MD80/90, 737 or A320 series

[tadams]

In the game which do prefer, personally I use either the MD80 series or 737s. I rarely buy Airbus anything, mainly out of personal bias.

[ATE24]

In the game which do prefer, personally I use either the MD80 series or 737s. I rarely buy Airbus anything, mainly out of personal bias.

You may refer to this post for a specific comparison on Boeing and Airbus as well as how people comments them. (You replied too )
http://stephenm.org/smfforum/index.php?topic=10249.0

Though some said the maintenance of 737NGs is cheaper than those A320s, personally I prefer Airbus for their better performance and I'm the biggest operator of A320 family in one of the private worlds, operating 78 units and 3 variants. Even my friends support Airbus too. The sale figure of Airbus and Boeing is around 12.6 to 1 (264 Airbus VS 21 Boeing) in that private world.

[Cheung Airlines]

I personally LOVES DC-9 seies in RL, but in AM, the best "performance to price" ratio has to be Airbus A-320s

[Japanair]

In game, the A32X family is better/more profitable than pretty much all of the aircraft of its time.

[fresh]

I personally go for the MD-90 series, it's exceptionally economical and it's available before the 737NGs or A320/A321s

i own 153 MD-90s in one of my private worlds (i'm also the largest in the world), (MD is the most popular manufacturer in that world too)

 

[AlaskaAir77]

In the game which do prefer, personally I use either the MD80 series or 737s. I rarely buy Airbus anything, mainly out of personal bias.

You may refer to this post for a specific comparison on Boeing and Airbus as well as how people comments them. (You replied too )
http://stephenm.org/smfforum/index.php?topic=10249.0

Though some said the maintenance of 737NGs is cheaper than those A320s, personally I prefer Airbus for their better performance and I'm the biggest operator of A320 family in one of the private worlds, operating 78 units and 3 variants. Even my friends support Airbus too. The sale figure of Airbus and Boeing is around 12.6 to 1 (264 Airbus VS 21 Boeing) in that private world.

I visited the Boeing factory in Seattle, Washington and the people there (who had the tour) knew less than me. And their motto is "If its not Boeing i'm not going" which i found a bit rude.

[787seattle]

I visited the Boeing factory in Seattle, Washington and the people there (who had the tour) knew less than me.

If you were on the tour, you weren't in Seattle. The Boeing tour is in Everett, WA at PAE.

I personally think that the Boeing 737-700ER and the -900ER are the most profitable. It combines an average (although not huge) amount of pax onboard with a pretty decent range and low fuel usage compared to other widebody airplanes with comparable range and even more pax. Currently, I'm making more off my -700ER long range routes than my 77L route.

[Cheung Airlines]

I visited the Boeing factory in Seattle, Washington and the people there (who had the tour) knew less than me.

If you were on the tour, you weren't in Seattle. The Boeing tour is in Everett, WA at PAE.

I personally think that the Boeing 737-700ER and the -900ER are the most profitable. It combines an average (although not huge) amount of pax onboard with a pretty decent range and low fuel usage compared to other widebody airplanes with comparable range and even more pax. Currently, I'm making more off my -700ER long range routes than my 77L route.

Whats the point to compare widebodies with 737s or A-320s or MD-80/90s?
 Ofc widebodies burn more fuel coz they carry much, much more pax, whist the largest non-widebody planes (sorry, forgotten the term for them) can only carry 280-ish pax at most....
If you compare the fuel burn with A-320s, you'll only find that 737s are pretty fuel-thirsty... (and expensive as well)

[steventommyobama]

Airbus, the A321 is only 78 million, whilst the comparable Boeing 757 is 105 million and gas and MX is MUCH more!

[Gamaz]

My DOC's arouns 26mil...and I mostly use Caravelles (Super10Bs and -12s) and 707/747s/ plus a bunch of newer L1011s. And yes, maintenance is roughly 3/4 of my entire revenue...I'll explore a bit and seeing that it seems older a/c=higher fees, I guess I'll have to bring in newer a/c.

I decided to go after 'market share' and brought in a ton of A300s for a certain hub-with poor results. I think I'll go for DC-9s or 737s and replace my entire shorthaul fleet, followed by my older 707s, bringing in new L1011s.

[pilotguy121a]

MD-90-55 is the way to go, 187 pax, 3000nm+ range, and it is cheap plus fuel efficient (compared to similar Airbus).

[Japanair]

MD-90-55 is the way to go, 187 pax, 3000nm+ range, and it is cheap plus fuel efficient (compared to similar Airbus).

If you compare the MD-90-55 with 'similar airbuses' (eg: A320-200/100), the MD90 might win in the price category, but the A320-200 is still more profitable than the MD, not by a large margin, but still more profitable. If you compare it with a larger Airbus (but not that much larger), like the A321, then the Airbus will win in almost any way you can think of (cheap(er) price (than 757), 220 seats (much more than MD, and slightly less than 757), 479 knot speed, lower turn time (than 757 and MD), lots of range, etc.)

[jetrc]

MD-90-55 is the way to go, 187 pax, 3000nm+ range, and it is cheap plus fuel efficient (compared to similar Airbus).

If you compare the MD-90-55 with 'similar airbuses' (eg: A320-200/100), the MD90 might win in the price category, but the A320-200 is still more profitable than the MD, not by a large margin, but still more profitable. If you compare it with a larger Airbus (but not that much larger), like the A321, then the Airbus will win in almost any way you can think of (cheap(er) price (than 757), 220 seats (much more than MD, and slightly less than 757), 479 knot speed, lower turn time (than 757 and MD), lots of range, etc.)

Agreed. I experimented using an MD-90, 738, and an A320 on one specific route to see which of the 3 was the most profitable. As it turned out, the A320 was the most profitable, followed by the 738. I would definitely use the A320 on short and medium-haul routes and i do use the 738 as an alternative to the A320, but i'm not too keen on the MD-90. It is cheaper, but less profitable than the other two.

[pseudoswede]

But the question you also have to be asking is if the increase in profits will cover the increase in maintenance costs.

[jetrc]

The A320 can actually cover up the increase in MX costs. The 737 is less-costly to maintain by a not very large margin, but the A320 is definitely more profitable and very versatile.