I flew the A340/300 and the 500 as well with close to 1000 hours on type. The 300 was very underpowered and the 500 the opposite. Both models were really tricky to land smoothly because of the center gear.
I have so many questions 0-:> Did you always have to apply full thrust for takeoff in a MTOW 343? Was the climb rate really as slow as everyone always says? What about the 345? Thanks
@@visionist7 MTOW would likely be full thrust unless it was really cold. Not so much on the 345. On the 343 we used to say it only climbed because of the curvature of the earth. Leaving New Delhi we had to be at a certain altitude prior to entering Pakistan, we had major challenges meeting that one.
@@dirtbiker2175 thanks :-) How long do you estimate the 345 could fly for fully fuelled? I've heard up to 20 hours but that sounds a bit outlandish unless the plane has no passengers. Does circling at the destination airport use a lot of fuel? How fast do you fly when circling? Sorry for all the questions.
@@visionist7 Novair, Airtours International and Thomas Cook had lower deck lavatories on the A330-200. As far as the -600s go, so few were in operation that only LH had the lower deck lavs. Virgin opted to use that space for a crew rest area and cargo instead.
Such a shame, it was a beautiful airframe! In my unpopular opinion, the A340-500/600 is the best looking plane ever built! However, I do understand how it is not efficient, expensive to fly, and not great for the airlines’s carbon footprint. Still my favourite though!
I always wondered what happened to AC's 340's and now I know thanks to you. I flew on them twice on Rapidair between YUL and YYZ. I gotta say the Economy cabin on that aircraft was pretty close to being in Business. The seats were very spacious and comfortable to the point that I wouldn't have hesitated for a second to fly a long haul in one of those seats. That was a very informative production and I thank you for it. Sad to see those aircraft go though, they were a pleasure to fly in.
i'm pretty sure i was also on an a340 for that route to toronto. longest flight i've ever taken but i'm pretty sure i remember them serving hagen daaz ice cream in economy
More tidbits: Upon entering CCAA in Dec 2003, Air Canada sought to have its order for 340-500s cancelled. Airbus argued to CCAA judge that cancelling the order would entail cancellation charges greater than the cost of accepting aircrtaft and consider the reveues the aircraft would generate. The judge, seeing that creditors would see less of a looss accepting the -500 than cancelling order agreed to let order proceed. There was a hitch: the deal struck with Airbus during CCAA saw AC get "discounted" 340-500 where thet couldn't be sold as full -500s because of problesm with centre fuel tanks. Hence, AC got the range of 340-300s with the capacity of the -500 without the extreme range the -500 was advertised for. The real -500 ended up not being so impressive because to do SIN-EWR, Singapore had to greatly limit capaity (hence business class only, and they used the cargo deck for toilets and crew rests since they couldn't load it with cargo). AC getting rid of 340s (all) was part of the deal to purchase 777s and later 787 where Boeing arranged for sale of the leases. (these leases had been renegotiated during CCAA, so when they were sold on open market at higher price, ACX actually made money). Getting ride of the 340 came at same rate as incoming 777s. The purchase dof 777s and then 787 came because AC was recapitalized when it emerged from CCAA and was able to restart the process of buying aircraft left and right. But this time, it didn't have to fight off Canadian Airlines. Remember that it was ex Continental airlines execs who drove AC ionto bankruptcy and out of it and that lasted until Colin Rovivescu took the helm not long ago. The explains the all-Boeing purchases once AC got a chance to renew fleet. (during 1990s, AC was so busy fighting off AC that its financed it fight by selling its owned aircardft and leasing them back, hence CCAA in 2003 since it had no assets left (even sold off Aeroplan and its maintenance business).
I still remember the A340-500 days fondly. It enabled AC to fly non stop to Hong Kong from Toronto for the first time. I remember flying C-GKOL YYZ to HKG in early 2007 in Executive First (very comfortable lie flat seats) and then flying the return in economy. It was the first aircraft in AC's fleet to feature personal TV's in both business and economy classes. This became the norm with project XM. Will always fondly remember that journey :)
I flew between eastern Canada and Asia 4-5 times a year in the 1990s and early 2000s and Canadian was my airline of choice. Their Canadian Plus program was more generous than Aeroplan. I also flew on CP Air circa 1979 when CP Rail also had an airline, hotels, and ships. Conglomerates held by rail companies are still popular in some countries. In Japan railway companies even had department stores (not sure if that's still the case). I flew the A340 on AC a few times -- very quiet plane. 03:50 Trust reverser being deployed.
@@smcdonald9991 Yup some railway companies in Japan e.g. _Keio_ still do run department stores today (for additional & more diversified income I think, with the stores placed strategically above their hub stations)
From a cabin comfort perspective, the economy layout in the A340 is much better than the B777, 2-4-2 vs 3-3-3 or now 3-4-3? Sign me up! I was ecstatic when it was announced last year that LH was going to fly the YOW-FRA route on an A340 instead of an anticipated AC 787 replacing the 767 they were retiring. Of course the pandemic meant this was cancelled indefinitely.
Well I learned something new today, thanks for sharing! I would love to see a similar video about AC's 747s, I'm not too young to have seen them but I have no memory of them ever flying.
Good one! Was lucky to fly the -500 once YYZ - YVR and the -300 a couple of times YYZ- LHR! Really liked the 2-4-2 layout. Even the 1st B777s in a 3-3-3 layout was good, unlike the 3-4-3 now! I try my hardest to never fly the B777 on anything other then a daytime flight. Hopefully once we get over the current global situation, AC will bring back the YYZ-LHR daytripper and on the 787. For years did it at least once a year if not more on the B767, but don’t see them around when we get somewhat back to normal. 🤷♂️✌️👍🍻
Great video! Loved every minute! Thank you! I flew on an Air Canada from Taipei Taiwan to YVR back in March of 2002. I really wish I would have paid attention to the aircraft type. I was 13 at the time. I’m pretty sure it was an A340-300 but I could be very wrong.
Flew on SAA A340-600 from Munich to Johannesburg round trip 2014. It was very nice plane. Very quiet and comfortable even on economy seats. Sad to see then go.
I flew the A340 from Toronto to Vancouver. We just had a baby and we sat in the first row of first class. They had a bassinet we could put her in that attached to the bulk head in front of us. It was fantastic, and she was happy the entire flight. When people disembarked, several commented that they didn't even know we had a baby on board with us. I find the A340's are still one of the most gorgeous planes designed.
I flew an AC 340-300 from yyc to Frankfurt in the early 2000's. Every seat was full and it was a hot day in the summer. Our takeoff roll was the full 12,000' length of runway 35 (now 35L)! Our climb out was so slow, it was down right scary.
The -500 availability was also an issue. AC got by on Toronto to HK with -300s when the scheduled -500 was not available, but had to fly with an almost empty cargo hold to get the range.
Thanks Alex. Flew YVR-SYD return on an AC A340-500 in Dec/04-Jan/05. Outbound we had to refuel in HNL, but returned non-stop after (if recall correctly) almost 14 hours in the air. Perhaps as it was non-ETOPs, our return flight took us over the Marshall Islands.
Thats what i was wondering they operated the a340 300 too but shortley stop flewing them as well as the 747 400 they operated all these aircraft and they were operated in a short time frame
I am an economy class passenger and I miss those 340 plane when I travelled to Asia. 2 seatd on each side was very confortable for me. When they got the 777 we had to endure 3 seats on each side. Not as practical for economy people. Also I liked the seats and overhead compartment better in the 340s
I was plane spotting with a friend at YYZ one day when a Lufthansa A340 lined up for take off on 24R. My friend said something to the effect of "Watch this, it'll use most of the runway to get off the ground." Sure enough (we were at the west end of that runway) it was still pretty low as it climbed out past us. Got some good photos. (including a Q400 coming in on 24L in the same shot.) Must have been a 300 variant.
I worked on these aircraft. One unit of measure that you didn't mention was the return to gate factor. The A340-500 had a much higher return to gate count than the A340-200 & 300, and the A330 which has an even lower return to gate number.
The 340 (especially the 500/600) suffered a lot compared to the 777 due to its smaller fuselage cross section, they were also relatively heavy, likely a product of trying to upscale the existing 340 platform rather than the 777 which was tuned for its size from the start. The lower cross section though meant only 8 abreast compared to 9 or 10 for the 777, the seat mile costs of the 777 wouldn't look nearly as good if you cut off the 1 or 2 extra seats on each row. So that lower seating capacity and the higher maintenance costs were really the bane of the 340... Not the fact that it was a quad.
I've heard that ATC hates the A340's because they take so long to get off the ground. In busy airports they can break up the flow, causing arrivals to go around.
Because they needed the Longest Ranger available then before the 772LR got into services. The 345 was also an LROPS aircraft while the 772LR ETOPS Certification was still around 120-180Mins...
@@visionist7 oh man, can't remember the specific timeframe , but I was travelling from BKK to YYZ and HK was my layover, I left BKK somewhat early in Cathy's 747, and after 3-4hrs at HK airport headout to YYZ in AC's a340 around in the afternoon. I believe I arrived to YYZ in the early evening of late June 06, then took Robert Q at the airport to Windsor throughout the night. It was quite a trip.
When I was a frequent business flyer I always picked the 340 for my flights from Toonto to Vancouver return.The best aircraft I have ever flown in....in fact I had the pleasure of sitting in the jump seat for the majority of a flight from Vancouver to Toronto..the two pilots loved this aircraft...and at the time the avionics were the latest...and business class was superior to the 747 ...comfortable layout....flying today doesn't touch the experience of a 340..
I remember flying on the original A340’s between YYZ - FRA & YYC - FRA. Lovely plane. Had Super Nintendo games built in to the entertainment system in Business. 👍🏼
I love the A340, they looked amazing with the Air Canada livery. However, they just weren't economic to operate. Glad to see Air Canada is keeping their A330's though!
Nice video. I flew on one of the -500s HKG-YYZ on a concessionary pass. We flew "J" class from HKG and it was a lovely flight, one of the best I've ever had. On the outbound flight we went YVR on one of the -300s, 15 hours in the middle of the middle row down the back. Not so good.
The 8-across economy class seats (2-4-2) on AC's current A330s (and previous A340s) are/were still wider and less cramped than the 10-abreast (3-4-3) seats on the 777s and the 3-3-3 seats on the 787s.
Seems to me like the A345 didn’t sell too well is because airlines preferred the larger A346 version despite its range difference. And most airlines prefer the A333 rather than identical A343 is because the A333 has only two engines which makes it more efficient, easier to operate, etc.
retyping as TH-cam lost text before posting.(long) Some additional comments: During CCAA, the company is not allowed to make any capital expenditures. In the case of Air Canada, it was due to receive the 2 Airbus A340-500s which it didn't want anymore. Airbus went to court to convince judge and creditors that the cancellation fees for the order would be greater than accepting the aircraft and operating them (with all the financial stats on cost savings and revenues). The judge and creditors agreed. However, to achieve this financial viability, Airbus lowered the purchase price of the -500s by offering 2 dysfunctional units with centre tanks disabled. It turns out the fully functional -500 was already underperforming, with Singapore having to limit capacity on its SIN-EWR flight (business class only, little to no cargo). So to Air Canada, the -500 was just a bigger -300. It had originally considered using them to launch Toronto-Sydney for instance (back when the -500 was promising great things). Post CCAA, it was just a plane they were forced to accept. At the time Air Canada was privatized, the government paid off all aircraft debts, so Air Canada owned its aircraft. The management was Airbus-religion, so replacing the L1011 with the 330/340 was a no-brainer, as was the old 747-200 combis. While the 330 eventually became the 767 killer, it wasn't yet the case in early 1990s. Also of note: until mid 2000s, the 4 engined aircraft still had a big ETOPS edge for long routes. Once Boeing got FAA to extend ETOPs to match the new 777 ranges, 4 engine aircraft lost that advantage. By the time Air Canada enterered CCAA in 2003, it owned its DC-9s. It had sold/leased back all other, sold maintenance, sold Aeroplan, sold its HQ in downtown Montréal and generally had little to no assets left (hence CCAA). So onwership of those 340-500s was the "odd" thing sticking out. By then, Air Canada had changed to ex-Continental management who were, of course of Boeing religion. So once AC got back onto its feet, they embarked on fleet renewall with the 777 and were then the first "real" launch customer for the 787. Prior to AC's order and Air India,s, the sales had not gone well. The change in 787s fortunes also coincided with Boeing changing the default config from 8 across for which the 787 was designed to 9 across with narrower seats which made the economics much better. As part of the fleet renewall project Boeing helped Air Canada get rid of its 340s. Interestingly, they made money by selling the leases they had renegotiated during CCAA with a lot of concessions.
Were both centre tanks disabled or just the auxiliary tank? It's interesting how the FAA, an American organ, ultimately spelled doom for quads all across the world. I know which I'd rather be flying when an engine goes over the north pole...
@@visionist7 I don't recall the specifics. But a former neighbour was Pilot for AC and told me the 340-500s they got were castrated because of problem with centre tanks. And when I read the CCAA filings, understood what happened. Airbus gave AC some early production ones with problems as a way to still make transaction happen but at lower price. This way Airbus didn't have to include a cancellation in its books.
I like the way you said that the A340 was susceptible to fuel freezing so they used the 777, hmmm BA flight 38 (777) crashed due to a fuel freezing problem at Heathrow! so the design wasn't that much better. (before all the Boeing fans jump up and down it could be said that the crash was caused by the FOHE on the engines blocking up but the ice was therebefore it reached them) Anyway I agree with a lot of the comments that she was a beautifully designed plane (in my opinion)
No the 777 lost power to loose water in the fuel freezing and then blocking the Fuel / oil h/e and was a random event due to poor quality fuel, and lack of routine sump draining of the tanks, brought about by the low fuel flow/ low oil temp during decent phase. The fuel freezing issue with the airbuses is just that, the fuel freezing (at temperatures below -47degrees C for jet A1, or -40 degrees C for jet A). This is temperatures so cold that the fuel begins to turn into a waxy slurry. He did mention when flying over the polar cap. You are comparing apples with oranges.
The A340 is underpowered and flies more slowly than its competitors. I stood at the end of 26 Left at YVR, as an A340 thundered towards me. It finally lifted off, staggering over me, SO close I could feel the hot downwash from the engines.
I'm not a plane spotting freak but even I know that the A340 is a quad jet, yet the stock photos and videos in this video often show a twin-jet, which I think are A330s. Oh well, pretty pictures nevertheless...
A downside of the 340 is that it was slower than the Boeings. On a long flight it adds up and when there are subs it makes maintaining sched more difficult.
Separate type ratings but pilots at some airlines often fly the A330/340/350 interchangeably, for example Lufthansa. www.flightglobal.com/lufthansa-to-operate-a350-under-triple-type-rating/122984.article
Flew the A340-300 5 times between YYZ-NRT at the beginning of this century. The planes had 2-5-2 seating in economy with the rather awful looking green seats. The biggest let down for me was lack of individual IFE system.
Tive a oportunidade de voas esses dois 340-500 , aqui na TAM Brasil , como comandante . Aeronave com muita potencia e combustível disponível sempre, fazíamos a rota São Paulo Frankfurt e São Paulo Milan .
The two A340-500s were the only A340s owned by AC. The A340-300s were all leased. The -500s were mainly used on the Toronto-Hong Kong nonstop route which was too long for economic operation by the A340-300. P.S. I've never heard TAM (fhe former Brazilian airline now part of LATAM), mentioned at 5:00, pronounced as "TOM".
@@AlexPraglowskiAviation Reminds me that when Nissan was called Datsun , it was pronounced DATsun (Dat as in Cat) in Canada but DAWTsun (Dat as in Dot) in the U.S. Still the same today in my experience for Mazda, with the "a" in Maz pronounced like the "a" in cat, while in the U.S. it's normally MAWZda.
I was a passenger on an AC 340 flying from Frankfurt to Calgary in Sept 97. One or f the wheels fell off on takeoff and we had to circle and dump fuel for a couple of hours before we could land. Not a great experience.
You can't blame the plane if you didn't use it properly. The A340-500 is an ultra long haul aircraft. You don't need it to fly to Hong Kong or anywhere within that range. The A340-500 was built for routes longer than 14000km. The only airline that uses its ultra longe range aircraft properly is Singapore Airlines with its SQ23 and SQ24 flights.
So how much time until this shows up on Simple Flying?
LOL!
Simply Flying:
*“Sister snatched”*
I think you mean Simple Flying
Lol probably never since simply aviation does flight reviews from today
@@nehemiahshushlian7662 Indeed. Always mix them up, even though Aviation is far superior to Flying
I flew the A340/300 and the 500 as well with close to 1000 hours on type. The 300 was very underpowered and the 500 the opposite. Both models were really tricky to land smoothly because of the center gear.
Question: with your type rating, could you also fly the 330?
yes, we didn’t always know which model we would fly until arrival at work.
I have so many questions 0-:>
Did you always have to apply full thrust for takeoff in a MTOW 343? Was the climb rate really as slow as everyone always says? What about the 345? Thanks
@@visionist7 MTOW would likely be full thrust unless it was really cold. Not so much on the 345. On the 343 we used to say it only climbed because of the curvature of the earth. Leaving New Delhi we had to be at a certain altitude prior to entering Pakistan, we had major challenges meeting that one.
@@dirtbiker2175 thanks :-) How long do you estimate the 345 could fly for fully fuelled? I've heard up to 20 hours but that sounds a bit outlandish unless the plane has no passengers. Does circling at the destination airport use a lot of fuel? How fast do you fly when circling? Sorry for all the questions.
Lufthansa A340’s with lower deck bathroom are one of my favourite plans to fly. Great layout and spacious
Those are the -600s.
Did any other carrier have downstairs toilets on the 600?
@@visionist7 Novair, Airtours International and Thomas Cook had lower deck lavatories on the A330-200. As far as the -600s go, so few were in operation that only LH had the lower deck lavs. Virgin opted to use that space for a crew rest area and cargo instead.
@@afcgeo882 thanks
6:17 what a beauty
Such a shame, it was a beautiful airframe! In my unpopular opinion, the A340-500/600 is the best looking plane ever built! However, I do understand how it is not efficient, expensive to fly, and not great for the airlines’s carbon footprint. Still my favourite though!
The 345 was my favourite plane as a kid. Still holds a special place but I'd love to see one again
@@BPanio Yeah, the 346 for me.
I always wondered what happened to AC's 340's and now I know thanks to you. I flew on them twice on Rapidair between YUL and YYZ. I gotta say the Economy cabin on that aircraft was pretty close to being in Business. The seats were very spacious and comfortable to the point that I wouldn't have hesitated for a second to fly a long haul in one of those seats. That was a very informative production and I thank you for it. Sad to see those aircraft go though, they were a pleasure to fly in.
I’ve wondered about this. Alex, thanks for the video and having the references in the description.
I flew on the 340-500 from HKG to YYZ. I just remember it being tight in coach.
Even with the 777, I don’t think that’s changed. 😆
i'm pretty sure i was also on an a340 for that route to toronto. longest flight i've ever taken but i'm pretty sure i remember them serving hagen daaz ice cream in economy
Damn, 12% is huge for airlines.
Still, I wish I were into spotting when the A340's were around
I remember planespotting the A340s at Toronto Pearson (YYZ) back in the day. Missing those quads, for sure. Great history lesson here, Alex.
More tidbits:
Upon entering CCAA in Dec 2003, Air Canada sought to have its order for 340-500s cancelled. Airbus argued to CCAA judge that cancelling the order would entail cancellation charges greater than the cost of accepting aircrtaft and consider the reveues the aircraft would generate. The judge, seeing that creditors would see less of a looss accepting the -500 than cancelling order agreed to let order proceed.
There was a hitch: the deal struck with Airbus during CCAA saw AC get "discounted" 340-500 where thet couldn't be sold as full -500s because of problesm with centre fuel tanks. Hence, AC got the range of 340-300s with the capacity of the -500 without the extreme range the -500 was advertised for.
The real -500 ended up not being so impressive because to do SIN-EWR, Singapore had to greatly limit capaity (hence business class only, and they used the cargo deck for toilets and crew rests since they couldn't load it with cargo).
AC getting rid of 340s (all) was part of the deal to purchase 777s and later 787 where Boeing arranged for sale of the leases. (these leases had been renegotiated during CCAA, so when they were sold on open market at higher price, ACX actually made money).
Getting ride of the 340 came at same rate as incoming 777s.
The purchase dof 777s and then 787 came because AC was recapitalized when it emerged from CCAA and was able to restart the process of buying aircraft left and right. But this time, it didn't have to fight off Canadian Airlines. Remember that it was ex Continental airlines execs who drove AC ionto bankruptcy and out of it and that lasted until Colin Rovivescu took the helm not long ago. The explains the all-Boeing purchases once AC got a chance to renew fleet. (during 1990s, AC was so busy fighting off AC that its financed it fight by selling its owned aircardft and leasing them back, hence CCAA in 2003 since it had no assets left (even sold off Aeroplan and its maintenance business).
The -500 is my favourite variant
I wish the 340 had flown more :/
Mine too. Perfect number too A345
I loved seeing these take off !
I still remember the A340-500 days fondly. It enabled AC to fly non stop to Hong Kong from Toronto for the first time. I remember flying C-GKOL YYZ to HKG in early 2007 in Executive First (very comfortable lie flat seats) and then flying the return in economy. It was the first aircraft in AC's fleet to feature personal TV's in both business and economy classes. This became the norm with project XM. Will always fondly remember that journey :)
Nice Job, Another awesome Video!
Enjoyable video. Thanks for the work you do.
Great video! We loved the flying pencil!
Wow mate,the explanation is sooooo nice,you've earned a sub!
Keep posting :)
Great video as usual! Also also so nice to see the frosted maple leaf livery. By far my favourite of Air Canada’s.
Those were the days!
And I also remember the days when AC and Canadi>n used to be big competitors!
Oh yea major competition back then they keep buying their competitions out, look, they bought Air Transat deal was finalized this year early 2021
I flew between eastern Canada and Asia 4-5 times a year in the 1990s and early 2000s and Canadian was my airline of choice. Their Canadian Plus program was more generous than Aeroplan. I also flew on CP Air circa 1979 when CP Rail also had an airline, hotels, and ships. Conglomerates held by rail companies are still popular in some countries. In Japan railway companies even had department stores (not sure if that's still the case).
I flew the A340 on AC a few times -- very quiet plane.
03:50 Trust reverser being deployed.
@@smcdonald9991 Yup some railway companies in Japan e.g. _Keio_ still do run department stores today (for additional & more diversified income I think, with the stores placed strategically above their hub stations)
@@lzh4950 Thanks.
From a cabin comfort perspective, the economy layout in the A340 is much better than the B777, 2-4-2 vs 3-3-3 or now 3-4-3? Sign me up! I was ecstatic when it was announced last year that LH was going to fly the YOW-FRA route on an A340 instead of an anticipated AC 787 replacing the 767 they were retiring. Of course the pandemic meant this was cancelled indefinitely.
Used to fly AC A340-300 YVR-HNL-SYD - Y was perfect for a couple and bulkhead even better. Miss those long flights and re-boarding in HNL at 2am :)
Probably could have flown nonstop Toronto - Auckland if the auxiliary tank was enabled.
Well I learned something new today, thanks for sharing! I would love to see a similar video about AC's 747s, I'm not too young to have seen them but I have no memory of them ever flying.
Flew yvr to yyz on ac 340. Smoothest flight I ever had.
Nice video. I remember flying in an A340 from YVR to Kansai around 2003,4.
The A340 was the finest aircraft I have ever flown. I used to fly YYZ-NRT and have nothing but good things to say about this bird
Are you a former pilot of the A340? perhaps you can answer a few questions.
Was able to fly the - 500 on a Red Eye from YVR to YYZ, so powerful, and felt so roomy, and "New"
That was awhile ago, but for a Yank, it was a treat.
I still remember that I once flew CX A340-200 in 1994 from KUL to HKG. My impression was that the seats were comfortable and the landing was smooth.
Great video Alex
Good one! Was lucky to fly the -500 once YYZ - YVR and the -300 a couple of times YYZ- LHR! Really liked the 2-4-2 layout. Even the 1st B777s in a 3-3-3 layout was good, unlike the 3-4-3 now! I try my hardest to never fly the B777 on anything other then a daytime flight. Hopefully once we get over the current global situation, AC will bring back the YYZ-LHR daytripper and on the 787. For years did it at least once a year if not more on the B767, but don’t see them around when we get somewhat back to normal. 🤷♂️✌️👍🍻
Never knew this! Great video. I flew the AC 767 LHR - YYZ which was great
Can you make a video about the 747! With Air Canada!
Loved that aircraft! Flew YYC/LHR & YYZ/BGI. They also felt roomy in economy. Sign of the times I suppose.
Thanks for the history.
2-4-2 my favorite layout in widebodies. Always was going for it if had a choice
And another great video!
flew on one of em in 2006... heathrow to toronto. nice bird
Great video! Loved every minute! Thank you!
I flew on an Air Canada from Taipei Taiwan to YVR back in March of 2002. I really wish I would have paid attention to the aircraft type. I was 13 at the time. I’m pretty sure it was an A340-300 but I could be very wrong.
Thanks Alex, I had no idea AC had A340s until now. Pretty cool stuff.
Flew on SAA A340-600 from Munich to Johannesburg round trip 2014. It was very nice plane. Very quiet and comfortable even on economy seats. Sad to see then go.
Hi Alex I have been subbed since 2018 and I love these trips good luck and stay safe
because they are awesome
Really enjoy flying with Airbus.
I don't know why but ill choose a quad jet over a twin engine any given day especially on those long haul oceanic flights
I was on the tarmac as a guest at Dorval (YUL) on the delivery arrival (June 29, 2004) of the first AC A340-500. I have several photos of that event.
That’s actually pretty damn cool! Quite an event to be at.
I flew the A340 from Toronto to Vancouver. We just had a baby and we sat in the first row of first class. They had a bassinet we could put her in that attached to the bulk head in front of us. It was fantastic, and she was happy the entire flight. When people disembarked, several commented that they didn't even know we had a baby on board with us. I find the A340's are still one of the most gorgeous planes designed.
I flew an AC 340-300 from yyc to Frankfurt in the early 2000's. Every seat was full and it was a hot day in the summer. Our takeoff roll was the full 12,000' length of runway 35 (now 35L)! Our climb out was so slow, it was down right scary.
The -500 availability was also an issue. AC got by on Toronto to HK with -300s when the scheduled -500 was not available, but had to fly with an almost empty cargo hold to get the range.
Thanks Alex. Flew YVR-SYD return on an AC A340-500 in Dec/04-Jan/05. Outbound we had to refuel in HNL, but returned non-stop after (if recall correctly) almost 14 hours in the air. Perhaps as it was non-ETOPs, our return flight took us over the Marshall Islands.
If you were on an A340, it’s never considered ETOPS. No need with more than two engines.
@@mikemontgomery2654 My point is that, unlike ETOPs twins, it took a different route from SYD-YVR.
Thats what i was wondering they operated the a340 300 too but shortley stop flewing them as well as the 747 400 they operated all these aircraft and they were operated in a short time frame
I am an economy class passenger and I miss those 340 plane when I travelled to Asia. 2 seatd on each side was very confortable for me. When they got the 777 we had to endure 3 seats on each side. Not as practical for economy people. Also I liked the seats and overhead compartment better in the 340s
I was plane spotting with a friend at YYZ one day when a Lufthansa A340 lined up for take off on 24R. My friend said something to the effect of "Watch this, it'll use most of the runway to get off the ground." Sure enough (we were at the west end of that runway) it was still pretty low as it climbed out past us. Got some good photos. (including a Q400 coming in on 24L in the same shot.) Must have been a 300 variant.
Flown this AC A340-500 YYZ-HKG 15 yrs ago miss this plane
I worked on these aircraft. One unit of measure that you didn't mention was the return to gate factor. The A340-500 had a much higher return to gate count than the A340-200 & 300, and the A330 which has an even lower return to gate number.
The 340 (especially the 500/600) suffered a lot compared to the 777 due to its smaller fuselage cross section, they were also relatively heavy, likely a product of trying to upscale the existing 340 platform rather than the 777 which was tuned for its size from the start. The lower cross section though meant only 8 abreast compared to 9 or 10 for the 777, the seat mile costs of the 777 wouldn't look nearly as good if you cut off the 1 or 2 extra seats on each row. So that lower seating capacity and the higher maintenance costs were really the bane of the 340... Not the fact that it was a quad.
I wonder which plane was faster and handled better. The 777LR only had the GE90 option.
I like the plane.I flew in both 500 and 600 types,it reminds me of a widebody Boeing 707.
I've heard that ATC hates the A340's because they take so long to get off the ground. In busy airports they can break up the flow, causing arrivals to go around.
I was able to fly the AC 340s I'm sure it was a 300 in 2005 as a kid going from London to Toronto Pearson
I remember the 1st plane I got to cater was the the 844/845 yyc-fra routes on the A340-300 I guess heh. That was so long ago .
RIP the A340s
Because they needed the Longest Ranger available then before the 772LR got into services. The 345 was also an LROPS aircraft while the 772LR ETOPS Certification was still around 120-180Mins...
I've been in an AC's a340 back in 2006, flew from HK to YYZ. It was quite an experience.
How long was the flight, time of departure & time of arrival? :-)
@@visionist7 oh man, can't remember the specific timeframe , but I was travelling from BKK to YYZ and HK was my layover, I left BKK somewhat early in Cathy's 747, and after 3-4hrs at HK airport headout to YYZ in AC's a340 around in the afternoon. I believe I arrived to YYZ in the early evening of late June 06, then took Robert Q at the airport to Windsor throughout the night. It was quite a trip.
When I was a frequent business flyer I always picked the 340 for my flights from Toonto to Vancouver return.The best aircraft I have ever flown in....in fact I had the pleasure of sitting in the jump seat for the majority of a flight from Vancouver to Toronto..the two pilots loved this aircraft...and at the time the avionics were the latest...and business class was superior to the 747 ...comfortable layout....flying today doesn't touch the experience of a 340..
Azerbaijan Airlines is the very last airline operating the Airbus A340-500. They have two of them.
Where did they fly them to before the virus?
@@visionist7 Moscow-Domodedovo and Frankfurt
@@matthewemm7787 thanks
Only ever saw an ac 345 once at YVR. They disappeared rather quickly.
I remember flying on the original A340’s between YYZ - FRA & YYC - FRA. Lovely plane. Had Super Nintendo games built in to the entertainment system in Business. 👍🏼
I love the A340, they looked amazing with the Air Canada livery. However, they just weren't economic to operate. Glad to see Air Canada is keeping their A330's though!
I’m hoping AC picks up a few of Delta’s former 777 LRs since they are relatively young... would be a great way for AC to keep serving Rouge routes
I'd buy one if I were a billionaire haha... and an A345 too
Nice video. I flew on one of the -500s HKG-YYZ on a concessionary pass. We flew "J" class from HKG and it was a lovely flight, one of the best I've ever had. On the outbound flight we went YVR on one of the -300s, 15 hours in the middle of the middle row down the back. Not so good.
The 8-across economy class seats (2-4-2) on AC's current A330s (and previous A340s) are/were still wider and less cramped than the 10-abreast (3-4-3) seats on the 777s and the 3-3-3 seats on the 787s.
@@viscount757 only one seat between you and the aisle as well.
Seems to me like the A345 didn’t sell too well is because airlines preferred the larger A346 version despite its range difference. And most airlines prefer the A333 rather than identical A343 is because the A333 has only two engines which makes it more efficient, easier to operate, etc.
Need to do more past, present, future fleet videos on some reginal airlines in Canada like CMA and yukon air
Alex will be telling our story, in the future.... right Alex?
@@timeairhistoricalsociety Yes sir!
retyping as TH-cam lost text before posting.(long)
Some additional comments:
During CCAA, the company is not allowed to make any capital expenditures. In the case of Air Canada, it was due to receive the 2 Airbus A340-500s which it didn't want anymore. Airbus went to court to convince judge and creditors that the cancellation fees for the order would be greater than accepting the aircraft and operating them (with all the financial stats on cost savings and revenues). The judge and creditors agreed. However, to achieve this financial viability, Airbus lowered the purchase price of the -500s by offering 2 dysfunctional units with centre tanks disabled.
It turns out the fully functional -500 was already underperforming, with Singapore having to limit capacity on its SIN-EWR flight (business class only, little to no cargo). So to Air Canada, the -500 was just a bigger -300. It had originally considered using them to launch Toronto-Sydney for instance (back when the -500 was promising great things). Post CCAA, it was just a plane they were forced to accept.
At the time Air Canada was privatized, the government paid off all aircraft debts, so Air Canada owned its aircraft. The management was Airbus-religion, so replacing the L1011 with the 330/340 was a no-brainer, as was the old 747-200 combis. While the 330 eventually became the 767 killer, it wasn't yet the case in early 1990s.
Also of note: until mid 2000s, the 4 engined aircraft still had a big ETOPS edge for long routes. Once Boeing got FAA to extend ETOPs to match the new 777 ranges, 4 engine aircraft lost that advantage.
By the time Air Canada enterered CCAA in 2003, it owned its DC-9s. It had sold/leased back all other, sold maintenance, sold Aeroplan, sold its HQ in downtown Montréal and generally had little to no assets left (hence CCAA). So onwership of those 340-500s was the "odd" thing sticking out.
By then, Air Canada had changed to ex-Continental management who were, of course of Boeing religion. So once AC got back onto its feet, they embarked on fleet renewall with the 777 and were then the first "real" launch customer for the 787. Prior to AC's order and Air India,s, the sales had not gone well. The change in 787s fortunes also coincided with Boeing changing the default config from 8 across for which the 787 was designed to 9 across with narrower seats which made the economics much better.
As part of the fleet renewall project Boeing helped Air Canada get rid of its 340s. Interestingly, they made money by selling the leases they had renegotiated during CCAA with a lot of concessions.
Were both centre tanks disabled or just the auxiliary tank? It's interesting how the FAA, an American organ, ultimately spelled doom for quads all across the world. I know which I'd rather be flying when an engine goes over the north pole...
@@visionist7 I don't recall the specifics. But a former neighbour was Pilot for AC and told me the 340-500s they got were castrated because of problem with centre tanks. And when I read the CCAA filings, understood what happened. Airbus gave AC some early production ones with problems as a way to still make transaction happen but at lower price. This way Airbus didn't have to include a cancellation in its books.
I like the way you said that the A340 was susceptible to fuel freezing so they used the 777, hmmm BA flight 38 (777) crashed due to a fuel freezing problem at Heathrow! so the design wasn't that much better. (before all the Boeing fans jump up and down it could be said that the crash was caused by the FOHE on the engines blocking up but the ice was therebefore it reached them)
Anyway I agree with a lot of the comments that she was a beautifully designed plane (in my opinion)
No the 777 lost power to loose water in the fuel freezing and then blocking the Fuel / oil h/e and was a random event due to poor quality fuel, and lack of routine sump draining of the tanks, brought about by the low fuel flow/ low oil temp during decent phase. The fuel freezing issue with the airbuses is just that, the fuel freezing (at temperatures below -47degrees C for jet A1, or -40 degrees C for jet A). This is temperatures so cold that the fuel begins to turn into a waxy slurry. He did mention when flying over the polar cap. You are comparing apples with oranges.
Air Canada also has the A340-300 prior to getting the A340-500 remember the 1998 Olympics livery, Nagano 98’ A340-300?
The A340 is underpowered and flies more slowly than its competitors. I stood at the end of 26 Left at YVR, as an A340 thundered towards me. It finally lifted off, staggering over me, SO close I could feel the hot downwash from the engines.
You know the old joke, A340 is the only jet to suffer a birdstrike from behind......
i agree 100%... i think the 500/600 were the best airbus models...sad they got beat out from the TWINJETs
I'm not a plane spotting freak but even I know that the A340 is a quad jet, yet the stock photos and videos in this video often show a twin-jet, which I think are A330s. Oh well, pretty pictures nevertheless...
Nice plane but I still have a soft spot for the l1011
Although alex air canada doesn't have the safety card for the aircraft use the a340-300 safety card also the engines
I flew on one from YYZ to HKG
These would have been interesting additions to the RCAF fleet alongside their ex-Wardair A310s. Or replacements.
A330 MRTTs are replacing the A310s.
One a side note, Celine dion's Music video of "You and I" showed an AC A340 (maybe the A345) in the hanger: th-cam.com/video/e-svA2ca6FY/w-d-xo.html
A downside of the 340 is that it was slower than the Boeings. On a long flight it adds up and when there are subs it makes maintaining sched more difficult.
ironically C-GKOM's registration has now been given to a Cessna Caravan!
Why is that ironic?
@@JayJayAviation because the same registration that a huge widebody airliner used to have is now used by some random private cessna
Alex quick quiz. Why don't airlines like these. A 340s
that explains why they still have the 777 LR
What airlines still fly the a340?
Lufthansa, Azerbaijan, Edelweiss, Swiss
It preceded the 777-200lr, which came in 2007.
Do the A340 and A330 have the same type rating?
I don't believe so due to the difference in number of engines, but I could be wrong.
Separate type ratings but pilots at some airlines often fly the A330/340/350 interchangeably, for example Lufthansa.
www.flightglobal.com/lufthansa-to-operate-a350-under-triple-type-rating/122984.article
I miss the a340s
Remember Emirates came to VIE/LOWW back in the days... best looking Airbus ever
Thanks for this. I'd forgotten about the A345 in AC
Flew the A340-300 5 times between YYZ-NRT at the beginning of this century. The planes had 2-5-2 seating in economy with the rather awful looking green seats. The biggest let down for me was lack of individual IFE system.
0:07 that's when you know Airbus fxcked up with the big boy.
But Airbus is now laughing at Boeing.
Tive a oportunidade de voas esses dois 340-500 , aqui na TAM Brasil , como comandante . Aeronave com muita potencia e combustível disponível sempre, fazíamos a rota São Paulo Frankfurt e São Paulo Milan .
😮
The two A340-500s were the only A340s owned by AC. The A340-300s were all leased. The -500s were mainly used on the Toronto-Hong Kong nonstop route which was too long for economic operation by the A340-300.
P.S. I've never heard TAM (fhe former Brazilian airline now part of LATAM), mentioned at 5:00, pronounced as "TOM".
I always thought it was pronounced 'Tahm' with the longer 'A' sound.
@@AlexPraglowskiAviation Reminds me that when Nissan was called Datsun , it was pronounced DATsun (Dat as in Cat) in Canada but DAWTsun (Dat as in Dot) in the U.S. Still the same today in my experience for Mazda, with the "a" in Maz pronounced like the "a" in cat, while in the U.S. it's normally MAWZda.
I was a passenger on an AC 340 flying from Frankfurt to Calgary in Sept 97. One or f the wheels fell off on takeoff and we had to circle and dump fuel for a couple of hours before we could land. Not a great experience.
That’s crazy! I saw that happen.
i really want to fly on one of the 2 Azerbaijan Airlines A340-500's
Hi
You can't blame the plane if you didn't use it properly. The A340-500 is an ultra long haul aircraft. You don't need it to fly to Hong Kong or anywhere within that range. The A340-500 was built for routes longer than 14000km. The only airline that uses its ultra longe range aircraft properly is Singapore Airlines with its SQ23 and SQ24 flights.
Toronto to HK needs that range. Longest non-stop flight I have ever been on.
The French AF had 2 for sale last month. Only $95,000 each
ooooo they flew here with TAM 👀
That wasn't only odd plane that ait Canada flew. I flew dorniee 328 from Atlanta to Toronto in 2094
Air Canada never operated the Dornier 328.
Maybe it was ba 146