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: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats  (Read 3608 times)

munipandita

  • Former member
A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« on: July 24, 2010, 04:01:44 PM »
Hi people.

I am looking for a good aircraft suitable for routes less or near 1000nm, that can carry 200 or more pax..

i am using the B737-400.. but with only 180 seats, so i am not using the full route.. =/

There is the B757... but i read here in the forum that it's not good on short routes... they should be used near it max range...

Offline NorgeFly

  • Members
  • Posts: 3652
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2010, 04:26:47 PM »
A321 seats almost 200 in full Y class and has the advantage of commonality with A318/A319/A320. 757-200 would be ok if it wasn't for the relatively long turn around required to keep delays to a minimum.

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2010, 01:15:26 AM »
I say 739ER.

Will whip a 321 9/10 times :)


Plus more flexibility with the 737 NG family.


Talentz

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2010, 02:25:23 AM »
I say 739ER.

Will whip a 321 9/10 times :)


Plus more flexibility with the 737 NG family.


Talentz

The NG family yields no more flexibility than the entire A320 family does, not to mention the longevity of the A320 commonality allows commonality for about 4 decades of possible game-time a massive plus.  The only thing the NG family gets you that the A320 family doesn't is a range over 3000NM, which isn't that big of a plus anyway on narrow-bodies.

The 739ER requires the big MTOW variant to be remotely comparable to the A321 and with that upgrade it costs considerably more, to the tune of about $10M.  And the 739ER requires another cabin crew, increasing your crew costs by 25%.  And it seats about 5% fewer passengers.

Yes, the 739ER is superior in fuel, but considering the added labor and upfront costs and lower ticket revenue, it isn't that much of a difference.  At best, they/re dead-even competitors, the 739ER is definitely not better "9/10 times".  If ever there was something that the 739ER option was better at, it would be the sub-1000NM range that the OP is talking about, as that only requires the base model which saves a great deal of money, even so the difference is minimal at best.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2010, 02:34:19 AM by Sigma »

Offline Kazari

  • Members
  • Posts: 458
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2010, 03:50:06 AM »
For dense routes -- like in Japan -- the A300-600 is really good.

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2010, 04:21:36 AM »


Alright, there's no point in arguing an ambiguous opinion. Besides, the OP already has the 757 family in service and on order.. might as well keep fleet common overhead low and put the 752 on missions the 734 can't do. 



Talentz

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2010, 04:25:30 AM »
For dense routes -- like in Japan -- the A300-600 is really good.

You will find no bigger fan of the A306 than me, but it's really for routes that are much larger than the A321/739.  Where it really sucks at on the shorter routes is its huge turnaround time.  When you've got to blow an extra hour each landing, you can lose a full round-trip a day if you're flying the short distances that the OP is talking about.  That's fine if you're flying all to the same destination several times (so a particularly dense route), but if you're talking about a series of 200-seat routes, the A300 is just too much of a plane and that extra destination that you lose adds up.  It's far too expensive, sucks down far too much fuel, and takes far too long on the ground for it to be used on anything less than 1000+ seat routes as effectively as an A321 is.

Offline Maarten Otto

  • Members
  • Posts: 1276
    • My photo site
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2010, 12:31:31 PM »
I have 64 A306's in the air with my little company  ;D
Thanks to Atlantic Express I was able to get two or three 30 million under their value... did a 4 million "D" check on them and deployed them on his routes...
« Last Edit: July 25, 2010, 12:33:36 PM by Maarten Otto »

munipandita

  • Former member
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2010, 01:19:20 PM »
Hey dudes!

Well.. what is "OP"? i didn't get it lol  ;D

But i am staying with the 752 for now... They have just arrived so the LF is still low.. but lets see hapens when it go to 80% or more... And see it they are good enough.

I was stupid enough to order a new Tu-204 to save the production line.. hehe and now i have to    stay with the baby... because it would cost 8 million to get rid... so  i'll wait 1 year... So while i am with it, i am testing.. lets see if it is good too on those routes.

Offline Maarten Otto

  • Members
  • Posts: 1276
    • My photo site
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2010, 02:45:29 PM »
I did 757 once... and got fed up with those extremely poor turn around times. Seriously, you turn a A306 in exactly the same time with just 8% delay probability

Riger

  • Former member
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2010, 04:12:45 PM »
Hey dudes!

Well.. what is "OP"? i didn't get it lol  ;D


OP is Original Poster, the per person who started the thread.

Regards
Richard

ksliu9

  • Former member
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2010, 03:09:45 PM »
Both A321 / B739ER are good for this range. You can config to max econ (as the range is < 1000, flying time should be less than 3 hr. No problem for max econ config). In this way, you can get 200+ seats!

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2010, 08:29:57 PM »
Both A321 / B739ER are good for this range. You can config to max econ (as the range is < 1000, flying time should be less than 3 hr. No problem for max econ config). In this way, you can get 200+ seats!

Do you mean HD Economy?  Is it advisable to fly with HD seats any more than some 200-300 miles?

I believe 737-900ER has 186 seats standard economy.  A321-200 has 192 standard economy seats.

munipandita

  • Former member
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2010, 08:39:51 PM »
I am using the 757.. both 200 and 300..

I always use HD economy seats.. but don't fill up the entire plane.. the pax comfort is the second after "poor".. and they don't complain =P

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2010, 04:16:46 AM »
Do you mean HD Economy?  Is it advisable to fly with HD seats any more than some 200-300 miles?

I believe 737-900ER has 186 seats standard economy.  A321-200 has 192 standard economy seats.

You're supposedly alright up to about 3 hours, then they get really crabby about the tight seats after that.  That said, I haven't tried running high density since the change was made (it used to not matter at all)

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2010, 08:44:12 AM »
You're supposedly alright up to about 3 hours, then they get really crabby about the tight seats after that.  That said, I haven't tried running high density since the change was made (it used to not matter at all)

Some airlines get away with it on LH in real life such as Air Asia X and XL Airways so I'm sure if you did your pricing right it might be possible on this.
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

jneil121

  • Former member
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2010, 11:09:44 AM »
dont ask me how, but Air Asia X managed to get 4-5-4 on a A330! :O I  had to crab walk the entire way down to the back of the plane. Never again. Id rather fork out the extra cash to fly with someone who has better seating.

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2010, 12:43:30 PM »
dont ask me how, but Air Asia X managed to get 4-5-4 on a A330!

That's insane I've never seen more than 10 abreast. I think I'd rather pay for more comfort on a 4h+ flight to be honest.
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

munipandita

  • Former member
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2010, 03:33:05 AM »
you don't know GOL AIRLINES from Brazil.. their planes are sardine cans ;) terrible

ksliu9

  • Former member
Re: A good aircraft for < 1000 nm and 200+ seats
« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2010, 06:06:12 AM »
dont ask me how, but Air Asia X managed to get 4-5-4 on a A330! :O I  had to crab walk the entire way down to the back of the plane. Never again. Id rather fork out the extra cash to fly with someone who has better seating.

Not 4-5-4, but 3-3-3 on both A330 and A340! Yes, even A340 from KUL - London, more than 12 hr flight on the high density econ config!

For me, I've tried high den econ config on routes about 5-6 hr. It's still fine. Not much effect! So I think even for flight less than 4 hr, it's ok for HD econ config. That will maximize your profit!

 

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.