Airline Mogul Forum

Airline Mogul => General Chat => Topic started by: zkvac on March 16, 2008, 09:05:26 am

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: zkvac on March 16, 2008, 09:05:26 am

Why is the ATR 42-320 more popular than the -300? The -320 has the same seats/range , and only FOUR knots more speed, plus it burns more fuel and is nearly E200,000 more expensive.

Are people idiots or is it just me?

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: iranair777 on March 16, 2008, 02:23:53 pm

Your not an idiot. people who buy those are idiots. I'm buying the -300 to lease out cheaper, and what people don't do is look at the specs before buying a plane :roll:

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: Hot Drink on March 16, 2008, 02:26:24 pm

Some people just buy planes by the price and brand.

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: dktc on March 16, 2008, 02:27:42 pm

As the largest owner of the -320, I would just say that the price difference between the two variants would make no difference in the lease rate I throw them on market at, and the price difference is not that huge. As a result, I got the -320's anyway. I don't operate any of them.

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: iranair777 on March 16, 2008, 02:36:38 pm

but still, the -300 is much better in all respects

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: Seattle on March 17, 2008, 02:47:23 am

and... its like the only plane with a picture :lol:

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: FlyBlueAir on March 17, 2008, 03:06:03 am

That people like some specific brand and just buy them at any cost is quite clear. If you look on the amount of Argosy 671 Commuter owners you're probably surprised. That plane can't be beaten on short routes in fuel versus seats comparisation for a price under 16mil.

But hey, who would be proud of saying that he owns an Argosy?  :twisted:

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: zkvac on March 17, 2008, 03:10:42 am

So pretty much it's because 320 is a higher number than 300, the -320 looks better?

I looked at the Argosy, but its range isn't quote enough for Australasia.

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: SeaBlue Pacific Air on March 17, 2008, 03:13:57 am

Quote from: "FlyBlueAir"

That people like some specific brand and just buy them at any cost is quite clear. If you look on the amount of Argosy 671 Commuter owners you're probably surprised. That plane can't be beaten on short routes in fuel versus seats comparisation for a price under 16mil.

But hey, who would be proud of saying that he owns an Argosy?  :twisted:

I like the Commuter but delivery time is 48 hours.  The Caravelles, while priced twice as much, will earn more than the savings you get for getting the commuter because delivery time is just 24 hours.  There is a reason why people prefer other planes than commuters.

For the ATRs, hmm... I really don't know.  Maybe 4 kts is worth the additional cost.  :?:

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: FlyBlueAir on March 17, 2008, 03:38:51 am

Quote from: "SeaBlue Pacific Air"

I like the Commuter but delivery time is 48 hours.  The Caravelles, while priced twice as much, will earn more than the savings you get for getting the commuter because delivery time is just 24 hours.  There is a reason why people prefer other planes than commuters.

Good point indeed. That's why I order them at brokers, so I buy them actually when I earned enough money for them. That way the difference in delivery time is just a calculation instead delay of profit.

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: SeaBlue Pacific Air on March 17, 2008, 03:43:14 am

Quote from: "FlyBlueAir"

Quote from: "SeaBlue Pacific Air"

I like the Commuter but delivery time is 48 hours.  The Caravelles, while priced twice as much, will earn more than the savings you get for getting the commuter because delivery time is just 24 hours.  There is a reason why people prefer other planes than commuters.

Good point indeed. That's why I order them at brokers, so I buy them actually when I earned enough money for them. That way the difference in delivery time is just a calculation instead delay of profit.

Good strategy!  Why didn't I think of that?

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: zkvac on March 17, 2008, 05:19:04 am

Quote from: "SeaBlue Pacific Air"

For the ATRs, hmm... I really don't know.  Maybe 4 kts is worth the additional cost.  :?:

200 Grand more? I don't think so.


So you can order, say a 737 at a broker even if you don't have the 60-odd million in the bank?

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: pck on March 17, 2008, 07:02:27 am

Quote from: "FlyBlueAir"

Quote from: "SeaBlue Pacific Air"

I like the Commuter but delivery time is 48 hours.  The Caravelles, while priced twice as much, will earn more than the savings you get for getting the commuter because delivery time is just 24 hours.  There is a reason why people prefer other planes than commuters.

Good point indeed. That's why I order them at brokers, so I buy them actually when I earned enough money for them. That way the difference in delivery time is just a calculation instead delay of profit.

Im so ripped by you.... :D

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: Jps on March 17, 2008, 08:50:24 am

Quote from: "dktc"

As the largest owner of the -320, I would just say that the price difference between the two variants would make no difference in the lease rate I throw them on market at, and the price difference is not that huge. As a result, I got the -320's anyway. I don't operate any of them.

Yep. No difference  :lol:

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: Crow on March 18, 2008, 09:14:36 am

The -320 is newer, that is why.

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: Seattle on March 18, 2008, 01:42:48 pm

so... Its still not better..... Well, I have 9 of each now :P  Accidently ordered the more expensive ones when I was buyin em a few nights ago. We need more aircraft pictures to! :P

Title: ATR 42-300 vs -320
Post by: StephenM on March 19, 2008, 11:33:54 am

Aircraft picture discussion has been split.