There, they frequently talk about the "airbus" - seemingly any aircraft between a 707 or 737 on one end, and the 747 on the other end. This leaves the DC-10 and L-1011 and perhaps the 767 in between.
I understand the analogy to a "bus with wings", but why weren't the DC-9s and 737 called "airbuses" if they carried passengers relatively short distances?
When did the term "airbus" emerge? Was that long before Airbus began to develop its A300?
David
Even a letdown, if it is thoroughly and final, is a step forward.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21675 posts, RR: 23 Reply 2, posted (3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5936 times:
Quoting chieft (Reply 1): "Airbus" was a non-proprietary term used by the airline industry in the 1960s and referred then to a commercial aircraft of a certain size and range,
Canadian regional carrier Pacific Western Alrines used the Airbus brand for many years for their shuttle service between YYC and Edmonton's city center YXD airport (the original airport until YEG opened in the late 1950s). Ironically, for most of the route's history the PWA Airbus service used the 737-200. At the peak there were around 17 daily 732s in each direction. It was very common to hear people say, "I'm taking the Airbus".
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7837 posts, RR: 27 Reply 3, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5370 times:
Lufthansa inaugurated a shuttle service similar to what EA offered between HAM and FRA in 1963 and called it "Airbus"
Amazingly partly with Super Constellations. This service terminated in 1970
The story of "Airbus Industrie" and the formation of "Deutsche Airbius" in 1965 which lead to the success story of the Franco-Allemand company can be checked oin wikipedia.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 3582 posts, RR: 72 Reply 5, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4872 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 3): the formation of "Deutsche Airbius" in 1965
I think that's a shortcut, 1965 was the year in which the Germans created the "Arbeitgemenshaft Airbus", basically a study groupin which, among others Hartmut Klein was a member.
This group became "Deutsche Airbus" on Sept 4, 1967, and became the structure around which the GIE "Airbus" was founded on Dec 18, 1970... and the name became property of that entity, now "Airbus Industries".
flyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 1379 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3234 times:
I don't know if you understand me right... my question is all about the term "airbus". How did that expression arise? To which aircraft was it applied to?
The book "Destination Disaster" is the first place where I read "airbus" in a non-Airbus context.
Today it seems funny why a company is named "Airbus" - you wouldn't want to evoke a Greyhound-like feeling. But then, long-distance bus travel was never really popular in Europe anyway...
David
Even a letdown, if it is thoroughly and final, is a step forward.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 3582 posts, RR: 72 Reply 9, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3152 times:
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 8): I don't know if you understand me right... my question is all about the term "airbus".
As Viscount724 wrote, it is very probably Pacific Western whjich launched the term, before LH.
The "Airbus" flights were originally on one 66 seat DC-4 between Calgary and Edmonton. The passengers carried their own luggage and there was in the DC-4 a "checking clerk" who collected the fares !
Polot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1587 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3147 times:
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 8): How did that expression arise? To which aircraft was it applied to?
Simple:
Bus = well known mode of mass transportation where service frequently occurs at a relatively high frequency.
Air = flying
Hence together they were marketed as airbus.
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 8):
Today it seems funny why a company is named "Airbus" - you wouldn't want to evoke a Greyhound-like feeling. But then, long-distance bus travel was never really popular in Europe anyway...
The term airbus wasn't used to evoke luxury or anything. Airlines used it to showcase flying a specific route multiple times daily giving a lot of seats available for passengers.
Remember Airbus was formed to create a 300 passenger short range plane (hence why the A300 is called the A300- they decreased its size slightly during development). It wasn't meant to be glamorous or anything, just a plane to shuttle people around various cities like a bus.
flyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 1379 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2626 times:
Then I'll read more, making the answers of Viscount724, PanHAM and Pihero a starting point.
Quoting neutrino (Reply 11): One Upmanship, alphabetically speaking?
Just guessing of course.
Heheh, reminds me of the statistical software I'm using: R.
It was modeled upon the commercial S suite.
Quoting Polot (Reply 10): Remember Airbus was formed to create a 300 passenger short range plane... wasn't meant to be glamorous or anything, just a plane to shuttle people around various cities like a bus.
So it wasn't Ryanair that invented this concept?
David
Even a letdown, if it is thoroughly and final, is a step forward.
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6037 posts, RR: 55 Reply 14, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2438 times:
Quoting Polot (Reply 10): Remember Airbus was formed to create a 300 passenger short range plane (hence why the A300 is called the A300
Exactly.
Quoting Polot (Reply 10): ...they decreased its size slightly during development.
Yes. And instead of renaming it into A250, they renamed it A300B.
The reason for the downsizing was cancellation of the engine, which should have been RR RB-207. In order to get the plane in the air they had to pick an off the shelf engine, which became the somewhat smaller and less powerful GE CF6.
Incidentally the original A300 (non-B) project was rather similar in appearance and capacity to the present day A330, but only for short range.
In those days a twin couldn't fly long range. A long range variant (internally named TA-11) was only sketches on the drawing board, and was hoped to fly one day with four P&W geared turbofans - also cancelled. Twenty years later it emerged as the A340.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Ldriver From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 33 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2395 times:
The term "airbus" was used frequently in the 70s to refer to the DC-10 and L-1011. That's how I first remember hearing it.
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 8): Today it seems funny why a company is named "Airbus" - you wouldn't want to evoke a Greyhound-like feeling. ...
Nowadays that would be considered clever marketing - to evoke the image of the intra-city Greyhound or Peter Pan, with its roomier seats and greater recline than today's coach cabins.
aviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1348 posts, RR: 12 Reply 16, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2352 times:
In his outstanding book about Kennedy Airport (it's called "The Airport," and it's the single best book about commercial flying that I've ever read), author James Kaplan describes the Airbus name as, "a capitulation to the inevitable."
I've always loved that line.
PS
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
maxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 861 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2263 times:
As stated, in the early 1970s the DC-10 and L-1011 were often referred to as "Airbus". I have a Revell DC-10 plastic model kit with Delta decals. On the box top it's called a "DC-10 Airbus"
The airport : planes, people, triumphs, and disasters at John F. Kennedy International
by James Kaplan
Publisher: New York : W. Morrow, [1996]
It's the same book. Either way, it's out of print, but worth tracking down. I * love * that book, and anybody else will too. Kaplan is not an aviation insider, he's a professional writer, which is probably why his book is better than so many others (including my own, though Kaplan himself was kind enough to contribute a blurb) when it comes to describing this weird business.
His depiction of the crash of Eastern flight 66 at JFK in 1975 is the most eloquent and gripping description of an air disaster I've ever read.
PS
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
Sponsor Message: 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 1379 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 254 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2010, 92 posts, 
From France, joined Jan 2005, 3582 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1587 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2012, 381 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6037 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Jan 2011, 267 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
