Talk:Airbus A340/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Boeing 777 and A330

The decision to terminate the program came as A340-500/600 orders had came to a halt, due to competition from the Boeing 777-200LR/-300ER which undermined the A340's prospective market. In addition, the A340 also faced some internal competition from later versions of the A330 which were capable of flying some of the routes that originally required the A340.[1][2][3]

This above version properly attributes the sources (including Bloomberg), several of which states that orders for the A340-600 had dried up as airlines instead picked the 777-300ER. There is a separate sentence for the A330 since it doesn't mention which A330 variant replaced which specific A340 variant. If the sources are readily available to us, why not make the article clearer? I felt the truncated version below was an oversimplification, so making them separate sentences draws a distinction between how the 777 and A330 affected the A340's market.

versus

The termination decision was made in the face of both external competition from the Boeing 777 and internal competition from the A330, both being twin-engine aircraft that had become increasingly capable over time of effectively performing the A340's intended routes, and thus they had undermined the type's prospective market.

The above simplified version promoted by Pete and other editors is misleading, since it is WP:SYNTHESIS to attribute the A330 as being a significant factor in the cancellation of the A340 based upon a single source, and the problem is that it doesn't even mention specify which variant of the A330. Furthermore, A330 really doesn't compete with the A340 and 777 (especially the later variants) in terms of range or payload, which is why Airbus developed the A350 as a true A340 replacement. This should likely be removed from the introduction too. The editors promoting the simplified version have been asked to find more sources for the A330's effect on the A340. JacksonRiley (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Virgin replaced the A340 with A330 to reduce fuel costs [4] as it says "will use 15% less fuel per seat". The stopping of A340 production may be more related to fuel prices than competition, although it would loose out against any twin-engined aircraft on these grounds. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a third party news source as well, this would greatly help as references were previously lacking for the A330 impact on the A340. Here is another for the A340-300 being replaced by an A330.[5] In that case we can have separate sentences, one mentioning the larger Trent-equipped A340-500/600 and 777-200LR/300ER as ultra-long range competitors[6], and another mentioning the smaller CFM56-powered A340-300 being replaced by the A330 (where the 777-200ER also competes); the -300 and -600 variants have different competitors.

That being said, Airbus did seriously see the 777-300ER as a rival that it was losing out to (only 12 of the A340-500/600 were sold compared to 154 777-200LR/300ERs in 2005), therefore Airbus initially planned in 24 Jan 2006 to keep A340-500/600 sales going by offering cashback deals to compensate for the higher fuel burn. [7] The rising fuel prices did make the A340 less and less attractive relative to the 777.[8] JacksonRiley (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen on the deliveries table, as well as the sources above, the A340-300 sold well in the 1990s and then tailed off due to competition from the 777-200ER and A330; the higher gross weight (or ultra-long range) A340-500/600 variants kept the A340 program going until competition from the 777-200LR/300ER in the light of high oil prices. JacksonRiley (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen on my recent trip around the world, A340s remain in wide use. The ETOPS thing meant that big twins such as the A330 could now fly the same routes and the upcoming A380 filled the big four slot in the line-up. Trying to say that a particular Boeing model affected Airbus's internal decisions is pure speculation. --Pete (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We can't use your trip experience, we instead need reliable sources. We have plenty of sources; the A340-600 was affected by the 777-300ER [9], while the smaller A340-300 was replaced by the A330 [10]. JacksonRiley (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

My own experience is immaterial and useless as a source. As you well know. It merely tells me that you are talking rubbish. A340s remain popular with the big airlines. That Bloomberg source is very shakey. You've trotted it out now and been reverted by multiple editors. Get consensus for your controversial edits, don't edit war. Please. --Pete (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please focus on why Airbus decided to discontinue the A340, rather than asserting your own opinion that the A340 is still popular. And there are plenty of sources besides Bloomberg too. JacksonRiley (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You know how we work by now. If you make edits, they must be well sourced, and they must have consensus to remain. I'm seeing neither. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, he does know: User:GoldDragon has been around along time! A hard block on one of GoldDragon's usual IPs caught him out. Even if he isn't User:GoldDragon, a checkuser found JacksonRiley was also User:PortugalPepe. it is possible they are meatpuppets, not sockpuppets, but the result is the same. Bye-Bye! - BilCat (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Max capacity discrepancies

It seems that the sources for this article contradict each other with regards to the maximum capacity of each variant. For example, take the A340-600:

The specification section of this article states the maximum capacity as 520 passengers in the 9-abreast configuration, and cites the EASA Type Certificate Data Sheet. However, this figure does not appear anywhere in the cited source. I'm thinking that this could be a typographical error or synthesized data.

An earlier edition of this article stated the maximum capacity as 440. This is in agreement with the both FAA and EASA Type Certificates, but doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's only 20 more seats than the A340-200, a noticeably smaller aircraft.

Furthermore, the Airbus website states that the maximum capacity for this variant is 475. Given that this figure comes directly from the manufacturer, this would be a reliable number in most cases, except that this does not reflect the data in the Type Certificate Data Sheet.

It seems that there are also similar discrepancies with the other variants of this aircraft as well. I didn't want to start an edit war over this, so I'm just pointing out these possible errors and potential sources of confusion. 76.88.118.8 (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

New Main Photo

The current article shows a Cathay Pacific A340-600 landing at Heathrow Airport in 2007. Although it is a very good photo, it is now almost 9 years old and Cathay don't even have -600s anymore. Is a replacement necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A340swazzen (talk • contribs) 04:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Not for those reasons alone. If the image has been in the Lead for several years, and there's an image that's just as good or better available, then we could replace it. However, the new image could be even older, and even of a defunct airline. There's no reason that images in the Lead need to be "current", as WP isn't marketing site for airlines or airliner manufacturers. It covers history of the aircraft too. - BilCat (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The -300 would be more illustrative, as it is the most widespread variant, and Lufthansa is the launch operator and the most common. Here are the WM commons LH 343s inflight, from the front/side, against a clean background :

Very large gallery of images
pointing left: D-AIFC D-AIGW D-AIGZ D-AIFE D-AIGM D-AIGS D-AIGK (good sky) D-AIGH D-AIGI D-AIGI D-AIGK D-AIGK D-AIGL D-AIGX D-AIGX With the LH/star alliance livery : oddballs/ personal picks great angle above the tree line above LAX, from the side, but poor quality above FRA low light

My favorites is [11], if everybody is OK, I'll use it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure swamping the talk page with images is the best way to request a change of an image, in this case I dont see anything wrong with the current image. Just a note for the future while it is normal practice to get a consensus none of us are going to trawl through a large array of images, it would be much better just to suggest one or two for discussion. And I think this has been mentioned above we dont really have preference for which operator or even which version just that it reflects the design and is a reasonable quality, airborne and nice if it was pointing left. MilborneOne (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the collapsible thingy! that's what I was looking for. This one is pointing left if you prefer.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Still dont see anything wrong with the current image, will see if anyone else has an opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It's been a week and nobody cares--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You still need a consensus and at least I objected, if nobody had said anything that fair enough but you now need somebody to agree with you to make the change. MilborneOne (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, I didn't understood you were objecting ("nothing wrong with the current image" isn't a strong support :) ) So you prefer the current one to the proposed? Would you prefer a -600? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen anything that makes a big difference to the article so I am still saying dont change the lead image, although you are welcome to make further suggestions. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

So my proposed change doesn't devalue the article neither? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thats not how it works, we need a good reasoned request that is supported, if you get support you can change, so we are still waiting for somebody to agree with you. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I stated my reasons before : the -300 would be more illustrative, as it is the most widespread variant, and Lufthansa is the launch operator and the most common. Sorry I was clumsy proposing the change, but I think it is for the best --Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if yall included the complete devaluation of the A340's cause of the coronavirus? FarisRaza123 (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The proposed image has trees in the foreground, which is distracting, and shows a bit too much "leg". As I've said before, I don't see most widespread variant, launch operator, largest user, etc. as valid reasons for changing an image, but you're welcome to your opinion. I do think the current image is a good one, as it has a contrasting background, and shows the aircraft at a good angle. - BilCat (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

this one is more classical then : --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• 
  Current
• 
  proposed

So...

  "The initial A340-200 and -300 variants share the fuselage and wing of the twin-engine Airbus A330 with which it was concurrently designed. The heavier A340-500 and -600 are longer and have larger wings."

If the smaller version have the same wings and fuselage as an A330, and the larger versions have different wings (and apprently a bigger fuselage as well), what exactly makes an A340 an A340? I don't get it. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Four engines. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Since it seems to be confusing, I replaced the 2d sentence by "The heavier A340-500 and -600 are stretched and have enlarged wings". A nice representation is in Flight 9 Oct 1996. It's still the same plane but the fuselage is stretched, the wing has more chord, the engines are more powerful for a higher MTOW. Still the same type certificate. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

JT10D

The article mentions the JT10D. That engine was renamed the PW2000 long before the A340 so the citation must be in error. Also there is no mention of the IAE SuperFan engine which caused a major resign of the wingspan. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"The failure of International Aero Engines' radical ultra-high-bypass V2500 SuperFan, which had promised around 15 per cent fuel burn reduction for the A340, led to multiple enhancements including wing upgrades to compensate.[79][80] Originally designed with a 56 m (184 ft) span, the wing was later extended to 58.6 m (192 ft) and finally to 60.3 m (198 ft).[79]" --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

In a Flight review of the CFM56 in 1999, the same Guy Norris wrote "This had emerged from the A300B11 growth study of the 1970s and, by 1980, had been refined into a 220-passenger, DC-10/L-1011 replacement called the TA (twin aisle) 11. Configurations were considered with three RollsRoyce RB211-535s or Pratt & Whitney JT10D-2 32s"--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

By 1980, the JT10D was renamed the PW2000. Therefore, I believe the Norris citation is incorrect. Wikipedia should strive to have correct information if the citation is knowingly incorrect. I admit that putting the JT10D makes the Wikipedia article interesting but we should strive for correct information. Vanguard10 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should strive to be correct, but not to the point of being anachronistic. Per the Pratt & Whitney PW2000 article, Pratt & Whitney changed its designation system in December 1980, so if the studies are from before that date, and apparently some are, then using "JT10D" is correct. Either way, there's nothing wrong with including both designations, which I have done. I do hope this settles the issue satisfactorily. - BilCat (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"5apu" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 5apu. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Units

I notice some discrepancy in SI/Imperial units. In some places range is shown as nautical miles with kilometres as a conversion in brackets and in others, vice versa.

Given that this article describes a European-sourced aircraft, I imagine that SI units would be primary, with Imperial measurements as secondary. I notice similar discrepancies in other A3nn articles. Is there any objection to me correcting these measurements? --Pete (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Please proceed but try to not change the source number, use order=flip for conversions. Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Miscalculation in the deliveries section?

If we count all deliveries by year, it adds up to "377", whereas the total says "375". Looking further in details, the number of deliveries by type doesn't match the yearly total for years 2003 to 2008. I've checked the source but couldn't find official figures there. Metropolitan (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Miles vs nautical miles

My edits adding miles are being wrongly reverted.

Sure, perhaps in aviation miles are nautical miles. How is that relevant to an encyclopedia entry? This is an article for laypeople who may not be familiar with the VERY REAL DIFFERNCE between miles and nautical miles Ninjalectual (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, per WP:BRD, if your WP:Bold edit is reverted to a previous consensus state, it have to remain this way until a new consensus is formed in talk. For the addition of statute miles to km and nautical miles, this was already discussed before, eg in Talk:Airbus_A350_XWB#Units. The resulting consensus was the main units should be metric, with one conversion for nmi/knots prevailing over mi/mph. Another discussion may be better held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Reference 140

Hello,

There seems to be an error in the references for the Sabena A340 accident:

29 August 1998 – a Sabena A340-200 (OO-SCW) was severely damaged while landing on Runway 25L at Brussels Airport. The right main gear collapsed; the right engines and wingtip hit the runway and slid to the right in soft ground. The 248 passengers and 11 crew were safely evacuated. The cause of the gear failure was found to be a fatigue crack. Although severely damaged, the aircraft was repaired and returned to service for 16 years until it was stored.[140][141]

Reference 140 is related to the item preceding the Sabena one.

I don't know how to correct this so I just signal it here. Geertchaos (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

quad jet...

...is not the standard industry term for a 4-engined airplane. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A16F:9D1F:BDB9:2574 (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Consumption l/h

I want to be able to compare the fuel consumption of aircraft. The last thing I learned were though the 6000l/h of the Airbus 300. Could you please add absolute values to these articles?

Thank you inn advance. 2001:41D0:FE50:F000:9EB7:DFF:FEB7:76EB (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)