A340-600 weight problems
 

Even more problems surface regarding the A340-600...possibly affects CX?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-23349,00.html

I think CX has their A346s on short-term lease and don't intend to renew or get more. It hasn't been a successful plane for CX. I'm hoping that CX will eventually get some 747-8s, but seems to be cautious at expanding their fleet.

Interesting on how they are placing blame on more lavish F/J cabins, when these cabins have resulted in fewer passengers and lower density compared with older cabins.

The 345 has had major capacity/range issues - not the only 340 with issues now.

The thing about airlines is that they are "compensation whores" and are wlays looking to get money out of airframe and powerplant manufacturers for performance shortfalls. It's just the way the game is played.

You'd be hard pressed to find an airframe or powerplant, no matter how successful, that has not been the subject of airline compensation claims.

In other words, I wouldn't base your opinion on the merits of the 346 on the fact that airlines are complaining that it underperforms.

This goes back to the RR L-1011 days (RR won the contract that took it into bankruptcy, by promising performance numbers based on unproven technology which it could never deliver per the schedule; but the technology was sound, and did deliver later -- lot of good that did RR).

It is a marketing thing to promise better specs; sometimes knowing that they can never be delivered. Some planes have over-performed (e.g. B777, all models, have beaten specs so far; and the B787 is looking to be 2% better for fuel consumption than claimed). Generally the next generation plane wins, the industry really does learn from the past.

The "unexpected" weight of F is a genuine problem. Those suites weigh a lot (something like 500 lbs more than a Y seat) and the J seats are now getting to be the same weight, with their hard shells. But the interior fitting is an airline responsibility, unless airbus was foolish enough to publish the wrong specs. Even experienced airlines get caught out by this -- SQ originally planned to have F on their A345s, and had to kill that plan at the last minute due to weight. They switched to having J+/Y+ as they needed lower density to make the weight numbers, and turned necessity into a marketing feature.

Might be true but the A340-500/600 are known to be overweight. CX's 3 346s are early builds that are even more overweight. Part of the problem with the 346 was that Airbus tried to get the a/c certified with only 4 pairs of exit doors (so there would be a long gap between doors 2 & 3 - 80' or so up from the current maximum of 64'). The authorities forced Airbus to add a pair of overwing doors (added a ton or so). If you look at the 346 that Airbus keeps as a demonstrator, you'll see that the a/c doesn't have overwing exit doors.

The other thing was that SQ's 345s were supposed to carry 200 pax in 3 classes. As it ended up, the a/c could only carry 181 in 2 class.

I don't think any airline will be getting money from Boeing over the 777-300ER/GE90-115 as that airframe/engine performance exceeded promises.

I'm sure they'll find a way. :)

If a manufacturer of >anything< contractually promises a set of performance values to his potential buyers, they buy on that basis, and then are financially damaged when the manufacturer fails to deliver what he promised, are you not being quite disingenuous in calling the buyer a "whore"? Fuzzy-haired, perhaps? And although the airline passenger may or may not share some of that suffering, this passenger at least would like to know when an airplane manufacturer seems to habitually over-promise. In some circles it's called lying, and humans quickly develop a distrust for persons/entities who engage in that.

[]

Well LH seems to be launch customer for the 747-8, I was surprised by their large order considering that except for the current 747-400 they operate an exclusive Airbus long-haul fleet and they have ordered a ton of A380's

Given the A380's overweight problems, I think their order is more than just a ton :D

I had always wondered why SQ didn't have F on their direct SIN to NYC flight.

J+? I thought the J on these planes were the same as their usual J Spacebeds?

Ten inches more pitch.

And 10% higher fare. The lower density was needed in order to make the weight numbers for the A345.

The new seats developed in the last 10 years have changed the weight distribution on planes substantially. Y seats are much lighter (combination of slimline design and different materials), while J and F seats have tripled in weight.

The IFE weight is also surprisingly high. Something like 100 lb per row, or several tons in aggregate. Typically more than the galley weight. Older planes didn't have IFE, but now IFE is becoming mandatory on many routes.

WHAT? So is it 70 inch already? How come they didn't make it fully flat then?

Of course, this hasn't stopped Airbus from loading demo pictures of first class suites, lounges, salons, etc. in pictures of the A380:D

Because J+ wasn't a planned upgrade and they had to use the existing seats -- had not developed a flat seat and didn't want to buy any of the non-SQ products. Not all SQ ventures are well planned or executed.

I know it is not easy, but can't they tweat the existing seat to make it flat? Seems like a bit waste of the extra pitch? However from the pictures it does not seem like it is 70 inch pitch

It's not lying. Aircraft and engines are at the cutting edge of technology and they don't usually exactly match what the engineers say they will do.

That would be a manufacturer and not a customer issue. Airbus promised specific numbers that they later failed to meet.

Rather than refer to "compensation whores" why not refer to Airbus' "sleezebucket salespeople" as the problem?

Steve

The airlines are sophisticated customers -- they know what they're doing when it comes to aircraft and engines purchases.

It's just a term we use in the business. There's really no value judgment in it. It's just the way it is. We're just as tough on our suppliers. It all flows down hill.

Well, according to seatguru, the A345 offers 64" of pitch in J vs. 58" in the 747s, or an extra 6". Definitely not enough for lie-flat. Flatter perhaps?

If "compensation whore" is a friendly, non-judgemental term, maybe more of us should attend Flyertalk Evangelist Language School (taught by a fellow named Imus?) so we can all be on the same wavelength. Without that training, it sounds not only judgemental but inflammatory to me.

Meanwhile, your "airlines are sophisticated customers", applied to the discussion of aircraft promise versus reality as you presumably intended it, is an inane generalization. Some of the larger carriers have decent engineering departments, but even they must base their evaluations on the data the manufacturers give them. After that review, engineering says "these are really aggressive performance numbers - what makes you think you can meet them"? And the manufacturer goes on about their great design team and tools, and their marketing people go on about how they've guaranteed the performance in writing.

Seriously, it's just a phrase. I would have thought most people were familair with it. Guess not.

How many new aircraft/new engine campaigns have you been a part of?

Airframer and enigne manufacturers offer performance guarantees as well as, at least in the case of engine manufacturers, substantial up front discounts to win business. Airlines know this and rightly take advantage of those discounts and guarantees.

You have to understand that these are very sophisiticated transactions involving two (or often three) sophisticated parties with teams of lawyers, engineers and finance people on each side. Buying an airplane is not like going down to the car dealership. A contract can take months if not years to negotiate. You also are just negotiating a one-time transaction, but, essentially creating a relationship for years to come.

In other words, both parties know what they're getting into in these transactions. Neither side is good and neither is bad. It is just business. We use the "compensation whore" label not as a derogatory comment, but as a light hearted turn of phrase to describe how the business works.

Thanks for the correction. I know 70inch sounds too much anyway!

All government/military. If we don't meet the specs, they simply shoot us.

Actually it is 70 inch. Seatguru is often wrong, esp. for cabins with irregular layout (which happens to be the SQ A345 config). Pitch varies in the J+ cabin. In any case the SQ J seat needs about 75 inch pitch to be able to go fully level and flat (presuming it can be programmed to go level).

I don't know where you got 70". The SpaceBed pitch on the A345s is indeed 64".

SQ used the old bed, they just increased the pitch as the floor on the A345 wasn't strong enough to support the J seats at the originally planned spacing, also there was a center of gravity issue which prevented using the F seats. The floor problem results in an irregular spacing (it varies through the cabin). As it was a low-volume config, this was a better solution than coming up with a proper interior layout.

This thread really has little to do with CX. If it interests you, take it up in the SQ forum. I'm sure there are lots of people that have noticed the irregular spacing and figured it out.

Well that makes it easier!

About half our business is miltary and/or space related. I don't have anything to do with those business units.

LOL.

I am sure the folks there know perfectly well it has been 64" and is still 64".
I guess this 70" pitch on SQ A345 J exists where/when the SQ B744s have 13 seats in F, as you previously had claimed. ;) :D
The 'old bed' has a pitch of 58" and all I am trying to do is to correct incorrect information on the thread. :)

So it is definitely NOT 70 inch? I think from the photos I saw of the SQ 345 interior, it defintiely does not look like 70inch. I mean you might get a 80inch row like CX on row 86, but that is because it is the emergency row.

Yes it is definitely not 70 inches of pitch on SQ 345 J and indeed it is 64 inches. For those who think it is 70' would you like me to measure it for you next time? Since this is a actual fact and not anyone assumption, presumption or a fragment of their imagination can we put the matter to rest now? :)

Your "facts" happen to be wrong in this instance, but it is not a CX issue so this whole discussion is too far OT. I do know the pitch is irregular, so it is probable that some seats are at 64 inch pitch and others at 70 inch, maybe with several other values in between. The A345 wound up being a very oddball config for a lot of reasons (it also has a corpse locker, for example, for storing bodies of pax that die in flight; unlike BA who use F seats for that purpose).

I think it is important on discussion boards like FlyerTalk, that when posters post facts, they are facts. Or else, they will confuse other posters, especially those new to the forum or those who are not familiar with the discussion.

In this case, fact is that the pitch IS 64", except perhaps on the bulkhead seats (row 11 & 16). Corpse locker is not placed in passenger cabin but rather at the back end of the aircraft, so I don't know how that relates to the discussion (even more OT, in my opinion).

It is only because I care about facts that I have continued this thread. But since you have your own facts that you are attached to, and I have mine, we might as well end this. The A345 config is unorthodox, which might be the reason we differ (I'm not sure if all of SQ's A345s are in the same config, in fact it seems there are different configs even with only 5 planes).

I have tons of useful posts on FT, so you don't have to lecture me on how FT works. Actually it mostly works by group consensus (nobody really knows what "facts" are accurate, so we have threads and discussions which eventually lead to a conclusion, which may or may not be factual). From these threads can be gleaned an amazing amount of useful material -- but I'm afraid how many inches of legroom SQ has is not one of them. And SQ has bigger problems now, it has 2 or 3 rough years ahead as the competition from EK, QF and CX ramps up.

Oh yeah I have seen your posts on FT. :D