Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5708445/

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-03-06 20:27:39 and read 16875 times.

When the A300 was put into to service why didn't more airlines acquire them?
I know AA had them as well as EA. CO got them through EA I believe and I know a few european
airlines had them. Why didn't more airlines acquire them?

They could carry a decent amount of pax and were freight hogs.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2013-03-06 20:50:07 and read 16850 times.

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
When the A300 was put into to service why didn't more airlines acquire them?

I imagine a lot of it had to do with short range compared to the DC-10 or L-1011. Plus you have to remember that at the time Airbus was a much smaller company with less ability to support their products around the world too.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-03-06 21:05:34 and read 16786 times.

When it was put into service I'd imagine the range was short but AA used them
to fly across the pond and to Lim. If memory serves me correctly EA & PA
used them on medium range routes too.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2013-03-06 21:13:28 and read 16764 times.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 2):
When it was put into service I'd imagine the range was short but AA used them
to fly across the pond and to Lim.

American only ever had the -600 version with more range. The earlier versions were more limited. Also, for transatlantic, you're talking about East Coast to Western Europe, so more or less 757 range. I want to say that the transatlantic A300 flights American had were exclusively from JFK and BOS.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-03-06 21:24:44 and read 16703 times.

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):

When the A300 was put into to service why didn't more airlines acquire them?

In a nutshell, the airlines were just bulking up with their new DC-10s and TriStars, plus beginning to bring the 767 into the fleets. European manufacturers didn't really have a track record for producing aircraft American carriers wanted, and those which did sell here, sold in small numbers. Airbus literally had to lease them to Eastern on a basis that was too good to be true to get them to test the A300. That worked fine for EA, since they didn't have the 767 on order, or much cash.

Lots more info here: How Did The US Accept The A300? (by 747400sp Oct 27 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-03-06 21:25:57 and read 16698 times.

Thanx. For the info. It's a shame though it could carry a lot of freight, hence the
nickname freight hog.

[Edited 2013-03-06 21:29:47]

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: SpaceshipDC10
Posted 2013-03-07 01:40:37 and read 16305 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3):
American only ever had the -600 version with more range.

American had A300-600R

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
CO got them through EA I believe

At first, CO only had six A300s for a while. They were all white tails.

These three were first delivered to SQ, then spent some time in storage before heading west.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gerhard Plomitzer


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JetPix



Those three were all undelivered white tails.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank Schaefer


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Robert M. Campbell


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



Later, Lorenzo and and his 'great strategy' began to shift assets from EA to CO, including many A300s.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: RWA380
Posted 2013-03-07 02:19:24 and read 16203 times.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 6):
At first, CO only had six A300s for a while. They were all white tails.

These three were first delivered to SQ, then spent some time in storage before heading west.

Not my favorite airplane, but I did get to fly EA PDX-SEA-PDX and CO EWR-SEA (when CO had their SEA-NRT flight, and the through flight number from EWR was operated by the A300), from a passenger standpoint, IMO, the A300 lacked something vs the L1011 or DC10, (and not just the tail engine).

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: celestar
Posted 2013-03-07 02:32:04 and read 16157 times.

Personally, I think the A300 is one of my most favorite plane and it kind of introduce what future AIRBUS long/wide body plane looks like (I think A330/340 follow the same fuselarge)
It was very popular in Asia and for the first time, most intra-Asia flight can enjoy wide body comfort.
For some reason, aside from JAS in Japan, Airbus was not able to sell to ANA of JAL. ANA, despite a sales commission scandal, had a lot of Tristar, yet another of my favorite plane.
Find it hard to like DC 10, I do not appreciate its look for some reason. Again, very personal remark.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-03-07 02:41:35 and read 16120 times.

LH used the A300 on certain TATL fölights, such as FRA-BOS and IIRC PA used the A300 on TATL as well, not only on flights radiating form JFK and the famous IGS internal German services.

Th A310 must be added to this discussion, which had a longer range and is still in use with some air forces such as the Canadian and the German. Plus, let's not forget freight, UPS and DHL have A300s and FX both the 300 and the 310. Plus a nu,mber pof smaller freight carriers who may use these a/c for some time to come.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: col
Posted 2013-03-07 03:03:07 and read 16051 times.

In Asia it was the staple diet. GA, SQ, MH, TG, PR, CI, MU, China Northern, CZ, QF, Sempati, KE, Air India, PK, Indian Airlines and others, all had fleets of them.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: SpaceshipDC10
Posted 2013-03-07 03:09:52 and read 16038 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
LH used the A300 on certain TATL fölights, such as FRA-BOS

Yep, once they had the A300-600 and -600R.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
and IIRC PA used the A300 on TATL as well

I doubt that, PA used the A310-200 on trans-atlantic crossing and had to regularly fuel stop on the way. So with the shorter range of the A300B4-200, I doubt it seriously.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-03-07 04:13:42 and read 15861 times.

You forgot JAL who got some A300s through a merger with JD or whatever their name was.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 11):
shorter range of the A300B4-200, I doubt it seriously.

may be I am wroing but deep in my memory and in the latter days of PA they had to use what they had....

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: okAY
Posted 2013-03-07 04:23:07 and read 15824 times.

AY used to operate two A300B4, which joined the fleet through the acquisition of Karair, a Finnish charter airline. The aircraft were used on charter services mainly to the Canaries.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: SpaceshipDC10
Posted 2013-03-07 05:32:06 and read 15725 times.

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
I know a few european airlines had them.

Air France, Air Inter, Iberia, Alitalia, Olympic Airways, Lufthansa, Luxair. On the charter side, there was Condor, Hapag-Lloyd, Laker Airways, Germanair, Dan-Air London, Orion Air, Trans European Airways, amongst others.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):
You forgot JAL who got some A300s through a merger with JD or whatever their name was.

At merger time, they were indeed Japan Air System, but before that they were Toa Domestic Airlines.

In the US, there was Northeastern for a couple of years.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-03-07 06:24:08 and read 15631 times.

Why didn't more us airlines squire them that time

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: SpaceshipDC10
Posted 2013-03-07 06:47:15 and read 15574 times.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 15):
Why didn't more us airlines squire them that time

Which airlines and at what time ?

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-03-07 07:00:50 and read 15538 times.

Airbus made two variants A300B4- 200 and the 600

I just read the posted link above and it only mentioned EA, CO & PA.
Why didn't more us airlines aquire either version?

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: PRAirbus
Posted 2013-03-07 07:22:00 and read 15413 times.

AA had the A300-600R, delivered brand new from Airbus! AA used A300s on many missions, intial ones JFK-SJU runs, then most of the Caribbean from JFK/MIA and from the SJU hub to many US destinations. SJU-ORD-LAS was a route that lasted for a few years. MIA-LAX too use to get A300s.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: xdlx
Posted 2013-03-07 07:36:15 and read 15233 times.

Remember also... the A300 arrived before the B75/767 and as a twin it was somewhat a trendsetter. As discussed prevously it ws the first Airbii to enter the US market, first twin widebody, ONLY EA in the US purchased the aircraft initially.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: TheSonntag
Posted 2013-03-07 08:23:37 and read 14757 times.

When Airbus offered the A300, many doubted this company would exist 5 years later. Way too many national projects of European companies had failed before.

Also, ETOPS was unknown, and no one had seen a widebody with 2 engines before. Airbus only became a "real" competitor after the A320 was introduced and Boeing merged with McDD.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: AT
Posted 2013-03-07 08:31:28 and read 14672 times.

I have a fond, nostalgic view of the A300 as it was the primary aircraft I flew on as a child and teenager. (PIA, Indian, Emirates, Thai, Lufthansa, Air France). This is pure aesthetics, but I used to find the A300 cabin sleeker and more elegantly contoured and lit than the competition. And I was always fascinated by the doors, which pushed out rather than rotated. That has now become pretty much the norm now. Funnily enough, Emirates' A300s (which, incidentally were the first aircraft I ever flew on with personal television sets) were then the largest aircraft in their fleet. Now, EK's smallest aircraft, the A330 is bigger than that! How times have changed.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-03-07 08:32:29 and read 14657 times.

I remember flying MIA-LAX on AA A300. The plane was full and when we landed I
asked the pilot how heavy we were, can't remember that exact weight but the front
cargo hold was full of freight and part of the aft cargo was also freight as well as mail
and bags. Amazing what they could carry

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: AY-MD11
Posted 2013-03-07 08:41:25 and read 14561 times.

Dont know did PA fly the A300(lack of range?) to Europe but once i flew in PA A310-300 JFK-HEL via ARN in 1989. It had leaking wing fuel tank when we where inside the plane at JFK so there was few hour delay.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-03-07 08:45:32 and read 14516 times.

They also had the nickname of scare bus. They would be constantly
braking down or maintenance issues. I never had a problem flying on them
quite nice

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: SpaceshipDC10
Posted 2013-03-07 09:05:16 and read 15153 times.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 17):
Why didn't more us airlines aquire either version?
UA and AA received DC-10-10 up until the early 1980s from their original orders. Transworld Airlines (USA)">TW, if I remember well enough, also received a few more Tristars. Western went for more and DC-10-10. DL also sticked with the Tristar. Then came on the market the brand new 767, for which DL, AA, UA, WA Transworld Airlines (USA)">TW, WA ordered a considerable number. At that time, PA got a good deal from Airbus for some white tails A300 for their domestic network and in Europe. Soehow, the A300 was not deemed necessary by most US airlines.

[Edited 2013-03-07 09:06:17]

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-03-07 09:11:24 and read 14779 times.

Thanx for all the info on this post.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-03-07 09:45:28 and read 15148 times.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 25):
Soehow, the A300 was not deemed necessary by most US airlines.

By that time they had the 767 and the possibility of one type-rating with the 757.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 14):
Air France, Air Inter, Iberia, Alitalia, Olympic Airways, Lufthansa, Luxair.

... and add Transavia, SAS, Swissair, Sabena...

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: CF-CPI
Posted 2013-03-07 09:50:10 and read 15076 times.

The A300 took a few years to find its niche. It was originally envisioned as a widebody for European carriers between large city pairs. The first version of the A300 to find use on the continent (spring 1974) was the B2 model, which did not have the range for US transcons. Airbus upgraded its offering to the A300B4, which included uprated GE CF6 engines and some leading edge devices at the wing root. With more power and better field performance, this model was ordered in the late 70s and became part of Eastern's "free trial period" beginning in late 1977. MIA and ATL to both LAX and SFO were the order of the day at EA, using A300s. In many ways the trijets were more capable, but the A300B4 was often sufficient and cheaper to operate, especially after the Round 2 oil crisis in 1979.

There are two other factors at work regarding US acceptance of the A300. One was tech support, in which Airbus had to prove itself, and the other was deregulation, which worked in the A300's favor, since it was an efficient twin vs the DC-10 and L1011, and also the 747, which was still used domestically at the time. As frequency became more important, the slightly smaller twin was an advantage.

The A300-600 did not come along until around the early 80s, and gave a further boost to payload/range. AA liked it, and along with LH, did use it on the North Atlantic for a spell, something the B4 could not handle. Western considered the A300 carefully in the late 70s, but rejected it in favor of a mix of more 727s and DC-10s. I have also heard that WA wanted A310s in the 1980s, but had a huge debt with Boeing, which dominated any purchases. Had National not been absorbed into Pan Am, I have always been curious whether there would have been NA A300s plying the Northeast-Florida circuit against EA.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: SpaceshipDC10
Posted 2013-03-07 10:14:46 and read 14768 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 27):
... and add [...], Swissair, Sabena...

No and no. Both SR and SN never had A300s

Quoting mia305 (Reply 17):
Airbus made two variants A300B4- 200 and the 600

As you see on the link I provided earlier, there were four different variants, three of which had several sub-variants.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: discovery1
Posted 2013-03-07 10:15:43 and read 14832 times.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 25):
Soehow, the A300 was not deemed necessary by most US airlines.

As was mentioned the early A300s were short legged. Also I believe they had problems climbing fast enough to get over the Rockies when flying from the west coast, at least during the summer. I don't know if this was also true of the 600s though.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-03-07 10:17:51 and read 14840 times.

Quoting discovery1 (Reply 30):
Also I believe they had problems climbing fast enough to get over the Rockies when flying from the west coast, at least during the summer.

The highest peak in the US Rockies isn't even 15,000 feet. How could the A300 not make it over the mountain range with a 2-hour head start?

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: AT
Posted 2013-03-07 10:24:15 and read 14685 times.

what does "white tails" mean?

A number of posters have referred to this:

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 6):
At first, CO only had six A300s for a while. They were all white tails.
Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 25):
At that time, PA got a good deal from Airbus for some white tails A300 for their domestic network and in Europe.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-03-07 10:28:42 and read 14647 times.

Quoting AT (Reply 32):
what does "white tails" mean?

A manufacturer producing a plane on spec, without there being a firm customer order behind it.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: dergay
Posted 2013-03-07 10:29:09 and read 14630 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 27):

... and add Transavia, SAS, Swissair, Sabena.

Don't forget BCal (British Caledonian) as a 310 operator. You also had a hodge-podge of North African operators including RAM, Air Algerie, Tunisair and Libyan Arab, to say nothing of Alia, PIA, Mahan Air and IranAir further east. Methinks it is still in service and will remain so for a while.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-03-07 10:32:24 and read 14629 times.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 29):
No and no. Both SR and SN never had A300s

True . They were A310, but it was an answer to :

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
Th A310 must be added to this discussion, which had a longer range

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: SpaceshipDC10
Posted 2013-03-07 10:34:51 and read 14590 times.

Quoting AT (Reply 32):
what does "white tails" mean?

White tails are aircraft built for which the manufacturer has no customer either because some orders were canceled while production on said aircraft was already underway, ie:

Continental A300B4-203 N970C '250' first flew on May 31, 1983 but was delivered to first operator (CO) only on April 25, 1986.

or as in my example in reply 6, the manufacturer bought back some of its aircraft following an agreement with the airline concerned.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: NorthStarDC4M
Posted 2013-03-07 11:03:58 and read 14367 times.

Produced models of the A300:
Model - Number Produced
A300B1 - 2
A300B2-100 - 14
A300B2-1C - 16
A300B2-200 - 11
A300B2K - 14
A300B4-100 - 51
A300B4-200 - 117
A300B4-200FF - 11
A300C4-200 - 2
A300F4-200 - 2
A300B4-2C - 9
A300B4-600 - 38
A300B4-600R - 174
A300B4-600ST - 5
A300F4-600R - 105

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: american 767
Posted 2013-03-07 12:34:56 and read 13600 times.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20):
Airbus only became a "real" competitor after the A320 was introduced

In the narrow body market yes. But don't forget that a few years before when Boeing introduced the 767, back in the early 80s, it was already a direct competitor to Airbus in the wide body market. The 767 was Boeing's answer to the A300 and A310.

Ben Soriano

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: SpaceshipDC10
Posted 2013-03-07 14:28:21 and read 12751 times.

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
When the A300 was put into to service why didn't more airlines acquire them?

As already said, Airbus and its aircraft were all new to the market. By the end of 1980, 120 aircraft were delivered worldwide, while there were 339 DC-10 and 195 L-1011. These numbers give you an idea of what the A300 was up against then. But, ironically, it outlasted both Trijets on the production line whether in numbers built and delivered or on the number of years it was produced.

Topic: Why didn't the A300 have more orders?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-03-07 19:25:40 and read 11394 times.

Trivia,


At Continental when the engines on our A300's were getting high in hours and cycles with subsequent deterioration in performance they would often be transplanted to the DC10 which had the same engine.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-03-07 20:30:56 and read 10926 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
LH used the A300 on certain TATL fölights, such as FRA-BOS

And YUL and PHL. LH's use of the A300 on TATL was fairly brief.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
IIRC PA used the A300 on TATL as well, not only on flights radiating form JFK and the famous IGS internal German services.

I can't recall Pan Am ever using their A300s, which were the shorter range B4-200 model, on TATL routes. Doubt they would have had the range for even the shortest TATL routes (apart from Iceland which Pan Am had dropped by then).

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-03-07 20:34:09 and read 10884 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 41):

I can't recall Pan Am ever using their A300s, which were the shorter range B4-200 model, on TATL routes. Doubt they would have had the range for even the shortest TATL routes (apart from Iceland which Pan Am had dropped by then).

Pan Am flew to Iceland ?

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-03-07 21:02:16 and read 10829 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 42):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 41):

I can't recall Pan Am ever using their A300s, which were the shorter range B4-200 model, on TATL routes. Doubt they would have had the range for even the shortest TATL routes (apart from Iceland which Pan Am had dropped by then).

Pan Am flew to Iceland ?

Yes, until sometime in the mid-1970s, when KEF still had a major U.S. military presence. In the early '60s KEF was also one of Pan Am's last propeller destinations.

In August 1963 they had one all-Y class DC-7C that operated IDL-KEF-PIK-LHR. Their only other transatlantic propeller flight then was a once-weekly DC-7C IDL-BOS-SMA (Santa Maria, Azores)-LIS.

In 1966 and 1969 timetables KEF was a stop on a once-a-week 707 JFK-KEF-PIK-CPH.

In their April 29, 1973 timetable KEF was a stop on one 707 a week that operated JFK-KEF-SNN. The other 6 days it was JFK-SNN nonstop. Route map from that 1973 timetable here.
http://www.departedflights.com/PA042973.html

Can't find any timetables between 1973 and 1979 but by 1979 they'd dropped KEF.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: NWAROOSTER
Posted 2013-03-08 16:38:32 and read 10076 times.

Not that I was an Airbus fan, I always wondered the following. When Northwest stopped flying their DC-10-40s across the Pacific, as Northwest's DC-10s had about 244 seats and the Airbus A300 had about six seats lees, why didn't Northwest then obtain some A300s to fly where Northwest was flying the DC-10 domestically. For about a half dozen less seats the A300 had two engines and a two man flight crew. There are only two reasons I think of other than the fact Northwest already had the DC-10. The number one reason was the A300 had GE engines and Northwest used Pratt & Whitney engines. The other reason was that the DC-10 had three engines and could be ferried with only two engines if one failed and needed replacement. The A300 could not be ferried if an engine failed.
I thought flying the A300, like Eastern did, would much more cost effective.   

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-03-08 17:00:15 and read 10005 times.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):
. For about a half dozen less seats the A300 had two engines and a two man flight crew.

Only the A300-600 had a two person flight crew. The early model A300B4-200 like those operated by Eastern and Continental had a 3-person flight crew. The A300-600 had major changes to match the A310 which had a 2-crew cockpit.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):
The number one reason was the A300 had GE engines and Northwest used Pratt & Whitney engines.

The A300 was also available with P&W engines. Several carriers ordered P&W engines on their A300s.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: SpaceshipDC10
Posted 2013-03-08 17:11:42 and read 9944 times.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):



Perhaps it was a matter of flexibility between domestic flights and trans-atlantic crossing rather than having two separate fleets. The A300 was available with PW engines too, before the -600 arrived on the market.

[quote=Viscount724,reply=45]Only the A300-600 had a two person flight crew.

No, the A300B4-200FF (Forward-Facing) existed too. On Wikipedia it is said it was the world first widebody aircraft with 2 crew cockpit. Garuda was the first to receive it, an A300B4-220, a PW-powered aircraft.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: NWAROOSTER
Posted 2013-03-08 17:12:26 and read 9910 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 45):
Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):
. For about a half dozen less seats the A300 had two engines and a two man flight crew.

Only the A300-600 had a two person flight crew. The early model A300B4-200 like those operated by Eastern and Continental had a 3-person flight crew. The A300-600 had major changes to match the A310 which had a 2-crew cockpit.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):
The number one reason was the A300 had GE engines and Northwest used Pratt & Whitney engines.

The A300 was also available with P&W engines. Several carriers ordered P&W engines on their A300s.

Thanks........ I forgot the early A300s had a three man crew.   

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Polot
Posted 2013-03-08 17:12:54 and read 9927 times.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):
There are only two reasons I think of other than the fact Northwest already had the DC-10. The number one reason was the A300 had GE engines and Northwest used Pratt & Whitney engines. The other reason was that the DC-10 had three engines and could be ferried with only two engines if one failed and needed replacement. The A300 could not be ferried if an engine failed.

You are missing another reason. NW already owned and had its employee's trained on the DC-10. Buying new A300s and training their crews on them probably would have wiped out any savings that the A300 had over the DC-10. I don't know what time frame you are talking about (I am not that familiar with NW), but EA truly got a very sweetheart deal as Airbus was desperate to break into the US market (where, as someone mentioned above, they got to trial some aircraft immediately for a few months before making a decision on whether to purchase the A300 or not).

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: NWAROOSTER
Posted 2013-03-08 18:18:18 and read 9715 times.

Quoting Polot (Reply 48):
Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):
There are only two reasons I think of other than the fact Northwest already had the DC-10. The number one reason was the A300 had GE engines and Northwest used Pratt & Whitney engines. The other reason was that the DC-10 had three engines and could be ferried with only two engines if one failed and needed replacement. The A300 could not be ferried if an engine failed.

You are missing another reason. NW already owned and had its employee's trained on the DC-10. Buying new A300s and training their crews on them probably would have wiped out any savings that the A300 had over the DC-10. I don't know what time frame you are talking about (I am not that familiar with NW), but EA truly got a very sweetheart deal as Airbus was desperate to break into the US market (where, as someone mentioned above, they got to trial some aircraft immediately for a few months before making a decision on whether to purchase the A300 or not).

I am talking about 1980 or so. Yes, I had stated Northwest already had the DC-10, and also did not mention that the Iron Fisted Donald Nyrop was in charge. I am reasonably sure Airbus would have given Northwest a sweet heart deal on the A300. The United States was Boeing territory along with Douglas coming in second. Northwest Airlines was the first North American purchaser of the A320 and probably got a good deal. Northwest Airlines basically got a freebee offer on some MD-80s and McDonnell Douglas had about three ready to deliver when the pilots at Northwest went on strike in 1978. The deal got scrapped. McDonnell Douglas had even included free maintenance in the deal.   

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Flyingsottsman
Posted 2013-03-09 04:53:45 and read 9287 times.

QF only had 4 in their fleet, they were ordered for TAA and placed on the SYD/MEL/BNE corridoor just after the 2 airline policy was scrapped. When TAA became Australian and then in 1992 became QF 2 of the 4 A300s were painted in QF colours but did niot last to much longer in the Qantas fleet. A new airline started up in Austraila after deregluation called Compas but that did not last to long before it went bankrupted they to also used A300s. So there have not been a lot of A300s in Australia but yes they were prety popular with the South East Asian carriers.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: SpaceshipDC10
Posted 2013-03-09 09:42:24 and read 8843 times.

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 50):
When TAA became Australian and then in 1992 became QF 2 of the 4 A300s were painted in QF colours

Actually, the four A300s were painted just before or after the merger in 1993, not 1992. Although QF only got four of these, TAA ordered and received five aircraft, one was sold to JD in 1987.

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 50):
A new airline started up in Austraila after deregluation called Compas but that did not last to long before it went bankrupted they to also used A300s.

Yep, the first two were in fact leased from ZB.

For more info about A300 and A310 registered in Australia, here is an interesting link:

http://www.aussieairliners.org/a300/a300australia.htm

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Flyingsottsman
Posted 2013-03-10 03:50:35 and read 8198 times.

1993 was it I do stand to be corrected   I only ever remember seeing 1 A300 in QF colours.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: vfw614
Posted 2013-03-10 04:35:33 and read 8068 times.

We are really talking about a different time - when airlines were not ordering airplanes by the dozen, but smaller orders which today would hardly be noticed were seen as a huge success.

If I am not mistaken, Airbus sold 500+ Airbus A300, compared to 360 or so DC-10 sold by MDD and roughly 250 TriStars sold by Lockheed. These were widebody aircraft manufactured by much more established manufacturers with - at the time - a proven track record. IMHO, the airbus A300 is a decent enough success story.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: SpaceshipDC10
Posted 2013-03-10 05:07:43 and read 8003 times.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 53):
If I am not mistaken, Airbus sold 500+ Airbus A300, compared to 360 or so DC-10 sold by MDD and roughly 250 TriStars sold by Lockheed. These were widebody aircraft manufactured by much more established manufacturers with - at the time - a proven track record. IMHO, the airbus A300 is a decent enough success story.

As I said in a previous post, the A300 outnumbered the Trijets and outlasted them in production since the last one was delivered in 2007 while the last deliveries for the Trijets happened in 1985 and 1989 for the L-1011 and DC-10 respectively.

Airbus produced 561 A300s, Lockheed 250 Tristar and MDC 386 civilian DC-10s. At the end of 1985, there were already 258 A300 produced, and by the end of 1989 the number had risen to 320. Of course, the Airbus production benefited from the orders by FedEx and UPS that translated in about 100 airframes built between 1994 and 2007 just for these two companies.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: FlyCaledonian
Posted 2013-03-10 06:35:17 and read 7850 times.

One of the big gaps in the operators for the A300 is BA - BEA orderd the TriStar 1 for its European operations (althought they entered service in BA colours). With Rolls Royce so heavily tied up with the TriStar, it wasn't in the interest of the UK government to have BEA order the A300 with its GE engines. Other threads on here tell the story of how the UK government stayed out of Airbus initially, and left privately owned Hawker Siddeley to be initially involved. If things had worked out differently in the 1960s the A300 would very likely have stayed RR powered, with the potential for subsequent orders by BEA/BA.

In the early 1980s BA opted for the RR powered 757 over the GE or PW powered A310 for its Trident replacement, and in the late 1980s the RR powered 767 (same engines as the 744) to replace the TriStars. I'm not sure what RB211 powered A300/A310 aircraft would have been like compared to the GE/PW powered versions, and what the demand would have been for such verions.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-03-10 07:36:39 and read 7676 times.

The A300 had the issue of economics at Range. While the A310 was a great idea, it simply didn't have the economics to take on the 763ER. Late in its career, it would have had the A320 and 737NG eating into its market. Due to their superior economics on shorter missions, that would have eaten into the routes.

The reality is the A300 needed more range. Hence the A330...

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 53):

We are really talking about a different time - when airlines were not ordering airplanes by the dozen, but smaller orders which today would hardly be noticed were seen as a huge success.

That should be considered. But at that time airlines would order a plane, see how it works, than order a few more. The A300 didn't have enough 'more.'

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20):
Airbus only became a "real" competitor after the A320 was introduced and Boeing merged with McDD.

That I would agree with. Once Airbus had the A320, A330, and A340 they were taken far more seriously.

Quoting american 767 (Reply 38):
The 767 was Boeing's answer to the A300 and A310.

And a strong response...

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: RomeoBravo
Posted 2013-03-10 07:54:16 and read 7613 times.

The A300 sold 561 and the A310 sold 255. 816 is a decent return and perfectly respectable for a first attempt at a family i think. The 767 only sold 1/3rd more.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: AngMoh
Posted 2013-03-10 08:14:05 and read 7545 times.

It has often be stated that the A300 introduced / forced ETOPS by Asian carriers flying across the Bay of Bengal and South China Sea as they were not bound by the US 60 minute restriction. My question is which carriers did actually take these first steps towards ETOPS and which ere the routes? My guess is SIN-MAD for SQ and CGK-HKG for GA (was it CGK?) were among the first, but is there any hard data/facts?

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: vfw614
Posted 2013-03-10 11:09:57 and read 7260 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 56):

That should be considered. But at that time airlines would order a plane, see how it works, than order a few more. The A300 didn't have enough 'more.

I would not call 561 "not enough more". What do you expect from a WB airplane sold / built from the mid 70s to mid 90s?

I am under the impression that our US friends here on a.net take a somewhat US centric apporach when assessing the A300. Of course it did not sell spectacularly well on the US passenger aircraft market, but the airplane was a huge success in Asia and in the freighter market and sold decent numbers across in Europe. It was never designed with transcon US services in mind.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-03-10 11:25:20 and read 7210 times.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 59):
It was never designed with transcon US services in mind.

I don't see why not, as the distance covered is only in the 2,500-2,700 mile range for most transcon routes. I'm not sure how accurate wikipedia is on the subject, but it has a cite which states that U.S. transcon distance was part of the brief from AA which Airbus was attempting to fill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A300#Development

Quote:
The mission requirements were given in 1966 by Frank Kolk, an American Airlines executive, for a Boeing 727 replacement on busy short- to medium-range routes such as United States transcontinental flights. His brief included a passenger capacity of 250 to 300 seated in a twin-aisle configuration and fitted with two engines, with the capability of carrying full passengers without penalty from high-altitude airports like Denver. American manufacturers responded with widebody trijets, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and the Lockheed L-1011 Tristar, as twinjets were banned from many routes by the FAA.


I'm not entirely clear what ban the FAA had on some routes concerning twinjets.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: vfw614
Posted 2013-03-10 13:54:33 and read 7011 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 60):

I don't see why not, as the distance covered is only in the 2,500-2,700 mile range for most transcon routes. I'm not sure how accurate wikipedia is on the subject, but it has a cite which states that U.S. transcon distance was part of the brief from AA which Airbus was attempting to fill.

The max range for the B2/B4 at max payload was approx. 1700-1800nm. The later -600R of course had longer legs, but it did only appear in the mid 1980s.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-03-10 14:02:44 and read 6972 times.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 61):
The max range for the B2/B4 at max payload was approx. 1700-1800nm.

I was going by the B4 range cited by the a.net article about the A300, which gives it a range of about 3,000nm give or take:

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=17

Is this incorrect?

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-03-10 14:14:49 and read 6935 times.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 57):
The A300 sold 561 and the A310 sold 255. 816 is a decent return and perfectly respectable for a first attempt at a family i think.

Agree. I consider A300/310 family sales an excellent performance for a company that was a totally unknown quantity when the A300 was launched. The 816 sold was far more than the 696 total of all DC-10s (446 including 60 KC-10 tankers) and L-1011s (250 built, 249 sold) combined. And those manufacturers had been in business since the earliest days of aviation.

[Edited 2013-03-10 14:30:32]

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-03-10 14:16:58 and read 6938 times.

When compared with most other European projects before the A300 (Caravelle, Mercure, One-eleven, Trident etc) or the L-1011, you'd have to say the A300 was a reasonably success, and fitted its niche perfectly at the time, for a high capacity short-medium haul plane. The rise of LCC, fragmentation and desire for greater frequencies mean that narrowbodies have replaced it on most of the shorter routes, but the highly successful A330 learned many lessons from the A300.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: yyz717
Posted 2013-03-10 14:26:17 and read 6905 times.

The earlier A300B and the later A300-600 are really 2 different aircraft. The "B" as mentioned had 3-crew (apart from the FF version) while the 600 had 2 crew. The 600 also had a redesigned rear fuselage (using the A310 rear fuselage) which permitted more cargo space (if you compare a side pic of the B4 and the -600 you can see the different fuselage). The -600 also had different engines, more range and wingtip fences.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 28):
Western considered the A300 carefully in the late 70s, but rejected it in favor of a mix of more 727s and DC-10s. I have also heard that WA wanted A310s in the 1980s, but had a huge debt with Boeing, which dominated any purchases.

WA actually ordered 6+6 762 but the order was cancelled before delivery.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 41):
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
LH used the A300 on certain TATL fölights, such as FRA-BOS

And YUL and PHL. LH's use of the A300 on TATL was fairly brief.

Air Liberte used the A300-600 one summer on CDG-YYZ charters.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 41):
I can't recall Pan Am ever using their A300s, which were the shorter range B4-200 model

I don't believe ANY airline used the B4-200 on TA...it simply did not have the range.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):
The number one reason was the A300 had GE engines and Northwest used Pratt & Whitney engines.

SAS launched the PW A300 on the B2 model using the JT9D-59A engine, which was similar to the JAL DC-10-40 engine. PW's though were rare on the B2/B4 models. More common on the -600's.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Stratofish
Posted 2013-03-10 15:03:08 and read 6768 times.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 65):
The -600 also had different engines, more range and wingtip fences.

Except for the very few early models that didn't have the wingtip fences. There was at least one infamous VIP frame that I can think of without them.


Quoting yyz717 (Reply 65):
PW's though were rare on the B2/B4 models. More common on the -600's.

Don't know about the B2s/B4s but I think I remember the PW powered 600s had the same or even slightly better range but seriously lacked take off performance (and thus cargo capacity) compared to the CF6 powered ones. Feel free to correct me though.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 41):
I can't recall Pan Am ever using their A300s, which were the shorter range B4-200 model, on TATL routes.

I used to have a (paper print) photo of a PA A310 at HAM from the mid/late 80ies, if that helps.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: maxpower1954
Posted 2013-03-10 15:39:26 and read 6660 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 31):
The highest peak in the US Rockies isn't even 15,000 feet. How could the A300 not make it over the mountain range with a 2-hour head start?

This has to do with single-engine performance, called "driftdown altitude" You can be cruising at 330 on two, lose or shutdown one and it's coming down, even with the good engine at max continuous thrust. On the A321 this is around 16-17,000 feet at the higher weights. On the mighty Fokker F-28 I flew many years ago it could be less than 10,000 under some conditions.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: vfw614
Posted 2013-03-10 15:53:07 and read 6615 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 62):
I was going by the B4 range cited by the a.net article about the A300, which gives it a range of about 3,000nm give or take:

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=17

Is this incorrect?

Not sure. Airbus no longer lists the A300B2/4 in the "out of produxtion section". A current operator, DHL, gives the range for its A300B4 as follows:

Quote:
Range when empty. 3.650 nm. Range max payload. 1.679 nm

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: maxpower1954
Posted 2013-03-10 16:38:00 and read 6499 times.

I flew two round trips in May-June 1981 on Eastern A-300s between MIA and SFO - a great circle distance of 2,241 nm. And the flights were full or very close to it.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-03-10 16:55:19 and read 6470 times.

Quoting Stratofish (Reply 66):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 41):
I can't recall Pan Am ever using their A300s, which were the shorter range B4-200 model, on TATL routes.

I used to have a (paper print) photo of a PA A310 at HAM from the mid/late 80ies, if that helps.

Pan Am's A310s were used on many transatlantic routes, mainly the long-range A310-300s. The shorter-range A310-200s were used heavily on tag-on sectors within Europe and on the Internal German Services to/from Berlin. I think the A310-200 was also used on a few shorter transatlantic routes like JFK-SNN.

In Pan Am's February/March 1987 timetable their 9 daily HAM-TXL flights included 2 A310s. All except 2 or 3 of their dozen or so daily FRA-TXL flights were A310s, and 3 of 7 MUC-TXL flights were A310s. Those numbers increased later as less than half of their A310s had been delivered by February 1987 and none of their long range A310-300s had arrived yet.

You can see Pan Am's aircraft types and flight routings from their February 1987 timetable on these pages.
http://www.departedflights.com/PA020187p73.html
http://www.departedflights.com/PA020187p75.html
http://www.departedflights.com/PA020187p77.html

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Stratofish
Posted 2013-03-10 17:10:30 and read 6428 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 70):
You can see Pan Am's aircraft types and flight routings from their February 1987 timetable on these pages.
http://www.departedflights.com/PA020187p73.html
http://www.departedflights.com/PA020187p75.html
http://www.departedflights.com/PA020....html

Interesting, thanx.
They even used a mix of A300 and 747 between LAX, SFO and SEA  Wow!

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-03-10 20:15:02 and read 6305 times.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 59):
I would not call 561 "not enough more". What do you expect from a WB airplane sold / built from the mid 70s to mid 90s?

When the competition breaks a thousand (767), I would say 'not enough more.' A 'reasonable success,' but not more.

You'll find I'm not very US centric. While the A300 did ok for Airbus, it didn't (financially) do outstanding. There simply were too many markets where other planes did better. You'll find I'm brutal in my assessments and I will treat Boeing the same as Airbus. In fact, as a 'Pratt fan,' as Airbus is their major source of platforms, you'll find I tend to find reasons to like Airbus! But not the A300. It just had too small a niche to get excited about.

Now the A330?   

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 64):
When compared with most other European projects before the A300 (Caravelle, Mercure, One-eleven, Trident etc) or the L-1011, you'd have to say the A300 was a reasonably success,

I grant the A300 that. It pulled European aviation up to a better standard. In many ways it made European aviation stand up and realize there was a global stage to compete upon. The A300 was a reasonable success.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: YVRLTN
Posted 2013-03-10 20:40:18 and read 6269 times.

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 50):
A new airline started up in Austraila after deregluation called Compas but that did not last to long before it went bankrupted they to also used A300s

Interesting to note some of these came from Monarch, who of course still operate the type, though not for much longer. Interesting to me anyway because one would have thought the A300 would have been a great pax hauler for bucket & spade airlines from North Europe to the Med, but not many of the charter airlines apart from ZB used them extensively or stayed around long enough themselves.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 55):
One of the big gaps in the operators for the A300 is BA

British politics were awful back then. Not sure why it was worse to support a wing manufacturer vs an engine manufacturer. I do find it interesting though that despite the British content how few A300's (and even less 310's) were operated on the British register. The only long standing one is ZB, as Dan Air, Channel Express, European Air Transport, Air Scandic, TEA, TNT and BCal with the 310 really were not on the British register all that long or in any numbers.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: seahawk
Posted 2013-03-10 23:41:28 and read 6167 times.

If the A300-600R would have come earlier, it would have sold better. The first versions were not potimized by the market, but by what politicians in Europe thought, the market needed.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: sailas
Posted 2013-03-11 00:20:11 and read 6105 times.

I remember LH flying FRA to HEL with the 600R before they were taken out of the LH fleet. Apparently so many tourists from Germany coming to Finland.
TG still flies the 600R, and when i was 7 years old i did fly the TG 600R, but i do not remember much and do not remember where...from Dong Muang to somewhere in Asia...

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Pacific
Posted 2013-03-11 05:23:22 and read 5854 times.

I do wonder what the trip costs of the A300 is like, compared to the A330 on a 6 hour/2,500nm flight which is around the max payload range of the -600R. The A300 might be 50 seats smaller, but its OEW is also 30 tonnes lighter. Despite this, the A330 was exceptionally successful in Asia for use as regional aircraft flying short flights which the A300 was built for. Did the 20 year old wing, and 10 year old engines (at the time of the first A330) negate the weight advantage in terms of fuel burn? There's also landing charges where the A300 would be much cheaper.

[Edited 2013-03-11 05:28:21]

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: vfw614
Posted 2013-03-11 05:34:41 and read 5894 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 72):
When the competition breaks a thousand (767), I would say 'not enough more.' A 'reasonable success,' but not more.

You cannot compare the A300 and the 767 the way you do.

The 767-300 which is the mainstay of the 767 family and is closest to the A300 capacity-wise entered service in late 1986, whereas the A300 entered service in 1974. If you compare "the 767" (=Srs. 200, 300, 400) with the A300, you really must also take in the A310 (officially, the A310 is a A300 variant anyway). The A300/310 sold 816 frames and the A300-600R became obsolete when Airbus began offering the A330-200 - whereas Boeing is still offering the Boeing 767-300ER (the market for civil -200s and the non-ER 300s has been dead for more than a decade).

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-03-11 07:52:00 and read 5708 times.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 77):
You cannot compare the A300 and the 767 the way you do.

I totally agree, as the A310 was called until it was sold the A300-B10. Plus, the transformations of the 767 in termsd of size, equipment are quite comparable to what Airbus did to the initial WB family.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 72):
When the competition breaks a thousand (767), I would say 'not enough more.' A 'reasonable success,' but not more.
You'll find I'm not very US centric

Let's put it this way : of all the orders for the 767, retract just the "captive" markets of the US, Japan and - on its very own - British Airways, which rep^resent more than half of the nuimbers ( about two thirds in my opinion ) and you'll see that the remainig orders do not match the international success of the Airbi : Just one example : there was a time when Airbus had totally invaded the famous "Silk Route", from the Middle East to China and sights of the 767 were scarce.
I dare say that 800+ airframes sold for the first production of the total newcomer on a market dominated by the US was a phenomenal success, and financially a very good investments with returns that are still received by these governments.

Last aspect of the subject which has already been suggested by some posters : the A300 paved the way for its successors.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: speedygonzales
Posted 2013-03-11 08:00:47 and read 5645 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 78):
Last aspect of the subject which has already been suggested by some posters : the A300 paved the way for its successors.

As of February Airbus has sold 2439 and delivered 2144 planes sharing the A300 fuselage.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: OA260
Posted 2013-03-11 08:04:50 and read 5625 times.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 14):
Olympic Airways

I have fond memories of the A300 and took lots of flights with OA LHR-ATH in the 80's and early 90's on it. Such a wonderful aircraft.
.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-03-11 13:28:44 and read 5439 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 72):
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 59):
I would not call 561 "not enough more". What do you expect from a WB airplane sold / built from the mid 70s to mid 90s?

When the competition breaks a thousand (767), I would say 'not enough more.' A 'reasonable success,' but not more.

You have to include the 255 A310s as they were the same family. The A310 was basically a shortened A300-600. Excluding A310 sales when discussing the A300 is like excluding the 767-200 when talking about the 767.

Until the A300/310 with 816 built, only one European airliner, the Vickers Viscount with 445 built (including prototypes), had even reached half of A300/310 production.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: SpaceshipDC10
Posted 2013-03-11 15:33:08 and read 5179 times.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 73):
Not sure why it was worse to support a wing manufacturer vs an engine manufacturer.

There was most probably the problems and fears concerning a big commitment with the TriStar and, around the world, which of the two manufacturer's names was best recognized ?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 81):
Until the A300/310 with 816 built, only one European airliner, the Vickers Viscount with 445 built (including prototypes), had even reached half of A300/310 production.

This truly shows how things have changed and what they were able to achieve by uniting their skills and strengths. They also had to be very convinced of their belief in a wide-body twinjet when until then twinjets were only small sized.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-03-11 15:54:42 and read 5111 times.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20):

Also, ETOPS was unknown, and no one had seen a widebody with 2 engines before. Airbus only became a "real" competitor after the A320 was introduced and Boeing merged with McDD.

These two events are about ten years apart. By the time of the Boeing-MDD merger Airbus was clearly the number two (soon to be #1), with the A300, A310, A320, A330, and A340. But you are right, it was the A320 that made Airbus into a serious player.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: EA CO AS
Posted 2013-03-11 16:37:45 and read 5032 times.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 17):
Airbus made two variants A300B4- 200 and the 600

IIRC, at least 2 of EA's initial deliveries were B2K models.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: bennett123
Posted 2013-03-11 17:19:26 and read 4965 times.

I imagine that two factors that told against the A300 were firstly that the airlines had existing contacts with Boeing/MDD and the side sticks.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-03-11 17:25:42 and read 4977 times.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 85):
I imagine that two factors that told against the A300 were firstly that the airlines had existing contacts with Boeing/MDD and the side sticks.

The A300 and A310 do not have sidesticks. They have standard control columns.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Felix Gottwald

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: bennett123
Posted 2013-03-11 17:43:44 and read 4942 times.

Silly mistake.

However, I think that the airlines existing relationships with Boeing/MDD were a factor.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2013-03-11 17:45:06 and read 4950 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 81):
You have to include the 255 A310s as they were the same family.

yah, only they were pretty much two different planes. The A310 shared very little with the A300 that came before, and the A300-600 used the A310 fuselage design to reduce wieght and cost.

Should we lump the 707, 727,737, and 757 into one family?


As to why it didn't sell better... Well it didn't help that the versions prior to the A300-B4 didn't have the range for any market outside the domestic european market. The B1 was effectively useless, but the B2's progressive MTOW increases began the process into a viable aircraft. Even the B4 was quite short ranged, imagine today if you wanted to sell a narrowbody with a 1,700nm range and it wasn't a RJ.

That said the 600 was a very solid aircraft, cheap to buy, cheap to fly, and hauled lots of everything a solid distance.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-03-11 17:55:09 and read 4934 times.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 88):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 81):
You have to include the 255 A310s as they were the same family.

yah, only they were pretty much two different planes. The A310 shared very little with the A300 that came before, and the A300-600 used the A310 fuselage design to reduce wieght and cost.

Should we lump the 707, 727,737, and 757 into one family?

The A300 and A310 have more in common than any of the Boeing types you mention. I believe the A300-600 (more than half of all A300s built) have a common pilot type rating with the A310.

Apart from the fuselage profile, the 737-100 doesn't have much in common with the 737MAX either but they're still both 737s.

[Edited 2013-03-11 17:55:46]

[Edited 2013-03-11 18:04:21]

[Edited 2013-03-11 18:05:03]

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-03-11 18:19:49 and read 4907 times.

The A300B was very advanced for its day. In fact a lot of basic premises introduced on that aircraft still exist on new build Airbuses ... like SRS. Although built as a three-man crew initially, it really wasn't necessary, as most F/E functions were automatic.

Although, I am glad the "sniffer fan" no longer exists.

But back in the 1970s, the concept of a wide-body twin was scary enough, without having to add that there were only 2 pilots!

I remember the Aviation Week editorials about how unsafe such a heavy aircraft would be on only one engine, and wonder how far we have come, and how naive we were. Of course, there was always that underlying theme of how "real" airlines fly Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas aircraft!

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: b2319
Posted 2013-03-12 09:35:36 and read 4583 times.

Quoting Pacific (Reply 76):
I do wonder what the trip costs of the A300 is like, compared to the A330 on a 6 hour/2,500nm flight which is around the max payload range of the -600R. The A300 might be 50 seats smaller, but its OEW is also 30 tonnes lighter. Despite this, the A330 was exceptionally successful in Asia for use as regional aircraft flying short flights which the A300 was built for. Did the 20 year old wing, and 10 year old engines (at the time of the first A330) negate the weight advantage in terms of fuel burn? There's also landing charges where the A300 would be much cheaper.

According to my MU desktop app,

the A300-600 seats 24 first and 250 economy seats; total 274.
the A330-200 seats 24 business and 240 economy seats; total 264.
the A330-300 seats 38 business and 262 economy seats; total 300.

From the seatmaps, the space difference between first and business 300-6 vs 330-2 appears minimal. I've flown all 3 types and I cannot recall any noticeable pitch difference in economy.

So, I fully agree that the A300-600 is still a useful plane, especially on certain intra Asian missions.

Regards

B-2319

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: NorthStarDC4M
Posted 2013-03-12 10:02:03 and read 4495 times.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 84):
IIRC, at least 2 of EA's initial deliveries were B2K models.

I wouldn't call them part of the "initial" deliveries.. Eastern acquired 2 A300B2Ks that had been sold to and returned by Iran Air (I've never been clear on if they actually entered service or not with IR) in 1980, N291EA and N292EA. In 1980 EA already had 12 A300B4-103s in service, 5 more -103s on order and 16 A300B4-203s on order.

Initially the 2 B2Ks were used on the LGA-BOS Shuttle exclusively for which they were better suited than the B4s (EA tried unsuccessfully to get FAA permission to fly them into DCA as well, but even the lighter B2K was considered too heavy). When the shuttle was moved to all 727 ops prior to sale they were sent into the main A300 pool but were disposed of in early 88. Both ended up with Alitalia (I-BUSM & I-BUSN) and were retired in the late 90s.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-03-12 13:40:43 and read 4306 times.

I really like the older Airbus Aircraft, the A300, A310 and A300-600R were and are fine machines.


I used to enjoy riding on them very much when we had them at Continental. I don't think there was a bad seat in the house and it was a great shame when they were disposed of. Unfortunately we never really invested in their maintenance and they were not reliable with us, if we had taken better care of them that would have been different.


I think the A310 / A306 Cockpit is one of the nicest looking I have ever seen. Wasn't Porsche involved in the design and ergonomics ?

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: ME AVN FAN
Posted 2013-03-12 19:12:40 and read 4165 times.

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
When the A300 was put into to service why didn't more airlines acquire them?

When the A300 came it was a total "unknwn" - Nobody knew whether the new consortium would stay in business for more than 5 years. Nobdy knew whether there would be any ohter planes of that line.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-03-13 04:25:06 and read 4004 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 93):
I think the A310 / A306 Cockpit is one of the nicest looking I have ever seen. Wasn't Porsche involved in the design and ergonomics ?

I agree, it was a very comfy, well laid out cockpit.
The "Porsche Design Agency", in those days were at the tip of "design", doing furniture, lighters, sunglasses...etc...
They were also quite advanced in ergonomics, so Airbus hired them to help with the A320 flight deck.
I think Porsche did away with that department in the mid-nineties.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: cmhwn57
Posted 2013-03-14 08:28:40 and read 3610 times.

I remember working the A300 at Eastern when it was a scheduled PHXATL run in the early 80s. And yes it was a freight hog and it was one of the easiest planes to work from a ramp standpoint. Essentially push the container position you wanted the "can" in and push load and it loaded itself and locked itself down. I also remember when Eastern flew the daylights out of them with the "Moonlight Special" where the bottom end was filled with freight and the top end (269 psgrs) full of people for $25/seat!

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: TrijetsRMissed
Posted 2013-03-15 22:47:19 and read 3160 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 83):
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20):

Also, ETOPS was unknown, and no one had seen a widebody with 2 engines before. Airbus only became a "real" competitor after the A320 was introduced and Boeing merged with McDD.

These two events are about ten years apart. By the time of the Boeing-MDD merger Airbus was clearly the number two (soon to be #1)

I assume he meant when the A320-200 became established in the early/mid '90s. Even with a full lineup of offerings, Airbus did not surpass MDC in EFO until 1993. The A320/330/340 programs were in the red for several years. Of course once they broke through, profits rose exponentially. Unlimited resources will accomplish that.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 57):
The A300 sold 561 and the A310 sold 255. 816 is a decent return and perfectly respectable for a first attempt at a family i think.

Actually, it was a rather poor ROI for both programs, given the development costs and low-ball prices. Tax payer dollars are what kept the A300 program going for the first decade-plus. The A306F recouped some of this in the later years, but by then the A300 was no longer the emphasis at Airbus.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: RayChuang
Posted 2013-03-16 04:15:28 and read 2990 times.

I think the relatively short range of the A300B4 and the fact Boeing captured a lot of the widebody twin market with the 767 was why the A300B wasn't more popular.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-03-16 05:37:34 and read 2899 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 56):
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20):
Airbus only became a "real" competitor after the A320 was introduced and Boeing merged with McDD.

That I would agree with. Once Airbus had the A320, A330, and A340 they were taken far more seriously.

True. People do not remember that the 320 sold some 500 frames before its first flight, which was by then a phenomenal success... and it kept being a world-wide success long before US airlines started considering it for their fleets.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 59):
I am under the impression that our US friends here on a.net take a somewhat US centric apporach when assessing the A300. Of course it did not sell spectacularly well on the US passenger aircraft market, but the airplane was a huge success in Asia and in the freighter market and sold decent numbers across in Europe. It was never designed with transcon US services in mind.

You are right. As I said ealier, the A300 family was a bigger success than the 767 outside Boeing's "territory" - i.e The US, Japan and , all on its own British Airways. IIRC, the first airline to break Airbus's monopoly on the "Silk route" was Gulf Air in the early nineties with thge 76ER.
Transcon was in the capabilities of the A300.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 60):
I'm not entirely clear what ban the FAA had on some routes concerning twinjets.

Before ETOPS, Europe had a limit of 90 minutes from an adeequate airport. The FAA staid with a 60 minutes limit, hence the ban.
The A300/310 was the first ETOPS-certified airliner.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 72):
When the competition breaks a thousand (767), I would say 'not enough more.' A 'reasonable success,' but not more.

See my post above and realise that in the eighties Airbus was already giving Boeing a run for their money. To relate relative successes only for the US market is being short-sighted

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 89):
The A300 and A310 have more in common than any of the Boeing types you mention. I believe the A300-600 (more than half of all A300s built) have a common pilot type rating with the A310.

Correct.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 90):
I am glad the "sniffer fan" no longer exists.

What is a sniffer fan as I9've never heard the word ?

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 98):
I think the relatively short range of the A300B4 and the fact Boeing captured a lot of the widebody twin market with the 767 was why the A300B wasn't more popular.

It is my opinion that the end of the A300 came - funny enough- from the 744 : Airlines operating Europe-Asia were making stops in the Gulf. (Then Qantas, BA, UTA, CX, SQ...etc)...The 744 range did away with that, leaving a totally empty market for Gulf-Asia and Gulf-Europe, for which the A300, even the 600 was too short-legged. Then wher the plans for the new Airbus "Twin aisles" become known, the end was well in sight.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 97):
The A320/330/340 programs were in the red for several years. Of course once they broke through, profits rose exponentially. Unlimited resources will accomplish that.

As all programs are : you can't make a profit before your first sales.
As for the innuendo about "unlimited resiources", see the WTO rulings. Enough said.

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-03-16 07:05:36 and read 2833 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 99):

What is a sniffer fan as I've never heard the word ?

I only encountered the sniffer fan on the A300B4 and the A310. But I understand it was also on the A300-600.

It was a direct air link, aided by a fan so that the pilots, (usually the F/E on the A300B4, or the F/O on the A310/300-600) can "smell" what is going on down below in the Avionics bay, so that an "Avionics Smoke" warning can be confirmed or denied. An ingenious system yes, but ... I always figured I'd have to be really worried before I stuck my nose in that thing!

Here is a link, for the A300-600 FCOM. Scroll down to page 28.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57513647/A300-600-Fire-Protection

Topic: RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-03-16 08:24:22 and read 2747 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 100):
Here is a link, for the A300-600 FCOM. Scroll down to page 28.

Thanks ! I've never heard of that one : "the movable tube is provided for olfactory confirmation of smoke in the avionics compartment"...
I love it !   


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/