Why A-300 is the best?

[biman]

Well, after stiff competition from DC-10, MD-11 and Tri-Star the A-300 is still in production 30 years after entering service. Since it’s a not an US aircraft, the A-300 did not have free access to the world’s biggest aviation market. Still it has successfully outsold all its competitors combined. Airbus has produced 849 A-300 of all variants compared to 586 DC-10/MD-11 and 300 Tri-Star. In my opinion A-300 was technically and commercially the most successful aircraft of its class. Don’t you agree?

[FlyCharlestonSC]

The only reason the A300 is the only one around is that McDonell Douglaswas bought by boeing and they discontinued the MD-11, and Lockheed doesn't make commercial airliners anymore(I think. Is Lockheed still around?).

[CathayPacific]

One of the reasons is because of the development of A300-600R, which updates the avionics and engines of A300. DC10 and L1011 are 1970s technology while A300-600R is 1980s.

Besides, all A300 orders in recent years are freighter orders. MD11 would have won a lot of freighter orders if it is still around. Boeing made a terrible mistake by terminating MD11 without developing 777F. Lufthansa Cargo's CEO openly slammed Boeing's decision of terminating the MD11F line when he attended the delivery ceremony of Lufthansa's last MD11F in Long Beach. UPS ordered 60 MD11F a few months after Boeing closed the shop. And now Boeing had to shop around for 2nd hand MD11 and convert them to freighter for UPS. If the production line was still open, the chance is UPS would have ordered new MD11F instead of second hand conversion.

Due to the demand for MD11F, the second hand price of MD11 is standing quite firm actually. There are simply no cargo airplane available at its class. A300 has the capacity but lacks the range. 767-300F has the range but lacks the capacity. The only freighter that have both the range and capacity is (supposingly) Ilyushin IL96T, but of course just like other new Russian design, it disappears all together after the prototype is made.

A300-600R may be superior to DC10 or L1011, but I wouldn't go so far as to include MD11 in this, because they aren't really at the same class, mainly due to the range of the two aircraft. MD11 is more like at the class of A340 and 777.

[Ansett]

what about the 767-200?

[SWA733Captain]

Re: Why A-300 is the best?

Well, after stiff competition from DC-10, MD-11 and Tri-Star the A-300 is still in production 30 years after entering service. Since it’s a not an US aircraft, the A-300 did not have free access to the world’s biggest aviation market. Still it has successfully outsold all its competitors combined. Airbus has produced 849 A-300 of all variants compared to 586 DC-10/MD-11 and 300 Tri-Star. In my opinion A-300 was technically and commercially the most successful aircraft of its class. Don’t you agree?

Aren't we forgetting the 767 series??

[ptbodale]

The B767 series are not a good cargo acft (my opinion) largely due to the incompatable belly. Only the B767's carry the LD2's and LD8's. These units had to be created for this acft. As well the forward hold has to load pallets lengthwise as the acft is not wide enough to carry them properly. The LD3 and the 125 x 88" pallet are standard in the cargo world. B747's, DC10/MD11's, Airbuses all carry them properly, the B767 series does not.
If your company has B767 acft only and you do not interline your cargo you would be okay, but once you interline or have to switch loads you have to rebuild your cargo (time consuming and chance of damage/theft).

[Avianca 757]

The 767 may be not such a good freighter, but I guess it isn't bad either, as Tampa Cargo already ordered 4 which will come by june 2004.

[sv]

I don't know a lot of this plane but I think Because it can take 232
in Y class and 26 in F class and it can land and take off from small airports.

So it takes more than TriStar! and more modern than it.

I think this is why Saudi Arabian Ailines are using it since a long time.

[biman]

Aren't we forgetting the 767 series??

I dont' think you should compare 767 to a-300.
The 767 is much smaller than A-300 and very similar to it's cousin the A-310.
[/quote]

[FlyCharlestonSC]

I will quote myself:

The only reason the A300 is the only one around is that McDonell Douglaswas bought by boeing and they discontinued the MD-11, and Lockheed doesn't make commercial airliners anymore(I think. Is Lockheed still around?).

Also, the 767-400 is the closest thing Boeing has to compete w/ the A300. I think the A300 is also still around because it has found it's own little niche in the market without much competition, like the 757 before the A321 (if you even consider the A321 a competetor).

[ME707]

From a passenger's prosepective......
I prefer the A300 to the L1011 , DC10 and MD11. I found it more quiet and preferred the 2-4-2 seating.
I think why the A300 series has done better than the "competition" is because the A300 is a newer design etc.

[Ansett]

the 767 series are excellent series, just for facts theere has been more crashes with pax and freighter aircraft with A300's than 767's so what does that show? Boeing 767 is the best !

[Airnerd]

In my opinion, the one thing the A300 has over ALL the other widebodies (old and new models) is the demonstrated ability to fly short-haul routes profitably. LH flies it's A300s back and forth between FRA and HAM and MUC all day long and these flights are not much more than 1hr in duration. No other widebody has as successfully been used on such 'shuttle' routes.

[fristclass]

In my opinion, the one thing the A300 has over ALL the other widebodies (old and new models) is the demonstrated ability to fly short-haul routes profitably. LH flies it's A300s back and forth between FRA and HAM and MUC all day long and these flights are not much more than 1hr in duration. No other widebody has as successfully been used on such 'shuttle' routes.

not really, what about deltas wide bodys form ATL-MCO every wide body aircraft type they had on the rout, no md-11s any more because theres other stuff that is for. from ATL-MCO the delta wide bodys on the rout are 762,763,764,777, about 1 hour 15 min, and they got 3 777s a day know on the rout, pluse a tone of all 767s. so yeah i would call it a shuttle rout

[Ramp Pilot]

Air Canada also used to run 747-200s on the Rapidair route YYZ-YUL. Apparently it was also profitable.