United Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8792 posts, RR: 17 Posted (12 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1808 times:
THE FAMILY IN DETAIL
From the smallest of beginnings, the A300/A310 Family has grown to be the most popular mid-size airliner family in the world. A300s and A310s are operated by more airlines in more countries than any competing aircraft. Most significant in this success, is their proven reliability with a wide variety of customers around the world: major national flag carriers, regional charter airlines, airlines opting for their first widebody and military operators.
In the 1970s, as widebody services were becoming a feature of long-haul travel, the A300 pioneered the twin-aisle, twin-engine airliner configuration. It was the first twin-aisle aircraft optimized for demanding regional operations, combining the low cost per seat of a twin-aisle airliner with the low cost per trip of a twin-engined aircraft.
The A300-600 and A310 are advanced developments of the original A300B2/B4, and are still the only true widebody aircraft in this class. The key design feature is the optimized 222-inch (5.64m) fuselage cross-section, the widest in its class. It gives exceptional passenger comfort and cabin layout flexibility, offering from 6-abreast to 9-abreast seating, and unlike competitors, carries industry-standard LD3 containers side-by-side in the holds.
It is this same highly efficient cross-section which has paved the way to worldwide success of both new and converted A300 and A310 aircraft in the competitive all-freight market.
The A300/A310 Family have been outstanding pioneers in such valuable innovative technological features as fuel-reducing wingtip devices, identical CRT displays on the flight deck, automatic windshear protection and digital electrical signalling (fly-by-wire) for slats, flaps and spoilers - reducing workload, maintenance and saving weight. Both aircraft are certificated for up to 180-minutes ETOPS operations, with both General Electric CF6-80 or Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines.
Qantas737 From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 738 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1709 times:
yeah, the 737 and 747 are still in production and the original designs for those are far older than that of the A300. The A330/A340 may be more technoligically advanced than the A300 but they sure as hell arent in the same size category. Airlines change over the years too. Look at the 737-100 and the 737-800. They may have a lot in common, but under the skin and the engines of course, they arent really the old 737 they used to be.
Plus, I believe the A300-600 makes a great freighter and transport for Defence Forces around the world.
BelugaBoy From Belgium, joined Mar 2001, 139 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1657 times:
I know the A300 has a very good reputation as a freighter. ( number + size of pallets ... ) For example DHL has a lot of A300's based here in Brussels and quite recently CityBird ( also based in Brussels ) started operating 2 A300 freighters as well.
I think that is maybe the biggest market for the A300 at this time but it will be around for some time for sure.
Notarzt From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 642 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1633 times:
The A300B4-600 is still in production. This model is quite different from the so-called "classic A300s", i.e. the A300B1, A300B2, and earlier A300B4 versions. For example, Airbus Industries adopted several A310 components for the A300B4-600 (which first flew in the early 1980's), including new materials and the tail section. Furthermore, the A300B4-600 (aka "A300-600") features a modernized two-crew cockpit - whereas earlier A300s had a three-crew cockpit.
Nevertheless, Airbus received only few orders for the A300 in recent years, despite the bestselling A300F4-600 freighter version. In opposite to the variety of A300 freighter operators, only a few took delivery of factory-fresh cargo versions, e.g. FedEx, UPS, Korean Air and CityBird. Most of the others, e.g. MNG Aviation, DHL or TNT, are operating converted pax A300B4s (some of these are converted "classic A300" versions).
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1626 times:
Interesting piece from Airbus, I guess we just all learned that the 767 is not a "real" widebody, it must be a "make-believe" widebody then.
In any case, the A300 is being built as a freighter only and for specific orders only a this time. I understand that all commercial aircraft are special order, but in the case of the A300, when there are no more outstanding orders, production will cease. Fedex and UPS have placed large orders for the aircraft, since it makes a very economical freighter (due to the width of its fuselage, it does make a better freighter than the 767) that will keep in in production for a few more years. In the late 90s, the last of the pax A300s went to Thai Airways, I think, not sure.
The A310 has not been built for quite a few years now, in the mid to late 1990s, VASP-Brazil was going to place, or did place, an order for about 30 of them that would have kept the aircraft in production; but due to that airlines continuing financial problems, the planes were never built.
ERJ135 From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 670 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1595 times:
The term "real" widebody is something Airbus is quick to point out when comparing to the 767 series. The Airbus can afterall carry it's LD3 containers side by side in the hold which the 767 simply can not do due to the fact it is narrower. This in turn means that as far as carrying LD3's the 767 offers little if anything over a narrow body like the 757 for example. Remember this is the freight hold and not the pax deck, but even there the 767 is the narrowest wide body.
While it's a bit off the subject it would appear that Boeing does this deliberatly because despite the extra girth of the 777 over the A330 & A340, The Airbus is still superior in the freight hold. And I guess this means that in the future we will see Freighter conversions on the Airbuses and perhaps less if any on the 777.
But as to the original Question of why it's still for sale, well If you get an order, you'd be silly to say no wouldn't you. Look at Boeing too when Continental ordered the 767-200's, no one had orderd them for a while either but you just couldn't say "we don't want your millions" could you?
Notarzt From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 642 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1525 times:
The different diameter does not play a big role. Just focus on the only comparable A300/A310 and B767 versions, the B767-200 and -200ER and the A310-200 and -300. Both, Boeing and Airbus, sold approx. 250 examples of their product.
>(due to the width of its fuselage, it does make a better
>freighter than the 767)
Due to the fact that A300 and B767 are definitely not comparable, none of the models is "better". The A300 is a medium-range, max. volume freighter - and a great plane for this purpose. The B767-300F is a long-range, heavy-weight freighter - and it's also a great aircraft for this purpose. Do not compare apples to pears if you would like to make a serious comparison.
Lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3448 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 month 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1459 times:
I have flown both 'A300 classics' and the A300-600R. I loved both of them.Too bad Olympic replaced all the classics with only three 600s.They are great aircraft for inter-eruropean routes. I liked flying ATH-LHR more on an Airbus than on a B737-400 that are now used because many companies replaced them with narrow bodies.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1446 times:
The A300/A310 and B767 series not comparable, I must diasgree to the statement by Notazrt, the 2 very good airliners are comparable in many respects, pax or freighter. Exact, of course not, comparable, yes.
GOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 month 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1418 times:
The reason that A300 is still in production is that airlines want it. Airbus have gotten back all the money from the development of the A300 and therefore every new order is a bonus, a new income. Simply, Airbus will build the A300 if airlines want it.
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!