Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:Can it be a matter of original design? The A300 was built as an air bus, meaning to carry lots of passengers on trunk routes, like Paris-London.
The 767 started with the -200s, which was smaller than all the previous wide-bodies, and perhaps conceived from the beginning to a long-range aircraft, remember both TWA and El Al launched early on long-haul flights with it, replacing in the process the 707s.
The A310 was Airbus' answer to the 767 (-200) with modified wings.
Airbus offered the A300-100/200, then the A300-600 or the A310-200 (not sure which one came first), then the A310-300 and A300-600R.
Boeing, for its part had the 767-200, then -200ER, followed by -300, later -300ER and finally the -400ER.
Wildlander wrote:The A310 was born of Airbus recognition that the market desired a wide-body with fewer seats than the A300, hence it was not an "answer to the 767" per se. The inputs from the (then) limited customer base for the A300 convinced Airbus management to design the A310-200 for regional operations.
Wildlander wrote:The A310 had an all-new wing
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:Dubbed "super critical" or something akin?
RalXWB wrote:The A300 was the first twin-engine widebody, designed for short to medium haul routes and the beginning of Airbus success story
PatrickZ80 wrote:
Nowadays we hardly see any widebodies on short/medium haul routes, the market the A300 was designed for. They're all down to 737/A320 with only very few exceptions. I'd say the A300 was too big for the market it was aiming at. By increasing it's range they tried to shift it to another market, but this was only properly done with the introduction of the A330. The first true long-haul Airbus.
Newbiepilot wrote:It was mentioned in an earlier thread that maintenance costs on the A300 were significantly higher than the 767
viewtopic.php?t=343893
WIederling wrote:Newbiepilot wrote:It was mentioned in an earlier thread that maintenance costs on the A300 were significantly higher than the 767
viewtopic.php?t=343893
see posting #10 over there.
( would be nice to have the original article available.
we've seen enough other strange comparisons around.)
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.
ap305 wrote:The a300 had one of the highest dispatch reliability and ease of maintanence of any aircraft at that time .... I suggest searching flightglobal's archive.
Faro wrote:... hence the 767's rather generous wing compared to the contemporaneous A310 which was not initially designed for longer-range missions...even the heavier 767-200ER had a maximum wing loading of 127 lbs/ft^2 against the A310-300's maximum of 153 lbs/ft^2...a very significant difference of 20% lower wing loading for the 767...
oldannyboy wrote:Then of course Boeing went on to 'optimise' the 767 programme, while Airbus decided to concentrate on their new family of long-rangers, the A330/A340, and the A310 was quietly dropped. The market decided that it needed not only more range, but specifically more capacity, hence why the A310 sort of died a quiet death.
So, to answer the original question of the OP: I would not compare the 767-300ER that could fly MAN-LAX, to an A300-600R -which was essentially a more advanced A300B4- which indeed could only fly the 'shorter' Atlantic routes, being in practice a warmed-up medium hauler from a previous generation... I would look more into the A310...now, that was a great north-Atlantic performer, and a very common one too in those days! Please also do note that size-wise the A310 almost perfectly matched the capacity of the 763, with an average (1990s or late '80s configurations - 8Y; 7 C/J ; 6F) of 220 seats in long-haul mixed classes, so precisely what a 763 would have been offering. The 762 was significantly smaller.
Balerit wrote:ap305 wrote:The a300 had one of the highest dispatch reliability and ease of maintanence of any aircraft at that time .... I suggest searching flightglobal's archive.
I agree, ours flew 24/7 non stop and I found them extremely reliable. They were also miles ahead of Boeing and I suppose those who complained were like those old timers going from piston aircraft to jets, they moaned like hell
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Newbiepilot wrote:oldannyboy wrote:Then of course Boeing went on to 'optimise' the 767 programme, while Airbus decided to concentrate on their new family of long-rangers, the A330/A340, and the A310 was quietly dropped. The market decided that it needed not only more range, but specifically more capacity, hence why the A310 sort of died a quiet death.
So, to answer the original question of the OP: I would not compare the 767-300ER that could fly MAN-LAX, to an A300-600R -which was essentially a more advanced A300B4- which indeed could only fly the 'shorter' Atlantic routes, being in practice a warmed-up medium hauler from a previous generation... I would look more into the A310...now, that was a great north-Atlantic performer, and a very common one too in those days! Please also do note that size-wise the A310 almost perfectly matched the capacity of the 763, with an average (1990s or late '80s configurations - 8Y; 7 C/J ; 6F) of 220 seats in long-haul mixed classes, so precisely what a 763 would have been offering. The 762 was significantly smaller.
767 production peaked in 1990-1993. It was higher than the combined A310 and A300s. Both airplanes were using similar generation engines like GE CF6-80Cs and PW4000s. A330 deliveries didn't start until 1993 and was slow to gain market share. A330 production didn't eclipse 767 production until 2002.
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.
Newbiepilot wrote:Balerit wrote:ap305 wrote:The a300 had one of the highest dispatch reliability and ease of maintanence of any aircraft at that time .... I suggest searching flightglobal's archive.
I agree, ours flew 24/7 non stop and I found them extremely reliable. They were also miles ahead of Boeing and I suppose those who complained were like those old timers going from piston aircraft to jets, they moaned like hell
oldannyboy wrote:Newbiepilot wrote:Balerit wrote:
I agree, ours flew 24/7 non stop and I found them extremely reliable. They were also miles ahead of Boeing and I suppose those who complained were like those old timers going from piston aircraft to jets, they moaned like hell
Can you elaborate? What airline was operating A300s 24/7 nonstop? Given the airplanes shorter range, I would be surprised to see many airlines having higher utilization on an A300 than 767.
quote]
I think he was referring to SAA, who really pushed the limit of their fleet of Airbus A300s. They were literally always in the air, flying short domestic hops, as well as short to medium hauls throughout Africa. They had stellar performance and dispatch reliability, they operated out of hot&Hi Jo'Burg with no issues, in and out of small strips, and inaugurated widebody service to so many African destinations.
To note that SAA operated their A300 with a 9-abreast Y section.
The same (operationally) can be said about many customers, who found the A300 equally adaptable from very short domestic hops, to medium hauls, to long(er) range flights, sometimes with en-route stops (very common in those days even with aircrafts that did not need to refuel, so not an issue). Some of these airlines were for instance Olympic, Alitalia, Tunis Air...A300s were literally always up in the air, flying a mix of short hops, international longer trips, plus the odd-long haul, often back-to-back.
RJMAZ wrote:In hindsight Airbus should have kept the A310 family going. Sales were slow 20 years ago but a new engine would have kept it going. Sales would have picked up when gate congestion started to hit in the early 2000's. Today it would be selling extremely well.
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?
RJMAZ wrote:In hindsight Airbus should have kept the A310 family going. Sales were slow 20 years ago but a new engine would have kept it going. Sales would have picked up when gate congestion started to hit in the early 2000's. Today it would be selling extremely well.
The Trent 500's that came out on the A340-500 in 2000 would have been absolutely perfect. Higher bypass ratio and 10% improvement in SFC would have allowed for increased range or a slight stretch. A slight stretch would have then taken the A300's place combining two models into one.
They just didn't see the long term potential. I guess you could say the same thing with the 757, but Boeing didn't have a new engine available in that thrust class.
The A310 is basically a shrink of the A300. Yes the A310 has a smaller wing in area but it has the same amount of lift. Both have similar max takeoff weights with the A310 being a more advanced wing design. They both have the same fuel volume inside the wing too.
They could have made the A310-300 and A310-400. With the 400 being a slight stretch to the length of the A300.
This model today even with the trent 500's would be outselling A330 2 to 1. Infact the A330 probably would never have got a new engine once the A350 came along. The A310-400 would be doing the shorter flights and would compliment the A350 perfectly.