Editing Airbus A340 (section)

===Background===
[[File:HL7552 Airbus A330-223 Korean Air, CS-TQM Airbus A340-313X Strategic Airlines (HiFly) and VH-ZPL 'Samba Blue' Embraer 190-100IGW Virgin Blue (Virgin Australia) (6600549415).jpg|thumb|Compared to the A340 quadjet (flying), the lighter [[Airbus A330|A330]] (on ground) has two engines and no centre-line wheel [[Landing gear#Large aircraft|bogie]].]]<!-- alternates pics: "File:Swiss Airbus A340 and A330.jpg" or "File:Swiss Airbus A340-313X; HB-JMJ@ZRH;04.03.2011 592en (5501768255).jpg" -->

When Airbus designed the [[Airbus A300]] during the 1970s it envisioned a broad family of airliners to compete against [[Boeing]] and [[McDonnell Douglas]], two established US aerospace manufacturers. From the moment of formation, Airbus had begun studies into derivatives of the Airbus A300B in support of this long-term goal.{{sfn|Wensveen |2007|page=63}} Prior to the service introduction of the first Airbus airliners, Airbus had identified nine possible variations of the A300 known as A300B1 to B9.{{sfn|Gunston|2009 |p={{page needed|date=July 2020}}}} A tenth variation, conceived in 1973, later the first to be constructed, was designated the A300B10.{{sfn|Norris|Wagner |2001|p=18}} It was a smaller aircraft that would be developed into the long-range [[Airbus A310]]. Airbus then focused its efforts on the single-aisle market, which resulted in the [[Airbus A320 family]], which was the first digital [[fly-by-wire]] commercial aircraft. The decision to work on the A320, instead of a four-engine aircraft proposed by the Germans, created divisions within Airbus.{{sfn|Norris|Wagner |2001|p=18}} As the SA or "single aisle" studies (which later became the successful Airbus A320) underwent development to challenge the successful [[Boeing 737]] and [[Douglas DC-9]] in the single-aisle, [[Narrow-body aircraft|narrow-body airliner]] market, Airbus turned its focus back to the [[wide-body aircraft]] market.

The A300B11,<ref name="Eden p.30"/> a derivative of the A310, was designed upon the availability of "ten ton" thrust engines.{{sfn|Norris|Wagner |2001|p=23}} Using four engines, it would seat between 180 and 200 passengers, and have a range of {{convert|6000|nmi}}.{{sfn|Norris|Wagner |1999|p=59}} It was deemed a replacement for the less-efficient [[Boeing 707]]s and [[Douglas DC-8]]s still in service.{{sfn|Norris|Wagner |2001|p=23}} The A300B11 was joined by another design, the A300B9, which was a larger derivative of the A300. The B9 was developed by Airbus from the early 1970s at a slow pace until the early 1980s. It was essentially a stretched A300 with the same wing, coupled with the most powerful [[turbofan engine]] available at the time.{{sfn|Norris|Wagner |2001|p=23}} It was targeted at the growing demand for high-capacity, medium-range, transcontinental trunk routes.{{sfn|Norris|Wagner |2001|p=23}} The B9 offered the same [[Range (aircraft)|range]] and payload as the [[McDonnell Douglas DC-10]], but it used between 25%{{sfn|Norris|Wagner |2001|p=23}} and 38%<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/business/11air.html?_r=1|title=To Save Fuel, Airlines Find No Speck Too Small|work=The New York Times|last=Maynard|first=Micheline|date=11 June 2008}}</ref> less fuel. The B9 was therefore considered a replacement for the DC-10 and the [[Lockheed L-1011 Tristar]].<ref>{{Cite journal |date=17 October 1981|url=http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981%20-%203243.html |access-date=23 January 2011 |title=Commercial Aircraft of the World part 2|journal=Flight International}}</ref>

To differentiate the programme from the SA studies, the B9 and B11 were redesignated the TA9 and TA11 (SA standing for "single aisle" and TA standing for "twin aisle").<ref name="Eden p.30">{{harnvb|Eden|2008|p=30}}</ref> In an effort to save development costs, it was decided that the two would share the same [[wing]] and [[airframe]]; the projected savings were estimated at US$500&nbsp;million (about £490&nbsp;million or €495&nbsp;million).{{sfn|Norris|Wagner |2001|p=22}} The adoption of a common wing structure also had one technical advantage: the TA11's outboard engines could counteract the weight of the longer-range model by providing bending relief.{{sfn|Norris|Wagner |2001|p=23}} Another factor was the split preference of those within Airbus and, more importantly, prospective airliner customers. Airbus vice president for strategic planning, Adam Brown, recalled,
<blockquote>North American operators were clearly in favour of a twin[jet], while Asians wanted a quad[jet]. In Europe, opinion was split between the two. The majority of potential customers were in favour of a quad despite the fact, in certain conditions, it is more costly to operate than a twin. They liked that it could be ferried with one engine out, and could fly 'anywhere'— ETOPS (extend-range twin-engine operations) hadn't begun then.<ref>{{Cite magazine |title=Airbus A330/A340 |magazine=Flight International |url=http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1997/1997%20-%202917.html |access-date=26 January 2011 |last=Kingsley-Jones |first=Max |date=4 November 1997}}</ref>{{sfn|Norris|Wagner |2001|pp=22–23}}</blockquote>