4 engines 4 long haul

what ever happened to 4 engines 4 long haul

It was an Airbus ad for the A346. As with all advertising slogans, it ran its course.

end of an era

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le5349108/

Did sir richard branson not say that 18% of travellers would go out of their to fly on four-engine aircraft.

he did, 10 years ago....but times change

10 years on, with sky-high fuel prices, the increasing penalty of flying a quad clearly makes it a no-brainer to use a twin if it can do the same job

dose that not count now ?

not any more....

is that because it is cheaper to run A330 ?

2 engines 4 long haul

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/airli ... 2-eng.html

so 18% of travellers don't count anymore ?

[Neil]

so 18% of travellers don't count anymore ?

As already said, that was 10 years ago, the world is a very different place and I imagine many people's views will have changed. All Virgin can do is what they currently think is best for their business.

so BA was correct to buy 777 and not 340 as VA did

[Neil]

What point are you trying to make?

[Darren Wheeler]

so 18% of travellers don't count anymore ?

But 82% wins

why not buy 747-800

[Darren Wheeler]

why not buy 747-800

To turn that on it's head, why should they?

why not buy 747-800

4 engines burn more fuel, the aviation business is as fluid as it gets and airlines must adapt. No-one is ordering the 748 right now, at least not for a year or more. The A380 is working well for airlines who can fill it as it has a lesser fuel burn than the 744, but there's no point ordering it if you can't fill it and there aren't many routes on which VS could.

I agree it's disappointing but that's just the way things are these days. I remember as a young lad in the mid-90s looking through Virgin Holidays brochures which proudly proclaimed that VS was an all four-engined fleet, "we think that two engines accross the pond is a bit stingy" and the like, but times change.

We took the A330 from LGW to MCO last year and I have to say it was an exceptionally comfortable and quiet aircraft, even if it was a bit slow compared to the 747 (VS27 left 2hrs before VS15 and landed 1hr before!). I certainly preferred the A330 to the 777s I've flown on though, which were very noisy.

Nothing compares to the Jumbo though, and we should count ourselves lucky that we will continue to get to experience the 747 for a bit longer thanks to VS's recent investments.

[Scrooge]

so BA was correct to buy 777 and not 340 as VA did

For the most part yes, however the 346 can carry more cargo.

why not buy 747-800

4 engines burn more fuel, the aviation business is as fluid as it gets and airlines must adapt. No-one is ordering the 748 right now, at least not for a year or more. The A380 is working well for airlines who can fill it as it has a lesser fuel burn than the 744, but there's no point ordering it if you can't fill it and there aren't many routes on which VS could.

That's not a good way to work the fuel efficiency numbers as what you are referring to I think is the kg/100 KM which can get a little out of line when dealing with different types of aircraft and different seating configurations....

But to give you all the base numbers.

A380 3.8 kg/ 100 km per pax
B748 3.8 kg/ 100 km per pax
B744 4.2 KG/ 100 km per pax

However, as you say, if you can fill the plane, if you can't then you need a 788 which will get you around 2.9 kg/ 100 km per pax.

why not buy 747-800

To turn that on it's head, why should they?

If you can fill a 744 at good yields but can't fill a 388 the a 748 is the way to go...Or a 77W.

Remember that the cost of a Boeing 777 is generally more, so may have made sense to buy the A340 at the time. For twin-engines you need special routings across oceans. Virgin can ignore that (well, could before the A330). At hot and high airport like Johannesburg quads have much better perforamce. Also as scrooge said it can carry a lot more, it's max takeoff weight is about 70 tonnes more then the 772ER.

The major problem with the A340 nowadays is the fuel burn with the presence of four engines as mentioned by others, so as a result there is a majority of the routes airlines use A340s on that can be equally covered with Boeing 777s for less fuel burn and it could be reasonably argued that those who opted for 777s instead of A340s have benefited from the superior economics of the 777. Airbus's decision to cease A340 production (albeit with no replacement in the short term until A350s start to be delivered) speaks volumes for the future of four engined aircraft on anything that isn't the size of a 747 or A380.

What also needs to be remembered is that A340 development came about in tandem with A330 development (A340s being a four-engined version of that aircraft) and competed with the MD-11 for operators wanting to replace TriStars/DC-10s and the continued need for something bigger and better performing than 767s but not as big as 747s. Since then ETOPS restrictions have changed to the point where for nearly all applications that doesn't need something the size of an A380/747 can be covered by a twin jet.

That said the A340 does have its place on niche routes where there's no way round ETOPS restrictions such as SIN-EWR and airlines will have their reasons for opting for A340s when they did, bearing in mind as well that the -500 and -600 models beat the 777-200LR and -300ER models to the market by a few years. I can see A340s flying well into the next decade but in limited numbers.

The A330 has been a fantastically successful aircraft and it's four engined sister moderately so. To understand why airlines bought the A340 you have to look back in time at a few key things in addition to those already posted:

- It was more economical than a 747 as a replacement for early 747s in the long haul market.
- Airlines like NorthWest and Continental (I believe) ordered it but Pratt & Witney promised a jet engine for the plane then never delivered, so early versions didn't meet the design goals as they relied on and both airlines dropped their orders.
- The 330 was designed as a 2,000 mile range regional jet, with the 340 for long haul.
- At the time of design and launch ETOPs was a future thing, as the 777 entered service and ETOPs became a reality (and extended) a few years after the A340 then its improved economics became obvious.
- The 4 eng 4 LH slogan was an Airbus marketing slogan from the time of ETOPs adoption, many people are mistaken that it was a VS slogan.

I've no doubt that if Airbus designed a new plane a few years later than they did it would have been twin engined and we wouldn't ever debate this issue, history is what it is and actually the A333 filled that gap with huge success ultimately. The A340 is definitely not a failure, but it entered service at the wrong time really ...

That said the A340 does have its place on niche routes where there's no way round ETOPS restrictions such as SIN-EWR

That route was canned about a month ago, so SQ could be getting rid of their A345's soon.

That said the A340 does have its place on niche routes where there's no way round ETOPS restrictions such as SIN-EWR

That route was canned about a month ago, so SQ could be getting rid of their A345's soon.

It's actually being dropped next year, but you're right about the A340-500s being disposed of as it's part of a bigger deal for A350s and more A380s and declining demand/rising fuel pries means it's not viable to keep that (and SIN-LAX) route open...

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/ ... 25/1/.html
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-1 ... -next-year