Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Is "300" The Basis For All Airbus Models?  
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2885 posts, RR: 10
Posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 21148 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Personally I believe the 7X7 naming system for Boeing is one of the best branding and naming conventions in the world- in any category of business, not just airplanes. (my opinion) That said, is there a logic to Airbus' selection of "300" as the basis of their naming convention?
Friends of mine who couldn't care less about airplanes still know what a 747 is and have even gotten to know and understand a 737 and 777. They also know all the hyperbol around the 787. But none of them could recall A380 as the new Super Jumbo. They know of it, but for their lives couldn't tell you the model number.

I have to assume it matters to some small degree as they admiited to being slightly less fearful of a "7 someting 7" than an A321 or an A330 etc. (just human's preferring the familiar)
So, marketing aside, is there an engineering purpose or meaning to "300"?


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetofen From Sweden, joined Feb 2009, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 21115 times:

I think they started of with the A300 because it was originally supposed to carry around 300 pax. No clue to why they continued using the A3xx range though.

User currently offlineDTWLAX From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 789 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 21051 times:

Why is 700 the basis for all Boeing models?

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Personally I believe the 7X7 naming system for Boeing is one of the best branding and naming conventions in the world- in any category of business, not just airplanes.

Why is that so? Any specific reasons why you believe that way?

[Edited 2010-07-04 12:40:40 by srbmod]

User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 21029 times:

Quoting tofen (Reply 1):
I think they started of with the A300 because it was originally supposed to carry around 300 pax. No clue to why they continued using the A3xx range though.

True. When the a300 then was shrunk, they started calling it the a300B. The a310 was IIRC a 10 frame shrink of the a300, so a300M10 (minus 10 frames) became the a310. They then continued to use the a3XX moniker for the sake of continuity. Or else the a320 would be the a150, etc.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 20750 times:

strangely the majors are using the number 8 excessively in aircraft type number lately, because it is a lucky number in China.

User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2090 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 20666 times:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
But none of them could recall A380 as the new Super Jumbo.

I don't know where your friends are from, but I've made the experience that the "A380" is in the meanwhile the epitome for the biggest and most advanced aircraft by many people around the world.

Axel



Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offline1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 20524 times:

Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 2):
Why is 700 the basis for all Boeing models

The 700 basis came about because the 707 was the 707th Boeing design.

[Edited 2010-07-04 12:42:34 by srbmod]

User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6088 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 20392 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I always wondered why Airbus did the A321, A319, and A318? The 300, 310, 320, 330, 340, 350, 380 make a lot of sense to me. Of course Boeing had the 720, which was out sequence too.

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
I have to assume it matters to some small degree as they admiited to being slightly less fearful of a "7 someting 7" than an A321 or an A330 etc. (just human's preferring the familiar)


I don't think it isn't a big deal. Most people probably don't even know what kind of a plane they actually fly on.

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Friends of mine who couldn't care less about airplanes still know what a 747 is and have even gotten to know and understand a 737 and 777. They also know all the hyperbol around the 787. But none of them could recall A380 as the new Super Jumbo. They know of it, but for their lives couldn't tell you the model number.


My friends always know what they are flying because they are the kind of people who are interested mechanical items. A lot of people who travel for business a lot know their planes because they have favorites for a variety of reasons.

Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 2):
The 747 has been around for many years now and there are plenty of them around.
Give a few years, your friends may be able to very well identify the A380 as more of those start showing up. As of now only about 4-5 airlines are flying the A380.


I think that is true. The 747 has been in so many movies, TV shows, books, etc it has become part of society. Give the A 380 10 years and it will be right up there, at least in other parts of the world. Many people in the US have never seen an A380 and probably won't because I don't see any US carriers will buy them.

[Edited 2010-07-04 12:43:01 by srbmod]


My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 20317 times:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Personally I believe the 7X7 naming system for Boeing is one of the best branding and naming conventions in the world-

What? It's just 3 numbers.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 9):
I always wondered why Airbus did the A321, A319, and A318? The 300, 310, 320, 330, 340, 350, 380 make a lot of sense to me.

Because the A320 had a -100 and -200 version based on the wing as does the A321. So the need to distinguish size had to be made in other ways.

[Edited 2010-07-04 12:43:20 by srbmod]

User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2885 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 20268 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The friends I speak of come from a dinner conversation in London this past week. My observation is that people who are not particularly interested in aviation (and by the way I think that is most of the world - unlike us who love airplanes and flying) they are far more opinionated about "airlines" and spend little or no time thinking about what airplane they are on. I get a sense here that the often under underestimated American by non American's has colored a discussion I wanted to have about A: why the "300" numeral naming convention for Airbus? B: while I am American, I am in the branding business and American or not, in business the Boeing "7x7" naming convention is held up as brilliant as it was easy for the general population to remember and allowed Boeing to generate more excitement upon the introduction of a new model - and if that really mattered.
I am not in anyway saying one manufacturer is better or worse than the other, except for the fact the general pop has memorized the Boeing system and for the average person (American or otherwise) familiar is good.

My friends, who are also business associates (clients etc) had just flown in from many destinations. Most of them could not tell me what model aircraft they were on except for those who flew "a 747 or a 7 something or I think I was on an Airbus". These well educated, senior people consisted of: 3 American's, 1 Argentinian, 2 Brazilians, 4 Swiss (although 2 of the people from Switzerland were actually 1 Scot and 1 Portugese) 2 Japanese and 3 German's.

When we all met at the bar the first thing everyone said was "how was your flight" then I asked being the airplane lover got the response mentioned above. A few of the men were able to say what they flew- none of the woman had a clue "what kind of airplane were you on" except one American woman who said "a Britsh Airways 747" another American actually said "I was on one of the new United 767 and the new business class seat was great" one Brazilian said a TAM 777. The Japanese women said "a jumbo" one German said an A320.

I asked if the type of plane they were on made a difference and the American woman said "I always feel safer on a 747" but admitted that was silly.

Not knowing much or caring enough is NOT an American thing.



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19875 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 12):
A: why the "300" numeral naming convention for Airbus?
Quoting tofen (Reply 1):
I think they started of with the A300 because it was originally supposed to carry around 300 pax. No clue to why they continued using the A3xx range though.

   From Wikipedia the initial A300 concept and name 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.

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

Quoting VC10er (Reply 12):
: while I am American, I am in the branding business and American or not, in business the Boeing "7x7" naming convention is held up as brilliant as it was easy for the general population to remember and allowed Boeing to generate more excitement upon the introduction of a new model - and if that really mattered.

I believe it is as simple as Boeing has the benefit of having this naming on a larger scale much longer than Airbus. The naming 7X7 entered service in 1958. The A300 entered service in 1972. And it took almost thee decades for Airbus to produce just as many airplanes as Boeing.

For information, A Swiss American racecardriver wanted to start producing cars with his own name. Many experts at that time told Lois Chevrolet that no American could pronounce a French name. Next year the autocompany Chevrolet will celebrate its 100th birthday. millions of Americans use the french word Checrolet on a daily basis. EVERBODY has heard about Chevrolet. Same goes for the 7x7. It has been around longer. In 50 years, this will be very different.



The A380 was chosen out of sequence as the 8 reflects it is a double-deck airplane.

Not everything was chosen because of the lucky strategy, but of course it helped making the choice for the marketing departments  

[Edited 2010-07-04 12:47:44 by srbmod]


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18435 times:

Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 8):
The 700 basis came about because the 707 was the 707th Boeing design.

While previous Boeing models followed that naming nomenclature, the 707 had a different origin.

With the 500 and 600 series reserved for rockets and such, the 707 initially started out as the Boeing 700. But when the idea was pitched to Boeing's board to launch the aircraft, the PR department changed it to 707 simply because it sounded better (although Boeing 707 Jet Stratoliner was rejected because it was "too long for a headline").

So it's 707 because it just sounds right.


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18283 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 4):
strangely the majors are using the number 8 excessively in aircraft type number lately, because it is a lucky number in China.

That may be an secondary or tertiary motive, but mostly there are very logical explanations. With the a380, the 8 reflects the double deck design. The second 8 in the 787-8 reflects that it's and 8000 nm aircraft. The -8 in the 748 reflects 2 things, the 500, 600 and 700 were planned but had no interest from airlines. And the -8 also reflects the 787 tech that has been used (like the engines).

Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 8):
The 700 basis came about because the 707 was the 707th Boeing design.

Nope, other designations were taken (6XX, 5XX etc) for other products, like missiles etc. So they went with 7XX. They simply liked the sound of 707, so that's where the 7X7 designations came from.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18058 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 8):
So the need to distinguish size had to be made in other ways.

Except that every Airbus model since does distinguish size with the suffix (A340-600, etc.)

Quoting Kappel (Reply 12):
Nope, other designations were taken (6XX, 5XX etc) for other products, like missiles etc. So they went with 7XX.

   And before anyone asks, 800 is already used for hydroplanes.

Quoting oykie (Reply 10):
The A380 was chosen out of sequence as the 8 reflects it is a double-deck airplane.

It probably has at least something to do with 8 being considered lucky in Asia.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineetherealsky From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 17883 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 9):
People knock on Americans because many don't travel outside of the US. Well... They don't need to, the USA is huge and there are a lot of cool things to see and do. The difference between one part of the US and another is huge.

There is a lot of truth to that statement, but I'd argue that American culture (in general) is very uniform. Our media outlets (film, TV, radio) broadcast on a national scale. The things we eat, the stores we shop at, and the brands we buy (whether it be food, clothing, cellular providers.. etc.) are well-known to most other US citizens. We play the same sports, elect the same politicians for federal office, and attend educational institutions that are not all that different from each other.

More importantly, though - I would argue that our overall 'national mindset' (or at least, that of most people in this country - whether you agree with it or not) of "America is the center of the universe" is pretty distinct, regardless of whether it's caused by simple ignorance or an intentional disinterest in the rest of the world (Yep, i know that is a broad stereotype and sweeping generalization - take it with a grain of salt. But, I could write pages on why I feel that the stereotype is mostly true.)

ANYWAY - back to airplanes before this goes too far off-topic  
.

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Friends of mine who couldn't care less about airplanes still know what a 747 is and have even gotten to know and understand a 737 and 777. They also know all the hyperbol around the 787. But none of them could recall A380 as the new Super Jumbo. They know of it, but for their lives couldn't tell you the model number.

I think part of it is the newness of it all - the A380 hasn't come close to being around long enough to reach 'icon status' yet.

You've got a point about the 747. There's an excellent discussion of what helped the "747" designation (and its siblings, indirectly) become such a memorable machine in this thread - lots of great quotes in here:

How Big Of A Shock Was The 747 To The World? (by 747400sp Apr 3 2010 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting Kappel (Reply 12):
Quoting packsonflight (Reply 4):
strangely the majors are using the number 8 excessively in aircraft type number lately, because it is a lucky number in China.

That may be an secondary or tertiary motive, but mostly there are very logical explanations.

I agree.

[Edited 2010-07-04 13:28:57 by srbmod]


"And that's why you always leave a note..."
User currently offlineBralo20 From Belgium, joined May 2008, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 17496 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
And before anyone asks, 800 is already used for hydroplanes

AFAIK there isn't a Boeing 8xx arround.

However, a Boeing 929 (Boeing 929-100) exists, it's a hydrofoil (also called the Boeing Jetfoil).


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 17385 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
Except that every Airbus model since does distinguish size with the suffix (A340-600, etc.)

Well actually the A340-200 and 300 were launched before the A321.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25170 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 17215 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 11):
Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 8):
The 700 basis came about because the 707 was the 707th Boeing design.

While previous Boeing models followed that naming nomenclature, the 707 had a different origin.

With the 500 and 600 series reserved for rockets and such, the 707 initially started out as the Boeing 700. But when the idea was pitched to Boeing's board to launch the aircraft, the PR department changed it to 707 simply because it sounded better

Boeing article from 2004 explaining the origin of the 707 name.
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers...chive/2004/february/i_history.html


User currently offlineAFGMEL From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 744 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 16617 times:

People I have spoken to can - with effort - say that they were in a "Jumbo". I would say that 90% of people have no clue as to whether they flew in a two or four holer, and often don't even notice if they are flying in a 737 or 767. I have tested this with friends from SYD. When I ask the response is usually "a white plane". Duh, they are flying QF.

I had an argument with a friend who told me (about 15 years ago) that she had flown back from Europe in a "double decker". I explained that it was a 747 and the top deck didn't run the whole length, but she wouldn't have it. I eventually agreed that it was probably a new type that I didn't know about.   



B 727-44/200 732/3/4/8/9 767-3 742/3/4, 772/3, A319/20/21 332/333 342/3 , DC3/4/10, F28/50/100, ATR72
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2885 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 16071 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have an English cousin who is about 20 years older than me. When I was about 17 in the 1970's she came to visit. She flew Laker. A 3 hole. It was a DC-10. She said it was a British built jumbo and much better than an American made aeroplane. I tried, at 17, to convince her it was not- but I too had to give up. It was a British plane. Period.
She also accused me of being bad to the American Indian's by taking their land away and I should be ashamed of myself. (sorry- off topic)



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinekingfriday013 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1297 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15043 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 7):
Of course Boeing had the 720, which was out sequence too.

The Boeing 707-020 was renamed the Boeing 720 after launch customer United Airlines wanted a higher number, fearing that going back to the "old" 707 from the DC-8 would create negative publicity.

(Fair use excerpt)
Quote:
The 720 was a short-range, high-performance version of the 707 and was first marketed to the airlines as the model 707-020. United Airlines was very interested in the 707-020 but had previously decided to go with Douglas and the DC-8. To help United avoid any negative public relations for going back to the 707, Boeing changed the name of the 707-020 to the 720.
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers...chive/2004/february/i_history.html

So, technically, it was a 707.

-J.



Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2885 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14026 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Wow. I love those stories. Thank you. Imagine the power/leverage United will have after the merger!


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinefutureorthopod From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13811 times:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Personally I believe the 7X7 naming system for Boeing is one of the best branding and naming conventions in the world- in any category of business, not just airplanes. (my opinion) That said, is there a logic to Airbus' selection of "300" as the basis of their naming convention?
Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 2):
Why is that so? Any specific reasons why you believe that way?

DTWLAX beat me to it. I am curious to hear your answer as well.

Thanks


User currently offlinekingfriday013 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1297 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13647 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 21):
Wow. I love those stories. Thank you. Imagine the power/leverage United will have after the merger!

That's if and only if it is approved...

-J.



Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13546 times:

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 5):
Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
But none of them could recall A380 as the new Super Jumbo.

I don't know where your friends are from, but I've made the experience that the "A380" is in the meanwhile the epitome for the biggest and most advanced aircraft by many people around the world.
Quoting VC10er (Reply 9):
dinner conversation in London this past week

Might be because no airline in the US has ordered the A380 and BA has not got any yet, although there are BA code share flights that are with the A380. QF31/32 is code shared with BA but I forget the BA flight number.

Maybe A380s are like monopolies and babies, you hate them until you have one of your own?


25 aircellist : I guess the logical explanation comes after it has been decided to use the number 8... All of a sudden, there are 8s everywhere! Also, the original A
26 VC10er : First, I have admiited that it is my opinion. However I do work for Landor as a senior creative director. While I am not an official part of our nami
27 Burkhard : That shows how propaganda can change the public mind. Hereover the distinction is, I heared from some ftriends "I was on an A380" resp. "It still was
28 Kappel : Indeed, that was way back in the 70's!
29 cygnuschicago : Well, it may be "one of the best", but far from the best. The classic hall mark for a brand is when it becomes either a catch-all for the product or
30 grozzy : A related question- does the A in A3xx stand for Airbus? If so why do people refer to Airbus A3xx?
31 BMI727 : Presumably yes. I don't know, but it is the official name as far as I know so technically that is correct. Of course, it isn't too uncommon to hear p
32 Navigator : I think you very much colored it yourself by saying that the 7X7 branding is so fantastic and the next second implying that the Airbus branding basic
33 AirbusA6 : The British post war aircraft betrayed their roots in the small companies that ultimately made up BAE by their varying names, and numbering systems DH
34 CitationJet : I have always wondered why the 707 is usually pronounced seven-OH-seven, rather than seven-ZERO-seven. The middle character is a number, not a letter
35 Burkhard : When discussing the good brand of the 7x7, I think that the usage of the same font since decades contributes to this. Numbers cannot be protected, but
36 aircellist : Are we that old?
37 Post contains images bwvilla : Not completely on topic, but according to this model aircraft I saw in Mustafa's in Singapore a few months back, Airbus also have an "A308" aircraft..
38 Eagleboy : What about Boeing B747? 'Oh' is easier to say that 'Zero'. And '7 oh 7' rolls off the tongue of an civilian/non-aviation person. Why do American say
39 simpilot459 : For what it's worth, I get a surprising number of people on the Boeing factory tour that ask "Where do you build the A380?" Most people have heard of
40 Post contains links airceo : This is an interesting topic but I have to say that I feel that I disagree with your "findings" (that people are more aware of the 7x7 vs 3xx) and fo
41 VC10er : By the way, very famous names, even global, may not be strong names from relevant/differenciated perspective. First, I was making positive comments a
42 Post contains images RJ111 : Once again, what is the basis for this statement?
43 VC10er : Actually, numbers can be protected. Every legal case pertaining to trademarking is different. First, in the USA, anyone can try and sue for anything.
44 Lufthansa : Nobody really answered the orignal question. The Reason airbus uses the 300 designation obviously dates back to the A300. A was of course for airbus,
45 Post contains images Kappel : Haha, I'm not. I got that from books.
46 Kappel : Not in Europe, and that's where the F100 is from of course... It's indeed a bit strange how Airbus named their aircraft. I'm guessing that they didn'
47 VC10er : I think "Fokker" in English sounds too much like "blank her" an unfortunate thing in naming that happens often. But, that's the name of a person I wou
48 Post contains images BMI727 : The Porsche 911 was originally designated the 901, but Peugeot protested and threatened to sue since they already used designations with a 0 in the m
49 aircellist : If the site were in French, you would probably have found what you wrote in reading my answer... :-P Well...
50 Kappel : Yep, the guy who created the company was called Anthony Fokker. It's unfortunate in English, but in other languages no problem AFAIK. It happens inde
51 Breiz : This is a question whose answer cannot be traced to a formal decision. In the 60s, various industrial groups and airlines started to talk about an "a
52 Viscount724 : A318/319/320/321 make perfect sense. The 320 came first. The two smaller "shrinks" are the 319 and 318, and the "stretch" is the 321, so the numbers
53 Aesma : Well, then, technically, the A321 is an A320. French say seven hundred thirty seven. When I was a kid, I loved planes already, but not airliners, pro
54 AFGMEL : AFAIK, the A is Airbus and the 3XX is what it was called when proposed. It was only named the 380 later on.
55 Eagleboy : ASk someeon to pick a number from 1-10, chances are they will pick either 5 or 7. People pick odd nubmers as they 'seem' more random. ANd they also g
56 Baroque : I cannot cite any refs, but I distinctly remember there was a school that was not at all happy to have a plane termed a bus, air or not. So ??? it wa
57 aircellist : Ha ha, oui, je me souviens de cette époque! (I mean, I remember too)
58 Breiz : You remember correctly. The word "bus" was regarded by some as counter-productive marketwise, considering the still glamorous image of air travelling
59 Baroque : Thanks Breiz, it seemed to go on for ages, but that might have been the result of reading material that came out from Europe by slow camel. You could
60 T5towbar : Also, you have to remember that Boeing has always had the number Seven (or some form) in all of their product lines, whether it be civilian or militar
61 Aesma : Are you serious ?
62 captaink : Most of my friends know about the A380 by name, and the 747. And that is about it. They do not know about the 787, and not, apart from on a.net, ther
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...
Why Is Cincinnati's Airport Named For Covington? posted Sun Apr 25 2010 17:44:50 by zrs70
Why Is ATL The Busiest Airport In The World? posted Tue Aug 4 2009 18:40:49 by JetBlue777
Why Is LAX Only Listed For Los Angeles? posted Sun Jan 4 2009 12:22:27 by Thestooges
What Is/Was The Code For The Metro? posted Mon May 29 2006 21:32:08 by Leo8448
Why Is It The 747-8? posted Wed Jan 4 2006 22:56:22 by DTW757
Why Is NW The First To Fly To MSY posted Tue Sep 13 2005 15:12:38 by Whataboutme
Why Is There A Higher Price For One Way? posted Wed Aug 17 2005 22:07:48 by Grimey
Why Is CO The International Route Risk-taker? posted Thu Sep 2 2004 04:08:32 by Cory6188
Why Is Buying The Other Guy's Product 'a Snub'? posted Fri Aug 6 2004 09:54:56 by JGPH1A
Why Is CO The Transatlantic Guinea Pig? posted Tue Feb 24 2004 21:58:02 by Cory6188