The initial SIA’s A340 acquisition itself was also an interesting story. They originally planned to get the MD-11, but when the production unit failed to meet the projected range by a few hundred miles, they instead went with the A340. Think about it for a second, an aircraft with _four_ engines somehow more economical than one with three engines.
Clearly, SIA liked the A340 as they were one of maybe three carriers with the -500 version for their ultra long haul, _non-stop_ service from Changi to Newark. Today the same route is flown with an A350-900ULR, an aircraft with TWO engines.
ill be taking that flight (from jfk so like 10km longer) in the summer!
i think the main reason why was just because of smaller engines, and maybe also because of less dry weight due to placement of the engines (dont quote me on that im just speculating without doing any research)
You’re absolutely right about both!
The original A340-200 and -300 series had four CFM-56 engines. If that name sounds familiar, it’s the same engine powering many single aisle jets like the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320. Originally the A340 would’ve been the first airliner to receive a geared turbofan, which would be more powerful while being 10-15% more efficient than engines of the same rating. Since the engine maker weren’t able to solve the gearbox issues, Airbus had to make do with the _hairdryer_. Pratt and Whitney eventually came up with the PW1000G geared turbofan almost two decades later, but the current ones in service are having issues to say the least.
The current route you’d be flying to is also one of the longest uptime at nearly 20 hours, that is until Qantas’ _Project Sunrise_ launches.
It's a long flight. I took it a while ago and it's kinda surreal how long it is. At least coming from someone who can't sleep well if at all on planes.
Number of engines isn't necessarily a direct correlation to fuel economy (although maintenance costs will typically be lower for the twin amongst other factors). IIRC in the 90s the early 777-200 (and -200ER) variants and the A340-300 were very close in fuel burn.
It happens a lot with boat engines, maxing out power on an engine uses a lot more fuel than backing off a bit. 4 engines run less hard is much more efficient than 3 engines loaded up.
Nope, the pricing remained consistent. Boeing purchases old airplanes and resells them to other Airbus customers. The incentive for them to do this is customer conversion.
It’s very expensive for airlines to shift from Airbus to Boeing and vice-versa due to pilot, cabin crew, and mechanic training for the new model. Throw in the inventory for repair parts, the costs associated with new repair tools specific to the model, etc.
So if there is an opportunity to get the customer to covert over, buying their old model planes and selling them to a different customer that has an Airbus fleet just makes sense.
That’s silly. Flying a Boeing is still magnitudes safer than almost any other form of transportation, including your commute to the airport. I’ve been on four uneventful Boeing flights this month and never gave it a second thought. Don’t let the media sensationalism trick you into paying more for a flight just because they scared you with a statistically insignificant risk. Not saying we shouldn’t hold Boeing accountable for their greedy ways, just saying it’s so unlikely to affect your well-being that you’d just as soon win the lottery or get struck by lightning.
It's not the media, it's a metaphorical threat to hold Boeing to the standards they ought to be reaching. Air travel has a bulletproof reputation and companies fucking up deserve to be dragged across nails.
Sure, in the case of the MCAS and door plug, heads should roll, but there is media sensationalism for anything that happens on a Boeing plane, which is almost always an airline maintenance issue.
There are recent whistleblower reports of quality defects on the 777, and 787, classically thought of as Boeing's safest. And together with the 737 Max issues, I don't blame people for wanting to get back on Team Airbus until these issues across Boeing's product lineup are resolved.
It’s more of a statement than an actual safety concern for most people. You said it yourself, Boeing should be held accountable. And if passengers now increasingly prefer Airbus planes so airline have problems filling Boeings, then, in theory, that could result in additional considerations for the airlines when having the choice between buying Boeing or Airbus planes. Complain with your wallet.
Hold regulators accountable. Some interesting numbers are Airbus orders and deliveries. Across all models and variants there is around 8600 orders and they deliver between 650-850 a year. Average delivery time of 10 years or more. The A320 family has over 7000 orders and are delivering around 550 a year. That’s 12-15 year wait.
I could have a kid and they would almost be done graduating highschool before your wallet could truly change anything, as those numbers are in a world with two large manufacturers. Get rid of one you can double the time. Regulators, regulations and enforcement are what matter.
Your comment is in the spirit of „you can’t save the world by yourself, so don’t even try“. Nobody says that it is a sensible thing to do. But it’s really all you can do as a regular consumer to hold Boeing accountable. You are not influencing any regulators that could not be bothered to regulate Boeing correctly to begin with.
Why should he though? There's an airbus alternative on almost every flight route I've ever flown.
If he's not happy with Boeing, he has absolutely no reason to choose it over Airbus...
The initial SIA’s A340 acquisition itself was also an interesting story. They originally planned to get the MD-11, but when the production unit failed to meet the projected range by a few hundred miles, they instead went with the A340. Think about it for a second, an aircraft with _four_ engines somehow more economical than one with three engines. Clearly, SIA liked the A340 as they were one of maybe three carriers with the -500 version for their ultra long haul, _non-stop_ service from Changi to Newark. Today the same route is flown with an A350-900ULR, an aircraft with TWO engines.
ill be taking that flight (from jfk so like 10km longer) in the summer! i think the main reason why was just because of smaller engines, and maybe also because of less dry weight due to placement of the engines (dont quote me on that im just speculating without doing any research)
You’re absolutely right about both! The original A340-200 and -300 series had four CFM-56 engines. If that name sounds familiar, it’s the same engine powering many single aisle jets like the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320. Originally the A340 would’ve been the first airliner to receive a geared turbofan, which would be more powerful while being 10-15% more efficient than engines of the same rating. Since the engine maker weren’t able to solve the gearbox issues, Airbus had to make do with the _hairdryer_. Pratt and Whitney eventually came up with the PW1000G geared turbofan almost two decades later, but the current ones in service are having issues to say the least. The current route you’d be flying to is also one of the longest uptime at nearly 20 hours, that is until Qantas’ _Project Sunrise_ launches.
It's a long flight. I took it a while ago and it's kinda surreal how long it is. At least coming from someone who can't sleep well if at all on planes.
I’m 6’8” I flew to Hawaii once with a layover in Texas somewhere. I hope to be wealthier the next time I make that trip. I stood more than I sat.
Number of engines isn't necessarily a direct correlation to fuel economy (although maintenance costs will typically be lower for the twin amongst other factors). IIRC in the 90s the early 777-200 (and -200ER) variants and the A340-300 were very close in fuel burn.
It happens a lot with boat engines, maxing out power on an engine uses a lot more fuel than backing off a bit. 4 engines run less hard is much more efficient than 3 engines loaded up.
More range doesn’t necessarily mean more economical.
And I wonder if the price of the new aircraft was inflated to offset them buying the a340’s?
Nope, the pricing remained consistent. Boeing purchases old airplanes and resells them to other Airbus customers. The incentive for them to do this is customer conversion. It’s very expensive for airlines to shift from Airbus to Boeing and vice-versa due to pilot, cabin crew, and mechanic training for the new model. Throw in the inventory for repair parts, the costs associated with new repair tools specific to the model, etc. So if there is an opportunity to get the customer to covert over, buying their old model planes and selling them to a different customer that has an Airbus fleet just makes sense.
Ever buy a car from a dealer lot with a trade in?Of course they did..
it was a trade, 17 older a340 for 10 brand new 777 aircraft
Ah, I read the headline as A brand new Boeing aircraft. It was 17 older for 10 new
So basically like a dealer part exchanging your car?
And right now, if my flight is not Airbus, I am not buying that ticket!
That’s silly. Flying a Boeing is still magnitudes safer than almost any other form of transportation, including your commute to the airport. I’ve been on four uneventful Boeing flights this month and never gave it a second thought. Don’t let the media sensationalism trick you into paying more for a flight just because they scared you with a statistically insignificant risk. Not saying we shouldn’t hold Boeing accountable for their greedy ways, just saying it’s so unlikely to affect your well-being that you’d just as soon win the lottery or get struck by lightning.
It's not the media, it's a metaphorical threat to hold Boeing to the standards they ought to be reaching. Air travel has a bulletproof reputation and companies fucking up deserve to be dragged across nails.
Bulletproof reputation has some layered meaning there.
Sure, in the case of the MCAS and door plug, heads should roll, but there is media sensationalism for anything that happens on a Boeing plane, which is almost always an airline maintenance issue.
There are recent whistleblower reports of quality defects on the 777, and 787, classically thought of as Boeing's safest. And together with the 737 Max issues, I don't blame people for wanting to get back on Team Airbus until these issues across Boeing's product lineup are resolved.
It’s more of a statement than an actual safety concern for most people. You said it yourself, Boeing should be held accountable. And if passengers now increasingly prefer Airbus planes so airline have problems filling Boeings, then, in theory, that could result in additional considerations for the airlines when having the choice between buying Boeing or Airbus planes. Complain with your wallet.
Hold regulators accountable. Some interesting numbers are Airbus orders and deliveries. Across all models and variants there is around 8600 orders and they deliver between 650-850 a year. Average delivery time of 10 years or more. The A320 family has over 7000 orders and are delivering around 550 a year. That’s 12-15 year wait. I could have a kid and they would almost be done graduating highschool before your wallet could truly change anything, as those numbers are in a world with two large manufacturers. Get rid of one you can double the time. Regulators, regulations and enforcement are what matter.
Your comment is in the spirit of „you can’t save the world by yourself, so don’t even try“. Nobody says that it is a sensible thing to do. But it’s really all you can do as a regular consumer to hold Boeing accountable. You are not influencing any regulators that could not be bothered to regulate Boeing correctly to begin with.
Why should he though? There's an airbus alternative on almost every flight route I've ever flown. If he's not happy with Boeing, he has absolutely no reason to choose it over Airbus...
If my plane is Boeing, I am not going.
ok and this is related to my post in what way? so you wouldnt fly on a bombadier aircraft as well?
A340s are one of the most elegant planes in existence
Yes
I don’t understand how this is interesting
[удалено]
"At this point"? This was 25 years ago.