-2013, 01:05 PM   #1
7C9
Member
 
7C9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 395
Send a message via Skype™ to 7C9
Default the fate of the A340-500

hi


I saw this photo (see below) and was immediately thinking, what will happen to all these A340-500s? There are many stored any many more to come....

Some people were saying that they are candidates for private-jet-conversion, but who would take these? (e.g. under cn 500?)

do we might only see them again, smaller, in the supermarket, with some soda in it?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	71944_1359062979.jpg
Views:	364
Size:	1.02 MB
ID:	5231  
__________________
please take a look at my website: www.bae-atp.webs.com

flown on: Boeing 737-400/500/700wl/800wl * B767-300ER * MD11 * B757-200 * MD82 * ERJ 145 * E-190 * Q400 * BAe ATP * Jetstream J41 recently added: B717-200

flown with: TUIfly.de, Luxair, CityBird, Transavia.com, Air Moldova, AirFrance, Régional, West Air Luxembourg, skyexpress.gr recently added: Volotea
7C9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 04:11 PM   #2
IberiaMD-87
Member
 
IberiaMD-87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 575
Default

Quote:
we might only see them again, smaller, in the supermarket, with some soda in it?
At least they would be useful again
__________________
http://www.MD-80.com / MD-80.com on facebook https://www.facebook.com/MD80com / MD-80.com on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MD80com
IberiaMD-87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 04:24 PM   #3
porter guy
Member
 
porter guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: guelph
Posts: 636
Send a message via MSN to porter guy
Default

You could call it 345 soda
__________________
I'm the guy... Porter Guy
porter guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 05:22 PM   #4
SAMRPICS
Member
 
SAMRPICS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Manchester (Knutsford)
Posts: 384
Default

hmm its one of those aircraft that shouldnt ever have been built really. To much of a niche market for a four engine jet. The 777-200LR only gets away because its 2 engined. Other jets that fit the category are:

A318-100
B737-600

fact is the A318 and A345 seem to only have been built for Airbuses pride as both are for markets with far too much of a niche for the airframes ever to be of any use. As for the B737-600, its simply not economical any more and never was particularly in the first place hence the small quantity built.
__________________
SAMRPICS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 01:41 PM   #5
HalcyonDays
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMRPICS View Post
hmm its one of those aircraft that shouldnt ever have been built really. To much of a niche market for a four engine jet. The 777-200LR only gets away because its 2 engined. Other jets that fit the category are:

A318-100
B737-600

fact is the A318 and A345 seem to only have been built for Airbuses pride as both are for markets with far too much of a niche for the airframes ever to be of any use. As for the B737-600, its simply not economical any more and never was particularly in the first place hence the small quantity built.
One might add to that list the 757-300, 767-400 and 747-800.
HalcyonDays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 03:09 PM   #6
7C9
Member
 
7C9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 395
Send a message via Skype™ to 7C9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HalcyonDays View Post
One might add to that list the 757-300, 767-400 and 747-800.
I think you can't add the 747-8 right now, as its quite new to the market, and as LH is very happy with it, there might be a big number (or at least a number) of new orders, especially as of the activation of the tail tank.....
__________________
please take a look at my website: www.bae-atp.webs.com

flown on: Boeing 737-400/500/700wl/800wl * B767-300ER * MD11 * B757-200 * MD82 * ERJ 145 * E-190 * Q400 * BAe ATP * Jetstream J41 recently added: B717-200

flown with: TUIfly.de, Luxair, CityBird, Transavia.com, Air Moldova, AirFrance, Régional, West Air Luxembourg, skyexpress.gr recently added: Volotea
7C9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 03:42 PM   #7
SAMRPICS
Member
 
SAMRPICS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Manchester (Knutsford)
Posts: 384
Default

B747-800I may not be doing that well but the F's are doing very well was my understanding. Combined i think the cost of development is more than covered. As for the 767-400 and 757-300 i agree they were a waste of time.
__________________
SAMRPICS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 04:13 PM   #8
AA 1818
Senior Member
 
AA 1818's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Shangri-La
Posts: 4,583
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMRPICS View Post
fact is the A318 and A345 seem to only have been built for Airbuses pride as both are for markets with far too much of a niche for the airframes ever to be of any use.
Keep in mind though, that the A345, while being a highly niche aircraft had a few things going for it;
1) It shared development costs with the A340/A330 program, so as an offshoot, it was not terribly expensive to create.
2) It was a competitor in a field where there was virtually nothing else that could compete. A 747 could not do the same range (due to its larger capacity), and the 777 would be so restricted that it might not be able to do the same (when it eventually began taking up the competitive role, and the 777-200LR debuted). This aircraft, while designed by short-sighted engineers, was a pivotal aircraft in proving the might of certain key customers, and only really failed due to a recessing global economy. If two of your key customers came to you and said, "build me a few special aircraft, from the blueprints that you are already making a few hundred of, becuase we need these for a glory route,", you might just be inclined to jump to, simply to save them from going to your competitor and asking for something new. It really kept them as customers while you worked on the future (the A350 program).
3). In other words, just because an aircraft sells poorly, does not mean that it was not successful. Look at the A340 program as a whole, which did well for EADS.
__________________
Wings are divinely inspired. When I dream - they're always in the best of them. They've taken me to the Heavens, and to Great Lands, but between a pair is where I feel most at Home.
AA 1818 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 04:22 PM   #9
AA 1818
Senior Member
 
AA 1818's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Shangri-La
Posts: 4,583
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HalcyonDays View Post
One might add to that list the 757-300, 767-400 and 747-800.
I agree that the 767-400 was shortsighted, because most airlines just pushed for the use of the 777, which was newer, and had greater capacity.

But the 757-300 is a fantastic aircraft, and for some carriers, allowed them to expand capacity, while maintaining a level of fleet commonality, and taking advantage of the 757's amazing fuel efficiency. Was Boeing a little short sighted? Yes, because the 757-300 competed against the 767 line (which could handle cargo better), but for some key airlines, adding 767s (either completely or adding more of them) to their fleet was not a logical move, because the 757-300 was more economical than a 767. Having flown on a few 753s, and seeing how they were used, I am not surprised that they will not be leaving anyone's fleet anytime soon. It was not a new design, so it was not expensive to create (as the 757 line had been in production for decades already), and allowed Boeing to fill in a niche market. It was worth it to them, and to their customers.

As for the 737-600, well, good job on calling that out. What was the point of that anyway? It was a 717 killer, and look how well that turned out!
__________________
Wings are divinely inspired. When I dream - they're always in the best of them. They've taken me to the Heavens, and to Great Lands, but between a pair is where I feel most at Home.
AA 1818 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 04:58 PM   #10
HalcyonDays
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,188
Default

I think the more general point is that most manufacturers will seek to meet customer needs and try to cover all bases with a wide product portfolio. At times they'll get it a bit wrong, but most if not all these poorly selling variants had their development costs diluted and amortized across the entire range, plus with overall corporate overheads as well. Most if not all were operated by carriers familiar with base model, eg. the 757-300 and 767-400.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any of these sub-variants has been technically inferior.

Nothing new under the sun here. L-1649 Starliner anyone ?
HalcyonDays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 11:00 AM   #11
IberiaMD-87
Member
 
IberiaMD-87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 575
Default

Quote:
But the 757-300 is a fantastic aircraft...
I totally agree with you and both the 757-300 and 767-400 might be aircraft which were not bestsellers for several reasons but these types are very efficient planes. The A318 was - in simple words - a response after other concepts (AE316/317 I think) were slashed and the "A319M5" was presented as an answer to compete against the MD-95 and Boeing 737-600. This was partly influenced after ValuJet was close to order the A319 (not the one with up to 156 seats) but the airline re-opened talks with Boeing, Fokker and McDonnell Douglas for their requirement. McDonnell Douglas was such in desperate need to present a launch-customer for their MD-95 after SAS decided in March 1995 to order up to 70 Boeing 737-600s. The MD-95 was slightly modified again and the ValuJet-order in November 1995 for up to 100 planes was a major boost for the fledgling program.

The A319M5 resulted in the A318 and media responded with high praises and the obvious advantages for being part of the highly-successful A320-family. History showed that both the A318 and Boeing 737-600 never reached the sales anticipated while their bigger counterparts are huge successes.

The 717 had better sales but this type was a stand-alone-player and requests by potential customers for a 717-family were answered by Boeing with the need to have more orders for the 717-200 while the potential customers officially said that they would order the 717-200 as soon as a family is available.

Quote:
In other words, just because an aircraft sells poorly, does not mean that it was not successful. Look at the A340 program as a whole, which did well for EADS.
Good point. The quantity is only one factor to claim an aircraft as successful or unsuccessful. I tend to say that the entire A340-program is a success. In several cases an airline decided to order an "no-successful" sub-variant of a family and such planes fitted into their business for many years. There were and there are so many individual aspects for an airline to select one type and just look back into history-books and the individual ways of manufacturers to get an order for their "perfectly suited aircraft". It is logical that every manufacturer claimed that their plane is the best solution. It is highly interesting I think to look back and to research the evaluation of an airline to find their optimal type of aircraft. So the A320 was the best solution for airline A and the Boeing 737-800 the best solution for airline B. Both airlines are probably right.

Regards
__________________
http://www.MD-80.com / MD-80.com on facebook https://www.facebook.com/MD80com / MD-80.com on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MD80com
IberiaMD-87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:40 PM   #12
Roy C
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Posts: 42
Default

the other thing going for the A345 is the operator doesn't need to be Etops rated. as, from talking to the guys in industry, even if the a/c is rated then the operator still has to show they can operate it in that manner and while the industry was waiting for a trans pacific or SA to Euro twin, the A345 fitted the bill.
Roy C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 09:12 PM   #13
Highkeas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: at 1,600 metres
Posts: 1,104
Default

I've not investigated the technical aspects but I wonder if the 340 could be adapted into an air refueling tanker (as was done with the VC-10).
Highkeas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 08:33 AM   #14
AA 1818
Senior Member
 
AA 1818's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Shangri-La
Posts: 4,583
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highkeas View Post
I've not investigated the technical aspects but I wonder if the 340 could be adapted into an air refueling tanker (as was done with the VC-10).
I would like to see what research would come back with that idea. It surely would get a healthy supply of relatively light used frames, that were meant for quite a longevity of life and in-air times. The tanker idea sounds great. I worried, thought that with so many abandoning their 747-400s, joining many 747-300s on the market - wouldn't heavier aircraft that are perhaps better suited for tanker operations, be already available? In either or, fingers crossed, both ways - that would be a phenomenal exposure to the new realities of this economic and perhaps green thinking climate of ours.
__________________
Wings are divinely inspired. When I dream - they're always in the best of them. They've taken me to the Heavens, and to Great Lands, but between a pair is where I feel most at Home.
AA 1818 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 10:17 AM   #15
HalcyonDays
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,188
Default

I can't see any role for an A340 tanker given that the A330 is already being developed into an excellent tanker platform for several air forces.
HalcyonDays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 01:42 PM   #16
brianw999
Super Moderator
 
brianw999's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
Posts: 9,399



Default

Well, something has to replace the DC8 freighters that are rapidly dwindling in serviceable numbers. Why not convert the 340-500's ?
__________________
If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

brianw999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 07:31 PM   #17
Highkeas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: at 1,600 metres
Posts: 1,104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AA 1818 View Post
............ I worried, thought that with so many abandoning their 747-400s, joining many 747-300s on the market - wouldn't heavier aircraft that are perhaps better suited for tanker operations, be already available? ................
One major issue with air-to-air refueling is ensuring there is acceptable tubulance in the zone where the receiving aircraft is positioned. Very large aircraft, in geneal, have severe wakes.
Highkeas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 09:03 PM   #18
HalcyonDays
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
Well, something has to replace the DC8 freighters that are rapidly dwindling in serviceable numbers. Why not convert the 340-500's ?
What the A340 has very much against it in today's world is four engines. The old Dc-8s are already being replaced by a mixture of the A300/A310/757/767/777, with the MD-11 too to some extent.
HalcyonDays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 09:20 PM   #19
Alessandro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: European Union
Posts: 1,067
Default

Is there a shortage in A340 parts? Any likelyhood they get broken up?
__________________
"The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"
Alessandro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 04:31 AM   #20
SYDCBRWOD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highkeas View Post
One major issue with air-to-air refueling is ensuring there is acceptable tubulance in the zone where the receiving aircraft is positioned. Very large aircraft, in geneal, have severe wakes.
And yet the 747 has been converted into a tanker (KC-25) , the tristar and the DC-10 (KC-10) have both been converted as have the A330.

All of which have similar or greater size and MTOW.
SYDCBRWOD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:11 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright JetPhotos.Net 2003-2011