Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Will Airlines Do When The A300/A310's Retire?  
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8686 times:

A lot of the 600 or so A300 and A310's in service now will be coming up for retirement in the next 10 years. There is no sign of "real" replacement designs from Airbus and Boeing.

With airlines needing to make efficiencies to cope with the price of fuel and the likelihood being that the price of fuel will not fall, what will airlines do when they have to wave goodbye to their short/medium haul widebodies? I can't see ordering A330's/787's/A350's and then abusing them by flying them short haul as being any kind of solution.

I would think that frequencies need to drop and aircraft size need to increase on routes. I assume that replacing 1 x 300 seater on a route with 2 x 150 seaters is not an economic option.

I see an unserviced gap in the market. Would this possibly be a way for Russia to design a widebody and penetrate the Airbus and Boeing duopoly (I guess China does not have the design expertise for a widebody)? A and B look like they are going to be too busy to consider an A300 replacement in the next 10 years, being tied up with 787, A350 and next generation narrowbody projects.

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVoltage From United States of America, joined May 2007, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8629 times:

I suspect we may see a revamped 787-3 to cover this market, although it probably won't EIS for at least another 6 years.

User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5824 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8624 times:



Quoting Art (Thread starter):
There is no sign of "real" replacement designs from Airbus and Boeing.

Au contraire!

Quoting Art (Thread starter):
and then abusing them by flying them short haul

Actually, a variant is already in the production process, albeit delayed. The 787-3 is the perfect aircraft for just such a replacement.
Barring that, an airline could settle for an A330-200, but that's a way more capable airplane than the 300/310.

Yep, the 787-3 fits the bill. It's been widely speculated that AA would order this variant to replace their Caribbean op A306 aircraft, and -8s to replace/augment the 763 and 772. But that's just rumor, and either way, AA is in no shape to order anything more than coffee these days.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8628 times:



Quoting Art (Thread starter):
I assume that replacing 1 x 300 seater on a route with 2 x 150 seaters is not an economic option.

That is rarely a good assumption. 2 x 150 seaters have much better RASM than 1 x 300 seater.


User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8565 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
Yep, the 787-3 fits the bill.

In the absence of a design that properly fits the bill. An inefficient, overweight shorthaul version of a longhaul design is definitely not ideal.


User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7412 posts, RR: 57
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8562 times:

It all depends what is /was the use of the A300/A310 :

European airlines who used the A300 & A310 on their Short/Medium haul network actually replaced it mostly by A321, added frequencies and removed widebodies from their short/medium haul operations. That 's the case of AF, IB, AZ, SR/LX.

Today BA & LH are the only European majors who use regularly widebodies on their biggest European routes, mostly because of slots restrictions at their main Hub.


The Airlines who operate(d) the A300/A310 usually replace(d) it with A330/A340 or will wait for the B787/A350 to do so.

AF : A300/A310 ---> A330/A340
LX : A310 ---> A330
TP : A310 ---> A330/A340
KL : A310 ---> B767
SN : A310 ---> A330
CY : A310 ---> A330
TK : A310 ---> A330/A340

ME : A310 ---> A330
AH : A310 ---> A330
IY : A310 ---> A330
RJ : A310 ---> A340


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8558 times:

I think many airline replace these aircraft with A321s during the last decade. I think a 787-3 would be about 15 tonnes heavier, equivalent to 150 passengers. That's what "delayed" it.

Apart from that I think the 787-3 would have significant more capasity in a short /medium haul layout.

IMO there is a niche in 757, 767, A300/310 segment. If I can find time I'll refine the "Greenliner" http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...pics/greenliner-1.jpg?t=1215000555

[Edited 2008-07-02 05:17:51]

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8397 times:

It's a pity that Airbus cancelled the A305 in order to focus resources on a more ambitious project. The A305 would be selling like hotcakes, Airbus would be profitable, and there would not be an insider trading scandal. The lesson is to focus on the products the customers want rather than the products that facilitate bragging rights at the golf course.

User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8384 times:

A321 & A332

or

B739 & B783


There are no other options as long A or B don't come out with a airplane to fill the niche and i don't see this coming as both have a lot of work to do with their current planned airplanes (B787 and A350, B737/A320 replacements, B777 NG or replacement, whatever...).


If B redefines the 783 and certificates it for the worldwide market, no only E/SE Asia this will the airplane to go as long as A doesn't offer a mini-A350. A320 and B737 series aircraft can not take over the role of the A300/A310 at every airport because of slot restrictions...


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8312 times:

Then there is OAK working on a A300 like Wide Body Short Range aircraft after the MS-21. Zvezda, do you know more? I've only seen drawings..

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8270 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
Then there is OAK working on a A300 like Wide Body Short Range aircraft after the MS-21. Zvezda, do you know more? I've only seen drawings..

As far as I know, they are only at the design study stage. I do think it's a good plan, but first they have to deliver a competitive MS-21. That will be difficult to do using Russian engines.


User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8032 times:



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
That will be difficult to do using Russian engines.

Why use Russian engines? That would damage the sales prospects of the aircraft.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7964 times:



Quoting Art (Reply 11):
Why use Russian engines? That would damage the sales prospects of the aircraft.

OAK is not really a private company. It is a creature of the Russian government (set up in the form of a private company) and exists not so much for economic reasons but to serve the Russian government's strategic interests.


User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3369 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7904 times:

Would this be a potential market for Embraer? They won't be able to go toe to toe against the A320/B737, but a A300/A310/B762 replacement is still open. It could be the stepping stone for long haul as well, as Airbus did with the A330.


Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7878 times:



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):
The A305 would be selling like hotcakes,

Really? It seems to me like either an A321-sized aircraft (or an even longer narrowbody) or an A332/783/788-sized aircraft is inherently more efficient. The real problem is not the lack of aircraft in the A300 size, but the lack of a slightly larger widebody truly designed for short-haul.

Had the 753 come out on the heels of the 752 in the 1980s, I have a feeling this conversation would look *entirely* different.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7846 times:



Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 13):
Would this be a potential market for Embraer?

It would be a bet-the-company move. It would put Airbus in a position to kill Embraer just by offering steeply discounted A330-200s. Airbus might or might not want to kill Embraer, but the Embraer board would have to think long and hard about that. If I were on the Embraer board, I would not want to launch an A330/A310 replacement until Airbus had scrapped the A330 line. I do think Embraer would be wise to be doing design studies.


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8380 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7731 times:



Quoting Art (Thread starter):
A lot of the 600 or so A300 and A310's in service now will be coming up for retirement in the next 10 years.

Are there really that many passenger A300/A310 aircraft still flying or are they mostly cargo aircraft? In the passenger version we've seen a lot of them be replaced by A321 and A332 aircraft so to say there's no "real" sign of replacement is a little incorrect. Don't assume that airlines always want an exact replica as a replacement aircraft. If that was the case you would have seen a lot more 783's on order. But that's just not the case. Airlines order new aircraft based on their future business predictions, not based on what their business was 15 years ago.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7703 times:



Quoting Airbazar (Reply 16):
If that was the case you would have seen a lot more 783's on order.

The 787-3 is not highly optimized for its role. It carries a lot of extra weight and fuel capacity that it doesn't need. A purpose-built aircraft with wings and structures optimized for short-range operations would be much more efficient. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it would be profitable to develop.


User currently offlineTylerDurden From United States of America, joined May 2008, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7686 times:



Quoting Art (Thread starter):
Would this possibly be a way for Russia to design a widebody and penetrate the Airbus and Boeing duopoly

Never happen.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
If I can find time I'll refine the "Greenliner"

Not a real answer since it's not a real plane.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5824 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 7387 times:



Quoting Art (Reply 4):
In the absence of a design that properly fits the bill. An inefficient, overweight shorthaul version of a longhaul design is definitely not ideal.

Pardon me for going to bed and allowing you to get away with making this statement.

Statistics for A300-605:
Range: 2950nm
Pax capacity: 266
MTOW: 375.1 ton
OEW: 180.7 ton

Statistics for 787-300:
Randy: 3050nm
Pax capacity: 290
MTOW: 364 ton
OEW: 111.5 ton


So, you can see that the range is similar, the capacity is larger, and the weight is DRAMATICALLY less.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 17):
It carries a lot of extra weight and fuel capacity that it doesn't need. A purpose-built aircraft with wings and structures optimized for short-range operations would be much more efficient.

The 787-3 HAS it's own wing, including but not limited to different wingtip devices. The fuselage is also completely different (fewer wraps on the composite tape machine), as are the landing gear.

In other words, look up the info yourself.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25346 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 7223 times:



Quoting Art (Reply 4):
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
Yep, the 787-3 fits the bill.

In the absence of a design that properly fits the bill. An inefficient, overweight shorthaul version of a longhaul design is definitely not ideal.

There has been speculation that Boeing's replacement for the 737 may be significantly larger aircraft than current models, so it may work well as an A300 replacement.

Excerpt from June 23/08 Aviation Week article:

Additionally, Boeing marketing vice president, Randy Tinseth, notes that a future short- and medium-haul replacement could also be conceived of as a twin-aisle. Although that would mean an associated weight penalty, carriers may see benefits in such an arrangement. For instance, he says, low-fare carriers could slash turnaround times, whereas network airlines could accommodate more high-yield premium passengers.

Meanwhile, the shift in capacity and delays in fielding new products could be good news for Bombardier, which is betting, with its 110-130-seat CSeries, that Boeing and Airbus will vacate the lower-end of the narrow-body field in favor of higher seat capacity.


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 7205 times:



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15):
It would be a bet-the-company move. It would put Airbus in a position to kill Embraer just by offering steeply discounted A330-200s. Airbus might or might not want to kill Embraer, but the Embraer board would have to think long and hard about that. If I were on the Embraer board, I would not want to launch an A330/A310 replacement until Airbus had scrapped the A330 line. I do think Embraer would be wise to be doing design studies.

I agree here Zvezda. Do you think that even if the A330 line were coming to a close, that Embraer would have the expertise under their belt to develop an aircraft that size?? Is building a bigger plane anymore complex than a smaller one, or is it just a matter of scaling up your design? Another point, if Embraer were to develop such an aircraft, it would most likely need to be CFRP since that's what A and B are up to now, and I'm not so sure that Embraer has that kind of capability yet. I do see them growing and growing and agree that design studies would be smart on E's part.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 16):
Are there really that many passenger A300/A310 aircraft still flying or are they mostly cargo aircraft? In the passenger version we've seen a lot of them be replaced by A321 and A332 aircraft so to say there's no "real" sign of replacement is a little incorrect. Don't assume that airlines always want an exact replica as a replacement aircraft. If that was the case you would have seen a lot more 783's on order. But that's just not the case. Airlines order new aircraft based on their future business predictions, not based on what their business was 15 years ago.

Agreed  checkmark  This is a very strong point. I think many operators have long begun the process of replacing their A300/310s with 321/332. If Boeing were to spend a little extra  dollarsign  and go the extra mile of developing a more capable 787-5, then I could see many 757-200 and -300 / 767-200 and -300 non ER / and possibly some remaining A300/310 fleets. That way you could increase capacity a bit, with cargo revenue, while not creating too much aircraft.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6483 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 19):
The 787-3 HAS it's own wing, including but not limited to different wingtip devices. The fuselage is also completely different (fewer wraps on the composite tape machine), as are the landing gear.

The 787-3's wing is a low-cost adaptation of the 787-8's wing. A purpose-built wing for an airliner in the 787-3's class would be very different. Considering the relative costs, I think Boeing made the right choice.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 21):
I agree here Zvezda. Do you think that even if the A330 line were coming to a close, that Embraer would have the expertise under their belt to develop an aircraft that size?? Is building a bigger plane anymore complex than a smaller one, or is it just a matter of scaling up your design? Another point, if Embraer were to develop such an aircraft, it would most likely need to be CFRP since that's what A and B are up to now, and I'm not so sure that Embraer has that kind of capability yet. I do see them growing and growing and agree that design studies would be smart on E's part.

While there are certainly some additional challenges in building an A300-sized airliner over building an E170, I would not say that it is dramatically more complex.

If I were running Embraer and the decision had already been made to build such an aircraft, I would definitely choose CFRP wings and outsource the wing fabrication. I would lean toward CFRP panels for the fuselage because barrel construction is probably too difficult for Embraer and would have to be outsourced -- to whom?


User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6439 times:

Quoting Art (Reply 4):
In the absence of a design that properly fits the bill. An inefficient, overweight shorthaul version of a longhaul design is definitely not ideal.



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):

Actually, a variant is already in the production process, albeit delayed. The 787-3 is the perfect aircraft for just such a replacement.
Barring that, an airline could settle for an A330-200, but that's a way more capable airplane than the 300/310.

Yep, the 787-3 fits the bill. It's been widely speculated that AA would order this variant to replace their Caribbean op A306 aircraft, and -8s to replace/augment the 763 and 772. But that's just rumor, and either way, AA is in no shape to order anything more than coffee these days.

As has been discussed at length in other threads, 787-3 in no way fits the bill, hence the complete lack of interest from the airlines.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 19):
Pardon me for going to bed and allowing you to get away with making this statement.

Statistics for A300-605:
Range: 2950nm
Pax capacity: 266
MTOW: 375.1 ton
OEW: 180.7 ton

Statistics for 787-300:
Randy: 3050nm
Pax capacity: 290
MTOW: 364 ton
OEW: 111.5 ton


So, you can see that the range is similar, the capacity is larger, and the weight is DRAMATICALLY less.

............ and pardon me for moving home and allowing you to peddle ludicrous numbers.

A306 OEW is 90.9 tons, half of what you claim. Range is circa 4000nm, a third more than you claim. MTOW 171 tons.

B787-3 OEW is 101 tons, MTOW is 165 tons.

Sources: www.airbus.com and www.boeing.com

Where in god's name did you get those numbers?

A306 can lift substantially more weight and carry it further. B787-3 would be marginally more fuel efficient on like for like missions where A300 is not carrying max loads, but certainly nowhere near good enough to replace A300-600s on the missions they excel at today.

787-3 was a "quick and dirty" development. It shows in the numbers.

[Edited 2008-07-02 15:35:45]


I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6332 times:



Quoting WAH64D (Reply 23):
A306 OEW is 90.9 tons, half of what you claim. Range is circa 4000nm, a third more than you claim. MTOW 171 tons.

B787-3 OEW is 101 tons, MTOW is 165 tons.

Sources: www.airbus.com and www.boeing.com

Where in god's name did you get those numbers?

I was thinking the same thing  scratchchin  The 787-3 as is, is not suitable to replace the 300/310 market, hence the lack of sales. It could be if Boeing made a few minor changes in the design. But as been stated above, how many A300/310 pax varients will be left by the time a replacement comes along, that haven't already been replaced by the 321 or maybe by the 739ER??? I think Airbus somewhat prematurely killed the A300/310 in the European market with their own 321. The 321 is perfect for Europe and works well in most other areas. I think AA should begin to phase out their A300s and begin to replace them with 739ERs, except the 739ER can't come close to the cargo capability, but it would much much cheaper to operate and would fit perfect with AA's 738s.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
25 LH498 : One thing that has been puzzling me, is why didn't Airbus develop an "A300/310NG" with fly-by-wire, newer engines and other improvements?? I would thi
26 Gilesdavies : Monarch Airlines have choosen to replace their workhorse A300's with 787-8/900's. These will however also be replacing the A330-200's and 767-300 in t
27 B727fan : And airlines like IR will keep flying them till cows come home Of course, I am being silly, and it is obvious that their crew has maintained the fleet
28 Post contains links YVRLTN : Check out this thread re the "A350XWB Regional" http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...earchid=4024742&s=YVRLTN#ID4024742
29 DocLightning : And the A330 and 787 are... small furry animals?
30 Columba : There is a market for such a plane, just think of all the domestic 767 and 757 in the US or in Europe at least for BA and LH don't forget in Asia and
31 Astuteman : Airbus IS profitable, and I'm not aware of any product in their portfolio which has been created purely to facilitate bragging rights at the golf cou
32 Zvezda : That was the A305. It was cancelled the day (or the day after) a much, much larger product was launched that would provide Airbus management with bet
33 Art : If only 1 manufacturer addressed the market, a good profit would be more likely and once one manufacturer launched a shorthaul widebody there would n
34 Astuteman : Sorry. I inferred the "purely" from your words "The lesson is to focus on the products the customers want rather than the products that facilitate br
35 Zvezda : That's a straw man argument. Just because A can be done or not done does not imply that only A can be done. Likewise, even if there were an either/or
36 Jfk777 : The A300/310 & 767 were made in the era of the short haul wide-body. Today A321, 757 nd 738/9 carry nearly as many people much more efficiently. AA w
37 Zvezda : Yes, however, the narrow-bodies don't carry the cargo that the A300/310 carry. Most likely this will be resolved by either or both of the 737/757 and
38 YULYMX : A310 got a range for a 10 hours flight... that is pretty good
39 Airbazar : But even AA has been phasing them out. BOS hasn't been an A300 base for quite a few months and recently AA has announced that they will be removing s
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...
What Will They Do With The Speedmarque? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 16:30:03 by Baexecutive
What Will NW Do With The DC-9's? posted Sat Dec 10 2005 08:01:44 by MD90fan
What Will Boeing Do After The 767-400? posted Mon Aug 6 2001 14:37:35 by VS744
What Will Boeing Do With The SIA A340s? posted Wed Feb 2 2000 20:10:01 by Mason
What Will You Do When You Are Spotting Alone? posted Fri Dec 10 1999 13:28:59 by HS-LTA
What Will Boeing Say At The 787 Call On Apr 9? posted Tue Apr 8 2008 17:32:28 by NYC777
Maglev, What Will It Do To Commuter Carriers posted Tue Mar 4 2008 01:38:10 by KAA330
What Will WN Do After The 737 Production Ends? posted Thu Jan 10 2008 15:45:41 by Jetblueguy22
What Will Qantas Do With A380's? posted Thu Mar 22 2007 08:17:14 by TruemanQLD
500px Convention. What Will Airline Do To Get It? posted Mon Feb 19 2007 00:07:39 by MXComet4C