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?
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.
Quote from: LemonButt on December 22, 2011, 01:11:20 AM
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 )
Quote from: LeoDario on December 22, 2011, 01:22:26 AM
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!
Only reason I'm not using it in Australia is that the baseline version lacks range for me, e.g. Sydney to Perth.