Originally Posted by
Stranger
You make some good points. Technically, sure.
Still, spending the cash for a fresh design, designing it for that market *and* optimizing wing design for relatively short haul, typical European legs, vs. NA transcon legs, was the wrong business decision. Wing too small. Which is why the 310 never went anywhere except at bankrupt Panam.
I’m not sure why you keep using one specific market (NA transcon) to label the A300 a bad decision. Aircraft are designed for a target mission, not to optimize every possible use case. The classic 737s couldn’t fly U.S. transcon either, and that hardly makes them a poor business decision. It makes perfect sense that a European aircraft manufacturer would prioritize markets closer to home.
You can’t judge a late-60s/early-70s design by 2020s expectations. Engine efficiency, reliability, and the regulatory environment (pre-ETOPS) were completely different. By late 1970s when 767s were developed, improved engine technologies and ETOPS regulation enabled twin engine planes to fly longer.