Why is nobody using the Tu-204

[LeoDario]

Benifits: Good Range ( For Europe )
            Resonable Price ( About $30 Million )
            Good amt. of passengers for Price ( 180 pax )
            Speed ( .79 Mach )

Downsides: Fuel Consumption ( 4500 kg/h  )
                Turnround time ( Minimum = 70 min )

Is it really that bad?

[LemonButt]

Fuel consumption and turnaround are comparable to the 757 and aren't really downsides.  The reason people avoid it is that the maintenance costs are higher (but not prohibitively) and it's a Russian built aircraft.  Other than that, it's a good aircraft.

[LeoDario]

Fuel consumption and turnaround are comparable to the 757 and aren't really downsides.  The reason people avoid it is that the maintenance costs are higher (but not prohibitively) and it's a Russian built aircraft.  Other than that, it's a good aircraft.

So really it is practically just as good as another plane ( almost )

[wapp11]

So really it is practically just as good as another plane ( almost )

I have used it with success.  I just hate the long turn around comparatively with AC of its size (737-900, A321)  With what you save in outright cost, you loose in fuel and maintenance.  As long as fuel isn't sky high it will be a nice AC for you.  Another huge plus side is it almost always available!

[alexgv1]

Only reason I'm not using it in Australia is that the baseline version lacks range for me, e.g. Sydney to Perth.