Any A340-600s still in use?

[sh24]

Think you may be thinking of the Il-86. The Il-62 had a better power-to-weight ratio than the 340-300 at MTOW

Interesting, as my experience of Il-62 is the slowest take off roll of any plane.

 

[najaB]

The A340, particularly -200 and -300 variants are widely considered to be underpowered by the people that fly them. They were built as a competitor to the 747 and are underpowered in that regard.

If they meet second segment climb requirements with one engine out then they aren't underpowered. End of story.

 

[AlterEgo]

The A340, particularly -200 and -300 variants are widely considered to be underpowered by the people that fly them. They were built as a competitor to the 747 and are underpowered in that regard.

The A340 was built as a competitor to the 777 and the MD-11 and a successor to older 747s which at that time were being phased out.

 

[GB]

If they meet second segment climb requirements with one engine out then they aren't underpowered. End of story.

To you it might be the end of story but there are many pilots that have commented on their lack of power. Suggest you take it up with them of you disagree.

 

[najaB]

To you it might be the end of story but there are many pilots that have commented on their lack of power. Suggest you take it up with them of you disagree.

Comparatively less power than other aircraft, and underpowered are not the same thing. I doubt any pilot would willingly get into an aircraft that they knew didn't have sufficient power to fly safely in all reasonably foreseeable conditions.

 

[FrodshamJnct]

Comparatively less power than other aircraft, and underpowered are not the same thing. I doubt any pilot would willingly get into an aircraft that they knew didn't have sufficient power to fly safely in all reasonably foreseeable conditions.

Precisely. If the A340 were underpowered it would not fly.

To you it might be the end of story but there are many pilots that have commented on their lack of power. Suggest you take it up with them of you disagree.

Which pilots, when and where did they comment this?

 

[Mikey C]

A nice aircraft to fly on, and the 2-4-2 seating is way nicer than the 3-3-3 and 3-4-3 seating of the 787, 777 and A350, but the A340-600 was a commercial flop when compared to the rival 777-300ER. Only 97 made, which is a tiny number.

If I was a billionaire, I'd have an A340-500 as my private jet

 

[Cloud Strife]

To you it might be the end of story but there are many pilots that have commented on their lack of power. Suggest you take it up with them of you disagree.

It's not the lack of power, it's just the fact that Airbus put the same engines on the -200/-300 as on the A32x. So, yes, they're underpowered compared to a 747-800, and yes, they often had to fly at around 30,000 feet until burning some fuel before climbing up to the final cruise altitude. At the same time, it's not that they have a lack of power, they're just underpowered compared to the 747. They still have plenty of power, it's just that they feel very slow compared to the ridiculous performance available from modern engines on smaller jets.

They were supposed to have better engines, but they fell through.

 

[RailWonderer]

It's not the lack of power, it's just the fact that Airbus put the same engines on the -200/-300 as on the A32x. So, yes, they're underpowered compared to a 747-800, and yes, they often had to fly at around 30,000 feet until burning some fuel before climbing up to the final cruise altitude. At the same time, it's not that they have a lack of power, they're just underpowered compared to the 747. They still have plenty of power, it's just that they feel very slow compared to the ridiculous performance available from modern engines on smaller jets.

They were supposed to have better engines, but they fell through.

Even an A380 has a marginally higher thrust to weight ratio. In fact the A340 feels underpowered compared to anything flying today, except a Boeing 707 which is not in commercial service today but on Youtube you can watch a takeoff which is more underpowered and you can see how slow the ascent is watching it. The Boeing 757 has the second highest thrust to weight ratio of any commercial aircraft beaten only by the Tupolev Tu154 with only DPRK's Air Koryo flying it commercially.

 

[mpthomson]

The A340s are not underpowered at all, what people are doing is comparing the take-off roll and climb rate with that of a similar size WB twin, ie 767, A330, A350, 8777 or 787.

A 4 engine plane will always use more runway length and climb at a much slower rate than the equivalent twin because twins have more total installed thrust

The 200 and 300 variants were notably underpowered compared to anything else (although enough to be functional). As above pilots of them used to say that they only took off due to the curvature of the earth. The 600 series, especially, was much better in terms of performance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==

Mainly only passengers have this perception. As I said, all 4 engine planes need a longer take-off and climb slower than a twin of equivalent size. The fully loaded 747-400 also has a poor climb rate and doesn't get to full cruise altitude until some time after take off until some fuel has been burned.

Nope, the pilots who flew them do too...

 

[najaB]

The Boeing 757 has the second highest thrust to weight ratio of any commercial aircraft beaten only by the Tupolev Tu154 with only DPRK's Air Koryo flying it commercially.

Part of the reason that production ended when it did: that thrust isn't free. The 757 is many things, but fuel-efficient isn't one of them.

 

[TrackWatch]

The 200 and 300 variants were notably underpowered compared to anything else (although enough to be functional). As above pilots of them used to say that they only took off due to the curvature of the earth. The 600 series, especially, was much better in terms of performance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==


Nope, the pilots who flew them do too...

That's really quite irrelevant what the pilots think because the plane meets all the specifications and statutory engine out survival criteria at all phases of flight. The pilot's opinion on this is simply the same as two petrol heads discussing whether a Golf GTi is quicker than a similar hot hatch. As I mentioned, ALL 4 engine planes can appear to be underpowered compared to similar size twins because an equivalent twin will by default have a much higher installed thrust.

Airlines buy planes based on operating CASM / fuel efficiency and if you install more thrust than is strictly necessary for the plane's specification and mission then it uses more fuel. They don't buy planes based on pilots saying, "we think it is underpowered".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Feb 2026 ==

If they meet second segment climb requirements with one engine out then they aren't underpowered. End of story.

Exactly this ^^^^^^^

 

[mpthomson]

That's really quite irrelevant what the pilots think because the plane meets all the specifications and statutory engine out survival criteria at all phases of flight. The pilot's opinion on this is simply the same as two petrol heads discussing whether a Golf GTi is quicker than a similar hot hatch. As I mentioned, ALL 4 engine planes can appear to be underpowered compared to similar size twins because an equivalent twin will by default have a much higher installed thrust.

Airlines buy planes based on operating CASM / fuel efficiency and if you install more thrust than is strictly necessary for the plane's specification and mission then it uses more fuel. They don't buy planes based on pilots saying, "we think it is underpowered".

I never stated they didn't or commented on the reasons airlines bought them, although it's worth noting that airlines moved straight over to purchasing the more powerful 500/600 series as soon as they were able to. They climb far slower than any other western passenger airliner still in use. Even A380s outclimb them. As a result pilots now consider them underpowered (NOT unsafe) compared to what else is flying.

 

[najaB]

They climb far slower than any other western passenger airliner still in use. Even A380s outclimb them. As a result pilots now consider them underpowered (NOT unsafe) compared to what else is flying

Which was never in doubt. The only point I was making is that "underpowered" means "unsafe", whereas "less excess thrust" does not.

 

[mpthomson]

Which was never in doubt. The only point I was making is that "underpowered" means "unsafe", whereas "less excess thrust" does not.

Not necessarily, there are plenty of different vehicles of all types that are underpowered but safe. My wife has a Fiat 500, it's perfectly safe but still underpowered in comparison to just about any other currently available car.

 

[najaB]

Not necessarily, there are plenty of different vehicles of all types that are underpowered but safe. My wife has a Fiat 500, it's perfectly safe but still underpowered in comparison to just about any other currently available car.

How is it underpowered? What is it not able to do that it is legally required to be able to do in order to pass certification?

You're still conflating "underpowered" with "underpowered compared to". As an example, an AMG Mercedes C-Class is underpowered compared to a Bugatti Veyron, but almost nobody would say that it's objectively underpowered.

 

[mpthomson]

How is it underpowered? What is it not able to do that it is legally required to be able to do in order to pass certification?

You're still conflating "underpowered" with "underpowered compared to". As an example, an AMG Mercedes C-Class is underpowered compared to a Bugatti Veyron, but almost nobody would say that it's objectively underpowered.

'Underpowered' doesn't mean not capable or not legally capable of undertaking the task. I even used the words 'underpowered compared to...'.

 

[najaB]

'Underpowered' doesn't mean not capable or not legally capable of undertaking the task. I even used the words 'underpowered compared to...'.

You said started by using "underpowered" without qualification:

Not necessarily, there are plenty of different vehicles of all types that are underpowered but safe.

 

[mpthomson]

You said started by using "underpowered" without qualification:

'...but safe' is the qualification.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Airlines buy planes based on operating CASM / fuel efficiency and if you install more thrust than is strictly necessary for the plane's specification and mission then it uses more fuel. They don't buy planes based on pilots saying, "we think it is underpowered".

This is partially why twin jets have won out, because they can offer a huge amount of thrust on demand from airports like Mexico City where the combination of heat and altitude require it, but they're also capable of using significantly less amounts of thrust when it's not required.

I believe that the 727-200s operated by Mexicana had to be fitted with some sort of rocket device that pushed the engines to the absolute limit in the event of engine failure on take off from Mexico City, as they otherwise didn't have enough thrust to be safe there. Example here:

I never stated they didn't or commented on the reasons airlines bought them, although it's worth noting that airlines moved straight over to purchasing the more powerful 500/600 series as soon as they were able to.

Not all of them, as Airbus continued producing the A340-300E, which had the improvements of the -500/600 but the older engines. They still had a niche on certain routes where airlines didn't need the power of the -500/600 or the huge amount of additional weight. The engines were also cheap and easy to run, and they had enough commonality with other CFE56 engines that it didn't require mechanics a huge amount of time to learn the differences.

 

[bahnause]

This is partially why twin jets have won out, because they can offer a huge amount of thrust on demand from airports like Mexico City where the combination of heat and altitude require it, but they're also capable of using significantly less amounts of thrust when it's not required.

It's not just about thrust. The 777-300ER, for example, has considerable thrust, yet its hot and high capabilities are still limited. One of the main reasons for the 777-300ER's large engines is the size of its wings. It has a very small wing area relative to its weight and therefore requires a lot of thrust. In fact, it has one of the highest wing loadings I have seen for a twin-engine aircraft. You could say it is overpowered, or you could say it is underwinged. The newer 777X, which has a similar maximum take-off weight, has bigger wings and therefore engines with less thrust.

 

[Snow1964]

European cargo, which has A340 freight planes from Bournemouth has apparently collapsed and entered administration.

Not yet clear what will happen to the parked A340s
G-ECLB, G-ECLC, G-ECLD, G-ECLE, G-ECLJ, G-ECLM, at Bournemouth
G-ECLN at Teesside

 

[sh24]

I would imagine they'll be scrapped in short order.

Saw an A340-300 at Nairobi a couple of months ago!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

European cargo, which has A340 freight planes from Bournemouth has apparently collapsed and entered administration.

Not yet clear what will happen to the parked A340s
G-ECLB, G-ECLC, G-ECLD, G-ECLE, G-ECLJ, G-ECLM, at Bournemouth
G-ECLN at Teesside

Of those, G-ECLJ and G-ECLM have been stored for quite a while.

They also have 2-EALD listed, which is stored at Teruel since December 2017, and G-ECLK is still listed for them, stored at Cuidad Real since 2020.

One of their former examples, G-ECLF, was sold in December 2024 to an American company called Priority 1 but is still parked ( which I think is the equivalent of warm store on the railway ) at Bournemouth.