Re: Airbus 300, 310 market failure

From:         Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang)
Date:         2 Dec 1997 21:56:05 GMT
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <w3ra7vfw34.fsf@rocza.kei.com>,
Stefano P. Pagiola <Spagiola@worldbank.org> wrote:
>
>Depends how you define "superior". The A310 has a very nice wing, from a
>technical viewpoint. Unfortunately, it was optimized for short/medium range
>and so the A310 was unable to compete with the long-range versions of the
>767 as effectively as it might have. Since the bulk of the market ended up
>being for the long-range versions, the wing was indeed an important factor
>in the A310's poor showing relative to the 767. But I think this is a case
>of poor market forecasting rather than poor wing design.
>

I don't think the A310 did poorly against the B767.  To be a little bit
more precise, the A310 competes directly with the B767-200, in terms of
seating capacity.  Both have accumulated around 200+ orders.  Both
have not been selling well in the past few years.  They are pretty even.
The B767 has better range capabilities (mostly because of the wing), but
the A310 has better cargo hauling capabilities (because of the wider
cross-section).  When KLM switched from the A310 to the B767, one of the
major factors was KLM did not need the cargo capacity of the A310.
The B767 is very popular on both sides of the North Atlantic.  However,
in Asia and the Middle East, the A300/310 rules.