"If I could, I would throw them away. These planes are not efficient at all."


...for us (subsonic) 4holer haters, that's just beautiful right there!
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=15907

So why did he buy the aircraft in the first place? Its not like his airline is making money, is it?

I once saw one of QR's taking off at LHR. It took an entire minute to get off the ground and used up the overwhelming majority of the runway. Horrible plane, poo-tube is a fitting nickname.

Yet Lufthansa seems content with it; has anyone heard to the contrary?

LH chose to add more rather then switch to the 777-300ER so I can only assume they either like the plane or they like the price Airbus is selling them for.

Don't forget LH got the "fuel burn delta" which Airbus was promising to customers who wanted to get the A346 over the B77W. IIRC, not all carriers got the deal.

We've often postulated, on the face of it, that "U-Turn Al" seems to have a .. ahem .. 'curious' and somewhat bizarre approach to airline management and control.

Why should we endorse his remarks on this issue as believable, on this occassion ? Has he recently undergone a 'logic' rewiring ?

After all with the plunging cost of oil, the A340-600 (as well as the B747-400 and most other 4 engined frames) is well under the operational cost and profitability of the time at which his airline originally purchased them. Sorry - but "Does not compute" !

I do not see anything contradictory in his comments. When he got those over-bloated inefficient birds, he didn't have those B77W's in the fleet. Once they came in, it became fairly obvious to him as to which is the better plane (by a wide margin).

I do !

There are plenty of other carriers that made similar decisions, based on the (then) proven efficiency of the frame, based on available ULH aircraft and routes. That includes some highly premium Asian and EU carriers.

Bear in mind that, in the context of this discussion, "inefficient" becomes a relative term, only when a subsequent more efficient product emerges. And changes in the floor price of oil still need to be considered here.

There is a finite difference between "most efficient, more efficient, efficient" .. and the yawning chasm that marks "inefficient" my friend. It is folly to confuse them as definitions.

I daresay that in 20 years time .. even the vaunted currently most theoretically-efficient B787 will be regarded as 'in-efficient' by comparison. But that doesn't make it so, in these times. Nor does it apply to the A340-600 just yet.

Would this be an Airbus vs Boeing Topic?

I do understand your point kimshep, however don't forget, English isn't the first language of many. They might not know the intricacies of the English lexicon. His quotes might also have been taken out of context. He just might have been talking about them in comparison to the B77W's.




Probably.

I appreciate your point, as a general comment ~ but do not forget also that Oxford, Cambridge, Yale and Harvard all make a very comfortable fees by educating most Middle East / Arabic entrepreneurs and royalty.

While English mightn't be his first language (although in Qatari and International business rounds, it probably is), I'd say his command and understanding of the English language might be superior to the majority of most.

Non-sequitur mate. We have no idea where Mr. Bakr did his studies (at least I don't). Anything else is mere speculation.

Also, look at the way he handled the B787 order..that was a complete travesty as well. The bottom line is he's got a huge Airbus order book and money talks.