Hey guys this just a topic for fun discussion about your top 3 planes in YOUR OPINION no harsh/mean comments please!! ;D
My top 3:
1.A300s All my successful airlines have used these planes to begin their airline.
2. 737 700-900. I just generally love these planes for some weird reason...
3.A340s. Just because...They KIK @$$!!
What about you guys? ;D
Personaly
Early JA Era
1. Convair 240/340/440
2. Douglas DC-6B
3. Douglas DC-7C
Late JA-Early DOTM
1. Boeing 727
2. Douglas DC-9-30/40/50
3. BAC 111-500/475
4. Lockheed L-1011
Late DOTM-MT
1. 737-700/800
2. 757-200/300
3.E-170/175/190/195
4. F-100/70
Yeah... a few more than 3 :-[
HAHAHA :laugh: its fine ;)
The best plane for me is the aircraft that can handle most situations in most gameworlds.
1) DC-10
2) 727
3) A320 series (while 737NG is better, A320 can be used in more gameworlds)
Most other aircraft have their specific timeframe where they are good and maybe better, suit other airport types than I normally go to or are a nice addition. However, this doesn't make them to the "best" aircraft for me.
For me:
1) Fokker F27/NAMC YS-11
2) Fokker F28
3) McDonnell Douglas DC-10
I'm surprised no one has said Dash-8, Saab 2000, or 767.
Also, in DOTM the MD-80 is great.
How about some Caravelle love?
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffsaircraft.net%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fmodels%2FSud_Aviation_Caravelle%255B1%255D.jpg%3F1297686482&hash=7c353307f55732f9fe6918b795a55117541ca4ec)
A couple of Jet Ages ago I operated over 250 of them. IIRC I owned over 80% of the entire global Caravelle fleet by the end of that game. (mostly because nobody else wanted any...) My most successful airline to date.
The MadDog of its day 8)
I'm also partial to the MD83 in DOTM and the B734 in MT.
1. Tu-134A/B (Say what you will but these pieces of junk have kept me afloat for the duration of DoTM4)
2. DC-9-30 (The backbone of my largest airline ever in JA6, the largest single fleet Ive yet had)
3. L-1011 (every time I go with these for long-haul, I am never disappointed)
Honorable Mentions:
MD-80 (My first plane in demo and beginners)
Antonov An-24/26 (20 of these paid for my DC-9s)
Embraer 120 Brasilia (crazy profit margins when owned)
LET L-410 (you'd be surprised, I successfully tested the whole series in JA6)
CV-240 (classic)
1) BAC 111-475/500, biggest airline I had built on them...
2) F27, Can't beat it for cost/benefit on short thin routes
3) 757-200 (Backbone of my first sucessful airline)
Depends on what 'best' is... the following are the best at ruining an airline
CRJ1
777-200
Anything Soviet
Hahaha :laugh: :laugh:
Best means for ex. your favorite plane, the most profitable plane, the one you think looks nicest etc.....
1. DC10-30
2. A300
3. DC8
cool!
Cool!
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Banner/115/507/
cool
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%2A%2A%2A%2520https%3A%2F%2Fwww.airwaysim.com%2Fgame%2FBanner%2F115%2F507%2F%2520%2A%2A%2A&hash=ce0613d3194d6c6360e979c077fddb371f6cfe7f) (https://www.airwaysim.com/)
You can always edit a prior message, bro.
Congrats on getting the banner working.
Sorry what do you mean by prior message ?
P.S does the banner work ? I cant see it.
oh sorry i get it my mind went blank for a second there!!! ;D
My favourites:
1. BAC 1-11 -500 (I never understand why people prefer the 737-100)
2. A330-300
3. DC10-30
I'm also fond of the VC-10 when it's launched, although the DC8-63 makes it obsolete.
good choice :)
Hmhmmm
1. BAC 1-11-500
Because of long-term profitability and great flexibility. It's still profitable even in the early 90s...
2. Tu-114
Because it is THE Turboprop of JA :-)
3. Il-18D
I had a fleet of those in JA5 which I replaced with 737-200Adv - profits and schedules were practically identical. At a quarter price.
My best airlines have made my favourites the following;
ATR 72-500
Embraer 170-195
A330-300
-------------------
However the BAC 1-11s have to be mentioned, as well as the Fokker 27s! :)
Haha cool! :)
Quote from: swiftus27 on November 04, 2012, 01:37:19 PM
Depends on what 'best' is... the following are the best at ruining an airline
CRJ1
777-200
Anything Soviet
JA7 is actually the first JA game which I didn't start with Soviet aircraft, but I must say they can be very usefull to start your airline with (as long as you know when you need to replace them...)
Erly ja is when id maybe consider a soviet plane. The tu 104 can be useful. After that avoid the hammer and sickle. Sure, you can start a game with some 204s only if you get rid of them quickly. The only reason you can start with them is because sami doesn't ever start a game with a hard setting. Don't fool yourself, they're crap.
I have found the ATR 72-500 and the Fokker 100 great for me. Perfect for short haul routes. 737-800 for the medium haul routes.
1) A32x series. Good fuel burn and interchangable family - A319/320/321.
2) A330-300. Best for long-haul because of fuel burn/capacity.
3) Dash 8-400Q. Superb for short-haul. Because of capacity and cruise speed.
4) Antonov An-140. Superb for short-haul also.
1- Saab 2000
2- EMB 170 to 195 family
3- Fokker 100
Quote from: swiftus27 on November 04, 2012, 01:37:19 PM
Depends on what 'best' is... the following are the best at ruining an airline
CRJ1
777-200
Anything Soviet
AHEM!
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi51.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff352%2FSoviet257%2FCCA1997.jpg&hash=b43178fafde2579465b54b324d3909271e10d573)
8)
proving to me once more that the only use for Soviet metal is either a gimmick or a short term solution.
Your maint costs must be epic on those old 154s.
Quote from: swiftus27 on November 05, 2012, 12:02:37 PM
proving to me once more that the only use for Soviet metal is either a gimmick or a short term solution.
Your maint costs must be epic on those old 154s.
That may be but I'm in no danger of bankruptcy so I dispute your claim that anything Soviet is a fast track to BK. I actually have one of my first two Tu-134As from day one still flying for me. I've had nothing but Soviet birds in the air since 1977 and this is hardly a well managed airline. I made a ton of mistakes, especially in the mid-80's when I had to lease out the 154s to an ally and take a gigantic loan but all of that was just me being an idiot; it had nothing to do with my planes. I've D-Checked everything twice without breaking a sweat.
There's nothing short-term or gimmicky about 20 years flying the same Soviet planes. I respect veterans such as yourself but sometimes you all can be a little to certain of your opinions.
Veteran has nothing to do with skill.
It's the same Soviet Aircraft diskussion as ever. Yes, some Soviet Aircraft are good. Yes, some Western aircraft suck too. Yes, biggest problem of Soviet aircraft is, at least for most models, the slow production line that makes Tu-114 for example from a good aircraft to a no-go.
It's the same stupid black and white thinking of Boeing and Airbus fanboys. Both offer good aircraft, it depends on what you want to do with them and when.
Troxartas has clearly proven not theoretically, but by performing, that predictions of guaranteed BK are wrong.Same goes to CRJ discussions. It depends how you use them and if you consequently stick to your decisions. Maybe you won´t be able to rule the world with your airline. It always leads to the question, how you define the word "success" for yourself.
So yes, some of our beloved veterans tend to be a bit too sure about themselves, even after being proven wrong.
Quote from: exchlbg on November 05, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Troxartas has clearly proven not theoretically, but by performing, that predictions of guaranteed BK are wrong.Same goes to CRJ discussions. It depends how you use them and if you consequently stick to your decisions. Maybe you won´t be able to rule the world with your airline. It always leads to the question, how you define the word "success" for yourself.
So yes, some of our beloved veterans tend to be a bit too sure about themselves, even after being proven wrong.
Hence why I never fly from a 'main' airport any more. I've flunked out of my past few games trying to do something different or new. Now Im in NZ at Auckland's old airport. I have to wait until January (human time) before I can really do anything there.
And I hardly consider one airline doing this as 'success'. Good for him for doing it. I've been reading the posts about the test. There are too many other variables to consider, though, to consider this a complete success. I could make an all 772 and CRJ1 fleet successful under the right circumstances. It wouldn't mean that they're any good in AWS... they're not. I ran a profitable airline out of the Bahamas only using Fairchild a/c. The airline made money but never excelled. You can't call that a success either. Lastly, show me the company value and cash position of a airline. You can't judge an airline solely off of its fleet list. To me, he owns a ton of metal.
I agree with Curse above, we're often forced to go to the Boeing/Airbus model because there's simply nothing else in AWS that plays within the game model. Sure the TU104/B is a great plane if leased for a 5-7 year span before being replaced by better planes. The 114 is awesome but suffers from lack of availability.
I will GLADLY stand by my stance that the CRJ1, 772, and all things Soviet are the worst planes in AWS.
I have to agree with swiftus27 on this one......there is very little that is positive about Soviet Aircraft.
In general compared to it's Western equivalent -
Negatives
Fuel use is higher
Turn around times are greater = less efficient
Production lines are slower
Maintenance is higher
Positive (maybe)
Airframes are cheaper....but is this a classic case of you get what you pay for?
But this is nothing new as we all know this and avoid them like the plague.
Sure ... as a different self challenge a person may decide to go into a game world trying to 'be successful' using Russian Birds .... but I guess that depends on what your term of success is and if you meet your goal.
I admire the all Soviet airlines ... but I am sure that the same players would have been 'even more successful' with Western Birds.... so regardless of their gameplay this does not make the Russian Birds a good plane in this Sim.
Quote from: JonesyUK on November 04, 2012, 03:54:06 PM
My favourites:
1. BAC 1-11 -500 (I never understand why people prefer the 737-100)
2. A330-300
3. DC10-30
I'm also fond of the VC-10 when it's launched, although the DC8-63 makes it obsolete.
People prefer the 737-100 because it is followed by the 737-200 Adv. The BAC 1-11-500, and, IMHO, the entire BAC line, are excellent planes and are very competitive with the 737-1/2 line, but the 732 Adv does offer a better cost per seat mile than the B15 and offers an additional 500nm range (although that advantage has been essentially negated with the new "too small" rule...)
Don
Of course you are right about the economical facts. I was just talking about sure BK.
Soviet aircraft can´t be good in this game because it doesn´t reflect the fact that during their era they didn´t have a competition, fuel for them was free and there were no "airlines" flying it, only gouvernment departments.777´s are bad because we can´t fly additional cargo.
Small birds in Western hemispheres (like CRJ) were often used on routes subsidized and regulated by gouvernments, leaving them without real competition. So, game-wize, they are "bad birds", that´s right.
But this shows one of the problematic parts of the game, where it is as real as it can be about the technical facts in some part and being impossible to reflect the correct economical/political situation around them, tending to be a bit unbalanced likewise.
Soviet aircraft can't be good in this game because lots of data is simply wrong ;-)
See my Yak-40 update (2-3 times lower fuel consumption and faster), Il-14P/M (wrong pax numbers, wrong range), Tu-204-100 introduction was few years late, IL96-300 had way too short range, Tu-144 in AWS was/is modeled after "flying laboratory" used by NASA and equipped with Tu-22M engines and Tu-154M had too short range too.
And these are just my bug reports, there are still a lot of soviet/Russian planes with hourly fuel consumption higher than total fuel capacity* :-)
Maintenance is higher on soviet aircraft.. but why exactly is it higher? There were very few places able to service soviet planes outside SU because soviet planes were used mainly "close to home".
At the moment there are still few places able to service modern Russian planes. Why? Because no one uses them. Why is that? Because maintenance is cumbersome :-)
AWS reflects it by having predefined maintenance costs. That's following real world usage; but should it? Is it not conceivable that had there been hundreds of orders there would also be a significant service base?
Hmm.. maybe I should put it in feature requests.... C/D check costs directly tied to aircraft production numbers... rare planes being more expensive, common planes being cheaper... more expensive after production lines close...
Turnaround times are also completely arbitrary.. For example standard Il-62 was designed around the concept of manual baggage loading but M and K variants were able to turn around in half the time. But they are grouped together because that's how the system works...
*slight exaggeration :-)
Soviet aircraft were designed and used under "what the hack, I don´t care"- circumstances and were just perfect for that.Maybe those incorrect data reflect that, who really cared about exact deliveries,fuel burn ,runway length, turn-arounds? (And those who did, kept it a secret!)
Western aircraft,especially nowadays, need to meet the "I´ll squeeze every possible cent out of your ribs"- standard. Simply not possible to harmonize that.
1. Airbus A318/319/320/321
2. De Havilland Canada DHC-8 (Love those little planeys.)
Well.. why not.
1.) 747-300
2.) A330-300
3.) A321-200
Tied for 4th would be A300-600R and 767-400ER. 5th place would go to DC-8-63.
Talentz
I put the 777 and 747 in the most depressingly bad plane category.
swiftus you may have just solved BA's problems!!! I see lots of 777's and 747's there!
Quote from: swiftus27 on November 20, 2012, 12:46:27 AM
I put the 777 and 747 in the most depressingly bad plane category.
Your hate runs deep. Are you still having bad nightmares about leasing that 74S with your first airline in CLE? You have to overcome your fears. Be strong, chase those demons away!!
Stretches produce higher PFOs then other aircraft, in general. More revenue, more profit potential. Some of those aircraft in the family line suck, but the same could be said about other lines as well.
Talentz
I love those 2 planes and enjoy flying on them. They're unfairly bad in aws
Dash8
A321
B764
The most absurdly profitable aircraft I have ever flown was the 747-400D. I had 38 of them flying back when we could do A-B-C-B-A routing. Fun times...
I've ordered several 744D to use them out of London Gatwick. I'm curious how they'll perform outside Asia. :)
Forget the 744D, I had a 743 configured to 550/5 in HD and ran it on monopolies - now that was profitable. 8)
Quote from: Name_Omitted on November 20, 2012, 01:06:44 PM
The most absurdly profitable aircraft I have ever flown was the 747-400D. I had 38 of them flying back when we could do A-B-C-B-A routing. Fun times...
Before frequency was implemented in its current state, sure.
Quote from: RushmoreAir on November 20, 2012, 03:46:09 PM
Forget the 744D, I had a 743 configured to 550/5 in HD and ran it on monopolies - now that was profitable. 8)
I try to phase out my 747 classic. :) But the 743 are printing lots of money - although they fly tech-stop and are expensively leased from manufacturer...
1. Airbus A320-series (Comes in different sizes, and the smaller ones actually burn less fuel. The smaller B737NGs don't)
2. MD-90-30/ER (Easy to get hands on, good all-round aircraft)
3. Bombardier CS100/CS300 (Doesn't get more economical than that)
Jet Age
Viscount: Low fuel burn, good speed and capacity
Dawn of Mellinium
DC-9-50: Great economics but poor range
DC-8-63: Good economics superior range
Modern Age
A321: Good range, good economics, better turn time than 757
Saab 2000: Good range, good speed and excellent fuel burn and economics
cool! 8)
being a little-birder, my choices are at that end of the scale ; so
Embraer 120
Fokker F.27
Heron 2
E120's and F.27's just churn out the earnings, unspectacular aircraft but solid performance. set-up right on domestic routes they can produce excellent earnings. Lastly, the Heron, a slightly comical old plane, that, like the bumble bee, logically should not work, but it does. Low purchase/lease costs, reasonable running costs, excellent range and chuggs along happily bringing home the precious green.
Hi,
Just an update as this has not been posted on in over a year.
In an epic game and in the first 10 years the best planes are without a doubt:
Vickers Viscount 700D - This hits the sweet spot of 50 passengers, is amazingly fast, has a massive range and allows you access to the later 800 and 840 for more pax. Probably the only plane that will hold up well from purchase to scrapping.
Douglas DC 6B to 7C - Slower than the later boeings and super sixties but MASSIVE range and capacity to establish yourself in the long haul market from the very start. Beats out the constellation on costs. As you want to replace these with either the boeings or super sixties within a decade it's best to just rent.
De Havilland Heron 2 - Just coming to market as the game starts. With 17 pax and 760 mile range this cheap and cheerful small plane will fill out all the thin routes for very little investment. There is no competition for it in the small plane market until the beechcraft 99 comes along 11 years later.
In my opinion, in no particular order:
F27/50
Britannia
due to cargo also:
B757 & B767
probably with the LR/XLR also:
A320
Not that they did well in real world...actually quite problematic...but given this is AWS and often times up is down and down is up (+ the fact they now group in same family)... I liked doing the DC-10-30ER to MD-11. I did quite well with that strategy...at least prior to the wind patterns being introduced. It bridges a nice gap until the full family of A33/40s come out. I find that family superior to 777 with exception of the super long range one...although not sure the utility of it with wind.
Per up-thread on 747, I once did the 747SRs in Japan to be like JAL in RW and those things made bank hoping around the country.
i'm also one of the nuts that is partial to the A380 if running from the top hubs...or you want to make 5 round trips a day from Seattle to Naha or Saipan ;)
The Viscount is on my list, probably 1st. Lasts very long, good range for the timeframe (even at the end, in the 90s), good speed, etc. No other plane is as versatile as this one. Sure, it has 3 pilots and 4 engines (compared to the 2 of the F.27, HS 748 and NAMC), but it's worth it.
Now, for the others, I'm not sure, as it mostly depends on the context. Though I'd need to mention the 732. Way more resilient than one might think, even if it lacks range in the 2nd half of its life compared to its newer competitors.
The Britannia is also very nice, as it has 2 very distinctive config, with the 75 pax and 120 pax. Makes it both a good LH plane and an average long range medium capacity A/C. The advantage here is that it saves one fleet slots, and thus avoids the costs of one renewal. Not many types can do this.
Quote from: Tha_Ape on March 17, 2020, 08:17:40 PM
The Viscount is on my list, probably 1st. Lasts very long, good range for the timeframe (even at the end, in the 90s), good speed, etc. No other plane is as versatile as this one. Sure, it has 3 pilots and 4 engines (compared to the 2 of the F.27, HS 748 and NAMC), but it's worth it.
Now, for the others, I'm not sure, as it mostly depends on the context. Though I'd need to mention the 732. Way more resilient than one might think, even if it lacks range in the 2nd half of its life compared to its newer competitors.
The Britannia is also very nice, as it has 2 very distinctive config, with the 75 pax and 120 pax. Makes it both a good LH plane and an average long range medium capacity A/C. The advantage here is that it saves one fleet slots, and thus avoids the costs of one renewal. Not many types can do this.
Since I had to replace a huge fleet of Viscounts with F100s I have sworn to myself never to go down that road again. I just lack the extent of masochistic tendency required for the task. I won't enter a pre jet age game world again. Anything mid 60s onwards is fine.
I agree with the 732, it's a real gem and it's successor 733 can last till the end of any GW.
Mike
Oh, the mighty 737-200Adv! She prints money ;D
The F.27 is my go-to worker bee. Nothing else can do what the F.27 Mk. 200 can do!
I'd also like to show some love to the MD-90. It's actually quite versatile. I dominated Japan with them a few games ago.
I think the ultimate transition for fleet sin large bases has to be:
727>757>320
DC8>DC10>A330/A340
The final fleet would be a320 + 757f+ a330, I think most of the most profitable airline will always have this or a simular setup by the end of the world. Its impossible to finish most profitable without cargo, and this is the best way to accomodate all the best freighters with nearly the best pax planes.
Quote from: tungstennedge on April 03, 2020, 10:31:44 AM
I think the ultimate transition for fleet sin large bases has to be:
727>757>320
DC8>DC10>A330/A340
The final fleet would be a320 + 757f+ a330, I think most of the most profitable airline will always have this or a simular setup by the end of the world. Its impossible to finish most profitable without cargo, and this is the best way to accomodate all the best freighters with nearly the best pax planes.
Did A321 / 767 / 777 in SIN. All had cargo variants, very versatile.
Obviously, though, not every airline needs 2 VL types.
The 757PF is very good until game end, but can't bring anything else than cargo. If you need the fleet slot, better make a compromise. A321-F + 763-F it is. The A321-F works in 80% of the cases where you'd want a 757PF.
I feel like the problem is the a321f cant replace the 757f well enough. Range is just a bit short, and payload eff is lower since its per ton fuel eff is not much better and its still uses 2 crew member, and charges routes fees and such. From many bases, you will need to serve hundreds of level 2 airports which will never really go to lvl 3, in the US alone there is usually multiple pages of cargo you need to serve with lvl 2. If you are based anywhere outside the US you will need 757f to reach this cargo, double stopping really has much lower margins that single stop, and the sheer number of a321f you would need to fly all the lvl2 airport cargo is somewhat unfeasible, say in the current LHR Im doing in gw1, I already have 300 757 sized freighters in London f in london flying exclusively cargo to lvl 2 airports, and the demand will more than double in the next 15 years, if this gameworld remotely follows gw2 in cargo demand.
There will be even more airports which upgrade to lvl 2 and need a flight. Anyways, I just dont think there is a realistic substitute for 757f, and cargo is too important to ignore all the lvl 2 cargo. The lvl 2 airport cargo market is LHR for example, is worth about 350-400million a week in the 1990's. sure, some airports will upgrade to lvl 3, but also lvl 1 airports will ug to lvl 2 opening new markets for 757 cargo. Also, I dont think it matters that its pax variant is useless by game ends, since the a330, and a320 covers so much of the market on its own. The only thing it lacks, is a good 8000nm+ range option, since the a340 is quite depricated by a games end, but I think that too is underated in most worlds since the a340 has killer belly cargo, can can make up for its inefficiencies there flying more belly cargo than say a dreamliner. just a few thousand kg of belly cargo will make up the inefficiency. a320 is nearly a perfect large fleet type, best small cargo plane, I think the 321NEO is a perfect pax plane, a330-900neo is also not much worse than a350/777x/787, especially the 777. I dont understand why so many people go 777 when they are almost never full anyway unless you have no competitor.
You tell wise things, but missed the point.
What has the A321-F that the 757PF doesn't have?
The A321. And the A320. The whole family, and one of the best. While even the larger 757-300 are already struggling to bring any money by 2020.
Quote from: Tha_Ape on April 03, 2020, 11:19:30 PM
What has the A321-F that the 757PF doesn't have?
well, it does cargo appx 25 years before the A320 series. and can do 3900nm range 35 years before the A320 series. its two different eras.
Dani, please... ::)
It was about game end config.
Quote from: Tha_Ape on April 04, 2020, 07:17:47 AM
Dani, please... ::)
It was about game end config.
oohhhhkkkkeeyyyy... maybe i didnt get that part of the conversation :laugh:
DanDan Deal has a point. Maybe that end-game fleet is ideal for a pax only or pax (but hey I want some cargo too) airlines, but for a true cargo-only airline, the A320 family comes to late to be worth it or bother getting it. Might as well fly the 757 till they fall out of the skies (grounded 35yrs).
I get everyone wants to run everything. However as far as the Pax vs Cargo airline question goes, the two don't really go hand in hand and have different strategies and fleet plans to be overwhelmingly successful at their respective markets.
Talentz
My personal favorites and most profitable ones:
1. A321
2. 777 especially 777-300ER
3. A330
For cargo: 777F and 747ERF
Quote from: Tuckernut on April 05, 2020, 01:44:10 PM
My personal favorites and most profitable ones:
1. A321
2. 777 especially 777-300ER
3. A330
For cargo: 777F and 747ERF
777 is great until competitions say hello. 747 is great without competitions and when fuel prices are low. Both of them are subpar aircraft in AWS in most situations.
The MD-11 used to be a dog, but with cargo and the addition of the MD-11F and MD-11C are game changers. There really isn't a replacement for the MD-11C and makes thinner long haul routes with 200 pax + 40 tn cargo very viable/profitable whereas before they were very marginal. If competition moves in on top of you, it's likely just cargo or just pax, so you still have at least one category that is profitable. If you get hit with competition on the pax and cargo side, it's typically 2 flights which means your competition is spending twice as much to compete which is a losing strategy. The fact DC-10 and MD-11 are the same fleet type saves a lot of hassle also.
Baade
Y40
VFW614
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on April 10, 2020, 06:19:06 AM
Baade
Y40
VFW614
the first and the last at least look really cool! 8)
Quote from: DanDan on April 10, 2020, 07:50:17 AM
the first and the last at least look really cool! 8)
but you're not gonna break even brokering them.
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on April 10, 2020, 08:04:47 AM
but you're not gonna break even brokering them.
thats because you just never tried ordering 50 baade and reselling them! ;)
Quote from: DanDan on April 10, 2020, 08:14:21 AM
thats because you just never tried ordering 50 baade and reselling them! ;)
Find a buyer and you'll sell them :laugh:
Even if it's just for a joke. I wasted billions by mistake, error of judgment, as gifts. Might as well have fun! ::)
Hi all, I'm back after taking a bit of a break. Interesting topic - my humble opinion is that there is no such thing as "The 3 best planes in AirwaySim". So much depends on what type of airline you are going to operate and from where in the world. I've had huge airlines in Europe and as good as it can get in north Africa and the "best" aircraft for each of those airlines would not be the same. (although nearly every airline could make good use of the 737 family from the late '60's right through to the end, therefore has to be "the best" aircraft imo)
By the way - Hi again Arthur, long time no chat... but I must challenge how you still maintain that 757s are hard to make money with after about yr 2020. (your quote above: "While even the larger 757-300 are already struggling to bring any money by 2020." ) I disagree... yes they become a bit less effective in relation to other newer planes IF you can find a better suitable replacement, but I have run a huge fleet ( 400+ ) of 757s right up to 2035 with great success on both cargo and pax routes that simply lacked any good modern replacement. (a situation that exists IRL also !). Maybe the new A321XLR will be the true 757 replacement?
Jack