The MD90s

[pilotguy121a]

Hello all. I'm always mystified when I see the A vs. B discussions on which airliner is "better" and everyone always seems to say Airbus is. Which, on the surface against Boeing, in an early to late 1990s game seems to be true. However, we all overlook the MD-90s, specifically the MD-90-55. Just take a look:
MD-90-55 Specs
Seats: 187
Speed: 437 kts
Range: 3107 nm
Fuel Usage: 784.00
Price: € 67,534,340

A320-200 Specs(IAE engines)
Seats: 179
Speed: 469 kts
Range: 3527 nm
Fuel Usage: 796.00
Price: € 72,398,208

Boeing 737-400 (closes competitor)
Seats:159
Speed: 439 kts
Range: 2486 nm
Fuel Usage: 944.00
Price: € 64,064,567

I mean, for the money, the MD-90-55 is a much better choice over the A320. Less fuel usage, more people, similar range, similar speed, less cost=less mx. So, why is it that I hardly see people use it? BTW: I'm my world is currently in 1995.

[Hal]

MD90 is slow the differnce 30 nm one hour makes in one day 720 nm, that is one route in Europe or North America.

[pilotguy121a]

Yeah, but mx is less, initial price is less, and fuel cost is less.

[AirbusGuy350]

My airline is only getting A320's because they can operate 2x daily to the west coast while MD-90 1.5. Plus it costs more which means greater airline value. Those numbers are very compelling for me not to switch to an A320 fleet though but I'm sticking to it because the A319 is very profitable and I want cockpit commonality in my airline.

[tadams]

Im one of those players that does buy the MD90 over the A320

[Hal]

Yeah, but mx is less, initial price is less, and fuel cost is less.

Not you will need more MDs for covering all routes. 5 A320 can make due more speed same routes as 6 MDs

[pilotguy121a]

I'm not really debating that the plane is faster, I accept that as another reason the A320 would be chosen. But is it the only reason?

[tadams]

Yeah, but mx is less, initial price is less, and fuel cost is less.

Not you will need more MDs for covering all routes. 5 A320 can make due more speed same routes as 6 MDs

Thats assuming your using them for longer range flying.

[GQfluffy]

I used over 300 of the MD-90-55, until the 738 came out. I make surprisingly more with the 738 than either the A320 or the MD-90-55. Of course, the MD-90-55 isn't a real aircraft but take that at face value. Everyone also knows the 738 can hold more seats than the current 184 AM has it at, but usually it seems these online games are based in Europe and are a tad biased towards Airbii aircraft. But that's ok, I'll soldier through with good old Boeing illegally subsidized aircraft. 

[Virgin Serbia]

but usually it seems these online games are based in Europe and are a tad biased towards Airbii aircraft.

Which is nonsense. The game is not biased towards any nationality, region or manufacturer, it is an international game. The numbers are however wrong, especially for the A32X and 737. Something that needs to be fixed.

[StephenM]

Usually it seems these online games are based in Europe and are a tad biased towards Airbii aircraft. But that's ok, I'll soldier through with good old Boeing illegally subsidized aircraft. 

Its more a case of thats how our generic formula represents data. No intentional bias.

[homsar]

I guess my question is, why is the MD90-55 even in the game if it was never built, given that the game won't put any "future" planes (787s, A350s) because we don't know what the final operating specs of those planes will be?

[Virgin Serbia]

I guess my question is, why is the MD90-55 even in the game if it was never built, given that the game won't put any "future" planes (787s, A350s) because we don't know what the final operating specs of those planes will be?

It was available for sale. Nobody bought it, but it was still offered, and designed. The specs were well known. It was just never built. 
The Dornier 728 is also available, as well as a proposed stretch, the Do 928, and the shrink, the Do 528. Also the Do-328 stretch i believe. 

As for the 787 and A350, well, they haven't even entered service yet. The A350 only exists on paper, and Airbus can't even say exactly how many passengers can be carried.

[StephenM]

There are some strange elements to the types of planes available to buy (Dornier for example) and the lack of the B787, A350, B748. Infact the game only goes as far as 2009 and after that it stops. That is only a minor change.

[homsar]

I guess my question is, why is the MD90-55 even in the game if it was never built, given that the game won't put any "future" planes (787s, A350s) because we don't know what the final operating specs of those planes will be?

It was available for sale. Nobody bought it, but it was still offered, and designed. The specs were well known. It was just never built. 
The Dornier 728 is also available, as well as a proposed stretch, the Do 928, and the shrink, the Do 528. Also the Do-328 stretch i believe. 

As for the 787 and A350, well, they haven't even entered service yet. The A350 only exists on paper, and Airbus can't even say exactly how many passengers can be carried.

The 787 and A350 are just as "defined" as the MD90-50 ever was.  Probably more so, since they have signed contracts with airlines to deliver airplanes to a certain spec.  Some of these other planes were never more than paper planes,

I'll accept StephenM's explanation on the 787/A350 that the game ends in 2009, and those planes haven't entered service yet (but, by that standard, the MD-90-50, and the Do728, among others, haven't entered service yet either...).

It's not a big issue that's really bugging me or anything, but just something I found a bit odd.  I mean, if we're going to have proposed airplane variants that nobody ever bought, you could have the 747-500 and -600 from the mid 1990s, the 767-400ERX from around 2000, and the specs for those planes would be just as valid as the specs for any other plane that wasn't built.