Why A-300 is the best?

[philb]

Airnerd/Fristclass,

The use of widebodies on high density routes is an interesting one. The ONLY widebody originally designed for both short haul and mediun range routes is the A300-B2 which emanated from an original Air France/BEA specification for a high density, rapid turn round aircraft that would primarily serve London-Paris and vv and also replace the Vanguard in BEA service and the Caravelle in Air France service on high frequency medium range routes, allowing for a reduction in frequency and costings.

The name Airbus stems from the concept and was first used succesfully by Air France from 1974 with the B2 version, BEA having dropped out. Lufthansa, Alitalia, Iberia and many other airlines have found the A300 excellent in the short/medium range role as this was what it was specifically designed for.

Boeing, having stuck with the 727, having seen initially very slow A300 sales and having watched PSA rapidly pull specially adapted L1011s off the California corridor routes designed a transcontinental airliner to supplement the short/medium haul 727 replacement (757), this being the 767 and entered the field with these 8 years after the A300 went into service. In a mirror like "reverse competition" move, Airbus launched the modified A310 as a medium/long haul 767 competitor and this, as a modification of the A300 was, like the 767 in short haul service, not ideal.

Boeing expected airlines finding the 747 too large for transcontinental routes would buy the 767 and replace the 727 with 757s, the aircraft having a single type endorsement due to cockpit commonality. This didn't happen as planned and the 757 was a slow seller initially, BA and Eastern being the only scheduled operators for a couple of years until Delta joined the party in 1984. In the mean time most US airlines wanted 767s for every type of operation as cockpit commonality was not as attractive as a single type. The need for long haul forced Boeing to adapt to ETOPS technology and use on short/medium high density routes involved a great deal of rethinking involving cycle life on many components.

Many Boeing customers worldwide bought A300s solely because it was the only widebody SPECIFICALLY designed for short/medium haul routes.

As to profitability, obviously airlines aim for profitable loads, whatever the size of aircraft but I've been on a Delta 767 operating Atlanta-Newark-Atlanta which arrived in Newark with 50 on board and took 35 of us back to Atlanta and that on a late summer Saturday early evening and I've been on AF Airbuses on London-Paris with less than 30% pax load factors.

What a purpose built aircraft will do is give a better, long term, chance of profitability across a range of economic conditions as the aircraft, when used in its intended role, is operating to an optimum, whatever the load.

ANSETT,

what has the number of accidents to do with the viability of the aircraft for the task or, come to that, with the safety of the aircraft? There has only been one accident to either type where there is a scintilla of doubt about the integrity of the aircraft and that is the 2001 AA A300 crash where there is a question re the fin. There are equal and even more pressing questions about both the ATC procedures and the AA crew's reaction to the encountered jet wash.

Other accidents to both types have had nothing to do with the integrity of the aircraft design, though there have been maintenance procedure questions.

[biman]

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

That's because AC was a monopoly on Toronto-ottawa-Montrea triangle for a long long time and used to charge sky-high prices.

A few years ago one of my friends bought Toronto-Ottawa return ticket for $800 CDN. Now after westjet, jetsgo and canjet start serving Ottawa, Air Canada Toronto-Ottawa return ticket is down to about $200if not lower.

[Cubana]

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.

That was exactly what I was thinking on: Lufthansa. Just do not forget they also fly the A300 on FRA-CGN route. For what I know, they are not doing bad at all with those national flights.

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

I know Air Canada has had the monopoly of YYZ-YUL route for some time. Also, even though I do not have the information exactly, I guess going from Toronto to Montreal is more than going, i.e., from Frankfurt to Cologne. Germany has excellent high-speed railways, so train is even faster (adding to the flight time the period of pre-boarding, boarding and disembarking) than plane in some cases. Frankfurt is not a friendly airport at all for short-houl passengers, due to its enormous size. And I cannot believe those A300 flights are always full of connecting passengers comming from abroad.

As you can realize, I love both the Airbus A300 and Lufthansa.

Cheers

[Cubana]

Double posted. Look up and will find the original one.

Cheers

[Leftseat86]

Sure, A300s work great. When their rudders aren't falling off...

-Clovis

[Ansett]

i would still like the 767 over th eA300's i would fell safer

[philb]

Clovis,

That's a stupid reply. How many other A300 rudders have fallen off? Why did the A300 rudder fall off in 2001?

If you want to talk about rudder problems, what about the 737 rudder problems which are the product of a penny pinching design decision in 1966 still causing problems 37 years laster?

[fristclass]

Clovis,

That's a stupid reply. How many other A300 rudders have fallen off? Why did the A300 rudder fall off in 2001?

If you want to talk about rudder problems, what about the 737 rudder problems which are the product of a penny pinching design decision in 1966 still causing problems 37 years laster?

i dont think that was STUPID of clovis to say, i think clovis was just being sarcastic.

[philb]

.....and sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. As far as I'm concerned, the comment was stupid as rudder flutter caused the fin to detach (not just the rudder), tests by the NTSB, FAA, American and Airbus have failed to find any fault in the structure of other A300s which would, of itself, cause such a catastrophic failure. Thus the cause can be attributed to some action of the pilots/ATC/AA Engineering, or a combination of any or all of these, which placed the aircraft outside its design limits.

As Clovis's post implied the aircraft was at fault, the post was stupid.

[Airnerd]

Stupid? Maybe, though probably more just a little bit ignorant...
No real harm done by it though in my opinion.

Back to the discussion at hand:

Regarding the Delta widebody flights ATL-MCO. Aren't these just tackons to longer flights? I seem to recall that some of our DL 767s from PDX to ATL continue on to MCO. This would not make them real 'shuttle' flights it seems... But it's a good point anyway, thanks.

Also, what about the Japanese domestic routes. Lots of short routes flown by widebodies over there... Special models of planes though, and a rather unique market perhaps, but definitely successful short routes flown by a/c other than the A300...

[philb]

I was really surprised when I found that the 767 I took ex Newark to Atlanta was doing the round trip and not an extension of a longer flight.

As to the Japanese market, that is an oddball. Less than 40 A300s were sold new into the marketplace which, through the 1970s should have been a prime target. It was.

Airbus did everything it could to get the ball rolling but it was 1980 before the first delivery was made. The reason? The aircraft was just too small. The first 747SR had been delivered in 1974 and proved that the public were happy to be shoe-horned into 510/550 seats for a very short duration.

JAL and ANA were happy that they had type commanality (Boeing worked very hard, spent a lot of money they didn't directly get back per airframe to overcome problems caused by short, frequent cycles, operating at less than optimum flight levels and engine problems caused by very frequent take off power and reverse thrust demands) the customers liked the thought of flying 747 and Boeing did win out financially by keeping its customers and selling a lot more long range 747s to JAL and ANA (JAL becoming the largest 747 operator).

The situation still pertains today and though the 767 and 777 are used short haul they tend to face the same problems re cycles.

It will be interesting to see if, and at what stage, Airbus pitch an A380 at the market.

[Avianca 757]

.....and sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. As far as I'm concerned, the comment was stupid as rudder flutter caused the fin to detach (not just the rudder), tests by the NTSB, FAA, American and Airbus have failed to find any fault in the structure of other A300s which would, of itself, cause such a catastrophic failure. Thus the cause can be attributed to some action of the pilots/ATC/AA Engineering, or a combination of any or all of these, which placed the aircraft outside its design limits.

As Clovis's post implied the aircraft was at fault, the post was stupid.

Remember most crashes are a mix of fatal circumstances, it's hard to have a plane crash for a single circumstance (maybe except for a bomb, attack or real bad pilot problems as seen with TWA, Panam and Egyptair respectively).
The only planes I remember of crashing due to faulty design are the De Havilland Comet and the earlier DC-10.

The American A-300 I think, was a mix of circumstances, as were the 737 crashes and the JAL 747 in 1985.