A320 vs B737

[Frogiton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing#Airbus_A320_vs_Boeing_737

OK so, like some other planes in the game there seems to be a bit of a difference in real life and the game. I know this is kind of picky thing but if you look at the stats of the two planes, the A320 is wider than the 737 so the seats can afford to be wider therfore offering more comfort. What about the lengths of the 737-300 and the A319. The 319 is 15 feet longer, yet holds the same amount, 15 feet is a lot for no change in comfort and seating. But basically what I'm getting at is that shouldn't the A320 get some sort of comfort bonus over the 737 cause currently if you look at the starts, the A320 fleet is kind of pointless compared to the 737NG or even the 737OG.

[JumboShrimp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing#Airbus_A320_vs_Boeing_737

OK so, like some other planes in the game there seems to be a bit of a difference in real life and the game. I know this is kind of picky thing but if you look at the stats of the two planes, the A320 is wider than the 737 so the seats can afford to be wider therfore offering more comfort. What about the lengths of the 737-300 and the A319. The 319 is 15 feet longer, yet holds the same amount, 15 feet is a lot for no change in comfort and seating. But basically what I'm getting at is that shouldn't the A320 get some sort of comfort bonus over the 737 cause currently if you look at the starts, the A320 fleet is kind of pointless compared to the 737NG or even the 737OG.

I think Sami was looking at the idea of starting from cabin dimensions and deriving seating / comfort level from that.  So if that ever happens, you would see some minor changes / refinements.

As far as 320/737, they both have some strengths, some weaknesses.  I don't think you can say that one of them is pointless.  737NG may have better flexibility in range options and fuel consumption, but if you don't have enough demand beyond range of 320/321, 320 is already slightly better IMO.  321 has nearly the seating capacity of 757, and a fraction of turnaround time....

Also, if you try to fit some C/F seating in larger 737NGs, you have to go below max on standard seating to reach "Good" comfort level...

[Frogiton]

I have noticied what you said about the A321 vs the 757, which is the only reason I consider that fleet. I think if Sami made seating based on actual lengths and widths then there would be some changes in strategys. One that pops up to my head is the 767-400ER.

[MattDell]

"updates to cabin configuration systems" is mentioned for the 1.3 update - https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.0.html

[JumboShrimp]

I have noticied what you said about the A321 vs the 757, which is the only reason I consider that fleet. I think if Sami made seating based on actual lengths and widths then there would be some changes in strategys. One that pops up to my head is the 767-400ER.

767-400ER is a very underappreciated aircraft in AWS, IMO.  I used it extensively in the previous game world.  I am using A330/340 group instead in this game, but nearly 100% of it is 330-300 (which can very be profitable).  But I think 767-400ER is better in AWS than 330-300, and the rest of the 330/340 fleet group - namely all the models of 340 are kind of useless.  It is nearly impossible to make money with them flying very long distances...  Which brings me back to 764...

Anyway, I think the game, specifically ticket pricing, is somewhat unbalanced.  It is way harder to make money flying > 5000 miles, more than any other distance.  To balance things, it should either be slightly more profitable to fly ultra long haul, or less profitable to fly shorter distances...

[schro]

In the real world, most passengers don't elect to fly an airline because they have a particular fleet type (other than the A380 right now). They pick based on price and schedule.  The more seasoned travellers may have fleet type preferences that they will try to book around, but at the end of the day, noone in their right mind will pay an extra $100 to fly an A320 over a 737 assuming all other variables are equal.

As far as AWS is concerned, I find both the A320 and 737 series planes to be rather weak planes to utilize. Sure, they're some of the most common, but its the name that everyone jumps on which makes it difficult to build a massive fleet due to frame shortages and the pricing is through the roof due to their popularity. For A320/738/734/727 sized planes, the Mad Dogs (MD-8x/MD-90) are far better cheaper, deliver very similar economics and performance while being readily available because noone thinks to build up a fleet of them.  If you need something bigger, just go all 757 as they can cover just about any mission you throw at them from long and thin routes to short hop domestics.  The turn time isn't a huge deal to me - even on a short hop configured plane, the extra 40 minutes per turn isn't going to get me another round trip.

As far as ULH flying going (>5000nm), its really not that different from the real world. Revenue doesn't scale linearly with miles flown (costs don't either).  For ULH to be worthwhile, you've got to have decently high premium demand, and there's only a few routes in the world that can justify it.

[JumboShrimp]

In the real world, most passengers don't elect to fly an airline because they have a particular fleet type (other than the A380 right now). They pick based on price and schedule.  The more seasoned travellers may have fleet type preferences that they will try to book around, but at the end of the day, noone in their right mind will pay an extra $100 to fly an A320 over a 737 assuming all other variables are equal.

Agreed.  As a passenger, I don't really care much either.  Frogiton, I believe is thinking about 320 possibly allowing slightly higher comfort level because of dimensions in AWS, but the comfort level impact is nearly insignificant in AWS.  Most of the routes are flown with no competition, and when there is no competition, extra comfort level does not translate to extra dollars.

As far as AWS is concerned, I find both the A320 and 737 series planes to be rather weak planes to utilize. Sure, they're some of the most common, but its the name that everyone jumps on which makes it difficult to build a massive fleet due to frame shortages and the pricing is through the roof due to their popularity. For A320/738/734/727 sized planes, the Mad Dogs (MD-8x/MD-90) are far better cheaper, deliver very similar economics and performance while being readily available because noone thinks to build up a fleet of them.  If you need something bigger, just go all 757 as they can cover just about any mission you throw at them from long and thin routes to short hop domestics.  The turn time isn't a huge deal to me - even on a short hop configured plane, the extra 40 minutes per turn isn't going to get me another round trip.

I think I disagree here.  As far as not being able to get enough of them (320/737), I managed to have 456 A320s in MT3, mostly A321s, and by the end of the game, I will probably have 500 (2 game years left).

The extra turnaround time of 757 can be significant.  With 7 day schdule, 2 or 3 40 minute increment multiplied by 7 days does equal to a significant time.  3 * 40 * 7 = 14 hours, which could be 2 flights....

As far as ULH flying going (>5000nm), its really not that different from the real world. Revenue doesn't scale linearly with miles flown (costs don't either).  For ULH to be worthwhile, you've got to have decently high premium demand, and there's only a few routes in the world that can justify it.

Well, that's the problem.  That there are only a few routes worldwide that have the premium demand, so overall, ULH not a money maker....  It only makes sense if you have a ton of cash to purchase the ULH aircraft.   OTOH, on destinations < 5000nm, making a money even on leased aircraft is easy....

[schro]

I think I disagree here.  As far as not being able to get enough of them (320/737), I managed to have 456 A320s in MT3, mostly A321s, and by the end of the game, I will probably have 500 (2 game years left).

The extra turnaround time of 757 can be significant.  With 7 day schdule, 2 or 3 40 minute increment multiplied by 7 days does equal to a significant time.  3 * 40 * 7 = 14 hours, which could be 2 flights....

The higher cruise speed of the 757 cuts out some of the difference in time. Since the A321 and 752 are often on price parity in the games after market demand, you'll carry an extra 10% passengers per trip, thus overall, should have about the same revenue potential using the 7 day schedule.  I'm too lazy to do a 7 day schedule, and not all bases allow for one to be utilized effectively.

The other advantage of the 757 is access to the 300 in the later games such as MT. They should really call it the printing money edition ;-). 753's with HD seating willl eat folks for lunch on domestic hops... paired witha 752 for international, its a tough combo to beat...

[Frogiton]

The extra turnaround time of 757 can be significant.  With 7 day schdule, 2 or 3 40 minute increment multiplied by 7 days does equal to a significant time.  3 * 40 * 7 = 14 hours, which could be 2 flights....

2 or 3 flights is actually 4 or 6 flights. Each "flight" is actually two flights, the there, and the return. A 40 minute turnaround actually turns out to be 3 * 80* 7 = 28 hours which could be 4 flights (8 one-ways) which could be an extra 1440 pax (8 * 180) with say a ticket price around 200$ each way (1440 * 200), 288k revenue. At least that's my math.

In the real world, most passengers don't elect to fly an airline because they have a particular fleet type (other than the A380 right now). They pick based on price and schedule.  The more seasoned travellers may have fleet type preferences that they will try to book around, but at the end of the day, noone in their right mind will pay an extra $100 to fly an A320 over a 737 assuming all other variables are equal.

I wasn't talking a 100 dollar difference, I was talking about if they were even price, you think the A320 would get some sort of tiny advantage. Plus since people in this game don't care about schedule time (as long as its not 00-05) it's not exactly "based on real world". I was just finding some sort of advantage to having say a A319 over a 737-600 when the 600 is 10m less and carries the same amount of passengers. I do get the point of the A320 and A321 though and I guess since people want those they have to deal with the relatively astronomical price of A319.

[snowmen10]

As far as not being able to get enough of them (320/737), I managed to have 456 A320s in MT3, mostly A321s, and by the end of the game, I will probably have 500 (2 game years left).

Well... If I want to order 10 2000nm-ish aircrafts right now in MT6, I won't get my first A320s 1 year later after I receive my tenth MD-90...

Every game may be different. But one of the game I joined fairly late, and I've realized I can't build up a fair amount of 737NGs or 320s because the back order went crazy. Some people bought a huge chunk and put expensive lease/selling price on second hand market because they know some people can't wait for 2~3 years for their airplane to arrive. Most of the reasonable lease/selling price on second hand market needs C/D check now or within too short of the time. For a growing airline it is not a healthy competition. MD-90 is the better way to get your airliner up.

Otherwise, I believe 737NGs/320s are the better choice if you can get your airplane sooner than 1 year time.