What would your choice be? Lockheed L-1011 or a Boeing 747-200.

[stevenf]

Hi everyone,

I've got a pretty nice fleet of 3 A300 aircrafts, 2 of them are long range (300B4)

I'm looking to expand my fleet, but there are hardly any A300's in the used aircraft pool. And I don't have enough money to buy new.

I'm looking at the L-1011 and 747-200 both have a nice range, the L-1011 burns less fuel then the 747-200. (L-1011: 7 080 kg / hr) (747-200: 13 790 kg / hr)

What would your choice be? Lockheed L-1011 or a Boeing 747-200?

Thanks!

[d2031k]

The Tristar would seem much more suitable to me. 

Whilst you lose a bit of capacity, it is pretty rare to see a really profitable airline with 747s.  The fuel burn is a big reason to choose the Tristar as fuel prices will inevitably increase and it will also you save a little bit on maintenance with 1 less engine (not a massive amount granted, but it all helps).  The later L-1011-500s will give you a few more options too, as they can be used on slightly thinner routes more easily. 

I'd stay well clear of 747s, but there are the occasional exceptions.

Hope that helps a little

[stevenf]

Thanks! Sure does help.

I was thinking the same.

Thanks again.

[Monk Xion]

Hi everyone,

I've got a pretty nice fleet of 3 A300 aircrafts, 2 of them are long range (300B4)

I'm looking to expand my fleet, but there are hardly any A300's in the used aircraft pool. And I don't have enough money to buy new.

I'm looking at the L-1011 and 747-200 both have a nice range, the L-1011 burns less fuel then the 747-200. (L-1011: 7 080 kg / hr) (747-200: 13 790 kg / hr)

What would your choice be? Lockheed L-1011 or a Boeing 747-200?

Thanks!

Depends on your routes... what are they? Long haul with high demand or long haul with medium demand? Or something different

[Zabuti]

747 can be really profitable (weekly profit of 1.5 million per plane) if you use them as much as you can (keeping turnover time at a decent level).

However, they need long routes to become profitable, since they need a loooong turnover time.

3400 nm is a minimum

[RushmoreAir]

747 can be really profitable (weekly profit of 1.5 million per plane) if you use them as much as you can (keeping turnover time at a decent level).

However, they need long routes to become profitable, since they need a loooong turnover time.

3400 nm is a minimum

The 747-300 can be quite profitable on short haul routes, too.  I had one doing a Dublin-Palma and 2 Dublin-Heathrow rotations daily, and it made 2.3 million weekly.

I Would go with the 747, because the Lockheed has killer maintenance (I think).  Take a look at real life, too.  Which was more successful?  The 747.

[Curse]

If you need thin routes within the Range of the TriStars, take them. If you need the seats offered by B747, take the B747. If you need thing long range, take DC-10-30.

Personally I choose DC-10 over B747 and never use TriStar, because Lockheed offered no long-range variant. The -500 is much more bad than an Airbus A310.

[maumausi]

the 747-400 has half the fuel usage of the earlier 747's, ie 7K/hour rather than 14K. But in this beginners world fuel is kept cheap so as to make the game easy...

S