mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:27 am

When the A300 was put into to service why didn't more airlines acquire them?
I know AA had them as well as EA. CO got them through EA I believe and I know a few european
airlines had them. Why didn't more airlines acquire them?

They could carry a decent amount of pax and were freight hogs.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11172
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:50 am

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
When the A300 was put into to service why didn't more airlines acquire them?

I imagine a lot of it had to do with short range compared to the DC-10 or L-1011. Plus you have to remember that at the time Airbus was a much smaller company with less ability to support their products around the world too.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:05 am

When it was put into service I'd imagine the range was short but AA used them
to fly across the pond and to Lim. If memory serves me correctly EA & PA
used them on medium range routes too.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11172
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:13 am

Quoting mia305 (Reply 2):
When it was put into service I'd imagine the range was short but AA used them
to fly across the pond and to Lim.

American only ever had the -600 version with more range. The earlier versions were more limited. Also, for transatlantic, you're talking about East Coast to Western Europe, so more or less 757 range. I want to say that the transatlantic A300 flights American had were exclusively from JFK and BOS.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:24 am

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):

When the A300 was put into to service why didn't more airlines acquire them?

In a nutshell, the airlines were just bulking up with their new DC-10s and TriStars, plus beginning to bring the 767 into the fleets. European manufacturers didn't really have a track record for producing aircraft American carriers wanted, and those which did sell here, sold in small numbers. Airbus literally had to lease them to Eastern on a basis that was too good to be true to get them to test the A300. That worked fine for EA, since they didn't have the 767 on order, or much cash.

Lots more info here: How Did The US Accept The A300? (by 747400sp Oct 27 2011 in Civil Aviation)
International Homo of Mystery
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:25 am

Thanx. For the info. It's a shame though it could carry a lot of freight, hence the
nickname freight hog.

[Edited 2013-03-06 21:29:47]
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:40 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3):
American only ever had the -600 version with more range.

American had A300-600R

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
CO got them through EA I believe

At first, CO only had six A300s for a while. They were all white tails.

These three were first delivered to SQ, then spent some time in storage before heading west.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gerhard Plomitzer


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JetPix



Those three were all undelivered white tails.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank Schaefer


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Robert M. Campbell


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



Later, Lorenzo and and his 'great strategy' began to shift assets from EA to CO, including many A300s.
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 4526
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:19 am

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 6):
At first, CO only had six A300s for a while. They were all white tails.

These three were first delivered to SQ, then spent some time in storage before heading west.

Not my favorite airplane, but I did get to fly EA PDX-SEA-PDX and CO EWR-SEA (when CO had their SEA-NRT flight, and the through flight number from EWR was operated by the A300), from a passenger standpoint, IMO, the A300 lacked something vs the L1011 or DC10, (and not just the tail engine).
707, 717, 720, 727-1/2, 737-1/2/3/4/5/7/8/9, 747-1/2/3/4, 757, 767-2/3/4, 777, DC-8-5/6/7, DC-9-1/3/5, MD-80/2/3/7/8, DC-10-10/30/40, MD-11, F-27, F-28, SWM, J31, D38, DH7, DH8, DH4 SD-330, B-146, L-1011-2/500, ATR-42/72, VCV, A-300/310/318/319/320, CR2/7
 
celestar
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 11:37 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:32 am

Personally, I think the A300 is one of my most favorite plane and it kind of introduce what future AIRBUS long/wide body plane looks like (I think A330/340 follow the same fuselarge)
It was very popular in Asia and for the first time, most intra-Asia flight can enjoy wide body comfort.
For some reason, aside from JAS in Japan, Airbus was not able to sell to ANA of JAL. ANA, despite a sales commission scandal, had a lot of Tristar, yet another of my favorite plane.
Find it hard to like DC 10, I do not appreciate its look for some reason. Again, very personal remark.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8635
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:41 am

LH used the A300 on certain TATL fölights, such as FRA-BOS and IIRC PA used the A300 on TATL as well, not only on flights radiating form JFK and the famous IGS internal German services.

Th A310 must be added to this discussion, which had a longer range and is still in use with some air forces such as the Canadian and the German. Plus, let's not forget freight, UPS and DHL have A300s and FX both the 300 and the 310. Plus a nu,mber pof smaller freight carriers who may use these a/c for some time to come.
powered by Eierlikör
 
col
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:03 am

In Asia it was the staple diet. GA, SQ, MH, TG, PR, CI, MU, China Northern, CZ, QF, Sempati, KE, Air India, PK, Indian Airlines and others, all had fleets of them.
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:09 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
LH used the A300 on certain TATL fölights, such as FRA-BOS

Yep, once they had the A300-600 and -600R.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
and IIRC PA used the A300 on TATL as well

I doubt that, PA used the A310-200 on trans-atlantic crossing and had to regularly fuel stop on the way. So with the shorter range of the A300B4-200, I doubt it seriously.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8635
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:13 pm

You forgot JAL who got some A300s through a merger with JD or whatever their name was.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 11):
shorter range of the A300B4-200, I doubt it seriously.

may be I am wroing but deep in my memory and in the latter days of PA they had to use what they had....
powered by Eierlikör
 
okay
Posts: 613
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:11 pm

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:23 pm

AY used to operate two A300B4, which joined the fleet through the acquisition of Karair, a Finnish charter airline. The aircraft were used on charter services mainly to the Canaries.
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:32 pm

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
I know a few european airlines had them.

Air France, Air Inter, Iberia, Alitalia, Olympic Airways, Lufthansa, Luxair. On the charter side, there was Condor, Hapag-Lloyd, Laker Airways, Germanair, Dan-Air London, Orion Air, Trans European Airways, amongst others.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):
You forgot JAL who got some A300s through a merger with JD or whatever their name was.

At merger time, they were indeed Japan Air System, but before that they were Toa Domestic Airlines.

In the US, there was Northeastern for a couple of years.
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:24 pm

Why didn't more us airlines squire them that time
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:47 pm

Quoting mia305 (Reply 15):
Why didn't more us airlines squire them that time

Which airlines and at what time ?
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:00 pm

Airbus made two variants A300B4- 200 and the 600

I just read the posted link above and it only mentioned EA, CO & PA.
Why didn't more us airlines aquire either version?
 
PRAirbus
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:59 pm

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:22 pm

AA had the A300-600R, delivered brand new from Airbus! AA used A300s on many missions, intial ones JFK-SJU runs, then most of the Caribbean from JFK/MIA and from the SJU hub to many US destinations. SJU-ORD-LAS was a route that lasted for a few years. MIA-LAX too use to get A300s.
 
xdlx
Posts: 691
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:36 pm

Remember also... the A300 arrived before the B75/767 and as a twin it was somewhat a trendsetter. As discussed prevously it ws the first Airbii to enter the US market, first twin widebody, ONLY EA in the US purchased the aircraft initially.
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4326
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:23 pm

When Airbus offered the A300, many doubted this company would exist 5 years later. Way too many national projects of European companies had failed before.

Also, ETOPS was unknown, and no one had seen a widebody with 2 engines before. Airbus only became a "real" competitor after the A320 was introduced and Boeing merged with McDD.
 
AT
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 12:16 pm

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:31 pm

I have a fond, nostalgic view of the A300 as it was the primary aircraft I flew on as a child and teenager. (PIA, Indian, Emirates, Thai, Lufthansa, Air France). This is pure aesthetics, but I used to find the A300 cabin sleeker and more elegantly contoured and lit than the competition. And I was always fascinated by the doors, which pushed out rather than rotated. That has now become pretty much the norm now. Funnily enough, Emirates' A300s (which, incidentally were the first aircraft I ever flew on with personal television sets) were then the largest aircraft in their fleet. Now, EK's smallest aircraft, the A330 is bigger than that! How times have changed.
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:32 pm

I remember flying MIA-LAX on AA A300. The plane was full and when we landed I
asked the pilot how heavy we were, can't remember that exact weight but the front
cargo hold was full of freight and part of the aft cargo was also freight as well as mail
and bags. Amazing what they could carry
 
AY-MD11
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 5:31 pm

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:41 pm

Dont know did PA fly the A300(lack of range?) to Europe but once i flew in PA A310-300 JFK-HEL via ARN in 1989. It had leaking wing fuel tank when we where inside the plane at JFK so there was few hour delay.
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:45 pm

They also had the nickname of scare bus. They would be constantly
braking down or maintenance issues. I never had a problem flying on them
quite nice
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:05 pm

Quoting mia305 (Reply 17):
Why didn't more us airlines aquire either version?
UA and AA received DC-10-10 up until the early 1980s from their original orders. Transworld Airlines (USA)">TW, if I remember well enough, also received a few more Tristars. Western went for more and DC-10-10. DL also sticked with the Tristar. Then came on the market the brand new 767, for which DL, AA, UA, WA Transworld Airlines (USA)">TW, WA ordered a considerable number. At that time, PA got a good deal from Airbus for some white tails A300 for their domestic network and in Europe. Soehow, the A300 was not deemed necessary by most US airlines.

[Edited 2013-03-07 09:06:17]
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:11 pm

Thanx for all the info on this post.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4232
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:45 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 25):
Soehow, the A300 was not deemed necessary by most US airlines.

By that time they had the 767 and the possibility of one type-rating with the 757.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 14):
Air France, Air Inter, Iberia, Alitalia, Olympic Airways, Lufthansa, Luxair.

... and add Transavia, SAS, Swissair, Sabena...
Contrail designer
 
CF-CPI
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2000 12:54 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:50 pm

The A300 took a few years to find its niche. It was originally envisioned as a widebody for European carriers between large city pairs. The first version of the A300 to find use on the continent (spring 1974) was the B2 model, which did not have the range for US transcons. Airbus upgraded its offering to the A300B4, which included uprated GE CF6 engines and some leading edge devices at the wing root. With more power and better field performance, this model was ordered in the late 70s and became part of Eastern's "free trial period" beginning in late 1977. MIA and ATL to both LAX and SFO were the order of the day at EA, using A300s. In many ways the trijets were more capable, but the A300B4 was often sufficient and cheaper to operate, especially after the Round 2 oil crisis in 1979.

There are two other factors at work regarding US acceptance of the A300. One was tech support, in which Airbus had to prove itself, and the other was deregulation, which worked in the A300's favor, since it was an efficient twin vs the DC-10 and L1011, and also the 747, which was still used domestically at the time. As frequency became more important, the slightly smaller twin was an advantage.

The A300-600 did not come along until around the early 80s, and gave a further boost to payload/range. AA liked it, and along with LH, did use it on the North Atlantic for a spell, something the B4 could not handle. Western considered the A300 carefully in the late 70s, but rejected it in favor of a mix of more 727s and DC-10s. I have also heard that WA wanted A310s in the 1980s, but had a huge debt with Boeing, which dominated any purchases. Had National not been absorbed into Pan Am, I have always been curious whether there would have been NA A300s plying the Northeast-Florida circuit against EA.
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:14 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 27):
... and add [...], Swissair, Sabena...

No and no. Both SR and SN never had A300s

Quoting mia305 (Reply 17):
Airbus made two variants A300B4- 200 and the 600

As you see on the link I provided earlier, there were four different variants, three of which had several sub-variants.
 
discovery1
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:12 pm

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:15 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 25):
Soehow, the A300 was not deemed necessary by most US airlines.

As was mentioned the early A300s were short legged. Also I believe they had problems climbing fast enough to get over the Rockies when flying from the west coast, at least during the summer. I don't know if this was also true of the 600s though.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:17 pm

Quoting discovery1 (Reply 30):
Also I believe they had problems climbing fast enough to get over the Rockies when flying from the west coast, at least during the summer.

The highest peak in the US Rockies isn't even 15,000 feet. How could the A300 not make it over the mountain range with a 2-hour head start?
International Homo of Mystery
 
AT
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 12:16 pm

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:24 pm

what does "white tails" mean?

A number of posters have referred to this:

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 6):
At first, CO only had six A300s for a while. They were all white tails.
Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 25):
At that time, PA got a good deal from Airbus for some white tails A300 for their domestic network and in Europe.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:28 pm

Quoting AT (Reply 32):
what does "white tails" mean?

A manufacturer producing a plane on spec, without there being a firm customer order behind it.
International Homo of Mystery
 
dergay
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:42 pm

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:29 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 27):

... and add Transavia, SAS, Swissair, Sabena.

Don't forget BCal (British Caledonian) as a 310 operator. You also had a hodge-podge of North African operators including RAM, Air Algerie, Tunisair and Libyan Arab, to say nothing of Alia, PIA, Mahan Air and IranAir further east. Methinks it is still in service and will remain so for a while.
Flown on A300,A310,A318,A319,A320,A321,A330,B707,B720,B727,B737,B747,B757,B767,L382,L1011,C5,DC-3,DC8,
 
Pihero
Posts: 4232
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:32 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 29):
No and no. Both SR and SN never had A300s

True . They were A310, but it was an answer to :

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
Th A310 must be added to this discussion, which had a longer range
Contrail designer
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:34 pm

Quoting AT (Reply 32):
what does "white tails" mean?

White tails are aircraft built for which the manufacturer has no customer either because some orders were canceled while production on said aircraft was already underway, ie:

Continental A300B4-203 N970C '250' first flew on May 31, 1983 but was delivered to first operator (CO) only on April 25, 1986.

or as in my example in reply 6, the manufacturer bought back some of its aircraft following an agreement with the airline concerned.
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2751
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:03 pm

Produced models of the A300:
Model - Number Produced
A300B1 - 2
A300B2-100 - 14
A300B2-1C - 16
A300B2-200 - 11
A300B2K - 14
A300B4-100 - 51
A300B4-200 - 117
A300B4-200FF - 11
A300C4-200 - 2
A300F4-200 - 2
A300B4-2C - 9
A300B4-600 - 38
A300B4-600R - 174
A300B4-600ST - 5
A300F4-600R - 105
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
American 767
Posts: 3934
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:34 pm

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20):
Airbus only became a "real" competitor after the A320 was introduced

In the narrow body market yes. But don't forget that a few years before when Boeing introduced the 767, back in the early 80s, it was already a direct competitor to Airbus in the wide body market. The 767 was Boeing's answer to the A300 and A310.

Ben Soriano
Ben Soriano
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:28 pm

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
When the A300 was put into to service why didn't more airlines acquire them?

As already said, Airbus and its aircraft were all new to the market. By the end of 1980, 120 aircraft were delivered worldwide, while there were 339 DC-10 and 195 L-1011. These numbers give you an idea of what the A300 was up against then. But, ironically, it outlasted both Trijets on the production line whether in numbers built and delivered or on the number of years it was produced.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5693
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Why didn't the A300 have more orders?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:25 am

Trivia,


At Continental when the engines on our A300's were getting high in hours and cycles with subsequent deterioration in performance they would often be transplanted to the DC10 which had the same engine.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:30 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
LH used the A300 on certain TATL fölights, such as FRA-BOS

And YUL and PHL. LH's use of the A300 on TATL was fairly brief.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
IIRC PA used the A300 on TATL as well, not only on flights radiating form JFK and the famous IGS internal German services.

I can't recall Pan Am ever using their A300s, which were the shorter range B4-200 model, on TATL routes. Doubt they would have had the range for even the shortest TATL routes (apart from Iceland which Pan Am had dropped by then).
 
Max Q
Posts: 5693
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:34 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 41):

I can't recall Pan Am ever using their A300s, which were the shorter range B4-200 model, on TATL routes. Doubt they would have had the range for even the shortest TATL routes (apart from Iceland which Pan Am had dropped by then).

Pan Am flew to Iceland ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:02 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 42):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 41):

I can't recall Pan Am ever using their A300s, which were the shorter range B4-200 model, on TATL routes. Doubt they would have had the range for even the shortest TATL routes (apart from Iceland which Pan Am had dropped by then).

Pan Am flew to Iceland ?

Yes, until sometime in the mid-1970s, when KEF still had a major U.S. military presence. In the early '60s KEF was also one of Pan Am's last propeller destinations.

In August 1963 they had one all-Y class DC-7C that operated IDL-KEF-PIK-LHR. Their only other transatlantic propeller flight then was a once-weekly DC-7C IDL-BOS-SMA (Santa Maria, Azores)-LIS.

In 1966 and 1969 timetables KEF was a stop on a once-a-week 707 JFK-KEF-PIK-CPH.

In their April 29, 1973 timetable KEF was a stop on one 707 a week that operated JFK-KEF-SNN. The other 6 days it was JFK-SNN nonstop. Route map from that 1973 timetable here.
http://www.departedflights.com/PA042973.html

Can't find any timetables between 1973 and 1979 but by 1979 they'd dropped KEF.
 
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?

Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:38 am

Not that I was an Airbus fan, I always wondered the following. When Northwest stopped flying their DC-10-40s across the Pacific, as Northwest's DC-10s had about 244 seats and the Airbus A300 had about six seats lees, why didn't Northwest then obtain some A300s to fly where Northwest was flying the DC-10 domestically. For about a half dozen less seats the A300 had two engines and a two man flight crew. There are only two reasons I think of other than the fact Northwest already had the DC-10. The number one reason was the A300 had GE engines and Northwest used Pratt & Whitney engines. The other reason was that the DC-10 had three engines and could be ferried with only two engines if one failed and needed replacement. The A300 could not be ferried if an engine failed.
I thought flying the A300, like Eastern did, would much more cost effective.   
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?

Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:00 am

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):
. For about a half dozen less seats the A300 had two engines and a two man flight crew.

Only the A300-600 had a two person flight crew. The early model A300B4-200 like those operated by Eastern and Continental had a 3-person flight crew. The A300-600 had major changes to match the A310 which had a 2-crew cockpit.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):
The number one reason was the A300 had GE engines and Northwest used Pratt & Whitney engines.

The A300 was also available with P&W engines. Several carriers ordered P&W engines on their A300s.
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?

Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:11 am

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):



Perhaps it was a matter of flexibility between domestic flights and trans-atlantic crossing rather than having two separate fleets. The A300 was available with PW engines too, before the -600 arrived on the market.

[quote=Viscount724,reply=45]Only the A300-600 had a two person flight crew.

No, the A300B4-200FF (Forward-Facing) existed too. On Wikipedia it is said it was the world first widebody aircraft with 2 crew cockpit. Garuda was the first to receive it, an A300B4-220, a PW-powered aircraft.
 
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?

Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:12 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 45):
Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):
. For about a half dozen less seats the A300 had two engines and a two man flight crew.

Only the A300-600 had a two person flight crew. The early model A300B4-200 like those operated by Eastern and Continental had a 3-person flight crew. The A300-600 had major changes to match the A310 which had a 2-crew cockpit.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):
The number one reason was the A300 had GE engines and Northwest used Pratt & Whitney engines.

The A300 was also available with P&W engines. Several carriers ordered P&W engines on their A300s.

Thanks........ I forgot the early A300s had a three man crew.   
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?

Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:12 am

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):
There are only two reasons I think of other than the fact Northwest already had the DC-10. The number one reason was the A300 had GE engines and Northwest used Pratt & Whitney engines. The other reason was that the DC-10 had three engines and could be ferried with only two engines if one failed and needed replacement. The A300 could not be ferried if an engine failed.

You are missing another reason. NW already owned and had its employee's trained on the DC-10. Buying new A300s and training their crews on them probably would have wiped out any savings that the A300 had over the DC-10. I don't know what time frame you are talking about (I am not that familiar with NW), but EA truly got a very sweetheart deal as Airbus was desperate to break into the US market (where, as someone mentioned above, they got to trial some aircraft immediately for a few months before making a decision on whether to purchase the A300 or not).
 
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: Why Didn't The A300 Have More Orders?

Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:18 am

Quoting Polot (Reply 48):
Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 44):
There are only two reasons I think of other than the fact Northwest already had the DC-10. The number one reason was the A300 had GE engines and Northwest used Pratt & Whitney engines. The other reason was that the DC-10 had three engines and could be ferried with only two engines if one failed and needed replacement. The A300 could not be ferried if an engine failed.

You are missing another reason. NW already owned and had its employee's trained on the DC-10. Buying new A300s and training their crews on them probably would have wiped out any savings that the A300 had over the DC-10. I don't know what time frame you are talking about (I am not that familiar with NW), but EA truly got a very sweetheart deal as Airbus was desperate to break into the US market (where, as someone mentioned above, they got to trial some aircraft immediately for a few months before making a decision on whether to purchase the A300 or not).

I am talking about 1980 or so. Yes, I had stated Northwest already had the DC-10, and also did not mention that the Iron Fisted Donald Nyrop was in charge. I am reasonably sure Airbus would have given Northwest a sweet heart deal on the A300. The United States was Boeing territory along with Douglas coming in second. Northwest Airlines was the first North American purchaser of the A320 and probably got a good deal. Northwest Airlines basically got a freebee offer on some MD-80s and McDonnell Douglas had about three ready to deliver when the pilots at Northwest went on strike in 1978. The deal got scrapped. McDonnell Douglas had even included free maintenance in the deal.   
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos