Does anyone has an idea why Lufthansa keeps his A340 -300 and A340-600 in service.
These 4 engined aircraft are not cost effective and since many years there are better alternatives , Boeing 777-200ER /300ER.
And now it seems that they still want to continue to fly with these a340 for many years.
Waiting your reactions
Lufthansa's A340s
Moderator: Latest news team
Lufthansa's A340s
Last edited by sn26567 on 24 Sep 2013, 13:23, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: Title clarified
Reason: Title clarified
Re: lufthansa
The A343 and A346 are cost effective for LH.
Several reasons:
1. Despite the cliché that 4 engine aircraft are less efficient, it's not entirely an absolute. If we look at it from a purely theoretic point of view, having 4 engines does add drag and weight to the overall structure.
However, for long range operations, there are also benefits: A 4-hauler will be less overpowered than a twin. This comes from take-off performance requirements. In case of an engine failure after V1, a twin must be able to climb with 50% power while a 4-hauler will be able to climb with 75%. Hence, your engines need much less excess power and will be able to run at high RPM and more efficiently in cruise as well.
2. The B777 is a heavy and expensive aircraft. The A343 is a relatively light aircraft compared to its analog, the B772ER. The A346 poses a problem for Airbus as they could not find engines that were light enough. If Airbus weren't so busy building the A380, they could have stretched the A333 and put bigger engines under it, the same way Boeing launched the ER and LR models on the 777 family.
3. The cost of production of the A340 family was relatively low as they shared most of the tooling and structures with the A330. The B777 has its own line so it's quite expensive to produce.
4. Commonality was a big selling point for Airbus. There's nothing better than to be able to use one single structure for training, procedures and parts.
I think that the A340 choice was a good one and to keep them going is also a good choice. I think that their B777-9 purchase will be a big mistake. The aircraft is too much of a niche airplane, too heavy and expensive to make stable good money, especially in bad economic times. The only reason for buying it would be to replace the even more questionable choice of operating B748i's,
but then again, wouldn't they be better off with more A380's?
LH should have bought A350-1000's to go with their A350-900's. The B777-9 will not be competitive against the A350-1000, as it will be 50 tons !!! heavier to serve the same missions.
I still don't understand why they had to stick their nose into the B748i program, but this is LH. Since passing off the opportunity to become the B787/A350 launch customer with all the benefits that came with it (and in hindsight, the misery), LH has been trying too hard to become a launch customer for every new program in the 100+ seat segment.
The B748i, the B777-X, the Cseries, the NEO... in my opinion, they are too focused on the blunt purchase price, that they are missing out on the real needs of their fleet and the economics of operating these fleets.
The recent LX B77W order, just barely months before this order is such example of questionable judgement and short-term vision. Couldn't they have gotten a better deal if they ordered only A350's?
I don't like the fleet decisions that have been made since Maryhuber took office. They were one blunt mistake after the other.
Several reasons:
1. Despite the cliché that 4 engine aircraft are less efficient, it's not entirely an absolute. If we look at it from a purely theoretic point of view, having 4 engines does add drag and weight to the overall structure.
However, for long range operations, there are also benefits: A 4-hauler will be less overpowered than a twin. This comes from take-off performance requirements. In case of an engine failure after V1, a twin must be able to climb with 50% power while a 4-hauler will be able to climb with 75%. Hence, your engines need much less excess power and will be able to run at high RPM and more efficiently in cruise as well.
2. The B777 is a heavy and expensive aircraft. The A343 is a relatively light aircraft compared to its analog, the B772ER. The A346 poses a problem for Airbus as they could not find engines that were light enough. If Airbus weren't so busy building the A380, they could have stretched the A333 and put bigger engines under it, the same way Boeing launched the ER and LR models on the 777 family.
3. The cost of production of the A340 family was relatively low as they shared most of the tooling and structures with the A330. The B777 has its own line so it's quite expensive to produce.
4. Commonality was a big selling point for Airbus. There's nothing better than to be able to use one single structure for training, procedures and parts.
I think that the A340 choice was a good one and to keep them going is also a good choice. I think that their B777-9 purchase will be a big mistake. The aircraft is too much of a niche airplane, too heavy and expensive to make stable good money, especially in bad economic times. The only reason for buying it would be to replace the even more questionable choice of operating B748i's,
but then again, wouldn't they be better off with more A380's? LH should have bought A350-1000's to go with their A350-900's. The B777-9 will not be competitive against the A350-1000, as it will be 50 tons !!! heavier to serve the same missions.
I still don't understand why they had to stick their nose into the B748i program, but this is LH. Since passing off the opportunity to become the B787/A350 launch customer with all the benefits that came with it (and in hindsight, the misery), LH has been trying too hard to become a launch customer for every new program in the 100+ seat segment.
The B748i, the B777-X, the Cseries, the NEO... in my opinion, they are too focused on the blunt purchase price, that they are missing out on the real needs of their fleet and the economics of operating these fleets.
The recent LX B77W order, just barely months before this order is such example of questionable judgement and short-term vision. Couldn't they have gotten a better deal if they ordered only A350's?
I don't like the fleet decisions that have been made since Maryhuber took office. They were one blunt mistake after the other.
Re: lufthansa
And how long will that continue? And what is delivery time for new airplanes?Flanker2 wrote:especially in bad economic times.
If they order no new airplanes now, they stand at the end of the line when economics are improving.
( by this remark I just showed Flanker2 that I read his entire post. Some admiration for my perseverance is welcome, thank you
)Re: Lufthansa's A340s
It's already too late. The A350XWB is the program that they should have been launching instead of the B748i.And how long will that continue? And what is delivery time for new airplanes?
If they order no new airplanes now, they stand at the end of the line when economics are improving.
They missed the boat on that one, so now they're playing catch-up and can only get very few slots in the pre-2020 period. So now they desperately want to be launch customer of the 777-X so they can be at the head of the competition. I think that they will end up very disappointed, as only few airlines could use the 777-X.
Everybody says that the B777 is a big money-maker. However I see many big B777 operators struggling to make money. The B777 is not a magic formula, it's a good plane that can bring in profits if used well.
The A350-1000 is a better plane and its lifecycle cost per unit will be 600 million euro's lower than the B77W.
If you spread that over 20 years, you'll end up with a DOC saving of 30 millions a year over the B77W, per aircraft! Now that is a magic formula.