Airbus facing pressure to update A340: report

Reuters via Yahoo! ^ | Jan. 16, 2006

[magellan]

The A340's problems are two-fold. One is fuel efficiency. As a four-engine airplane, it is simply less efficient than a twin. The second is reliability. The A340 had some serious reliability problems a few years ago which caused a lot of late departures. Statistically, this was likely also caused by the fact it was a four-engine airplane.

The A340-500 and A340-600 are impressive airplanes. But they simply do not compare to the 777-200LR and 777-300ER in efficiency.

Airbus made a decision to build the A340-300 based on the four-engine requirement on long overwater flights. This was a classic "blind spot" on Airbus' point. Boeing (along with GE) chose to make a two-engine airplane so reliable they could justify changing the rules. There is a word for this: Innovation.

Instead of the A340-500 and A340-600, Airbus should have built a twin-engine A330-500 and A330-600, using the 777 engines. They would have lost some time to market advantage, but made more sales overall.

Assuming the reliability problems are solved, I expect the A340-300s to find their way into the cargo conversion market soon, probably replaced in passenger service with 787s or A350s. The -500 and -600 versions will be around longer, but for operators with only a few, these may be replaced with 777s.

Now Airbus is talking about an all-composite A320 follow-on. How on earth Airbus can afford to build the A380 whale jet, the A350, and a brand new composite A320 follow-on is beyond me. The subsidies must really be flowing.

Boeing better get busy and start building the Y1 737 follow-on. As Airbus' 2005 orders show, the narrow-body market is where the money is. There are thousands of older 737-300s, MD-80s, and early 757s which will need replacement in the next five to ten years. If Boeing can get their 737 follow-on out the door first, they can really put Airbus back in its place. They have beat Airbus in its own market, the wide-bodied twin. But Airbus is running even with Boeing in Boeing's market, the narrow-bodied twin.

[magellan]

I've spoken with several commercial pilots, and they like 3-4 propulsion systems in case one engine becomes inoperable. They are not comfortable with twins.

Old habits die hard, especially with ex-military four-engine transport jocks who probably shut down engines at a rate of about one a month.

System reliability is a balance of component reliability and component redundancy. In general, statistical analysis show reliability trumps redundancy. For example, more than quadruple component redundancy causes a reduction in overall system reliability. In other words, a B-52 has lower engine reliability than a KC-135, because statistically, one of eight is more likely to fail than one of four, and more importantly, one of seven is more likely to fail than one of three.

Add a little more component reliability, and one can get to the point a dual-redundant system exceeds a quad-redundant system.

What Boeing and GE accomplished was two-fold. First, the probability of a single engine failure was reduced by an order of magnetude. Second, the airplane, when flying on a single engine, has a lower chance of loosing that remaining engine than a 747 losing two of its three remaining engines.

What GE and Boeing did is very similar to the statistical analysis done examining the system reliability of computer clusters.

[globalheater]

I cannot imagine that.

International Airtransport is booming away and will continue to do so unless we slide into WWIII.

Price per customer or better ammount of fuel per customer will be the crucial parameter of airline success in the future. There will be either hub's that support the A380 or no hubs. Boeing is planning even bigger Jets with a design that is also realized in the B2. These bird will face the same need for infrastructure. Boeing is not subsidized but is pampered with cosy government projects so these guys compete not with subsidies but with tax payers money. Big deal.

My question is anyhow - what good is it to regard Boeing as a symbol of national pride. They sure take jobs away to asia while Airbus is creating them in the US.

Btw building infrastructure is not exploding in prices - fuel is.

[Uriah_lost]

The paradigm of "gateway" and "hub and spoke" has been destroyed in the US and "point to point" travel is going to become the norm, even in extremely long haul routes. The 777 has made sure of that. The Boeing "flying wing" is a nonstarter, expect the 787 to set the tone for some time to come. Those planes will do the same kind of "hub poaching" that the regional jets did domestically in the '90. I speak only as a former employee of the greatest practitioner of "hub and spoke" and "international gateway" methods ever, TWA, now extinct like the dinos because we couldn't change(thanks to my Union brothers)....bitter? maybe a bit... Take all my opinions as just that, otherwise I would be out making money instead of sitting here typing this right now!!!

[NASBWI]

Airbust is simply a subsidized job creation program for western europe.

Not to rain on your parade, but that subsidized job creation program had caused a serious dent in Boeing's 737 sales (right here at home, no less) when the A320 was launched (think United, Northwest, America West/US Airways). As a civil aviation enthusiast, I try not to think of the political motivations of an aircraft manufacturer (because I'm quite sure that they *all* have politital ties). It just clouds better judgement of the actual issue at hand, which in this case revolves around the competition between Boeing's and Airbus's widebody offerings.

And when you get fat, lazy, and stupid...you're bound to get arrogant and make mistakes.

Kinda like what happened to Boeing back in the late 80s and early 70s (see examples above). Don't forget also, that Airbus was the first in the market with a widebody twinjet (the A300) which gave them a headstart on Boeing's 767.