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: old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100  (Read 1145 times)

Offline LotusAirways

  • Members
  • Posts: 846
old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100
« on: October 16, 2013, 02:33:01 PM »
Hi,
Just had a look at this in September 1983, and it is still valid today (we are in February 1984, game time) so I want to share the results with you.
Below is a comparison between the 727 and the 320 on operational lease for eight years. Similar seating, standard business and economy seats.

old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100; game DofM #6, September 1983

Delivery
B- December 1983
A- April 1988 (almost 4 and half years later than boeing!)

Availability in the used market
B- Many
A- None, new airplane

Price
B- order 1 834 million USD, monthly 314 000 USD
A- order 2 793 million USD, monthly 465 000 USD (52% and 48% higher!)

Seating
B- Y150 C10
A- Y138 C10 (8% less economy seats!)

Range
B- 2000 NM
A- 1500 NM (25% less range!)

Fuel
B- 4 100 kg / hr
A- 2 660 kg / hr (well done Airbus)

Maintenance
B- A check 6 168 USD * 130.05 = 802 148 USD
A- A check 3 078 USD * 130.05 = 400 294 USD (very good Mr Airbus!)

Conclusion
The lease savings  (151 000 USD * 12 = 1 812 000 USD per year) on Boeing exceed the maintenance savings (401 854 USD per year) on Airbus by over 1.4m USD per year. There is also close to 1m savings one time only upon order. The capacity is higher on Boeing, with 12 extra economy seats. The range is also 500 NM higher on Boeing. The only bad point for Boeing is the fuel consumption, which is 54% more expensive.

My two cents
I prefer the old Boeing. It gives me extra seats, extra range, extra savings, and it gets delivered this year (I start making money now) as opposed to several years later. If I need more there are many available in the used market. All that covers the extra fuel cost.

LA

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2013, 08:54:19 PM »
1.4 tonnes of fuel per hour extra = 22.4 tonnes extra per day = 8176 tonnes per year.

1.4 million/8176 = $171. Can't see fuel staying below $171/tonne into the 90s. You've also got to pay for extra pilots. And spend 10 minutes longer on every turn (offset by the faster speed though). Plus there are better planes than the 320-100 on the way.

320-200 has more range than the 727. The fuel advantage jumps to ~1.7 tonnes/hr, roughly 10,000 tonnes/year. When fuel is $140, that's an extra 1.4 million. When fuel is $200, that's an extra 2 million.

There's a reason one has a 4 year backlog, and one doesn't...

Online Teadaze

  • Members
  • Posts: 777
Re: old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2013, 10:58:05 PM »
try flying 727 in a very competitive route in high fuel when your competition is not bad. tell me more about your experiment.

Offline LotusAirways

  • Members
  • Posts: 846
Re: old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2013, 08:02:48 AM »
Thanks for the reality check guys.

By the way, is there a general drop in passenger demand in the past 2 weeks (we are today on 16 April 1984) or it is just me?
LA

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2013, 08:41:15 AM »
Thanks for the reality check guys.

To be fair, at some point cheaper startup cost, and easier availability outweight the increased long term costs. Flying lots of 727s isn't automatically bad, and the more detailed a look you take at the costs, the more informed a choice you can make. Just that if you're going to the effort of working out how much a year you save in maintenance & leasing, you should also spend the extra minute or so seeing just how much more fuel you'll need, and how much that'll cost at various prices.

And it's easy enough to find examples of the popular plane being actually worse than the unpopular, easier to get hold of one. F27 springs to mind, it's the turboprop that fills the production line pretty quickly, but I think it's an all-around worse plane than unpopular models like the NAMC.

Offline LotusAirways

  • Members
  • Posts: 846
Re: old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2013, 09:11:27 AM »
Hi Sanabas,
Thanks for the extra info.

1) I agree with you on the Dutch F27 vs Japanese NAMC YS-11, but I can tell you my own reasons for having over 50 F27s' and zero NAMC: a) one consumes 640 Kg/h the other 850, and b) all the routes I am flying are around 40 to 50 passengers, so I don't need the extra capacity of the NAMC.

2) By the way, does the game take in account the seating comfort when in competition with another airline? Say that all things being equal, one a/c has standard seating and the other high density, will the demand be higher on the standard seating plane?

3) Also, is there a point of running a route with only first and business seats?

4) Finally, if you can share your two cents on the lower demand I felt in the past two weeks (not sure of it is just me) it would be great.

Thank you in advance.
LA

PS: still learning. First game.   

Hwoarang

  • Former member
Re: old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2013, 04:15:10 PM »
1) I agree with you on the Dutch F27 vs Japanese NAMC YS-11, but I can tell you my own reasons for having over 50 F27s' and zero NAMC: a) one consumes 640 Kg/h the other 850, and b) all the routes I am flying are around 40 to 50 passengers, so I don't need the extra capacity of the NAMC.

2) By the way, does the game take in account the seating comfort when in competition with another airline? Say that all things being equal, one a/c has standard seating and the other high density, will the demand be higher on the standard seating plane?

3) Also, is there a point of running a route with only first and business seats?

4) Finally, if you can share your two cents on the lower demand I felt in the past two weeks (not sure of it is just me) it would be great.
I was thinking the same, but in the previous Jet Age game, I choose the YS-11 because I was in Japan and reduced the capacity to that of Fokker F27. It was still flying profitable. I think that I had an advantage because I had better seating compared to the HD Fokker F27 used by my competitor.

I don't know for sure if it is possible to fly first/business seats only, but it will be loss making in the first X years for sure!

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2013, 06:30:21 PM »
WRT the YS-11 vs F.27, iirc the F.27 can't have C-seats whereas the YS-11 can, so that's a big point in favor of the YS-11 if you have routes with C demand you'll be flying them on.  Seat comfort level is a factor based on route length, I don't recall where the dividing line is and if it's a hard line or slow fade, but on longer routes standard seating is an advantage over high density seating.  The YS-11 can also fly stupid far if you put standard seating in it to reduce it's capacity to a level similar to the F.27, iirc it winds up being something like 1200nm.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2013, 03:10:17 AM »
Hi Sanabas,
Thanks for the extra info.

1) I agree with you on the Dutch F27 vs Japanese NAMC YS-11, but I can tell you my own reasons for having over 50 F27s' and zero NAMC: a) one consumes 640 Kg/h the other 850, and b) all the routes I am flying are around 40 to 50 passengers, so I don't need the extra capacity of the NAMC.

2) By the way, does the game take in account the seating comfort when in competition with another airline? Say that all things being equal, one a/c has standard seating and the other high density, will the demand be higher on the standard seating plane?

Yep, seems to be the case. Also seems to be more pronounced on longer routes. My own rule of thumb is to not use HD seats for any flight that takes more than 3 hours. Most of the time, I'll just avoid using HD seats at all, because I think they're an abomination IRL. Also means less hassle/more options when setting routes up.

As pointed out by Ryan, one reason I dislike the f27 is inability to use C seats. The NAMC fits 48/3 with standard seats, which also sees the range jump to 1250 NM for the -100.

Quote
3) Also, is there a point of running a route with only first and business seats?

No. Won't work.

Quote
4) Finally, if you can share your two cents on the lower demand I felt in the past two weeks (not sure of it is just me) it would be great.

Haven't a clue, I no longer have an airline. Can't think of a reason why demand will drop though. Less pax might be down to the default ticket price dropping (if fuel has dropped, or the year just ticked over) while your ticket prices remain high. Or it could be comp, or just normal fluctuation. If you stick a mentor request in I'll grab it.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3072
Re: old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2013, 02:36:19 PM »
The 727-200Adv is a solid choice, especially for short haul flying. I'm using a ton of them in MT9 right now (and have in MT8), and they're just as profitable as A320-200's as a general rule when you are using them on routes under 600nm (as they tend to use a similar amount of fuel, if not a tad more, on short segments). Once fuel starts to increase, the longer the flight is (thus, more time at cruise, where the burn makes a huge difference), the more of an advantage the 320 gets.

From a timing perspective, I have found that it takes a ~1500+ mile flight for the 727 to catch up to the 320 in speed. On short haul stuff, the 727 seems to take longer either in taxi or in flight compared to the 320 (in addition to me giving it an extra 5 minutes per turn).

I would suggest that over time, you start looking into a more fuel efficient plane for the longer routes and keep a short leash on your 727s if you want to protect yourself from fuel price increases.

Offline LotusAirways

  • Members
  • Posts: 846
Re: old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2013, 08:39:14 AM »
Hi Schro,
Thanks for the input.

I have 28 B727-200Adv, 27 have fuel consumption of 4 100 kg / hr. The routes are from 153 NM to 839 NM, on average below 500 NM. Fuel prices are always hedged at 50% which I hope it will give me enough protection, and so far I have been able to start the hedges at the bottom or almost bottom for the previous 12-months.

The goal is to keep them until circa 1991, when other more fuel efficient planes are available (and higher capacity as these routes will increase in passenger demand). But not sure at this stage which aircraft will replace them, perhaps another Boeing? Anyway, by 1991 I guess the choice is Boeing or Airbus.

Stay well.
LA

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3072
Re: old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2013, 03:47:52 PM »
Hi Schro,
Thanks for the input.

I have 28 B727-200Adv, 27 have fuel consumption of 4 100 kg / hr. The routes are from 153 NM to 839 NM, on average below 500 NM. Fuel prices are always hedged at 50% which I hope it will give me enough protection, and so far I have been able to start the hedges at the bottom or almost bottom for the previous 12-months.

The goal is to keep them until circa 1991, when other more fuel efficient planes are available (and higher capacity as these routes will increase in passenger demand). But not sure at this stage which aircraft will replace them, perhaps another Boeing? Anyway, by 1991 I guess the choice is Boeing or Airbus.

Stay well.
LA

As a key metric to tell when the fuel cost is getting too high for your 727s, look at fuel cost against revenue for a given flight. Right now, in MT9, I'm seeing ~3k fuel cost on ~25k revenue for a full load on a one way 500nm flight and ~2k on 24k of revenue on a ~300nm flight. That's about 8-12% of revenue and is VERY cost effective. Once you start hitting the 20-25% of revenue number, that's when you'd be less profitable and hopefully be working on your long term solution. Your breakeven point is usually around the 30-35% of revenue mark, so for me, fuel would need to triple in order for me to feel a lot of pain.

As you can tell, the longer the flight, the higher the percentage of revenue fuel will be - so if you're running them 1500nm, you're probably at at least 20-25% of revenue for fuel...

In the latter 310nm use case, I have a 321-100 flying the same route, and it is getting ~31k of revenue  on ~1.3k of fuel. So, sure, fuel is 40% cheaper per flight on the 321, but 700 bucks each way isn't a huge deal....

Offline LotusAirways

  • Members
  • Posts: 846
Re: old Boeing 727-200Adv VS new Airbus A320-100
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2013, 12:27:16 PM »
Schro,
Very useful. Thanks for sharing.

LA

 

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.