Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Claims A300B Was First Twin-Aisle Aircraft  
User currently offlineGeorgeJetson From Bulgaria, joined Jun 2007, 169 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 12532 times:

After delivereing their last A300 to FedEx, Airbus made the following claim on their website at www.airbus.com/en/corporate/people/company_evolution/a300/index.html :

“Nearly forty years ago the Airbus adventure started with the A300B, an innovative response to airlines’ requirements. In 1972 the world’s first widebody twin-aisle commercial aircraft performed its maiden flight, the first steps towards changing the face of modern aviation.”

There were several twin-aisle commercial aircraft before the A300B came out including the Boeing 747, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and the Lockheed L-1011 Tristar. The A300B was the first twin jet widebody aircraft but certainly not the first twin-aisle aircraft. The A300B was a great aircraft and it set the standard for twin jet widebody aircraft, and made trijets like the DC-10, L-1011 and MD-11 a thing of the past. Nowadays, almost all new large aircraft designs (both single and twin-aisle) are twin jets and about the only exceptions are the A340, A380 and 747. All this started with the A300B, which did change the face of modern aviation.

I have been an airplane enthusiast for more than 35 years and I am amazed how many factual errors about aircraft are found in magazines, books and on the Internet. The error in this particular article is most likely a typo or an oversight. Nevertheless, information like this is misleading especially when it’s on the aircraft manufacturer’s very own website. Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to pick on Airbus, as I have seen blatant errors similar to this one on Boeing’s website as well.


Meet George Jetson
85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24796 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 12513 times:

They have omitted a reference to twin-engine. I've seen their claim before to the world's first twin-engine widebody (or twin-engine, twin-aisle) aircraft. Anyway, that's what they mean.

[Edited 2007-07-17 23:45:14]

User currently offlineFlyingcat From United States of America, joined May 2007, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 12496 times:

Someone on their web staff omitted part of the sentence. It is supposed to say world's first widebody twin-aisle commercial aircraft.

[Edited 2007-07-17 23:43:19]

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 12496 times:

should read "twin-engine" but a mistake like that on the corporate webpage is pretty silly


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineQatarA340 From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1802 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 12497 times:

I think they meant wide-bodied twin-engined, since Airbus and others have continuously saying this for years and years.


لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39684 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 12431 times:

Quoting GeorgeJetson (Thread starter):
The A300B was a great aircraft and it set the standard for twin jet widebody aircraft, and made trijets like the DC-10, L-1011 and MD-11 a thing of the past.

Hmmmm, how come airlines kept ordering the DC-10 and L1011? How come McDonald Douglas developed the MD-11 years after the A300 came out?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 12398 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 5):
Hmmmm, how come airlines kept ordering the DC-10 and L1011? How come McDonald Douglas developed the MD-11 years after the A300 came out?

How many widebody trijets are still in production/development = none.

The A300 was a game changer, it was the final nail in the coffin for the 3 holer as it led to the B767, A330 etc.



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 12378 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 5):
Hmmmm, how come airlines kept ordering the DC-10 and L1011? How come McDonald Douglas developed the MD-11 years after the A300 came out?

Of course it was the 767 that actually killed off those trijets, but why let a little something like history get in the way of PR?

The A300 had to be revamped as the 300-600 just to compete with the 767-300ER but still lost that battle, forcing Airbus to build the A330 which was a true A300 and 763 replacement.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39684 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 12284 times:

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 6):
How many widebody trijets are still in production/development = none.

Well aware of that. However, it's not like the first generation A300 killed the three-holer. As Ikramerica mentioned, it was the 767 that had more to do with that.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3390 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 12187 times:

747 entered service January, 22 1970.

So , in fact the 747 was the first widebody/twin aisle aircraft. By TWO YEARS before the A300 first flew.

Even better the 747-200 was in service before the A300 first flew.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24796 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 12180 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 5):
Quoting GeorgeJetson (Thread starter):
The A300B was a great aircraft and it set the standard for twin jet widebody aircraft, and made trijets like the DC-10, L-1011 and MD-11 a thing of the past.

Hmmmm, how come airlines kept ordering the DC-10 and L1011?

The early A300 had significantly shorter range than even the DC-10-10 and L1011-1. And the final A300-600, while much improved in range vs early A300s, was never a match for the DC-10-30 or longer-range L1011s.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 12148 times:

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 6):
How many widebody trijets are still in production/development = none.

Whip reversal time

How many A300s are still ordered/on the production line? = None.


User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 12134 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10):
The early A300 had significantly shorter range than even the DC-10-10 and L1011-1. And the final A300-600, while much improved in range vs early A300s, was never a match for the DC-10-30 or longer-range L1011s.

The original A300's (B2 and B4) were built for routes such as London/Paris - Rome, or New York - Chicago, where the range is reltively small, but the demand is high.



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlineSmokeyrosco From Ireland, joined Dec 2005, 2112 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 12102 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 11):
How many A300s are still ordered/on the production line? = None.

Still plenty of twins been sold



John Hancock
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6863 posts, RR: 63
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 12087 times:

Quoting GeorgeJetson (Thread starter):
I have been an airplane enthusiast for more than 35 years and I am amazed how many factual errors about aircraft are found in magazines, books and on the Internet.

Sad but true.

Quoting GeorgeJetson (Thread starter):
Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to pick on Airbus, as I have seen blatant errors similar to this one on Boeing’s website as well.

...and Rolls-Royce. I wrote to them more than a week ago to point out that they can't add. They claim 198 orders for Trent-powered 787s but their list only comes to 188. I've had no response and they haven't changed it.  Sad

And a couple of weeks ago SQ were saying on their website that the A350-1000 will seat 31 (sic) in a three-class configuration.

Joe Public may not know better (or even care) but the companies that make and buy the damn things shouldn't make this kind of mistake.


User currently offlineGeorgeJetson From Bulgaria, joined Jun 2007, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 12025 times:

Quoting GeorgeJetson (Thread starter):
Hmmmm, how come airlines kept ordering the DC-10 and L1011? How come McDonald Douglas developed the MD-11 years after the A300 came out?

It is true that the airlines kept ordering the DC-10 and L-1011. Back in those days, the A300 did not really compete directly with the widebody three-holers, as it was still a smaller aircraft with a shorter range. Unfortunately, the demand for widebody trijets was not big enough for more than one aircraft manufacturer to be profitable and Lockheed lost about a million dollars on each L-1011 that was built. As for the MD-11, even though it was developed many years after the A300, it did not sell well because its performance was below specs, and in fact many airlines canceled their orders as a result. Perhaps, the third engine on the MD-11 contributed to its range and fuel burn flaws. When the Boeing 777 came out, it proved that two engines are more economical than three for aircraft of that size. Ironically some of the first designs of the DC-10 were supposed to have only two engines, but a third one was added to improve short field performance. Also, it seems that McDonnell Douglas considered building a twinjet widebody before the MD-11 actually came out. It's really too bad that they didn't because they may have had more success that way. All in all, it’s unfortunate that McDonnell Douglas was absorbed by Boeing and that Lockheed no longer produces passenger aircraft as the aviation industry could certainly use more competition.



Meet George Jetson
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3390 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 12007 times:

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 6):
The A300 was a game changer, it was the final nail in the coffin for the 3 holer as it led to the B767, A330 etc.

Maybe you should do some very basic research before you say these things. The A300 as first delivered was widely thought of as a very BAD joke of an aircraft. The range was so poor it was suitable for inter-Europe flights and thats just about it.

Now when Airbus later increased the MTOW by a good bit and the range grew to something reasonable, it was a different story, but for much of the A300 life it suffered from the initial impressions it gave, It took the A300-600 to really change that.

One also notes that the A310 wasn't a short A300, but a virtually all new aircraft. Good news is thought that Airbus took much of the advances and rolled them back into the A300 development program for newer versions.

Boeing had its own screw ups and errors in its past, like the 720B so I am not just picking on Airbus to pick on them....


User currently offlineGeorgeJetson From Bulgaria, joined Jun 2007, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 12000 times:

Quoting GeorgeJetson (Thread starter):
Quoting WAH64D (Reply 6):
How many widebody trijets are still in production/development = none.

Whip reversal time

How many A300s are still ordered/on the production line? = None.

Touché!!!



Meet George Jetson
User currently offlineCruzinAltitude From United States of America, joined May 2004, 415 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11962 times:

Quoting GeorgeJetson (Reply 15):
All in all, it's unfortunate that McDonnell Douglas was absorbed by Boeing and that Lockheed no longer produces passenger aircraft as the aviation industry could certainly use more competition.

Embraer's name keeps getting brought up in the 797 competitor market. It would be interesting to see if Embraer can pull off becoming a true competitor. I think the industry could really benefit from that!


User currently offlineGeorgeJetson From Bulgaria, joined Jun 2007, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11962 times:

Quoting GeorgeJetson (Thread starter):
And a couple of weeks ago SQ were saying on their website that the A350-1000 will seat 31 (sic) in a three-class configuration.

That could be really bad publicity for the A350 program, and right now, they need all the help they can get to acquire more orders!



Meet George Jetson
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39684 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11951 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10):
The early A300 had significantly shorter range than even the DC-10-10 and L1011-1. And the final A300-600, while much improved in range vs early A300s, was never a match for the DC-10-30 or longer-range L1011s.

That's what I was thinking too in my original post. Perhaps I should have worded it better.
For them to say that the A300 made the DC-10 and L1011 outdated is false considering it's not the same market.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6863 posts, RR: 63
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11951 times:

Quoting GeorgeJetson (Reply 19):
That could be really bad publicity for the A350 program

But think of the legroom!!!


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24796 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11927 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 16):
Boeing had its own screw ups and errors in its past, like the 720B so I am not just picking on Airbus to pick on them....

Just out of curiosity, what are you referring to re the 720B. It was an excellent aircraft and Boeing's "hot rod" of the early jet era with fantasic performance. It provided excellent service for quite a few carriers including NW, Western, LH and others. It was especially good for carriers that needed good hot and high performance.

The orignal 720 with pure jet JT3C engines was much less powerful and always seemed underpowered to me, but the 720B with its JT3D turbofans made it a completely different aircraft, with the same engines as the 707-320B/C but about 100,000 lbs. less gross weight.

I've never heard a reference to "screwups and errors" in relation to the 720B so was wondering what you mean.


User currently offlineGeorgeJetson From Bulgaria, joined Jun 2007, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11882 times:

Quoting GeorgeJetson (Thread starter):
That's what I was thinking too in my original post. Perhaps I should have worded it better.
For them to say that the A300 made the DC-10 and L1011 outdated is false considering it's not the same market.

One could say that the DC-10 and L-1011 are outdated by today’s standards and of course, it wasn’t the A300 that made it that way, not directly at least. However, with the advances in jet engine technology that have taken place during the past decade, two engines make a lot more sense than three, and it is no doubt the A300 that started this trend, in widebody aircraft at least.



Meet George Jetson
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11866 times:

I wonder would I make the same mistake if I typed in French.

25 GeorgeJetson : Yes, bad news for Airbus but great news for the passengers!!!
26 XT6Wagon : It got the job done, but Boeing lost a good pile of cash doing it. It likely was good overall in that coupled with other programs in the future that
27 Post contains images WAH64D : I stand by my statement. It was the first of the widebody twins and heralded a new era in commercial aviation. The B767 was very much Boeing's reacti
28 Post contains images AutoThrust : Well until last week there were some, the same cant be said from the trijets.
29 GeorgeJetson : What could possibly have been wrong with the Boeing 720B? It was a great airplane and pilots liked it a lot because of its performance. The 720 was B
30 Post contains images Aircellist : About the game changer... Well, maybe it's true that the 767 replaced the DC-10 and L-1011, yet the A300B IS the first widebody twin, and as such, the
31 GeorgeJetson : With the recent success of their E-jets (that are selling like hot cakes), if anybody can pull it off, I think Embraer can. It will be a very good th
32 BoomBoom : IBetting the farm on a four holer A380 was probably not a good idea either.
33 GeorgeJetson : Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 26): It got the job done, but Boeing lost a good pile of cash doing it. Yes, it is true that Boeing lost a pile of cash when t
34 WAH64D : In what way is this groundless and premature assertion relevant to this thread?
35 Post contains links and images MDorBust : MD didn't go under, they were bought by Boeing and many of their products are still produced. LockMart doesn't seem to be in trouble either. Perhaps
36 WAH64D : I actually travel on the C17/C130 on a regular basis. As you well know, I was talking in the context of commercial aviation. Your entire post is a ve
37 GeorgeJetson : If jet engine technology becomes just a little bit more reliable (with a zero percent failure rate), perhaps one holers may replace two-holers someda
38 MDorBust : Which only means that Boeing had more financial weight to throw around. It doesn't matter how successful your product is if a bigger company has enou
39 GeorgeJetson : And the simple answer is: They make excellent freighters!
40 Post contains images Starlionblue : Please name just one mechanical device with a zero percent failure rate in operation.
41 GeorgeJetson : I can't think of any offhand, however the idea of a jetliner with one engine is not so far-fetched as there out thousands of small propeller planes o
42 Post contains images Airbazar : You're more likely to see pilot-less cockpits in commercial aviation before you'll see a single engine aircraft of significant size. However, I don't
43 Starlionblue : I will agree with Airbazar and predict pilotless airliners before one-engine airliners. Single points of failure are unwise and not very much liked b
44 PM : Not a lot of civil airliners in your gallery. The truth is that McD were out of the civil market when Boeing marched in with their chequebook. It was
45 OB1504 : Really, it (the 717) only competed well against the 737-600, and would've made a good replacement for older DC-9s and F-100s. It would've competed ve
46 Post contains images PM : I think you're right. Sales of the 737-600 have been feeble (69 all told and only 13 since the turn of the century). The 717 easily outsold the 737-6
47 Starlionblue : Not really. The 736 doesn't require it's own production line like the 717. It just slots in with all the other 737NGs and uses many of the same parts
48 PennStation : ETOPS killed the three-engined widebodies. Please tell me more about how TWA pioneered ETOPS with their A300's.
49 Burkhard : When a colleague goes to retirement, and you have to give him a farewell address, do you recall his good or his bad side? Same with the A300 - it was
50 Post contains images Maersk737 : Well, can't we just agree to the fact, that the A300 was the first twin-aisle, two-holer commercial airliner? We must be able to give Airbus a little
51 Post contains images PM : True enough. But no-one's buying the 736 - even without the 717 'competing' with it. So it's a moot point. On the other hand, airlines might still be
52 WAH64D : What is now ETOPS was initially an FAA ruling from 1953 allowing piston twins to fly no more than 60 minutes from suitable diversion field, it had no
53 SEPilot : It wasn't the A300, the 767, or any other plane that was the demise of the 3-holer, it was economics and technology. As WAH64D states, the original r
54 BoomBoom : Do you really believe that the A380 will outsell the DC-10 in its lifetime? I doubt it. The market for 4-engine widebodies is very limited and not wo
55 WAH64D : ?????????????? RELEVANCE: You are the only person here who thinks A380 development complies with the above definition when discussing A300, widebody
56 CygnusChicago : No we can never do that. It wasn't built by Boeing, so it had absolutely no influence on the market.
57 Smokeyrosco : eh?? Anyway, this is getting way off topic, congrats boeing on building the first Twin engined widebody aircraft.
58 Post contains images Maersk737 : He He Cheers Peter
59 Access-Air : From what I remember reading over the years that aircraft have been my hobby which has been for the Majority of my life...The A300 was considered and
60 Starlionblue : It is usually accepted that twin aisles are widebodies and single aisles are narrowbodies.
61 Dougloid : While we're on tthe subject of misinformation/disinformation presented as fact on the internet, I can tell you that the only airline I ever knew of t
62 Access-Air : Yes, Mate, I know this but the running debate is that the use of the term Twin Aisle being used for the Original A300 Airbus. However, the term was N
63 Post contains images Starlionblue : Yes.
64 Post contains images Flysherwood : I see that you failed to list the 767 in that list of yours. How many 767's have been sold in comparison to the A300? Who was really the game changer
65 Post contains images Starlionblue : How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The A300 introduced Airbus, which surely has affected the industry just a little bit.
66 WAH64D : Adding the B767 to the list would only add credence to my point that widebody twins had a big hand in the demise of the 3 holer. The list was to illu
67 Post contains images Flysherwood : The three holers as you like to call them lasted a very long time after the A300 was introduced. The A300-600, the 767 and I will add the A330 is wha
68 SEPilot : I will dispute this. The real game-changer was the high-bypass turbofan engine. It was inevitable that once it had proved itself that the way to go w
69 Jfr : Yup, Twin ENGINE........ I remember taking a PR flight from IAD when the very first Airbus was making a tour of the US. It had different liveries on e
70 Post contains images Maersk737 : Yes, yes yes....... But the A300 was still the first twin-aisle, two-holer commercial airliner   Just a tiny little bit of credit to Airbus for that,
71 BoomBoom : You're the one who decided to take this thread into a discussion of three holers, it's a natural step to also discuss four holers and the effect twin
72 Post contains images Maersk737 : And Airbus were right, ?   Cheers Peter[Edited 2007-07-18 18:23:08]
73 Post contains images Superfly : In that case, damn Airbus for the A300! I like the 4-holers and Tri-jets.
74 SEPilot : Hey, don't blame Airbus. Blame P&W, GE, and RR! As I have pointed out, the A300 really had nothing whatsoever to do with the emergence of twins.
75 Superfly : OK, OK, OK!
76 Post contains images WAH64D : I disagree, it forced Boeing into producing the B767 and the rest is history. I'll do exactly as I please, thank you. You call this a pertinent discu
77 Post contains images DarkBlue : Yes, Airbus deserves the credit here. The A300 was a significant milestone in aviation. Not sure why there's even a debate. You can argue it all you
78 GeorgeJetson : Since when did TWA operate A300 aircraft?
79 WAH64D : I think it was a bit tongue-in-cheek.
80 GeorgeJetson : Agreed, even though Airbus left out the "two-holer" or "twinjet" part from that article on their website, although probably unintentionally. I think
81 777gk : The 757/767 (developed parallel to each other) were both 707 replacements. The original 767-200 was designed to carry additional passengers (over the
82 GeorgeJetson : If find that 777gk's response and meticulous analysis is right on the money!
83 Post contains images Flysherwood : The A300 was such a game changer that Airbus actually managed to sell and produce an average of 10 frames per year for the life of the project.
84 PlaneHunter : Check the numbers again... PH
85 Post contains images Flysherwood : You are correct, 16 planes a year.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Etihad Introduces First A340-600 Aircraft posted Thu Jul 5 2007 13:29:26 by EI321
Airbus A380 - EA Ships First Production Engine. posted Thu Jun 7 2007 12:37:42 by WINGS
MH Issues RFP For 55 Single Aisle Aircraft posted Thu Apr 26 2007 04:48:51 by Mptpa
"Airbus Wiring Fixed For First A380 Only" posted Fri Jan 26 2007 17:04:24 by Pygmalion
Help Identify A Twin-engined Aircraft Over MAA posted Fri Jun 16 2006 10:55:32 by Scoliodon
B-757 Across The Atlantic! Who Was First? posted Thu May 18 2006 16:18:35 by Delta777Jet
Info About 1970s-1980s Era DC Twin-Aisle? posted Thu Mar 9 2006 07:45:21 by BWIA 772
737NG Replacement Could Be A Twin Aisle Airplane posted Wed Mar 8 2006 07:04:09 by OyKIE
Twin Aisle 737 In Red Eye posted Mon Mar 6 2006 22:16:53 by KatanaPilot
First BA Connect Aircraft Here (Pic) posted Tue Jan 31 2006 21:16:20 by B742