Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24589
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:35 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Would it be fair to characterize the whole 747 program by saying;
"many of its early orders were from one American airline which at the time was the de facto flag carrier for the USA, and had vested interests in buying US goods"?
Take Pan Am out of the picture, and what's left? Oh yeah, decades of success with every major airline in the world. But we won't mention that!

Since you point out exact phrasing of sentences, I'll point out you've now shifted your emphasis from its origin being a "focus" for A300 to origin being the "whole story" of the 747.

Still, I don't find the focus on the origin story of the 747 to be objectionable. Origin stories are huge. The Book of Genesis. How Harry Met Sally. How Daddy met Mommy. I think it's pretty natural to focus on them, not sure why that gets push back when we talk about A300, unless there's something people are ashamed of. Maybe Mommy and Daddy eloped?

The problem with your rendering of the 747 story is PanAm wasn't owned by the US Government, nor was Boeing. The tax payers had no skin in the game. That's a key element of the story you've dropped out of the picture.

Even still I don't find it objectionable that its origin story be focused on, because without Trippe offering to buy 25 on a hand shake deal it may have never happened.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Shall we discuss the US Government bankrolling the 707 program by purchasing over 800 KC-135s? What was it you said? "Getting to 80 customers with such a start is not something to shout about, IMO"

Again, your rendering is off. The story starts with Dash-80, the prototype Boeing built with its own money. Lockheed was already chosen by USG to build the first jet tanker, the KC135 purchase was just to fill the need till the Lockheed effort was ready. The KC135 contract was the result of being best of breed in a competitive market and winning the business on merit.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
How about Vickers building the Viscount, Vanguard, and VC-10, all on the back of production lines and drawing offices created to produce thousands of Spitfire fighters and Wellington bombers?

That's how things are supposed to work. You win a contract in a competitive environment to build something the government needs. What you do with the resulting profits is up to you. Investing them in commercial spin offs is a natural thing to do.

The key difference is that you're building something the government needs in a competitive environment, not being given a gift. Equating government contracts to gifts is absurd. Sure there are rewards, but you have to earn them by building a product the government needs. And there are risks involved. Ask Airbus how A400M went. Boeing is losing money on the "gift" KC46 contract. Lockheed lost lots of money on the tanker it built to compete with KC135. It's totally different than here's a bag of money, enough to build a state of the art product, you guys go out and enter a commercial market, and here's the numbers for the heads of our government owned airlines too.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Is there an aircraft company anywhere that hasn't benefitted from Government orders (for military purposes)? Airbus is almost unique in that respect.

In fact with A400M deep in the red Airbus may be unique in only losing money on government business... That's not how it's supposed to be done.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
BTW It wasn't the fact the A300 saw service with 80 varied customers that was the issue. My point was that 80 qualifies as "many", whereas two is most definitely not. :shakehead:

Again we circle back to the importance (or lack thereof, in some people's mind) of the origin story. The early customers were state airlines which let all future customers know the governments were fully behind the program and would not let it fail. Those two customers matter far more than the remaining 78.

It's the same as the RLA argument. I think it's a far better deal to be given a big lump of money right up front as the program is being formed and other finances are being arranged then being able to pay back if and when you deliver product years later rather than getting percentage discounts on local taxes that you pay right from the start as the program is being developed till the resulting facilities are withdrawn from service and every day in between. It also shows the governments are fully engaged in the program which is a signal to other financiers that it is safe to invest in the program. If the program doesn't meet its goals like A380 and A340-500/600 the government eats a loss. If the program exceeds goals like A320 you quietly renegotiate the deal without releasing the details of how much of a hit the government is taking due to commercial sensitivities, and no one seems to care. It's pretty much a win-win-win-win situation.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
GDB
Posts: 13780
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:37 pm

While Pan Am was not 'state owned' it had a heck of a lot of clout.
Witness what happened when PA optioned Concorde in 1963, Juan Trippe got a very irate call from the President.
To which his reply was on the lines of 'so go get US planemakers to build a SST'.
We know what happened next.

Airbus was a realisation of a cold, hard fact. Against the massive US corporations, which had hugely prospered in WW2 and intact, a fragmented set of European companies, those on the continent having been rebuilt, could not hope to be a major player unless they combined their talents and resources.
Whether they be state or privately owned, (it was after the UK was in and out of Airbus - no change in national habits there - private money from Hawkers that kept their innovative wing design as part of Airbus).

Previous attempts to combine on an aircraft to aircraft basis had not worked, Sud Aviation had in the Caravelle when it came out, something that no US airframer could match for some years, yet attempts to produce a version with Douglas came to nothing and sales in the US were very limited.

So really the approach had to be to create a company made up of several European ones to design and build airliners, for wide bodies that was the only way they could have done it.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24589
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:56 pm

GDB wrote:
Airbus was a realisation of a cold, hard fact. Against the massive US corporations, which had hugely prospered in WW2 and intact, a fragmented set of European companies, those on the continent having been rebuilt, could not hope to be a major player unless they combined their talents and resources.
Whether they be state or privately owned, (it was after the UK was in and out of Airbus - no change in national habits there - private money from Hawkers that kept their innovative wing design as part of Airbus).

Previous attempts to combine on an aircraft to aircraft basis had not worked, Sud Aviation had in the Caravelle when it came out, something that no US airframer could match for some years, yet attempts to produce a version with Douglas came to nothing and sales in the US were very limited.

So really the approach had to be to create a company made up of several European ones to design and build airliners, for wide bodies that was the only way they could have done it.

I think the best approach is to proudly acknowledge the role the governments had as matchmaker and financier instead of being silent about that part. It was a natural outcome of the way the governments of that time approached a problem. The outcome was many great products and invention and integration of very many technical advances, along with the benefit of people being able to safely and cheaply visit different places for social, political and economic reasons. All good stuff.

In turn, if in N years from now COMAC ends up undermining A or B or both, we'd have to give them the same tip of the hat for getting their act together and doing many of the same things.

I'm sure major corporate entities will have a hard time seeing it that way, but they too find their own ways to make things work to their benefit.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 1489
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:09 am

GDB wrote:
We also have to consider the effects of the 1973/74 oil crisis, which hit all of the airframers hard. This was a major factor factor in that order drought for the A300 but also it's salvation?
After all on the short/medium routes it could do much of the tri-jets work on two engines.
Not all of the earlier orders for the A300 were from state European carriers, unless you think the likes of SAA, Indian Airlines, Korean and Iran Air were stooges.

McD and Lockheed were established players and had some brand recall in the market. So it was easier for them to sell their products. The L1011 delays and DC10 safety issues were their own making. Airbus otoh was the new kid on the block and had to be creative to sell their offering.

Not sure how Airbus got to the others in the list, but I am reminded about an anecdote I read in the memoirs of a former Indian Airlines manager. In 1973, Airbus was facing problems selling their new airliner - Nobody wanted a large 300 seat, short range widebody. Indian Airlines, otoh, had another problem - chronic undercapacity. This was 17 years before liberalisation and IA was the only player in the domestic market. Railway style Wait lists running into the 100's were a common feature on the heaviest routes. The good folks at Airbus made an offer - 4 white tail A300B2's sitting on the tarmac at Toulouse were offered up for FREE for 2 years. A reluctant IA was persuaded by the PM's secretary, Mr.Dhar to take up the offer. The aircraft was an immediate hit. IA went on to operate 19 of these gentle giants, 12 B2's and 7 B4's retiring the last one only in 2005.



If the memoirs are to be believed, Egyptair also got the same deal as IA and so did Eastern Airlines.

Airbus is a story of persevarance. And ofcourse the willingness of European Govt's to bankroll and expensive jobs programme. McD, Lockheed and Boeing otoh are shining examples of incompetence. Allowing shareholders to make what should have been engineering choices.

Does that sort of thing still happen at US manufacturers? Hmmmm!
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24589
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Mon Aug 31, 2020 2:12 pm

BawliBooch wrote:
Airbus is a story of persevarance. And ofcourse the willingness of European Govt's to bankroll and expensive jobs programme. McD, Lockheed and Boeing otoh are shining examples of incompetence. Allowing shareholders to make what should have been engineering choices.

Was A380 a shareholder choice or an engineering choice?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
GDB
Posts: 13780
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Mon Aug 31, 2020 2:59 pm

Revelation wrote:
BawliBooch wrote:
Airbus is a story of persevarance. And ofcourse the willingness of European Govt's to bankroll and expensive jobs programme. McD, Lockheed and Boeing otoh are shining examples of incompetence. Allowing shareholders to make what should have been engineering choices.

Was A380 a shareholder choice or an engineering choice?


Bit of both, Airbus was toying around with what was then called the A3XX from the mid 90's, They did not rush into it,
That's the largest of the Airbus range, the latest version of Boeing's smallest aircraft, heavily biased towards shareholders. It would be easy to follow up with 'and it had led to two fatal accidents and a very extended grounding' but being excessively shareholder led has affected Boeing in other less lethal ways for the past 20 years.

But that's modern day 'shareholder choice', it was ultimately up to shareholders to approve the 747 project in 1966, when they were rather more interested in long term investments and returns than share buybacks and other quick bucks.
Not just Boeing, to me it's no good decrying the hollowing out of the US manufacturing base then also hailing the likes of the late 'Neutron Jack' as a shining example of a CEO.
 
User avatar
Wildlander
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:08 pm

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:07 pm

The A380 like the A300 and other "foundation" AIrbus models was a strategic choice, based on the premise that air travel would continue to grow strongly (which it did) but not fragment to the extent it did (the fate that befell the A300 in Europe). The size/layout was a commercial/technical choice? the industrial set-up that of the Shareholders. For those hammering nails into the A380's coffin, it's easy to be wiser with hindsight. The 2 hourly A300 ITF service on Paris - Bordeaux became multiple A320s and now multiple TGVs. Paris-London went from AFR A300s and BAW L-1011s to single aisles to the Eurostar. Times change, as do habits and preferences.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24589
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:21 pm

GDB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Was A380 a shareholder choice or an engineering choice?


Bit of both, Airbus was toying around with what was then called the A3XX from the mid 90's, They did not rush into it,
That's the largest of the Airbus range, the latest version of Boeing's smallest aircraft, heavily biased towards shareholders. It would be easy to follow up with 'and it had led to two fatal accidents and a very extended grounding' but being excessively shareholder led has affected Boeing in other less lethal ways for the past 20 years.

But that's modern day 'shareholder choice', it was ultimately up to shareholders to approve the 747 project in 1966, when they were rather more interested in long term investments and returns than share buybacks and other quick bucks.
Not just Boeing, to me it's no good decrying the hollowing out of the US manufacturing base then also hailing the likes of the late 'Neutron Jack' as a shining example of a CEO.

So the question becomes, can one find enough investors interested in "long term investments and returns" in the current climate to keep an "engineering firm" in a capital intense business afloat? Can that company attract and retain enough talent when those same people could be working for other entities more focused on returns in industries with much more growth potential? Boeing tells us the answer to that is no. I tend to think that answer is self serving and is pushed out because it serves the interests of those in the C-suite and those with aspirations of being in such the best, but that's just my opinion. Wall Street mania may be collective madness, but it's hard to find a way around that.

I suppose (despite its many short comings) Amazon is a counter example. They were able to re-invest a lot of earnings into tech stuff over the years and have made a lot of money off things that started out as in-house tech such as order fulfillment and cloud computing infrastructure. It seems you need a visionary CEO in place to sell that vision to all the others in the C-suite and to the investors, but that's a rare thing. Boeing had their chance at a visionary (Mulally) but let him walk and then ended up with a money guy (McNearney) when a lot of the decisions they are now struggling with were made. As they say, the rest is history.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
airbazar
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:26 pm

Revelation wrote:
Anonz263x wrote:
Ive read how McDonnell Douglas had a twinjet concept for the DC-10, but how come the idea was not pursued, and Airbus went ahead to make a300 a twinjet using the same CF6 and JT9D engines, was it to do with ETOPS, or were the engines on the DC-10 underpowered for it to be a capable twinjet?

A300 went ahead because their governments wanted to be in the airliner business. There's no way MD or any for-profit entity would have invested in A300 as it was at launch time. It did not have enough payload/range to be useful except for short hops. It largely sold to airlines owned by the same governments or those influenced by them.

Right, because the DoD's contracts with Boeing, McD, Lockeed, etc never subsidized the R&D necessary to develop civilian aircraft. So much of the technology and know-how for developing civilian aircraft came out of military programs.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13999
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:37 pm

In 1977, the A300B4 became the first ETOPS-compliant aircraft. The draw for this with customers was that it qualified for extended twin-engine operations over water, offering more versatility in routing. "The initial shortcoming of the project was probably a lack of understanding of the market," says Martinelli. "I think it is fair to say that the A300 was saved by the ETOPS certification, which opened up a viable market for the plane."


https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ ... index.html
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24589
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:06 pm

airbazar wrote:
Revelation wrote:
A300 went ahead because their governments wanted to be in the airliner business. There's no way MD or any for-profit entity would have invested in A300 as it was at launch time. It did not have enough payload/range to be useful except for short hops. It largely sold to airlines owned by the same governments or those influenced by them.

Right, because the DoD's contracts with Boeing, McD, Lockeed, etc never subsidized the R&D necessary to develop civilian aircraft. So much of the technology and know-how for developing civilian aircraft came out of military programs.

As I wrote, in the main we're talking about companies building stuff the government needs in a competitive environment. It's pretty clear there is a competitive mechanism in place to avoid the subsidy issue, if the needed R&D could be performed by a competitor cheaper they got the bid. I would avoid absolutes such as 'never'. No system is perfect, especially when governments are involved. Yet it's very different from "here's a bag of money, go build a state of the art airliner, and here's the number to reach our government owned airlines".

Also, should we assume Airbus learned nothing about building an airliner from building Typhoon, or A400M, or Concorde, any predecessors going back to Spitfire and Bf109?

And should we talk about government subsidized R&D that definitely is aimed at developing civilian aircraft such as the Clean Skies program that paid Airbus to modify a A340 to study laminar flow?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
dstblj52
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:29 pm

Revelation wrote:
GDB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Was A380 a shareholder choice or an engineering choice?


Bit of both, Airbus was toying around with what was then called the A3XX from the mid 90's, They did not rush into it,
That's the largest of the Airbus range, the latest version of Boeing's smallest aircraft, heavily biased towards shareholders. It would be easy to follow up with 'and it had led to two fatal accidents and a very extended grounding' but being excessively shareholder led has affected Boeing in other less lethal ways for the past 20 years.

But that's modern day 'shareholder choice', it was ultimately up to shareholders to approve the 747 project in 1966, when they were rather more interested in long term investments and returns than share buybacks and other quick bucks.
Not just Boeing, to me it's no good decrying the hollowing out of the US manufacturing base then also hailing the likes of the late 'Neutron Jack' as a shining example of a CEO.

So the question becomes, can one find enough investors interested in "long term investments and returns" in the current climate to keep an "engineering firm" in a capital intense business afloat? Can that company attract and retain enough talent when those same people could be working for other entities more focused on returns in industries with much more growth potential? Boeing tells us the answer to that is no. I tend to think that answer is self serving and is pushed out because it serves the interests of those in the C-suite and those with aspirations of being in such the best, but that's just my opinion. Wall Street mania may be collective madness, but it's hard to find a way around that.

I suppose (despite its many short comings) Amazon is a counter example. They were able to re-invest a lot of earnings into tech stuff over the years and have made a lot of money off things that started out as in-house tech such as order fulfillment and cloud computing infrastructure. It seems you need a visionary CEO in place to sell that vision to all the others in the C-suite and to the investors, but that's a rare thing. Boeing had their chance at a visionary (Mulally) but let him walk and then ended up with a money guy (McNearney) when a lot of the decisions they are now struggling with were made. As they say, the rest is history.

The problem is that once executive compensation is tied to share price instruments like buybacks make it to easy for C suite to vote themselves a pay raise, and yes I suspect you can find capital to run these companies after all the stock market is just the secondary market for these functions, but we would likely see a slowing rate of return on invested capital. Really I think the whole idea of stock buybacks has a ton of issues and there is good evidence that companies, not hyper-focused on keeping the markets happy have a better rate of return in the longer term (private vs public companies). The problem is that most senior staff at major companies tend to move around a lot 3 years at one place 2 at the next. If you wanted to solve something like this I would be in favor of banning buybacks (dividends are promised over the long term not just all the cash we can scrape up this quarter so they are generally fine), and imposing something like 2 years of gardening leaving between holding a senior position at a publicly-traded company so people have a longer-term stake in the company they are working at.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24589
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:29 pm

dstblj52 wrote:
The problem is that once executive compensation is tied to share price instruments like buybacks make it to easy for C suite to vote themselves a pay raise, and yes I suspect you can find capital to run these companies after all the stock market is just the secondary market for these functions, but we would likely see a slowing rate of return on invested capital.

The problem isn't just in the C-Suite. These days it's pretty common for many classes of salaried employees to be given stock options and/or grants and/or discounts on purchasing their company's stock. They can make a big difference on total compensation even if your company is just a middling firm given the overall growth of the stock market, and a huge difference if it's a rapidly growing company. Given we don't have a national pension system in the USA and SSA is always under threat, everyone pretty much needs to be in the market if they hope to have a relatively comfortable retirement.

Given this is the case, a strong track record in the stock market along with a generous stock component of compensation can be a make/break factor in getting employees to join or to stay.

This is one way Boeing justifies its emphasis on its stock price, and IMO it has some basis in fact. As above I would love to see some degree of reform on CEO compensation and aren't happy how we're so dependent on the stock market, but there's really nothing I can do about it.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
USAirKid
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:42 am

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Tue Sep 01, 2020 11:06 pm

Revelation wrote:
I suppose (despite its many short comings) Amazon is a counter example. They were able to re-invest a lot of earnings into tech stuff over the years and have made a lot of money off things that started out as in-house tech such as order fulfillment and cloud computing infrastructure. It seems you need a visionary CEO in place to sell that vision to all the others in the C-suite and to the investors, but that's a rare thing.


Jeff Bezos also has a reasonably large voting share of Amazon stock. He owns 12% of the company and he votes the shares of the 4% of the company that is owned by his ex-wife Mackenzie Bezos. (If she sells some of those shares, Jeff still gets to vote those shares.)

I initially thought that there was a second class of shares which gave Jeff Bezos absolute voting control (such as Zuckerberg’s voting control over Facebook) but there’s not that at Amazon. As others said online it means Jeff only has to convince 34% of the shares to vote with him.

Wouldn’t it have been great if William Boeing had done something similar and passed those shares into interested descendants?
 
edina
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 3:51 am

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:42 am

BawliBooch wrote:
smithbs wrote:
The range of the initial A300s was fairly meager - well less than 1000 nm fully loaded.


It was not that bad! The original A300B1 model with 130 ton MTOW had a range at MTOW of 1850nm. <5 units of this variant were produced and all used for testing. The 5 B1's were later sold to Inter Air and after some years were seen doing duty with an African Airline. The first production variant was the B2.


The only B1 that entered commercial service went to TEA in Belgium. All of Air Inters 22 A300s were B2s or B4s (16 B2s & 6 B4s). Inter Air was always a Boeing airline IIRC.
Worked on - Caravelle Mercure A300 A320 F27 SD3-60 BAe146 747-100/200/400 DC10-30 767 777 737-400 757 A319 A321
 
WN732
Posts: 814
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:49 am

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:29 am

edina wrote:
BawliBooch wrote:
smithbs wrote:
The range of the initial A300s was fairly meager - well less than 1000 nm fully loaded.


It was not that bad! The original A300B1 model with 130 ton MTOW had a range at MTOW of 1850nm. <5 units of this variant were produced and all used for testing. The 5 B1's were later sold to Inter Air and after some years were seen doing duty with an African Airline. The first production variant was the B2.


The only B1 that entered commercial service went to TEA in Belgium. All of Air Inters 22 A300s were B2s or B4s (16 B2s & 6 B4s). Inter Air was always a Boeing airline IIRC.


They also flew the Mercure for a time. One of the few to do so.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1802
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Wed Sep 02, 2020 5:07 pm

WN732 wrote:
edina wrote:
BawliBooch wrote:

It was not that bad! The original A300B1 model with 130 ton MTOW had a range at MTOW of 1850nm. <5 units of this variant were produced and all used for testing. The 5 B1's were later sold to Inter Air and after some years were seen doing duty with an African Airline. The first production variant was the B2.


The only B1 that entered commercial service went to TEA in Belgium. All of Air Inters 22 A300s were B2s or B4s (16 B2s & 6 B4s). Inter Air was always a Boeing airline IIRC.


They also flew the Mercure for a time. One of the few to do so.

More exactly, THE ONLY airline to fly the Mercure.
2 prototypes were built, plus 10 production aircraft for Air Inter. Later, the second prototype was refurbished and delivered as 11th aircraft to Air Inter.
Once Air Inter retired them, they went to museums and the scrapper.
 
ItnStln
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:47 pm

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:35 pm

Revelation wrote:
Anonz263x wrote:
Ive read how McDonnell Douglas had a twinjet concept for the DC-10, but how come the idea was not pursued, and Airbus went ahead to make a300 a twinjet using the same CF6 and JT9D engines, was it to do with ETOPS, or were the engines on the DC-10 underpowered for it to be a capable twinjet?

A300 went ahead because their governments wanted to be in the airliner business. There's no way MD or any for-profit entity would have invested in A300 as it was at launch time. It did not have enough payload/range to be useful except for short hops. It largely sold to airlines owned by the same governments or those influenced by them.

This
 
N649DL
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: What made Airbus make the a300 as a twinjet, and why couldnt McDonnell Douglas do the same with the DC-10?

Sun Sep 06, 2020 3:05 am

USAirKid wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Shame to see them go, but once Bethune took over we went all Boeing


And of course Continental never figured out how to maintain them and they were very unreliable, mostly due to lack of spare parts


One of the things Bethune wrote in his book about CO’s turn around is that they couldn’t make money with the A300. They could lose less, but there wasn’t a profitable spot for it in the CO network.


I remember as a kid flying an A300 on FLL-EWR in 1995 and it was outfitted with the new blue seat patterns in Y. Everything seemed pretty modern on-board but the plane itself was probably built in the late-1970s. I flew some AA A306 in the 90s that seemed more faded in Y because they were probably well used.

As an elementary school child in the mid-1990s and based out of EWR, I had the distinct pleasure of flying many CO relics to Florida for Spring Break. By far the DC-9s were the worst with reliability and I flew them as late as 1998. 727 and D10 weren't exactly fun either. A300 seemed OK for the most part.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AECM, airbuster, ArtV, avi8, azz767, Bing [Bot], bjwonline, chartmaker, Clydenairways, EIBPI, Google Adsense [Bot], GSP psgr, Hosta, iuliux, kalvado, Keith2004, klm617, MastaHanky, max999, mxaxai, onwFan, Opus99, phxa340, royroy, tistpaa727, usairways85, visual8L and 321 guests

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