The last A300 off the line Delivered to FedEx:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/ ... Airbus.php
Last A300 delivered to FedEx
Moderator: Latest news team
Last A300 delivered to FedEx
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
We can close out the original Airbus aircraft production wise.
I would rate it "successful" (800 produced). Interesting, not as successful as the 767 which continues to be produced.
Right now (actual production) and labeled “ successful” or very successful you would have the 767, 777 and the A300/310. The DC10, MD11, L1011 were really not. By my criteria, you should be over 500 to be successful.
The ones I am calling successful a few years ago I would have called very successful. The 787 has created a whole new benchmark (and insurmountable I believe) in that regard.
The 777 should probably not be included in the group, and as such should be rated “very successful” as its in a different wide body category. While all are wide bodies, I think there are 4 separate categories. Small wide bodies such as the 767, A300/310, DC10, A330, 787 types.
Then there is the 777 and A340 (and maybe the future A350, will have to see, it has to be produced, not talked about before its credible).
747 next, and then last and truly in a class all by itself, the A380.
Two of those have no real competitors (747 and the A380 in their respective sizes) and the 777 while it has technically has one, currently really no longer a credible competitor.
The odd one is the A330 which would have been very successful, its existence being cut short by the 787. Yes its still in production, but like the 767, the writing is on the wall. Both go on right now because they are good modern, fuel efficient and available (as well as compensation production for the A380 dealys.)
When the availability of the 787 changes, that will end as well
3 of the ones above still have to prove themselves (787, A350 and A380). A380 is obviously furthest along, 787 next (and just starting), and the A350 completely open and will stay so until design freeze, at which point we will begin to get some solid idea of what it really is all about.
I would rate it "successful" (800 produced). Interesting, not as successful as the 767 which continues to be produced.
Right now (actual production) and labeled “ successful” or very successful you would have the 767, 777 and the A300/310. The DC10, MD11, L1011 were really not. By my criteria, you should be over 500 to be successful.
The ones I am calling successful a few years ago I would have called very successful. The 787 has created a whole new benchmark (and insurmountable I believe) in that regard.
The 777 should probably not be included in the group, and as such should be rated “very successful” as its in a different wide body category. While all are wide bodies, I think there are 4 separate categories. Small wide bodies such as the 767, A300/310, DC10, A330, 787 types.
Then there is the 777 and A340 (and maybe the future A350, will have to see, it has to be produced, not talked about before its credible).
747 next, and then last and truly in a class all by itself, the A380.
Two of those have no real competitors (747 and the A380 in their respective sizes) and the 777 while it has technically has one, currently really no longer a credible competitor.
The odd one is the A330 which would have been very successful, its existence being cut short by the 787. Yes its still in production, but like the 767, the writing is on the wall. Both go on right now because they are good modern, fuel efficient and available (as well as compensation production for the A380 dealys.)
When the availability of the 787 changes, that will end as well
3 of the ones above still have to prove themselves (787, A350 and A380). A380 is obviously furthest along, 787 next (and just starting), and the A350 completely open and will stay so until design freeze, at which point we will begin to get some solid idea of what it really is all about.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
I've never thought of the widebodies as falling into four distinct catagories before, but I think this is a good way to catagorize them.RC20 wrote:We can close out the original Airbus aircraft production wise.
I would rate it "successful" (800 produced). Interesting, not as successful as the 767 which continues to be produced.
Right now (actual production) and labeled “ successful” or very successful you would have the 767, 777 and the A300/310. The DC10, MD11, L1011 were really not. By my criteria, you should be over 500 to be successful.
The ones I am calling successful a few years ago I would have called very successful. The 787 has created a whole new benchmark (and insurmountable I believe) in that regard.
The 777 should probably not be included in the group, and as such should be rated “very successful” as its in a different wide body category. While all are wide bodies, I think there are 4 separate categories. Small wide bodies such as the 767, A300/310, DC10, A330, 787 types.
Then there is the 777 and A340 (and maybe the future A350, will have to see, it has to be produced, not talked about before its credible).
747 next, and then last and truly in a class all by itself, the A380.
Two of those have no real competitors (747 and the A380 in their respective sizes) and the 777 while it has technically has one, currently really no longer a credible competitor.
The odd one is the A330 which would have been very successful, its existence being cut short by the 787. Yes its still in production, but like the 767, the writing is on the wall. Both go on right now because they are good modern, fuel efficient and available (as well as compensation production for the A380 dealys.)
When the availability of the 787 changes, that will end as well
3 of the ones above still have to prove themselves (787, A350 and A380). A380 is obviously furthest along, 787 next (and just starting), and the A350 completely open and will stay so until design freeze, at which point we will begin to get some solid idea of what it really is all about.
I believe that either the B767 or A330 may have a long production life depending on which wins the USAF KC tanker contest.
Indeed.RC20 wrote:We can close out the original Airbus aircraft production wise.
I would rate it "successful" (800 produced). Interesting, not as successful as the 767 which continues to be produced.
The A300 was not as successful as the 767, but the A330 has been and continues to be.
Your criteria is fine, but the DC-10 made McDonnell Douglas a profit and broke even as a program, so in those terms it was successful. The DC-10 would have been more successful though had it adopted 2 engines instead of being a trijet, which brings us full circle to the A300. The success of the A300 can be defined by its efficient use of 2 engines instead of 3 compared to the DC-10-10 and DC-10-20.Right now (actual production) and labeled “ successful” or very successful you would have the 767, 777 and the A300/310. The DC10, MD11, L1011 were really not. By my criteria, you should be over 500 to be successful.
Agreed.The ones I am calling successful a few years ago I would have called very successful. The 787 has created a whole new benchmark (and insurmountable I believe) in that regard.
The odd one is the A330 which would have been very successful, its existence being cut short by the 787. Yes its still in production, but like the 767, the writing is on the wall. Both go on right now because they are good modern, fuel efficient and available (as well as compensation production for the A380 dealys.)
From the recent sale figures of the A330, its writing its far from the wall. As a replacement for 767's and A300's, the A330 is still very good choice among airlines.
No doubt. The A300 is one of the success stories of airplane manufacturing.CX wrote:Without A300 there would be no Airbus, there would be no A330/340 which uses the same cross section, and A300 is the plane that pretty much started Airbus off, so i would regard a product that put a company into life as successful.