Any A340-600s still in use?

[ABB125]

For unknown reasons, the A340-600 has been my favourite plane since I was a child. However, I've never been on one. Are there any left in commercial service? I know that a lot were withdrawn during the pandemic, but surely there are still a few around. Do Lufthansa still use theirs, or have they now gone?
Thanks

 

[gabrielhj07]

For unknown reasons, the A340-600 has been my favourite plane since I was a child. However, I've never been on one. Are there any left in commercial service? I know that a lot were withdrawn during the pandemic, but surely there are still a few around. Do Lufthansa still use theirs, or have they now gone?
Thanks

Lufthansa plan to ditch theirs before next summer.

 

[FrodshamJnct]

For unknown reasons, the A340-600 has been my favourite plane since I was a child. However, I've never been on one. Are there any left in commercial service? I know that a lot were withdrawn during the pandemic, but surely there are still a few around. Do Lufthansa still use theirs, or have they now gone?
Thanks

A quick look on Flightradar24 shows 8 currently airborne - half being Lufthansa and the other half European Cargo

 

[Nym]

There’s also the Iranian and Venezuelan carriers.

 

[ABB125]

Thanks - from a bit more research it looks like Frankfurt to Boston and Riyadh are the two main remaining reliable Lufthansa routes. Now I just need to try to find the cheapest possible way to fit one of those in!

 

[yoyothehobo]

i would have loved to use a-600, using the a340-300 on a transpacific had the longest take off roll ever using its hair dryer engines

 

[birchesgreen]

I flew on Cathay Pacific's A340s a couple of times on the HK-Surabaya service, unfortunately i can't remember if it was the -600 variant or not.

 

[yoyothehobo]

I flew on Cathay Pacific's A340s a couple of times on the HK-Surabaya service, unfortunately i can't remember if it was the -600 variant or not.

probably the -300 as they only had 3 -600s, but thats only a guess. They had -300s up to 2017, but -600s only between 2002-2009

 

[Cross City]

Flew on a Virgin Atlantic -600 when I moved out to the States for a few years (coincidentally, also to Boston). Loved the 2-4-2 configuration of most big Airbuses back then.

 

[birchesgreen]

probably the -300 as they only had 3 -600s, but thats only a guess. They had -300s up to 2017, but -600s only between 2002-2009

I did these flights in the early 2000s though so maybe.

 

[Reliablebeam]

I've not actually seen one in the flesh for a while but as FrodshamJnct points out they are still knocking around and probably will for a while yet in niche roles. I flew them many times with Virgin Atlantic and Etihad and I have to say I much preferred them to the 777 - relatively quiet cabins and felt like better pressurisation. I understand from pilot friends they were considered a bit 'gutless' performance wise.

 

[rf_ioliver]

Lufthansa is your best bet. If you can, get a seat at the very back and watch the whole fuselage twist, turn and bend during take-off and climb. Lovely aircraft to fly on.

 

[Dr_Paul]

i would have loved to use a-600, using the a340-300 on a transpacific had the longest take off roll ever using its hair dryer engines

The joke was that the A340-200s and -300s used the curvature of the Earth to get airborne. I live about ten miles east-south-east of Heathrow and can clearly recall how much lower at that point they were when taking off compared to other airliners, including A330s and the A340-500s and -600s. A-340s are extremely rare in Heathrow these days. I still occasionally see them going over the top; Lufthansa -300s and -600s; Swissair -300s, and -600s freighters going to Hurn.

I get the feeling that Swissair will be flying their A-340-300s long after the -600s have gone, except perhaps the odd freighter apart. That wouldn't be the first time that an older plane has outlasted a more modern development or mooted replacement; DC-4s and DC-6s outlasted the DC-7; and I think that Constellations outlasted the Starliner. I also believe that Vickers Viscounts were still in service after the Vanguards had all gone, but I'm not sure.

 

[Snow1964]

EuropeCargo A340-600s fly into Bournemouth still, there is usually 1 or 2 visible from the road.

Think they move cargo from/to Asia (something like Malaysia, but I am not sure). Obviously you can't fly on these as a passenger.

 

[Bounded1]

Used to work on these as crew and can remember how long these took to rotate and climb, especially in cities at high altitude. Felt like running out of runway taking off in Joburg.

As well as Lufthansa, Mahan Air also still flies them.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Used to work on these as crew and can remember how long these took to rotate and climb, especially in cities at high altitude. Felt like running out of runway taking off in Joburg.

As well as Lufthansa, Mahan Air also still flies them.

I did a 12 hour Santiago to Auckland flight on a -300 with LAN Chile. It was full and we used allllll the runway.

 

[route101]

Managed two flights on the A340. MAD - LHR on IB 600 series and earlier this year a 300 series from ZRH to FAO on Edelweiss.

 

[125Spotter]

My first transatlantic flight, and indeed the majority of such flights I’ve taken, have been on the A340-600 – I think it’s a wonderful aircraft to fly on. You could even say I’m a Superfan (ha, ha).

By contrast, because I’ve almost always flown Virgin to major US cities for business, I never quite achieved a flight on a 747 – many of their 747s in the 2000s and 2010s were booked to the Caribbean and other holiday destinations from Gatwick. The one opportunity I did have booked from Manchester was due to depart on 31 March 2020 when we were all rather unexpectedly preoccupied with something else.

The 340 is an under-appreciated workhorse – by modern ETOPS standards, expensive to maintain and operate – but, by the 1980s environment in which it was designed, it was an impressive feat of engineering and reflective of the early developments Airbus made in fly-by-wire, flight deck commonality across the 320/330/340 family, and side-stick control – now de facto in an Airbus flight deck but not a given back then. North American carriers were never a fan (I’m not sure any operator besides Air Canada ever ordered any?) and the B777 programme developed in the 90s to rapidly eclipse the 340 as fuel costs became more dominant.

I regularly listen to the AvTalk podcast from FlightRadar24. They’re up to podcast number 343 this week, so cue A340-inspired jokes. A bit niche, but I appreciated their joke around the “perfect registration for an A343 registered in Uganda”… 5X-APU. Or the Ukrainian-registered equivalent: UR-SLO.

 

[Strathclyder]

I've always had a soft spot for the A340 generally, the -600 in particular has been my favourite. Despite it having a reputation for being underpowered - especially when fully loaded on takeoff - I've always thought of them as the most aesthetically pleasing of the Airbus family. The later 'silver'-based Virgin livery looked particularly good on the -600s imho.

North American carriers were never a fan (I’m not sure any operator besides Air Canada ever ordered any?)

Air Canada may have been the only North American carrier to order any A340s new, but they weren't the only operator on that side of the Atlantic; there was at least one more Canadian operator.

Canada 3000 - a low-cost charter airline that was a subsidary of Air 2000 over here, the latter eventually morphed into First Choice Airways - briefly leased a -300 (regisration C-GZIA) starting in September 2001 (they took delivery of it on the 19th of that month) that was originally ordered by Sabena but was never delivered to them. C-3000 intended to use it on a non-stop service between Toronto and Delhi, but it ended up on a flight to Manchester on 30th September. Of all the times to start using a thirsty quad-jet on long-haul flights...

Canada 3000 had gone into administration just under 6 weeks later (on 8th November 2001), one of a number of airlines that suffered similar fates in the aftermath of 9/11 and the associated collapse in air travel demand.

C-GZIA 2 Airbus A340-313X Canada 3000 MAN 30SEP01

Replacing an earlier scanned photo with a better version 04-Mar-17, DeNoise AI 29-Sep-02. This is a very rare bird indeed. First flown in Jun-01 with the Airbus test registration F-WWJF, it was originally ordered by Sabena as OO-SQB. It was never delivered and was stored at Toulouse, France...

www.flickr.com

(photo of Canada 3000's C-GZIA at Manchester Airport - 30th September 2001. Linked photo copyright of Flickr's Ken Fielding)

The A340 in question would end up with Air Tahiti Nui, leased to them from March 2002 onwards and re-registered F-OJTN. It would end up spending the bulk of it's career there, eventually being retired in November 2018.

 

[ABB125]

Somewhat later than planned, I've finally booked an A340-600 trip. I'm going for an extreme(ish) weekend away in New York at the end of this month. Heathrow-Frankfurt-JFK on a Friday, JFK-Frankfurt-Birmingham the following Sunday overnight, arriving back with just enough time to get to the office for work on Monday morning! Having been through Newark in Feb 2020 and La Guardia in Oct 2025, it'll be interesting to see what JFK is like this time.

Booked A320neo for both short haul segments, and A340-600 for both long-haul. I'm a cheapskate, so obviously I've gone for the cheapest economy fare possible and no paid-for extras. Will be interesting to see what happens with the seat allocation lottery...

For anyone else who may be interested, the latest A340-600 schedule information (from March onwards) seems to be as per the following screenshot (essentially a mix of New York, Chicago and Washington, all from Frankfurt):

 

[TrackWatch]

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

 

[Snow1964]

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

I think the A340-600 version had Rolls Royce Trent 556 engines which are 56,000-60,000 lb thrust each

The massive engines in the (as yet uncertified) Boeing 797-9 are 102,000-105,000 lb thrust( and might eventually be a 108,000 lb version) so each engine produces less than 2 Trent engines. Most twin jets are smaller so have engines that are less than this, nearer 80,000-97,000 lb thrust each.

The earlier A340s had lower power engines of 31,000-35,000 so would have needed longer to take off and climb (but early versions of twin engine A330 had engines of nearer £68,000 lb thrust each), lower than current A330s

 

[GB]

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 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.

 

[sh24]

An Il-62 makes any A340 look like a fighter jet.

 

[Ted633]

An Il-62 makes any A340 look like a fighter jet.

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

 

[TrackWatch]

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.

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.

 

[bahnause]

The A340 was certainly not underpowered. The regulations regarding engine failures and performance calculations simply result in completely different concepts for twin-engine and four-engine aircraft. As a result, the A340 was preferred by many airlines that relied on good ‘hot and high’ capabilities, such as South African Airlines and Iberia. Raw power is not everything. The A340 could fly many routes without weight restrictions, which the 777, for example, could not.

 

[thejuggler]

When twins lose an engine on take off, only 50% of thrust to rescue the situation, a quad loses an engine, 75% of engine thrust to do the job.

Twins therefore have to be overpowered so do have perceived better performance. In reality with modern aircraft engine take off thrust is managed to reduce engine wear. As long as they leave the ground before the runway runs out I'm happy.

 

[FGWHST43009]

I believe A340-600s are still in use with European Cargo. They flew into Cardiff Airport a lot during lockdown, they were quite a sight. The A340-600 is also my favourite plane, but my chances of getting on one are vanishing sadly. What's the cheapest way of getting on one?

 

[ABB125]

I believe A340-600s are still in use with European Cargo. They flew into Cardiff Airport a lot during lockdown, they were quite a sight. The A340-600 is also my favourite plane, but my chances of getting on one are vanishing sadly. What's the cheapest way of getting on one?

Currently it's New York via Frankfurt, just make sure you book the correct Lufthansa flight. Obviously prices will vary depending on your starting airport. Departure from London was quite good value when I booked