737-800 versus 757

[dagwood]

I see a lot of players using 757's for domestic routes. It seems that with the longer turnaround time and the high fuel usage of the 757, the small capacity increase does not seem worth it. Any comments?

[gazzz0x2z]

if they need the range on other routes, It might be a wise choice. The 757 is very versatile, notably has a far higher "too small" limit, which makes for its inefficiencies. Depends on the market, like always.

[AT]

Hi,

I've asked myself the same question. I did a bit of analysis, and I got the conclusion that it was not worth it to have 757's, for me, but as gazzz said, it depends on the market you are in. For me:

With 376/7/8/9 Im flying routes from 123nm to ~3000nm, with the flexibility of having aircraft from 114pax to 180pax, all on the same fleet group. True that on routes ~3000nm I keep getting the "These aircraft maybe to small for this route, etc", but the planes keep flying @90%-98% LF, so no problem for me there.

So taking the 752 on account @174,15,0 pax vs 739 @180,0,0 pax, with the last one been cheaper to buy and fly (not only consumes less fuel, it requieres less crew), turnaround  and maintain, no reason to have 752 on my fleet. The only problem here is that 739 can fly at most ~2500nm, so  I have  to go down to 738 @162,0,0 pax, cause the 739ER is still not available on my GW. I don't have (and will not have) routes on the 3000-3900nm, that 752 can fly and 738 can't.

For 753 @222,15,0 pax 70min turnaround, flying up to~3300nm, fuel consumption of ~4000kg/hr, IMHO there is no point to compare to 737's. It can be compared to 763 @224,18,0 80min turnaround, up to ~4200nm, fuel @ 4800. 763 consumes ~33% more and cost 50% more to buy, so it looks like is a no brainer to have 763. But, again, the 767's fleet group gives a lot of flexibility, flying ~@210 total pax to ~@275pax and up to 6000nm. So, I would go for the 763 if there are just a few planes, cause I'wont open a 757 fleet group for a few planes. You could do a similar comparison vs A330/340, but in these case there is a gap btwn the ~180pax from the 737´s to the smallest A330 @258 (and A3XX are far more expensive)

But that's my reality, guess if you have a lot of routes on the ~2500nm to ~4000nm and 180-270pax (you could convert your planes to all Y seats, as domestic and regional routes in general don't have a decent C or F demand), it could be a good idea to have +10 to 20 757's and having a small fleet group would be compensated.

Just my two cents! 








Hi

[dagwood]

Thanks for the great and detailed answer.

[Andrej720918]

I am also considering 737-800 to replace my aging MD fleet. It looks now that I could generate a fair amount of markup even with singnificatly higher leasing cost of the Boeing. I have also checked A320-200 in the same category, and I was just surprised how much more expensive the Airbus is.  Right, the Boeing eats a bit more fuel, meanwhile has slightly more range, but the difference in leasing cost is stellar, more than 50%. So my question would be, what is the point in the Airbus gamewise? IRL the situation must be different, otherwise Airbus could not be that successful. There should be other technical aspects that cannot be implemented in the game.

[Chaxterium]

I am also considering 737-800 to replace my aging MD fleet. It looks now that I could generate a fair amount of markup even with singnificatly higher leasing cost of the Boeing. I have also checked A320-200 in the same category, and I was just surprised how much more expensive the Airbus is.  Right, the Boeing eats a bit more fuel, meanwhile has slightly more range, but the difference in leasing cost is stellar, more than 50%. So my question would be, what is the point in the Airbus gamewise? IRL the situation must be different, otherwise Airbus could not be that successful. There should be other technical aspects that cannot be implemented in the game.

I've been wondering the exact same thing! I've been looking at updating my 737-3/4/5 fleet and I had a look at the A318/19/20 and I couldn't believe how much more expensive they were. I don't understand why anyone would ever use those over the 737-6/7/8/9. I must be missing something.

[freshmore]

Simply, it starts off being pretty comparable. But the Airbus becomes popular and prices rise as they are dynamic. So if you commit early when the price is low, you have to put up with a higher price. Same happens to the B737NG's but those are a couple of years behind Airbus really in in service dates so it tends to end up being a bit behind price wise as well. Tend to find them more evenly matched in full worlds in terms of price and it can be the other way around.

I mean other reasons might be matching A320 family with A330/340, I don't think it brings much of a benefit, but does look nice! You can match PW1000G's with E-2 Jets for further engine commonality further down the line, again I don't think it's much. Mostly though it will be people who have committed to a fleet group early and there is no point changing at later date, because that's just hassle. Especially when for either group the MAX or NEO offers an upgrade within the same fleet.