AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Replacing aging DC-9 with something fuel efficient.  (Read 1695 times)

tm07x

  • Former member
Replacing aging DC-9 with something fuel efficient.
« on: May 06, 2010, 01:16:36 PM »
Hey people,

So I'm trying to decide what I should replace the aging DC-9 with. The choices are 736/737, A319, 717, Embraer 170STD, CRJ700, Q400.
Granted the Embraer and CRJ will only carry 78 passengers in a tight config, I'm still wondering if the savings in fuel alone
will be worth giving up the extra seats. At 1500kg/hr it's nearly 2000 kg/hr less than the DC-9, 700kg/hr less than the A319 and almost 1000 less than the 737-600. Some of the legs aren't all that long, so I would benefit from the shorter turn-around times.
(Although the 170 and CRJ700 isn't out till 2002 and 2003)
The Q400 is a viable option with its 78 seats and a VERY low fuel burn. But I'm worried it'll be too slow on the 500+ NM flights.

I saw this picture on this forum saying something like, "CRJ - Go bankrupt in style" or something along those lines....

Getting the 737s or A319 would definitely help on the fleet commonality in the future.

Any thoughts? :)

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Replacing aging DC-9 with something fuel efficient.
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2010, 01:55:49 PM »
Personally I'm no fan of small jets, so I'd get A31x/A32x or B737NG series and maybe Q400 for short routes.

Offline RushmoreAir

  • Members
  • Posts: 887
Re: Replacing aging DC-9 with something fuel efficient.
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2010, 01:58:27 PM »
170 worked well in Euro Challenge.

mikk_13

  • Former member
Re: Replacing aging DC-9 with something fuel efficient.
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2010, 02:22:15 PM »
I just had a look at your airline, and i see you are flying md80s, s2000s and the dc9's. If it were me, i would just replace them with the md80s and saabs. You don't need to have 2 types of mid range jet. For route with about 100ish demand fly the md87. The fuel burn isn't great but you can still make money. The demand for 737's and buses will pick up very soon and you will be hard pressed getting enough, however the demand for the mds won't be as great.


Later in the game there will be plenty of opportunity to replace the mds, once you get enough cash behind you, the best bet will be buying up all the 737-3/4/5s on the second hand market to replace the jets. Most people replace their jets at about 6 years or so which you will be able to buy, d check then use for 8 years.

Also, your partner at your base looks to be getting larger than you so maybe you should consider getting as many dc9s and flying them as much as you can until you get the md80s to replace them.

Yukis

  • Former member
Re: Replacing aging DC-9 with something fuel efficient.
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2010, 02:47:52 PM »
i also agree with mikk_13

you should concern about the fleet commonality too . if your airline operate various type of aircraft various type of engine the cost of fleet commonality will growth surprisingly . . . .

Offline jvernikos

  • Members
  • Posts: 99
Re: Replacing aging DC-9 with something fuel efficient.
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2010, 09:56:48 AM »
I would say regarding the Embraer 170 is a very good choice. However the first delivery will be in Nov-2003 therefore you will have 4 game years with no replacement for your dc-9's.

Maybe try an avro-80 for a 4 year lease so that the end coincides with the delivery of the embraer they are a bit expensive but delivery is immediate, there is virtually no order qeue (wrong spelling god) and much more fuel efficient than the DC'9s. Oh and they can land anywere. I mean in any airport due to their requirments.

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Replacing aging DC-9 with something fuel efficient.
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2010, 01:35:46 PM »
In MT#1, 737-600 worked perfectly as a domestic jet, but did drink a bit too much fuel for my liking.

I replaced it with the Embraer E-Jets series and they were amazing. Flew faster, more fuel efficient, could fly more routes per day with them.

You have the option of having the 175 or 195 giving two capacities for different demand routes.

I'd say go for the Embraer when you can, stick to what you got in the meantime.
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

tm07x

  • Former member
Re: Replacing aging DC-9 with something fuel efficient.
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2010, 06:59:16 PM »
thanks guys for the great tips! :)
I'll just replace them with MDs for now...

L1011fan

  • Former member
Re: Replacing aging DC-9 with something fuel efficient.
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2010, 08:36:35 PM »
Good luck obtaining them.

minerva

  • Former member
Re: Replacing aging DC-9 with something fuel efficient.
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2010, 03:18:52 AM »
Amen to that L1011 Fan!  Had any luck with the 737-400s? 

L1011fan

  • Former member
Re: Replacing aging DC-9 with something fuel efficient.
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2010, 09:37:05 PM »
There hasn't been a 737-400 for ages now, Minerva, its been so frustrating. Its gotten to the point where commonality is not as high an issue as it would normally be. I have a mixed bag of aircraft and I'm none the worse for wear. I'm not willing wait days on end to see if that particular aircraft or series becomes available. I'll take the first suitable aircraft I see even if it's another manufacturer. Yeah, probably could've saved some money, but I actually think, and this is just an opinion, that expansion trumps fleet commonality in this game. For some of us, at least for the time being. I'm just keeping the leases short.  No C checks earlier than 8 months out. Dont' know what else to do to keep it moving. :-\
P.S. I DO have other things to do! (LOL!)
« Last Edit: May 08, 2010, 09:44:08 PM by L1011fan »

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.