A300/A310 v 767

DWC · Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:10 pm

oldannyboy wrote:
many people seems to be unaware of how popular was wide-body flying in Europe in the late '70s, '80s & '90s... Air France, Air Inter, AZ, LK, SN, KL, TP, IB, OA.. they all flew extensive domestic and international (intra-Europe) schedules with those big Airbuses, so those who thing that the air-bus concept was not successful...you are wrong guys! Do your research before saying anything so incorrect! It boggles the mind to think that so many European (now almost marginal) airports were served by wide-body flights, and that any given main "city pair" would have seen at least half of the daily rotations operated by Airbus twin-aisle jets!

Agreed. I was stationned in Bangkok at the time & the A300 was TG's workhorse to major destinations 1 to 3h flight, I remember flying it often to HK, Seoul & even to closeby Phuket. From Paris also, for its comfort, AF & IT A300 also was the preferred aircraft to big cities, Montpellier for one, but also FRA & MUC. Considering how these traffic are now done on narrow bodies ( principally A320 & A321 ), I only got back that sensation of comfort on an even smaller aeroplane, in 2014 on board a short-lived Air Lituanica E175 ( yeah, I know ! ) on what a very confortable 3h+ flight CDG to VNO, Y seats had 1970s high pitch...

mjoelnir · Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:11 pm

The A310 compares in size to the 767-200. Total sales A310 255 and 767-200 and -200ER are 249. I do not see any advantage in sales for either aircraft. A300, total sales 561, 767-300 and -300ER -300F, total sales 779. Advantage for the 767-300. But Airbus replaced the older A300/310 by the A330 while the 767-300 was still sold. The A330 outsold than the 767-300 and -400 combined, forcing Boeing to design the 787.

Mortyman · Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:35 pm

The Airbus 300 was a nice aircraft. Have flown With both American Airlines, Thai Airways and Scanair and Lufthansa Airbus 310. Miss them both.

airzona11 · Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:05 am

Aside from the A319 and basically A320, A321, are there any A or B planes that match up 1:1?

strfyr51 · Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:38 am

The B767-200 had only to be modified to operate the center wing fuel tank from the cockpit. The tank was already there, the center tank fuel pumps were already installed as was the plumbing. If an airline wanted to ER the B767-200 they had only to go to Boeing and buy the control system for the pumps and transfer system install it and any overwater equipment ,Go and get the FAA's blessing to Have At it! TWA had already done the route proving. once American, United and Delta decided to do it? ETOPS was pretty much a done DEAL!! Virgin Atlantic had some "heartburn" about it. But they seems to have Heartburn over just about everything in those days. Northwest still flew the DC-10 because they didn't operate the B767.

Newbiepilot · Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:39 am

mjoelnir wrote:
The A310 compares in size to the 767-200. Total sales A310 255 and 767-200 and -200ER are 249. I do not see any advantage in sales for either aircraft. A300, total sales 561, 767-300 and -300ER -300F, total sales 779. Advantage for the 767-300. But Airbus replaced the older A300/310 by the A330 while the 767-300 was still sold. The A330 outsold than the 767-300 and -400 combined, forcing Boeing to design the 787.

For Delta 767-200s were 18/196 for 204 seats. The A310 was 18/207 for 225 seats. The 767-200 and A310 aren't exactly the same size. For Delta the A310 had a 10% higher capacity

RJMAZ · Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:48 am

Polot wrote:
The problem with the A310 still would have remained the 767. If a reengined A310 was successful then Boeing would have just reengined the 767 with the same engines and Airbus would have been back to square one with the A310/A300's primary issue: for just a few tons (~1-3 t) more in OEW you can get a dramatically more capable (~15 t higher MTOW, ~30,000 L higher fuel capacity) aircraft.

I don't think Boeing would have gone with the Trent 500 which was really the only improved engine on the market in that size range.

The A300 and to an extent the A310 is much lighter per seat than the 767.

A300 has 215m2 at 88T
A310 has 175m2 at 79T
762 has 160m2 at 82T
763 has 190m2 at 90T
764 has 221m2 at 103T

The Trent 500 "A310-400" stretch would weigh probably 85T. That is nearly as much cabin area as the 767-400 while weighing less than the 767-300. It would have had the lowest CASM and RASM for transatlantic flights.

The A330 would then beat the 767 on flights above 4000nm.
The A310 would beat the 767 on flights below 4000nm

There would be no scenario or niche flight where the the 767 could have been better.

Also a reengined 767 right when the 787 program was about to launch, could have caused problems. It would have put the range up to 7000nm which would have taken a lot of customers from the 787.

RJMAZ · Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:27 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
The A310 and 767 had more or less the same engines with the CF6 and PW4000s. The 767 sales outnumbered the A310 by a significant margin. How could Airbus have kept milking it all the way to the year 2000? A310 production never exceeded 30 airplanes per year. There was no new engine available and 1993 when sales for the A310 essentially ended. The A310 wing is 25% smaller than the 767, so there was only so far it could go on engine thrust alone.

The A300 continued production until 2007.

Another way of looking at my idea is that the A300 would effectively get the A310's smaller, more efficient and lighter wing.

So the A300 and A310 products would be combined into one shared wing with two lengths.

So the name could also be the A300-800 and A300-900. With 5500nm and 4500nm range respectively.

RJMAZ · Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:20 am

Its probably the biggest missed opportunity I could think of in the last few decades.

The market was too small to justify a A310 or A300 NEO, however the combined markets would easily justify an aircraft with a shared wing.

Airbus had the opportunity to standardise their widebody fleet using the same tail and cockpit and fuselage frames. That's three families with six lengths using only two engines sizes.

All the parts were there and pretty much fit. It wouldn't surprise me if the Trent 500 using the A340 pylon would bolt straight up to the A310's wing.

A340-600 - 75m - 437m2 wing - 7800nm
A340-500 - 68m - 437m2 wing - 9000nm
A330-300 - 63m - 361m2 wing - 6350nm
A330-200 - 58m - 361m2 wing - 7250nm
A3XX-900 - 54m - 219m2 wing - 4500nm
A3XX-800 - 47m - 219m2 wing - 5500nm

The A300 received the newer A310's tail, and the A330 received the A340's tail. So the parts are clearly very similar between families. Their could have been huge commonality and massive cost savings.

Rolls Royce could not justify an extra PIP to the Trent 500 due to the small number of A340 orders. However with the A3XX sharing the engine a 1-2% PIP would have been a certainty. Where every percent matters that would have made the A345 and A346 much more marketable, lower CASM, an extra 500nm range and improved takeoff performance. The A340 would probably have sold another 100+ aircraft.

rheinwaldner · Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:17 am

The A310 initially was seen as 767 (non-ER) competitor by Boeing and Airbus. Before the A310 was certified, Boeing did use A310 performance figures based on their own, non-favorable estimations. This has caused quite some anger on Airbus side, especially after the real world figures did not show the "weaknesses" as advertised by Boeing. In fact the real A310 performance figures were even significantly better than advertised by Airbus before.

This can all be read in the article, Wiederling has posted (that I have looked up by myself too, because I know that the Flightglobal archives are a huge wealth for studying aviation history. The early Airbus history can be tracked very precisely using these resources):
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive ... 00394.html

On the third page, the real vs expected differences are listed:
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive ... 00396.html

Here is the text:

A310 test results The A310's test to certification went well. The major achievements are as follows:
• It can fly 2,000ft higher than predicted, or alternatively carry 11 tonnes more weight for a given altitude. At maximum take-off weight even the highest, grossweight version can climb immediately to 37,000ft at MTOW. These improvements result from a better wing maximum lift co-efficient than was expected—3 • 1, compared with the predicted 3 • 0.
• Average fuel burn is 7 to 8 per cent below prediction.
• Range is greater than expected, and the A310 can fly up to Mach 0 • 81 and give the same economy level of specific fuel consumption that had been predicted for cruising at M 0 • 79.

Airbus says that Boeing, in its 767 sales presentation, uses the original A310 predicted figures factored for assumed weight increases which do not exist. ...

Further fuel burn improvements are on the cards as Airbus develops descent-atidle profiles which maintain pressurisation and air conditioning at the required levels. A delayed-flap final approach that will reduce fuel burn by 200lb and cut down approach noise is being developed for approval. ...

Landing performance is more than 10 per cent improved against predicted field length targets, because brakes performance is better than expected and landing speeds at MLW are 4kt reduced...

Certification will take place about two weeks ahead of schedule because, Airbus says, reliability was first class. None of the time allowed for correcting unforeseen problems was taken up. so the test programme surged ahead of schedule from the start, and more time became available for demonstration flights. The low workload flightdeck design, says senior test pilot Pierre Baud, allowed longer flights without fatigue and permitted more to be achieved in a given time.

Noise trials have yielded satisfactory results. Compared with FAR36 statutory noise limits, the A310 was 6 EPNdB better at take-off, 3 EPNdB better at the "flyby point", and 2-5 EPNdB lower on approach. For comparison, the A300's noise score on approach is 0-5 EPNdB lower than the FAR36 requirements.

RalXWB · Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:25 am

816 A300/A310 were sold so I guess Airbus is happy with the foundation of its success story...

WIederling · Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:58 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The A300 received the newer A310's tail, and the A330 received the A340's tail. So the parts are clearly very similar between families. Their could have been huge commonality and massive cost savings.

There is huge commonality.
A330 and A340 have exceptionally high commonality. "Same plane hung with different number of engines".

The A330 covered the A300/ less so the A310.
The at one time thought about A330-100 ( A330 with ~A300-600 fuselage length ) was expected to be more fuel efficient than the
A300-600 ( with ~~~40t more OEW! )
This is one reason I think that the super efficient MOM is a mirage.

MoKa777 · Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:53 am

FlyCaledonian wrote:
Some interesting thoughts and I've enjoyed reading through them. The early phase-out of the A310 (especially the A310-300) makes me wonder what drove that given it seems to have had similar capacity to the 767-300. Was it L1011 syndrome, in that it was effectively an orphan aircraft after Airbus moved on to the A330/A340?

DL phasing the A310s out in favour of more 767-332ERs (but why both PW and GE engines?) reminded me that KL did similar - replacing its A310-200s with 767-306ERs (which in turn were replaced by A330-200s).

The A310 was a shrink. The 763 was a stretch.

The A310 may have had similar trip costs compared with the A300 but carried fewer passengers completely changing its CASM.

The 763 on the other hand may have similar trip costs to the 762 but benefits from spreading that out over more passengers.

A very simplistic view on my part but it is the same concept we have seen again and again over the decades in aviation.

Faro · Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:51 am

MoKa777 wrote:

The A310 was a shrink. The 763 was a stretch.

The A310 may have had similar trip costs compared with the A300 but carried fewer passengers completely changing its CASM.

The 763 on the other hand may have similar trip costs to the 762 but benefits from spreading that out over more passengers.

A very simplistic view on my part but it is the same concept we have seen again and again over the decades in aviation.

That captures the essence of the situation...the 767 could be stretched because of its very ample wing, designed to operate transcontinental routes from LGA's 7'000 ft runways...the A310 couldn't because its wing was optimised mainly for intra-European routes and remained relatively modest (and efficient...for intra-European ranges) in comparison...both wings were supercritical and state-of-the-art, just like the respective engine options...one wing was simply much bigger than the other with more growth potential...

Faro

Polot · Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:00 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Polot wrote:
The problem with the A310 still would have remained the 767. If a reengined A310 was successful then Boeing would have just reengined the 767 with the same engines and Airbus would have been back to square one with the A310/A300's primary issue: for just a few tons (~1-3 t) more in OEW you can get a dramatically more capable (~15 t higher MTOW, ~30,000 L higher fuel capacity) aircraft.

I don't think Boeing would have gone with the Trent 500 which was really the only improved engine on the market in that size range.

The A300 and to an extent the A310 is much lighter per seat than the 767.

A300 has 215m2 at 88T
A310 has 175m2 at 79T
762 has 160m2 at 82T
763 has 190m2 at 90T
764 has 221m2 at 103T

The Trent 500 "A310-400" stretch would weigh probably 85T. That is nearly as much cabin area as the 767-400 while weighing less than the 767-300. It would have had the lowest CASM and RASM for transatlantic flights.

The A330 would then beat the 767 on flights above 4000nm.
The A310 would beat the 767 on flights below 4000nm

There would be no scenario or niche flight where the the 767 could have been better.

Also a reengined 767 right when the 787 program was about to launch, could have caused problems. It would have put the range up to 7000nm which would have taken a lot of customers from the 787.

I don’t know why you think that if a A310neo was a success Boeing wouldn’t use the same engines. They don’t have anything against RR...if the Trent 500 is the best option then that is what they would use. RR is all about selling engines, they would have no qualms selling them to Boeing.

You are acting like if the A310neo was built and success that actual aviation history would have still happened, but that is not the case. With a successful A310neo A330 sales would have been impacted, and Boeing’s competive response to Airbus would have been completely different. If you are talking about near 787 launch time then Boeing has little to worry...they could have leaped forged your A310neo by reeenging the 767 with GENx and Trent 1000 (both bleedair from the get go) instead

Awful time for Airbus to launch a plane too... right in the heart of the A380’s problem, A400M’s problems, and when Airbus would soon have to address the A340’s impending uncompetiveness (and threat to A330).

It is not a guarantee that the A310neo would have lower CASM on those longer flights (TATL) despite its slightly lower weight. Weight is just one of many factors that effect aircraft performance. As others has mentioned the 767’s wing was far better optimized for longer range flights than the A310’s, which can easily overcome its slight weight disadvantage. Airbus could make changes to the A310 to improve its position in that regard, but it would have cost them weight.

Your A310-400 would have still struggled to be useful past NE US-West EU flight. The market size for a smallish widewody optimized <4000nm is questionable (see past A310/762 sales figures, Boeing’s struggle to define a MoM plane which would use engines even better than the Trent 500). Hence why airbus never created a A310neo (I’m sure they had studied it in the past, even if not publicly).

Taxi645 · Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:31 pm

Here's an alternative history if Airbus had skipped the A340 and instead focus on their A300/A310 and A330 portfolio (yes I know it's hindsight):

EIS Length Wingspan Capacity 3cl. MTOW Range Engines
A300-700 1996 53m 50m 211 175T 5.200Nm 2 x 54.000
A300-800 1995 58m 50m 246 175T 4.500Nm 2 x 54.000

A330-200 1993 58m 60.3m 246 233T 6.500Nm 2 x 66.000
A330-300 1992 64.5m 60.3m 295 233T 5.600Nm 2 x 66.000

A330-300ER 1999 64.5m 60.3m 295 276.5T 7.500Nm 2 x 84.000
A330-400ER 1998 71.7m 60.3m 350 276.5T 6.600Nm 2 x 84.000

With one fuselage diameter, one cockpit, two wings and four fuselage length's they could have covered a really big part of the market. But indeed, at the time of the A340 decision ETOPS regulations were very different. One could argue that it would not have provided a sufficient 747 replacement/777W competitor, but then the A340 didn't provide that either.

oldannyboy · Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:33 pm

Polot wrote:
FlyCaledonian wrote:
Some interesting thoughts and I've enjoyed reading through them. The early phase-out of the A310 (especially the A310-300) makes me wonder what drove that given it seems to have had similar capacity to the 767-300. Was it L1011 syndrome, in that it was effectively an orphan aircraft after Airbus moved on to the A330/A340?

When equipped with 8Y the A310 has similar capacity to the 767-200. For example DL's A310s had 196 seats (12F/30J/154Y) versus 218 seats in their contemporary 763s (10F/34J/174Y). KL's A310s had 189-206 seats versus ~220 in their 763s. AF had 177 seats in the A310s versus 208-215 seats in their 763s.

Hi Polot, sorry..but I think you are getting your numbers wrong there...
The A310 had a considerable capacity advantage over the 762, although overall length was the same (46m vs 48m): the fuselage of the Airbus was obviously far wider, enabling to offer a comfortable 8-abreast cabin in Y, 6/7 in J, and 6 plush armchairs in F.
The 762 was 'certified' for 289 pax @ 29" but with the tight 8 abreast seating... Only the 763 could match the capacity of the A310 in 'real life' long-range configuration....

oldannyboy · Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:37 pm

FlyCaledonian wrote:
Some interesting thoughts and I've enjoyed reading through them. The early phase-out of the A310 (especially the A310-300) makes me wonder what drove that given it seems to have had similar capacity to the 767-300. Was it L1011 syndrome, in that it was effectively an orphan aircraft after Airbus moved on to the A330/A340?

DL phasing the A310s out in favour of more 767-332ERs (but why both PW and GE engines?) reminded me that KL did similar - replacing its A310-200s with 767-306ERs (which in turn were replaced by A330-200s).

To answer your question, the A310 was indeed an orphan, that for multiple reasons (stated clearly above in many posts) was not updated and/or given a "Mark 2" version. The 767 was instead continually developed and bettered, to a point where the newly builds (and optimized) 767-300ERs were significantly more efficient of the immediately preceding generation of twins (762s and A310s), hence the fact that relatively young A310s were superseded in service by 767s (see KLM, DL, KQ..).

Polot · Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:32 pm

oldannyboy wrote:
Polot wrote:
FlyCaledonian wrote:
Some interesting thoughts and I've enjoyed reading through them. The early phase-out of the A310 (especially the A310-300) makes me wonder what drove that given it seems to have had similar capacity to the 767-300. Was it L1011 syndrome, in that it was effectively an orphan aircraft after Airbus moved on to the A330/A340?

When equipped with 8Y the A310 has similar capacity to the 767-200. For example DL's A310s had 196 seats (12F/30J/154Y) versus 218 seats in their contemporary 763s (10F/34J/174Y). KL's A310s had 189-206 seats versus ~220 in their 763s. AF had 177 seats in the A310s versus 208-215 seats in their 763s.

Hi Polot, sorry..but I think you are getting your numbers wrong there...
The A310 had a considerable capacity advantage over the 762, although overall length was the same (46m vs 48m): the fuselage of the Airbus was obviously far wider, enabling to offer a comfortable 8-abreast cabin in Y, 6/7 in J, and 6 plush armchairs in F.
The 762 was 'certified' for 289 pax @ 29" but with the tight 8 abreast seating... Only the 763 could match the capacity of the A310 in 'real life' long-range configuration....

The 763 is “considerable” larger in real life long range configurations than the A310. Just look at the layouts of airlines who operated them at the same time with similar products onboard (eg AF, Canadian, Sabena).

The A310/762 are closer than you think. The extra 2m of the 762 means ~2-3 more Y rows, it is not a length difference you can just discount. The. The last 5-7 rows of the A310 are 7Y due to the fuselage curvature (767 7Y all the way to end of cabin). The A310 may be slightly bigger (again in typical layouts, hi density all Y A310 is larger) but they are fairly even.

Newbie pilot earlier mentioned how DL’s A310s had 225 seats versus 204 in their 762s, but neglected to mention (or did not notice) that DL had a mid cabin galley/lav complex in the 762s not found in the exPan Am A310 layout.

Slash787 · Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:00 pm

A310 is a great aircraft, it is the first aircraft I flew after getting a job as a pilot.

parapente · Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:28 pm

It must be frustrating being a marketing planner forecaster.
You do your research and make a groundbreaking twin,the A300 and they say 'yup but we need more range'
So you build the A310 and they 'yup but we need more range'
So you get trumped by the 767 that offers more range.
But then this is in turn trumped by the A330 that ...'offers more range' - but wait ..they say they want even more range. So.
That is in turn trumped by the 787 that offers more range.

But the airlines then say 'why are you offering all this range? We only need half that range -make a MOM??

Polot · Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:39 pm

parapente wrote:
So you build the A310 and they 'yup but we need more range'
So you get trumped by the 767 that offers more range.
But then this is in turn trumped by the A330 that ...'offers more range' - but wait ..they say they want even more range. So.
That is in turn trumped by the 787 that offers more range.

It is not just range, it is also capacity. The A310's range is probably perfectly fine for many airlines, but if you can buy a larger 763 that flies the same route, and in turn could get a larger A330 that is also capable of flying 767 routes outside of the A310's wheelhouse...

airbazar · Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:12 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
You did a good job highlighting the strengths of the A310. There must be some reasons why the 767 was more popular than the A310. What do you think they are? I don't think it was that Airbus focused on the A330 since the A300/A310 matched 767 engine performance and engine upgrades were the bulk of the changes that enabled higher MTOWs on the 767s throughout the 1980s.

The reason for the sales difference is simple. The European market in those days (and even the Asian markets), was significantly smaller than the North American market so it stands to reason that an aircraft almost exclusively designed for the European market would sell a lot less. Its when you put it into the context of what its target customer base was, that it becomes clear how successful it was.

If we talk about about the A310, I don't understand how it was only designed for the European market? Transatlantic flying is the same for North American and European operators. Delta bought new A310s, and then quickly replaced them with 767-300ERs. Kind of like AA and DL buying MD11s and quickly replacing them with 777-200ERs. Air Transat still has A310s as well as Canada 3000 and Wardair in Canada had them. Eastern, Pan Am, American, Continental and Delta all operated the A300s or A310s at a period of time, so it wasn't only sold in Europe.

First of all you're comparing the A310 with the 763ER, which is wrong. If you compare the A310 with the 762 you'll see that they both sold about the same, exactly for the reasons that you state. Second, I didn't say it was sold only in Europe. I said it was designed primarily for the European market. The A300 was an aircraft that excelled on short, heavy routes. Later airlines requested a shrink version which became the A310 and that was more widely accepted outside of Europe. U.S. carriers with their very large fleets certainly had a place for both the A310 and A300, but they were never going to make up a very large fleet, especially from a new, unproven manufacturer.
The A300 didn't sell very well for the same reason the 767-300 didn't sell very well: short haul with WB aircraft is not a palatable. Customers want frequencies. Enter the 763ER and A300-600R.
There probably is a whole other series of reasons to explain why one sold very well and the other didn't. Range is probably an important reason. The 763ER was a long hauler that could also operate short haul segments while the Airbus was a short/medium hauler that couldn't operate long haul. We should also not ignore the 757 in this equation, for which Airbus had no match. The A321 only entered service in 1993.

Planesmart · Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:48 pm

RalXWB wrote:
The 300 were certainly not terrible as regards to maintenance. In this case it was caused by EAL nightmarish maintenance, has nothing to do with the airplane and it still does not change the fact that the 300 was the first twin-engine widebody.

There were political issues in the USA with regards to the A300, including competition between maintenance centres, union interference, and even politicians themselves. The A300 became fair game, with flights delayed for the most trivial reasons, like an in-flight entertainment screen not working.

When Eastern received their first leased A300's, there were English manuals available, but not all had been re-written to American English, which is a legitimate requirement given the different terms used, and in some cases, different meanings ascribed to the same words. This was quickly rectified.

RJMAZ · Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:13 pm

Polot wrote:
The A310/762 are closer than you think. The extra 2m of the 762 means ~2-3 more Y rows, it is not a length difference you can just discount.

The 762 cabin is only 70cm longer than the A310. That is lucky to fit 1 extra row of Y.

Yet the A310 fits one extra seat per row for nearly the entire length of the plane.

I can't find a perfect apple to apple comparison of 3 class cabins for the A310 and 762. A couple extra first class seats can replace a dozen Y seats. If both the 767 and A310 used the same 2-2-2 J class the 767 would have narrower seats. You would need to add a couple inchs to the J seat pitch in the 767's to make it fair.

The A310 is roughly half way between the size of the 762 and 763.

The A300 length is edging extremely close to the 764 cabin area yet is nearly 20T lighter.

Polot wrote:
It is not a guarantee that the A310neo would have lower CASM on those longer flights (TATL) despite its slightly lower weight. Weight is just one of many factors that effect aircraft performance. As others has mentioned the 767’s wing was far better optimized for longer range flights than the A310’s, which can easily overcome its slight weight disadvantage. Airbus could make changes to the A310 to improve its position in that regard, but it would have cost them weight.

I completely agree.

But that's where the A330 with its big wing comes in to hit the 767 from above.

At the longer ranges the bigger wing does provide advantages with improved lift to drag. On shorter trips the empty weight per passenger is the most important value. So a small light wing with a higher wing loading is much better for short range CASM.

At the A310NEO maximum range of the 767 would probably overtake on CASM, but at that point the A330 would probably be even better. On a 1000nm or even 2000nm sector there is no way the 767 would come close to beating the A310-400. It would have had a 15-20% empty weight per passenger advantage.

The 767's only advantage over the A330 was lower trip costs from it being slightly smaller. That advantage would have disappeared with the A310-300 and A310-400.

Again a 1 percent advantage over a competitor often results in a 2:1 sales advantage. The 767 would never have been able to make up for its inefficient cross section even with genx's.

SQ22 · Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:47 am

Balerit wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
You did a good job highlighting the strengths of the A310. There must be some reasons why the 767 was more popular than the A310. What do you think they are? I don't think it was that Airbus focused on the A330 since the A300/A310 matched 767 engine performance and engine upgrades were the bulk of the changes that enabled higher MTOWs on the 767s throughout the 1980s.

The reason for the sales difference is simple. The European market in those days (and even the Asian markets), was significantly smaller than the North American market so it stands to reason that an aircraft almost exclusively designed for the European market would sell a lot less. Its when you put it into the context of what its target customer base was, that it becomes clear how successful it was.

You are absolutely right, it took a long time for Airbus to be accepted by US airlines. It was Barry Goldwater who flew the test A300 and said “Well,….we’ve had our ass kicked, ..if I can say that.”

Thanks for bringing that up, I did a sear on the internet and found two articles writen by Ben Sandilands when Barry Goldwater was the Copilot on the A300.

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalkin ... rget-1973/

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalkin ... emembered/

Balerit · Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:01 am

Another one:

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2009/05/29/the-airbus-debut-that-made-headlines-for-just-over-a-day/

Sad about the crash the next day: Concordski.

by738 · Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:11 am

Presumably Britannia Airways looked at A300/A310 in their 1980 widebody plans? Always thought it was odd Monarch were quite late to the party ordering the A300-600s then giving some up to Compass. Suppose the demise clues were there with an oddball DC-10 and ultimately revisiting a 767-300.

Ryanair01 · Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:01 pm

In fairness the original A300 was more a competitor to the L1011-1, it beat the 767 into service by a decade.

The A310 was designed for missions that today you'd probably see an A321 used for, that is around 2-4 hours with about 200 seats. Bear in mind shorthaul wide bodies were pretty common in those days. I think as several posters mentioned the 767 was designed as a transcon aircraft, so 4-5 hours.

When ETOPS originally became a thing on the Atlantic (other than a few oddities ETOPS didn't hit the Pacific until 777-200ER 10-15 years later), arguably the A310 was ahead of the 767 with most of the Europeans and Pan Am using the A310, I don't think UA flew to Europe at all plus AA, CO, NW and DL were mostly using Trijets. The 767 became more popular as United, American and Delta expanded across the pond and these airlines had already got 767 fleets from their traditional midhaul operations. In broad terms the European's gradually replaced A310 on short haul with A32x family and A330 for longer flights.

Elsewhere in the world airlines like Emirates, Gulf Air, Singapore etc replaced their A310s/767s with larger A330 and 777s to handle growth.

Slug71 · Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:15 am

Perhaps weight due to the wider fuselage was a downside to the A300/A310?

strfyr51 · Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:16 am

Ryanair01 wrote:
In fairness the original A300 was more a competitor to the L1011-1, it beat the 767 into service by a decade.

The A310 was designed for missions that today you'd probably see an A321 used for, that is around 2-4 hours with about 200 seats. Bear in mind shorthaul wide bodies were pretty common in those days. I think as several posters mentioned the 767 was designed as a transcon aircraft, so 4-5 hours.

When ETOPS originally became a thing on the Atlantic (other than a few oddities ETOPS didn't hit the Pacific until 777-200ER 10-15 years later), arguably the A310 was ahead of the 767 with most of the Europeans and Pan Am using the A310, I don't think UA flew to Europe at all plus AA, CO, NW and DL were mostly using Trijets. The 767 became more popular as United, American and Delta expanded across the pond and these airlines had already got 767 fleets from their traditional midhaul operations. In broad terms the European's gradually replaced A310 on short haul with A32x family and A330 for longer flights.

Elsewhere in the world airlines like Emirates, Gulf Air, Singapore etc replaced their A310s/767s with larger A330 and 777s to handle growth.

WRONG!! After TWA \gained ETOPS Certification American and United Both gained Certiciation. However United still had B747's and DC10's which we flew to London and at or near the same time United was flying B727's In Europe based at LHR. We didn't get hot and heavy with the B767-222 until we were retiring the DC10's and they were leaving for FEDEX. We flew the B767-222's to LHR then we got the B767-322's and we Really flew those to Europe.then the B777-222's (non ER's) and more than likely the A350's as well. But since it's rumored we're getting new B767's
I strongly suspect we'll be flying them to LHR ,HNL and South America as well ..

parapente · Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:23 am

I did note that Boeing appeared to be pouring a little cold water in a Reuters article.They referred to one 'inquiry' from 'one' airline.This was followed up with the point that they had not made one for 4 years.Its not to say the absolutely won't do it but looks a bit of a stretch at the mo'.Its clearly all to do with the 8+ year gap to the 797.

WIederling · Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:30 am

Slug71 wrote:
Perhaps weight due to the wider fuselage was a downside to the A300/A310?

Somewhere further up it was mentioned that the A310 had lower OEW than 767 ( which)
The 222" Airbus cross section seem to be a very efficient design.

Ryanair01 · Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:50 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Ryanair01 wrote:
In fairness the original A300 was more a competitor to the L1011-1, it beat the 767 into service by a decade.

The A310 was designed for missions that today you'd probably see an A321 used for, that is around 2-4 hours with about 200 seats. Bear in mind shorthaul wide bodies were pretty common in those days. I think as several posters mentioned the 767 was designed as a transcon aircraft, so 4-5 hours.

When ETOPS originally became a thing on the Atlantic (other than a few oddities ETOPS didn't hit the Pacific until 777-200ER 10-15 years later), arguably the A310 was ahead of the 767 with most of the Europeans and Pan Am using the A310, I don't think UA flew to Europe at all plus AA, CO, NW and DL were mostly using Trijets. The 767 became more popular as United, American and Delta expanded across the pond and these airlines had already got 767 fleets from their traditional midhaul operations. In broad terms the European's gradually replaced A310 on short haul with A32x family and A330 for longer flights.

Elsewhere in the world airlines like Emirates, Gulf Air, Singapore etc replaced their A310s/767s with larger A330 and 777s to handle growth.

WRONG!! After TWA \gained ETOPS Certification American and United Both gained Certiciation. However United still had B747's and DC10's which we flew to London and at or near the same time United was flying B727's In Europe based at LHR. We didn't get hot and heavy with the B767-222 until we were retiring the DC10's and they were leaving for FEDEX. We flew the B767-222's to LHR then we got the B767-322's and we Really flew those to Europe.then the B777-222's (non ER's) and more than likely the A350's as well. But since it's rumored we're getting new B767's
I strongly suspect we'll be flying them to LHR ,HNL and South America as well ..

Erm, United didn't fly to Europe until 1991, everything I describe happened in the early/mid 1980s. But if you just make everything up it's easy.....

A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Re: A300/A310 v 767

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net