747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

How Did The US Accept The A300?

Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:34 pm

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?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23103
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:38 pm

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
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 11:55 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:45 pm

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
Posts: 12398
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:59 pm

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
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:08 pm

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
Posts: 6655
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:15 pm

Not to start a war, but did Continental actually order any A300? I thought they were all stolen from Eastern.
Love Trumps Hate
 
SASMD82
Posts: 616
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:44 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:38 pm

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).

  
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23103
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:57 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 4124
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:39 pm

I flew American Airlines Airbus 300 between New York and San Juan, Puerto Rico back in 1990...
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6678
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:53 pm

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
Posts: 5568
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:43 am

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
Posts: 19002
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:52 am

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
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:44 am

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.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:04 am

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
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:19 am

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
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:45 am

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
Posts: 4006
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:09 am

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
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:17 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):


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.



The rest is history.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 5):



Not to start a war, but did Continental actually order any A300? I thought they were all stolen from Eastern.

Incorrect, while Lorenzo did steal plenty of assets from EAL we had a sizable A300 fleet before he started pillaging Eastern's
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
Farzan
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:55 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:29 am

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?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6678
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:33 am

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  
 
planesavvy
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:09 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:46 am

I like the joke about the A300 being the best Boeing that Airbus ever built.

(Based on it having a central control column)
 
xdlx
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:20 pm

Quoting farzan (Reply 18):

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
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:03 pm

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
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:11 pm

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
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:32 pm

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.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:53 pm

I love the A300.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 5):

IIRC, Texas Air "transferred" several A300 frames (I want to say like 6 to 12) A300 from their Eastern subsidiary to their Continental subsidiary sometime in the mid to late 1980s. After EA went under, I believe CO scooped up a few more and there *MIGHT* have been a few new deliveries taken in the early 1990s as well by CO-- but I'm honestly not sure. Most were late 1970s builds.

Either way Gordo didn't like them and phased them out by 1995-1996. I flew on a CO A300 from FLL-EWR in April 1995 and it was in the "blue" interior and was in pretty good shape. A year earlier, I flew another one from EWR-MCO and it was falling apart with an old EA interior.

CO used the A300 differently than AA used theirs. In the early 1990s they flew transcons from EWR as well as various higher density runs from IAH and DEN. AA used theirs to the Caribbean from MIA, SJU, and JFK as well as a brief time in 1999-2001 from JFK, BOS, and EWR to LHR.

Anybody know the story of how AA got their A300s? Did Airbus offer Crandall a deal he couldn't refuse as well?
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
beeweel15
Posts: 896
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:14 pm

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
 
EMB170
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:16 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:36 pm

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 26):
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

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 runs initially...
IND ORD ATL MCO PIT EWR BUF CVG DEN RNO JFK DTW BOS BDL BWI IAD RDU CLT MYR CHS TPA CID MSP STL MSY DFW IAH AUS SLC LAS
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:40 pm

Quoting xdlx (Reply 21):
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.

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 Eastern A300s had the original A300 configuration of an F/E station and would have been impossible to operate without the third crewmember.

Airbus had nothing to do with the trend toward two man crews. When the FAA waived the 80,000 rule for the DC-9 and 737, the precedent was set and the F/E was on the way out.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6109
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:44 pm

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 26):
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

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 the 180 seat range currently filled by 739/A321 (757 sized aircraft). Widebodies will continue to be a niche player in the domestic system.
 
LGWflyer
Posts: 2233
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:38 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:50 pm

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 26):
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

Why not get the 787... Im sure that would work.
3 words... I Love Aviation!!!
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4973
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:52 pm

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 28):
Airbus had nothing to do with the trend toward two man crews. When the FAA waived the 80,000 rule for the DC-9 and 737, the precedent was set and the F/E was on the way out.

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 original models because as a new manufacturer pushing a widebody twin they were already pushing the limits of customer acceptance, and a two-man crew on a widebody would have kicked up yet more dirt.

When the 767 got traction, it was an obvious and easy move to go back to the two-man crew on the A310 and A306.

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 26):
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

Given the number of 767s in the US network, there won't be any shortage of LGA-capable widebodies for more than a decade. When the 767s and the final 757s finally get old, that's when I think we'll see another 757-300 sized narrowbody, probably spun off a new Boeing or Airbus narrowbody design. In the era of modern wings, there's no advantage in trying to squeeze a widebody into those small wingspan constraints.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
how did the US accept the A300, when Eastern and Continental start using them?

The A300 was successful in the US, but only with a low number of frames. Its real impact in the US was to pave the way for the big A320 orders from United and Northwest, which probably did more than any other single event worldwide to establish Airbus as a legit player. Without CO's and EA's A300 experience, those orders would have had much more risk associated with them, and might not have happened.

[Edited 2011-10-28 09:55:39]
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4963
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:07 pm

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?

It had not yet sunk in how extraordinarily reliable jet engines were.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
ckfred
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:10 pm

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 25):
Anybody know the story of how AA got their A300s? Did Airbus offer Crandall a deal he couldn't refuse as well?

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 A300s and the F100s.

The reason that AA liked the A300s was the ability to carry more cargo than the 767-300. With the cargo business in the Caribbean and Latin American going strong, the A300 could make money for AA, even though it flew to many leisure destinations.
 
xdlx
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:55 pm

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 28):

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!
 
jfk777
Posts: 5843
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:16 pm

Continental did acquire some non-Eastern A300 from Airbus, they may have been from Singapore Airlines which Airbus too in trade for A310's.
 
User avatar
falstaff
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:17 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:42 pm

Quoting N62NA (Reply 16):
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.

I remember flying TW L1011s ORD-STL.
My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19002
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:58 pm

Quoting LGWflyer (Reply 30):
Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 26):
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

Why not get the 787... Im sure that would work.

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) would be a waste of the aircraft's capabilities. Considering how congested the LGA gates are, the 787's wingspan (42 feet greater than the DC-10-10 and L-1011) would also be a major problem.
 
Birdwatching
Posts: 3574
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 10:48 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:44 pm

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 would expect the crews or companies simply saying "Airbus" without any numbers. Or did everybody say "A300" from day one?

Soren   
All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
 
ckfred
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:58 pm

Quoting N62NA (Reply 16):
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.

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.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19002
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:13 pm

Quoting ckfred (Reply 39):
Quoting N62NA (Reply 16):
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.

AA used to have DC-10s on ORD-BUF.

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). I think it continued to ATL. It was the only way they could operate a through-flight YYZ-ATL in those days before deregulation as YYZ-ATL wasn't a designated transborder route then.

UA also operated a DC-10 YVR-SEA for several years. It continued to ORD. Same reason as above. Once they got YVR-ORD nonstop rights that DC-10 flight ended.
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:12 pm

Quoting xdlx (Reply 34):
EA and CO did operate the A300 with 2man crews... Can you remember when this happened!

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 the Airliners photo database. American did, of course.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:05 pm

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 forthcoming..
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2794
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:18 pm

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 38):
Back when it was new, was it commonly referred to as "A300" or was it simply the "Airbus"?

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 experience; I remember seeing A300's flying over my house just outside of SFO in 1980. I always called them A300's.)
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:30 pm

Airbus l=itterly gave Eastern

Quoting PM (Reply 13):
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.

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 if you add the DC-10 and 747 the other domestic operators were operating I would say at least 200 wide bodies were being operated, before Airbus leased 4 A300's to EA.
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:33 pm

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 was common to see first generation wide bodies flying domestic routes. Even in 2000, UA operated 744 on the ORD-LAX route and DL operated MD11s on the ATL-LAX route until 2003.

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 15):
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.




That too bad, in a way, US Airways could been the only US airline, to operate A300s, A330 and A350XWB in their fleet history.
Also, I like the ideal of DC-8s and A300s as fleet mates.
 
wolbo
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:09 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:37 pm

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 38):

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 would expect the crews or companies simply saying "Airbus" without any numbers. Or did everybody say "A300" from day one?

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 (Hawker Siddely - Breguet - Aviation Nord)

This Dutch newspaper article dates from 23 Feb 1968 and clearly mentions the A 300 ("luchtbus" is "airbus" in Dutch).

http://www.archiefleeuwardercourant.nl/img.do?id=LC-19680223-1011&h=luchtbus,300&s=0.375

Here's an old Eastern ad for the A300.

 
timz
Posts: 6102
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:40 pm

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

Weren't the original circa-1966 designs for the DC-10 and L-1011 twin engined?

Quoting xdlx (Reply 34):
EA and CO did operate the A300 with 2man crews

Got any pics?
 
N62NA
Posts: 4006
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:32 am

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 23):
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?
Quoting timz (Reply 47):
Weren't the original circa-1966 designs for the DC-10 and L-1011 twin engined?

Yes
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: How Did The US Accept The A300?

Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:39 am

Quoting timz (Reply 47):
Weren't the original circa-1966 designs for the DC-10 and L-1011 twin engined?

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 took those requirements and shopped them around to other airlines. But they said they would like stages ORD-LAX. However, operations over the Rockey Mountains with two of the existing engine designs was not possible! So Lockheed switched to three engines. A little less than a year later McDonnell Douglas started their tri-jet design.

So neither Lockheed or McD original designs were for a twin.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alasizon, Alexa [Bot], Apprentice, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], blacksoviet, bohica, CXfirst, DiamondFlyer, fly2lax, FlyBoy747, GlobalTrvlr, Google Adsense [Bot], GrayMatter, gregn21, guppyflyer, Hamlet69, heavymetal, hkcanadaexpat, LHRFlyer, PacificBeach, panampreflight, SeaDoo, YZF101 and 280 guests