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

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?