Airbus 300 Across The Atlantic

Mon May 24, 1999 10:42 am

Can the older A300 fly from Glasgow to Boston non stop? I have seen some pictures of an AA A300 at LHR but I am not sure where it came from.
I understand that the A300 can fly 4150 miles but I do not know what the distance of Glasgow to Boston is. And if the A300 is allowed to do it as of ETOPS.
Thanks for all your help,
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:59 am

RE: Airbus 300 Across The Atlantic

Mon May 24, 1999 10:50 am

American currently flies the A300 from Boston to Heathrow, so it could definitely get from Glasgow to Boston. They might also fly A300s to Europe from other places.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Airbus 300 Across The Atlantic

Mon May 24, 1999 10:50 am

Yes the A300 can fly trans-Atl. non-stop. AA's 300's come from BOS, and I believe that they are ETOPS qualified.

Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Airbus 300 Across The Atlantic

Mon May 24, 1999 10:53 am

A300s are flown by AA between Heathrow and JFK (and other cities) and 4100 miles would be more than Glasgow to Boston. Monarch and other British charter airlines use A300s between the UK and Florida stopping in Maine for fuel westbound but coming home non-stop, a lot further than GLA-BOS. In other parts of the world I have flown on a Garuda A300-600R from Sydney to Jakarta, probably equivalent to the kind of journey you describe. The R is the extended range designation. Why GLA-BOS specifically?
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

Try Airbus Industrie

Mon May 24, 1999 2:48 pm

Why don't you have a look on the airbus industrie website. All such details are readily availible. I think there is some confusion here thought - i believe you may have confusion between the early airbus A300B2/B4 models and the latter current A300-600R. As already pointed out, the aircraft American uses is the A300-600R, which, without a doubt can easliy handel a transatlantic (to the northern most parts of america anyway) flight. According to the Airbus Industrie product briefing-A300-600R, issue number four, april 1997,
the A300-600R with CF6-80C2A5 powerplants rated at
61 500 lb thrust, has a range of 4000 nm, allowing 200nm reserves, with a payload of 266 pax & baggage.

For those of us who like to use the metric system, this equates into about 7200 km plus reserves. The GE
CF6-80-C2A5 powered A300-600R has full FAA and JAA 180 minute etops certification. In Europe, the JAA grant the PW4158 powered A300-600R 180 minuted Etops, and etops operations with the PW4158 engine have not yet been requested to the FAA. All A310-300 models have full 180 minuted etops certification.

By comparison, the A300B4-200, the longest range verson of the early A300 series has a range of 2900 nm, or 5350 km with a payload of 251 pax + baggage. (A3002/A300B4 product briefing, issue number 2 april 1993) shut down rates for the A300B2/B4 mean the requirements for 180 minutes etops, however i don't believe anyone has requested etops operations with A300B2/B4 aircraft. This would most likely be due to range. The early airbus widebody was designed to serve routes that were the domain of the 727, 737-200, and DC-9, not to mention earlier types again like the 720. So, its range and payload abilities compare favourably with these aircraft. It was not designed to be transatlantic, and when into service flying with Air france between London and Paris intially. Today, considering the purchase price of an A300B4, which is about the same as an early 757, the aircraft is quite good value for money. its operating costs, even with theh 3 person crew is substancially lower than a 737-300, and on trancontinental routes has quite a good job for a long time now. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting fo this aircraft to fly long haul though. Think of it like its a really big 737. The A300B2/B4 only had moderate success - why, well, i blame the french TGV trains. When you can travel at 300 kmh, on a short hop, nobody minds waiting a few hours for a cheaper price.
and rail will always cost lest to produce than air, so, demand crashed big time and killed the concept of short range widebodies.
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Limited Sucess?

Tue May 25, 1999 1:52 am

Hi Airbus boy. I think you got the point about the Airbus A.300. If Airbus didn't started with this type of aircraft we probably would not see any of the others that are now flying yes? The Airbus concept was in every aspect brand new, because europeans wanted a big aircraft that could fly around Europe in high density routes, that's why most of the airlines bought it! We have Air France, Alitalia, Lufthansa, Olympic, Iberia, SAS, etc. Also Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas had the domestic versions of their 3-jets, the L.1011-1 and the DC-10-10, but both had 3 engines and the Airbus had only 2, so the Airbus was more fuel-efficient than these 2 ( the Tristar with those RR was really a camel!!! ). After the A.300 it came the A.310 and the A.300-600R both a refined lesson from the A.300 and of course we can't forget the first comercial arrow in USA, it was the sale of more than 20 A.300 to Eastern!!! That was for me the turnover for Airbus. Now you see Airbuses everywere!!! So A.300 for me was the beggining of a big era!
Take care! By the way have you flown any A.300? try it, its a great airplane, I flew twice, one from Air France and one from Alitalia, good stuff I tell you!
CV990, the Maserati of the skies!
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:55 am

RE: Airbus 300 Across The Atlantic

Tue May 25, 1999 5:54 am

Yes, AA's A300-600R are ETOPS certified. They are used from JFK to LHR. However, the early A300 models, like the -B2 and -B4, are not ETOPS certified.