747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15721 times:
Now at days, Airbuses are a common site in US airlines Liveries. But in the late 70s early 80s, how did the US accept the A300, when Eastern and Continental start using them? The American people was used to wide bodies with three or more engines, that was built by an US company, so what was the over all feeling about the A300, flying in US air space, at that time?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15709 times:
They stuck around and Boeing felt compelled to create the 767, so I'm guessing Americans liked them fine.
I only flew it in Europe (LHR-CDG and ATH-CDG on AF in 1985) and I certainly liked it. More than the 767 I flew SEA-JFK-SEA on that same trip.
BostonBeau From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 459 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 15654 times:
Eastern used the A300B4 for quite a while on the Air-Shuttle between Boston and New York. I always thought they were very nice and very comfortable aircraft. Of course those were the days when the seat pitch in coach was 36 inches..haha.
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12337 posts, RR: 12 Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15303 times:
Don't forget AA having them too until a few years ago.
The A300 series was really the first 2-engined widebody, a size between the 727, 737, DC-9 and the big 747, DC-10 & L-1011 that many airliners wanted for a variety or routes. It became important in the USA for some transcon use, some shorter routes where the pax and luggage capacity (vs. the slightly smaller 767 would have) like AA did with NY City area and SJU were a good match.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15241 times:
As far as I know, Airbus tried very hard to convince Eastern to buy it. They virtually offered them a deal they could not refuse. I think they leased some of them to Eastern in the beginning so that they got used to the plane.
The scepticism against Airbus was also, because the European aviation industry in the 50s and 60s had produced so many failures (good planes, but the companies didnt have success, so numbers remained small), that there was a lot of doubt this would be a sustainable project.
727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5722 posts, RR: 20 Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15152 times:
Not to start a war, but did Continental actually order any A300? I thought they were all stolen from Eastern.
SASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 549 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 14999 times:
Here we go again: What if Airbus would offer an A330-400 and -500. The same fuselage lenght as the -200 and -300 but with shortned wings. I know Airbus will not do it but I think it could have some potential. Very low CASM and a lot of payload for - say - up to 6,000km (appr. 3,000 nm). The 787-3 is cancelled, the A300 gets old and the B767/787 and A350 are no real replacements. The A321 and B739 are too small (regarding payload).
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14693 times:
Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 6): Here we go again: What if Airbus would offer an A330-400 and -500. The same fuselage lenght as the -200 and -300 but with shortned wings.
The compromised aerodynamics will likely kill the efficiency, just as it did the 787-3 to the point it was worse than the 787-8 on just about everything but taxi.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14470 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): The American people was used to wide bodies with three or more engines, that was built by an US company,
So from that far back Americans would pull up to the airport for their flight and when they saw a non McDonald Douglas, Lockheed or Boeing a/c at the gate they would refuse to fly, hhhhm, I always wondered how far back the current rumour started, now I know.
The only problem I had with Eastern flying those busses into Nassau was how massive the cargo hold was, made our local airline 737 cargo hold look..........
During the xmas season Eastern made a ton oo baggae so we missed them, to date I think they are still the largest jets that provided regular pax service between Miami and Nassau.
sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5092 posts, RR: 28 Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 14221 times:
Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 5): Not to start a war, but did Continental actually order any A300? I thought they were all stolen from Eastern.
Sheesh. This, again? Blame Charlie Bryan.
---
As for how the plane was accepted by flyers? Not one in a hundred even noticed. It was a big, (then) comfortable plane, went "whoosh."
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 14175 times:
Quoting BostonBeau (Reply 2): Eastern used the A300B4 for quite a while on the Air-Shuttle between Boston and New York.
Actually, I don't think the A300 on the Shuttle lasted very long, maybe a year or two, if that. Eastern had previously experimented with using the L-1011 on some LGA-BOS shuttle flights but that only lasted a few months. Turnaround times were too long. I think the A300 had the same problem.
maxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 854 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 14041 times:
Quoting sccutler (Reply 10): As for how the plane was accepted by flyers? Not one in a hundred even noticed. It was a big, (then) comfortable plane, went "whoosh."
Absolutely correct. The average airline passenger doesn't notice or care, anymore than they did flying on a United Viscount or Caravelle years before the A300.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6717 posts, RR: 65 Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 13974 times:
Quoting sccutler (Reply 10): As for how the plane was accepted by flyers? Not one in a hundred even noticed. It was a big, (then) comfortable plane, went "whoosh."
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): The American people was used to wide bodies with three or more engines
Really? The first Eastern A300s arrived in 1977. How many DC-10s, TriStars and 747s were flying then? I'd have thought that most Americans were still flying on narrowbodies. I'm guessing that the big, wide, quiet A300 was rather well-received in such circumstances.
But what's this thread really about? A new airliner? Or US passengers flying on a European airliner? In neither case is the arrival of the A300 on American soil exceptional or noteworthy.
catiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 2279 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 13893 times:
Speaking of US accepting the A-300, I seem to recall seeing a model of a US (yes, USAir) A-300 in and advertisement in the back of Airliners magazine a number of times in the 80's and 90's. Did they ever have them on order?
maxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 854 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13717 times:
Allegheny (before the name change) did show interest in the late 1970s in the A-300, but nothing ever came of it.
They had a history of making a big move and backing away - also in the late '70s they considered applying for a London Gatwick
flight from PIT. They even lined up two ex-United DC-8-62s to operate it with, but pulled the application in the end.
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3681 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13641 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 13): The first Eastern A300s arrived in 1977. How many DC-10s, TriStars and 747s were flying then?
All the USA major airlines had pretty much had all their initial orders for D10 / L10 / 747 filled by then. In fact, some airlines (AA, DL, NA) were getting rid of their 747s by then.
Plus, in those days, it was not unusual to be able to fly an L10 on SYR-PHL, or a D10 on BIL-GEG or a 747 on ORD-MIA.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3290 posts, RR: 19 Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13178 times:
Now at days, Airbuses are a common site in US airlines Liveries. But in the late 70s early 80s, how did the US accept the A300, when Eastern and Continental start using them? The American people was used to wide bodies with three or more engines, that was built by an US company, so what was the over all feeling about the A300, flying in US air space, at that time?
Pretty simple, Airbus offered Eastern a deal they could not refuse, the first Aircraft delivered cost them absolutley nothing.
That is correct, they overcame the skepticism of their product by allowing EAL to fly them without paying Airbus one $.
Eastern soon discovered what a money maker it was and paid for more.
Thats how desperate Airbus was to break into the US market.
farzan From Sweden, joined Jul 2007, 166 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12596 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 13): But what's this thread really about? A new airliner? Or US passengers flying on a European airliner? In neither case is the arrival of the A300 on American soil exceptional or noteworthy.
Hi PM,
A bit surprised about this statement coming from you. OK you are at least 10 years younger than me, providing your profile is up to date.
I clearly remember all the statements from the U.S.A. at the time the A300 was hitting the market on how dangerous a twin widebody was, and now every American is stating that a twin widebody is the only right thing? I find it amusing.
But is it really the case that Boeing had no plans for the market between 727 and 747 until the competition from the A300 hit American soil?
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12004 times:
Quoting farzan (Reply 18): I clearly remember all the statements from the U.S.A. at the time the A300 was hitting the market on how dangerous a twin widebody was, and now every American is stating that a twin widebody is the only right thing? I find it amusing.
Well to expand on your post, why did Airbus stop, are you saying that they listened to the Americans and decided that twins were dangerous? Stitch is accurate with his comment below.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): They stuck around and Boeing felt compelled to create the 767, so I'm guessing Americans liked them fine.
Boeing recognized the utility of the twin maybe based on the success and acceptance of the A300 in the US and produced the 767 and the rest as far as it relates to ETOPS and twin is history. Airbus officiandos are accurate and continue to remind their American brethren that Airbus bought in ETOPS with the A300, if they had continued the 767 and 777 would not be the products that they were / are, rather than the A330 killing the 767 after 1,000+ copies the 767 probably would not have existed.
So it seems that Boeing did not listen to the a.net skeptics back then and went with the 767 while Airbus did and did not follow through on the initial success of the A300 until the 767 had already taken hold then delivered the A330, go figure
xdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 532 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 10928 times:
Fact: The airplane had the initial resistance to the 2man cockpit. IIRC EAL Flew it with a 3rd guy during
the trial period until FAA was convinced and a 2man crew was accepted.
ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 4658 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9020 times:
I remember back when Airbus was touring the A300, trying to drum up some business, that they demonstrated that the plane could operate out of MDW. This was after the Arab oil embargo, but before deregulation. So, there was virtually no commercial traffic out of MDW. (I think DL had 2 or 3 roundtrips to STL out of MDW).
The point was that the A300 could could go into airports that couldn't handle its main widebody rivals, the DC-10 and the L-1011, and that smaller, older airports could be useful in the widebody era.
The irony is that while MDW was revived after deregulation, no one ever scheduled service using the A300. Until Stage 3 kicked in, MDW used to see a lot of older, noisier aircraft, including 737-200s, 727s, and DC-9s. The A300 was much quieter, which would have been a selling point, considering the residential neighborhoods that surround MDW.
flyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 545 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8897 times:
From a couple of friends that flew the A300, they felt the airplane wasn't as reliable as others they had flown - does anyone have any information regarding such an assertion?
I had a few trips on EA and CO A300s and enjoyed the flights. And as I recall, the other passengers were pleased to have a wide body on what was most often a narrow body flight or route.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
Babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3514 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8540 times:
I think the A300 would have been most American's dream flight.
It was a widebody, spacious aircraft solely intended for short haul. It was built for high density CDG-FRA, CDG-LHR, LHR-FRA routes.
It was obviously so good at it's job American used it for their longer haul routes.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
25 TOMMY767: I love the A300. IIRC, Texas Air "transferred" several A300 frames (I want to say like 6 to 12) A300 from their Eastern subsidiary to their Continenta
26 beeweel15: My main question is will Boeing or Airbus develop a wide body that can fly into LGA since most of the one that can are not being produced any more
27 EMB170: I thought that was the reason that the 767-400 wingspan is what it is...because DL wanted a widebody to replace the L-1011s on LGA-CVG and LGA-ATL ru
28 maxpower1954: Way off base. ALL A300s were designed with the flight engineer station until 1983. The 767 with two man crew was already in service by then. ALL East
29 PSU.DTW.SCE: No one is clamouring have widebodies that can fly into LGA. Right now the largest aircraft really of need in the domestic United States system is in
30 LGWflyer: Why not get the 787... Im sure that would work.
31 seabosdca: As I understand it, the Airbus partners designed the A300 with a two-man crew in mind, but then changed the design to use a three-man crew on the ori
32 SEPilot: It had not yet sunk in how extraordinarily reliable jet engines were.
33 ckfred: I think Crandall was trying to curry some favor with the Europeans in obtaining better treatment on trans-Atlantic growth. So, AA bought both the A30
34 xdlx: OK its only 30 years so my memory is not that clear! EA and CO did operate the A300 with 2man crews... Can you remember when this happened!
35 jfk777: Continental did acquire some non-Eastern A300 from Airbus, they may have been from Singapore Airlines which Airbus too in trade for A310's.
37 Viscount724: Operating the 787 on routes of less than 1,500 miles (the maximum permitted from LGA except for DEN and except on Saturday due to the perimeter rule)
38 Birdwatching: Back when it was new, was it commonly referred to as "A300" or was it simply the "Airbus"? I mean, there were no other Airbus types back then. So I wo
39 ckfred: AA used to have DC-10s on ORD-BUF. Even in the early 90s, it flew DC-10s on ORD-YUL. NW flew both DC-10s and 747s on ORD-MSP.
40 Viscount724: The AA DC-10 that lost the cargo door over Windsor, Ontario in 1972 was operating LAX-DTW-BUF-LGA. Eastern once operated the L-1011 YYZ-BUF (59 nm).
41 maxpower1954: Are you sure? I can't find in any of the fleet lists that EA or CO ever operated the FF (facing forward) version of the A300-B4-203. Or anything in t
42 Max Q: The A300 was operated into DCA as well to show that it could handle the shorter runways. But permission to operate scheduled service was not forthcomi
43 spacecadet: It was called the A300 by people who knew anything about airplanes, and the Airbus by everyone else. Pretty much the same as now. (I am speaking from
44 474218: Airbus l=itterly gave Eastern I can only speak to the L-1011 but by 1977 EA was operating thirty (30), TW thirty two (32) and DL twenty one (21). So i
45 747400sp: I flew on AA DC10s on the LAX-ORD, LAX-DFW, DFW-ORD and DFW-LAX routes and I flew a DL L1011 on the DFW-LAX route. Back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, it w
46 wolbo: I believe it was known as the A 300 as soon as the Airbus program started in 1966/67 (?) as a follow on from, amongst others, the HBN.100 concept (Ha
47 timz: Weren't the original circa-1966 designs for the DC-10 and L-1011 twin engined? Got any pics?
49 474218: American Airlines original idea was for a 270,000 lb two engine airliner that would be profitable of medium range flights such as ORD-LGA. Lockheed t
50 HomsAR: "Plane of the future." Here we are, 30 years later, and almost all planes look like that "boring twin" design. Guess they were right.
51 N62NA: Not only look like that, but barely get you there any quicker as well.
52 wolbo: It's a pity we don't have more diversity in passenger jet design but 4 holers will still be around for a long time so it's not all twins. Besides I w
54 ckfred: DL used to operated L-1011s (both -1 and -500) or ATL-ORD through the 1990s. Out of ORD, 767s were common to both ATL and CVG.
55 type-rated: I flew on an EA A300 not too long after they acquired them. It was on the PHL-IAH run. I believe after IAH it went to SAT-LAX. The first thing I notic
56 N62NA: One more "strange" feature of the A300 (which is also found on A330/A340) is the rise in the rear of the cabin. I always wondered why they built it t
57 COSPN: Only Problem for the A300-B4 (Scarebus) for USA airlines like Continental was Hawaii the A300 could not fly to Hawaii so still had to keep the DC-10 a
58 zippyjet: Though we here no better and can tell and appreciate the different types of aircraft, most passengers at least in the USA couldn't give a rat's ass w
59 madviking: I read CO ramp staff at EWR nicknamed the A300 "A360" as it had a tendency of breaking down before reaching the runway and having to return to the gat
60 madviking: Thought all early models of the A300 B2 B4 were three man flight-decks. Not until the arrival of the A300-600 did they go to a 2 man semi glass cockp
61 cf6ppe: I'm not going to bother with references to the various posts above, OK..?? EAL A300B4-103's were delivered as follows: N204EA ship#44 8/24/77 N203EA s
62 747400sp: I remember reading in an Eastern book, that EA bought the A300s, as a fit between their L-1011 Tristars and 727s fleets.
63 timz: In the US, you mean. Still, I wonder if PA could send a Convair from Jamaica to Barranquilla without exceeding 60 min at single-engine cruise speed.
64 Max Q: That's an unfair characterisation though, the reason our A300's were so unreliable can be attributed directly to F Lorenzo who never invested in an a
65 braybuddy: While aircraft enthusiasts or those who work in the industry would know the type of plane they are flying on, the general public really has little or
66 f35: Even on that note, they will call a 737 a 747..."It was a big plane." Fail.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 549 posts, 
From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3229 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2005, 6717 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2007, 166 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 61 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
