I am a big fan of using all Boeing now in AM, and I like them more in real life. This is why I would choose Boeing over Airbus in AM.
Short Haul: Boeing 737-900 189 seats the choice of getting HGW, and the amazing fuel econ compared to older 737s. The Boeing is 2 million more but has 10 more seats. For short haul I can't see needing the extra 1,000 miles. I find the a321 to be nice with the 220 seats but almost to much, and in the end I am not sure if you will make more money due to higher amount of fuel used which will be 892.00, and lower ticket prices. For small regional type routes you could switch from the average ATR, to the jet age. The Boeing 717 series is much faster and the option for more range to service routes you don't want to fly your average 737, or A320 into due low profit.
Boeing 717-200 117 438 2369 €38,734,490 661.00
Boeing 737-900 189 449 2370 €72,377,764 825.00
Airbus A320-200 179 454 3305 €70,208,799 795.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long Haul: Both Boeing and Airbus have two options such as 767 or 777, while Airbus has the A340-300E, and A330-300 LR. In the long haul category there are many options. For higher pop routes aircraft such as the A340-300E, A330-300LR, or 777-300ER are possibility's. As I personally compare the three I see they all hold 440 people, but the A330 has much less range in comparison, the A330 uses much less fuel and lower starting cost but the range really kills it. So that leaves the 777, and the A340 realistically Airbus claims cheaper maintenance cost due to the 4 engines and lower amount of thrust each engine has to use to keep it at cruise but I would not have a clue rather its in the game or not. Both the a340, and 777 have a similar amount of fuel usage, but the 777 is a little faster and much cheaper to start with. So in the high density long haul routes I would use the 777-200ER the 777-300ER has many more seats, but in my opinion fuel and lower ticket prices will again kill it. For medium density long haul I see little competition from the A330 series. The 767 has two options for seats 290 or 350, while the A330 offers 293. The 767-200ER has a little more range then the a330, and over 150 less fuel used, the starting price puts the 767 at about 8 million more. If you want a little more seats then 290 you can up it to 350 and use only 80 more fuel while costing 20-30 million more, and loosing a considerable amount of range but still the option is there. There is also a surprise option to expand your longhaul to almost any airport within 5,000 range, although I have pushed Boeing throughout the post Airbus has a nice aircraft for lower density airports you would not consider very profitable for longhaul the A319 LR. The a319 has a cheap starting cost 110 seats decently fuel usage, and 5,175 range.
Airbus A319LR 110 452 5175 €46,790,327 716.00
Boeing 767-200ER 290 461 6625 €144,087,876 1,421.00
Boeing 767-300ER 350 460 5875 €166,924,546 1,503.00
Boeing 777-200ER 440 481 8527 €238,275,711 2,194.00
Airbus A330-200 293 464 6300 €137,087,958 1,669.00
Airbus A330-300 LR 440 464 5450 €204,475,897 1,742.00
Airbus A340-300E 440 475 8510 €260,350,350 2,131.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The quick version without much reasoning.
Boeing 737-900 for normal short haul, 717-200 for moving into the jet-age with small routes that the ATRs dominate. For longhaul 767-200ER, and 777-200ER due to lower fuel usage while maximizing speed, and seats available while still leaving the option for longer routes. The Airbus a319LR for low density long haul routes.
---------
My example aircraft are not the only options, but the aircraft I picked out that show the best of the Airbus vs Boeing Fleet.
--
also the numbers are organized on the edit page but not when i click save sorry for that
Poll