110 replies to this topic

[Hake.]

Lowest costs =/= cheapest at the end of the day. Not sure about the figures, but the A319LR costs about 15% more than the -100. 15% higher maintenance, 15% more money taken from your airline. You could offset this increase on LH flights, but the -100 is a better deal.

[Cottersen]

747-8i is a stunningly brilliant aircraft to have when possible, so profitable

 

 

Word. The A380 might technically speaking burn less fuel but it's too big for a lot of sectors. The 747-8i is unbelievably useful.

[bcrath]

EARLIER WORLDS

 

->30 seats: Ilyushin IL-14P 

- 30 to 70 seats: ATR-42-600
- 70 to 100 seats: BAC One-Eleven 200
-100 to 150 seats Ilyushin IL-18D
-150 to 250 seats: Boeing 707-320C or Tupolev TU-114 or DC-8-50
-250 to 450 seats: Airbus A310-300
- 450 plus seats: Boeing 747-8i

 

LATER WORLDS

 

->30 seats: Raytheon Beech 1900C

- 30 to 70 seats: Hawker Siddeley HS 748
- 70 to 100 seats: Bombardier Dash Q400 NextGen or Embraer EMB 170 LR
-100 to 150 seats: Airbus A318
-150 to 250 seats: Airbus A319NEO or A320NEO or Tupolev TU-214
-250 to 450 seats: Boeing 787-8 or Airbus A330-300 or Airbus A340-300E
- 450 plus seats: Boeing 747-200B

 

I find it almost laughable how easy it is in AE to choose the A320 family over the 737s...and the 787s over the A350s.

Nope. A318 is absolutely out of the question, The Bombardier CSeries is the obvious answer. Plus, the Cessna F406 is way better than the Beech 1900C if you use it correctly.

[bcrath]

Word. The A380 might technically speaking burn less fuel but it's too big for a lot of sectors. The 747-8i is unbelievably useful.

It isn't. Many major sectors such as LGW-JFK produce ample demand for at least 2 daily A380 flights. As long as your intended route is quite major, then the A380 will work just fine.

[bcrath]

i quite like the Q400's they serve me well.

Personally i think the Boeing 757 is the best for the 220-240 seat range as it is versatile and in my circumstances, making a good amount of money

There is no best option for the 220-240 seat market. Every available option has shortfalls:

Boeing 757-200:Terrible Fuel efficiency. Great range

Airbus A321-200: Decent fuel efficiency. Vastly inferior range

Airbus A321neo: Decent fuel efficiency. Inferior range

[bcrath]

Lowest costs =/= cheapest at the end of the day. Not sure about the figures, but the A319LR costs about 15% more than the -100. 15% higher maintenance, 15% more money taken from your airline. You could offset this increase on LH flights, but the -100 is a better deal.

Really. The LR is a way better deal than the-100. Afterall, 13200/160 for a plane doing 511 mph is rather great when you compare it to some other rivals. The -100 has 14080/160. It only does 3 mph extra. It, isn't good what so ever. At one point, I had the neo, the LR and the-100 operating on the same route on full seats. The neo produced 39k profit, the LR 30k profit, and the -100 24k profit. The difference is exorbant. However, if it is available, I would recommend the neo for flights below 3000 miles. It's great there. However, the LR has an unparalleled ability to fly thin long haul routes profitably, unlike the 737-700ER. Oh my, that was horrendous!

[Cottersen]

There is no best option for the 220-240 seat market. Every available option has shortfalls:

Boeing 757-200:Terrible Fuel efficiency. Great range

Airbus A321-200: Decent fuel efficiency. Vastly inferior range

Airbus A321neo: Decent fuel efficiency. Inferior range

 

Is suppose the 757-200, in spite of it's fuel efficiency-issues, will solve a lot of headaches for a lot of players when they're sorting out their routes. That range is very, very handy.

[Hake.]

The 737-700ER is a 737-700 with fuel flow of an -800. And bear in mind, I have really progressed since I made this thread. While efficiency does matter, I'd keep onto an ATR 42-200 until 2013 'because I like it'. And yes, I just replaced them with doubly efficient -500s. I fly whatever plane feels right, retire them when it feels right, replace them with whatever feels right. I'd keep an ATR much longer than I'd keep a 737 in other words.

[TNT88]

Since most modern world start at 1990 and above. Here is my list:

 

Bombardier Q400

A319 and A319LR

A320-200

A321-100

B737-400

B737-800WL

B737-900ER

B757-300

B767-400ER

A330-300

A340-200

A340-300

B777-200

B777-300

 

*B747-400, although the fuel consumption might a bit higher than typical modern airplane.

 

Those are the aircraft that worth the money mainly because the lower fuel consumption vs capacity and distance. I wouldn't put my money on other aircraft.

[Hake.]

Q400spam cheapest spam.

[TNT88]

Q400spam cheapest spam.

Exactly, the production rate also helps it a lot.

[bAnderson]

I like the Antonov AN-140. 52 seater that makes a really nice profit for a prop. Modern, too.

[Hake.]

I like the Antonov AN-140. 52 seater that makes a really nice profit for a prop. Modern, too.

I don't like it, better money can be made elsewhere.

[KJS607]

For later games, I've found the following being the most profitable in size order:

 

0-50 pax - Do228NG

50-100 pax - Q400NG

100-150 pax - CS100/300

150-200 pax - A320neo

200-250 pax - A321neo

250-300 pax - 787-8

300-350 pax - 787-9

350-400 pax - A350-1000

400-450 pax - A380

450 & above - A380

[LJ Aviation]

It isn't. Many major sectors such as LGW-JFK produce ample demand for at least 2 daily A380 flights. As long as your intended route is quite major, then the A380 will work just fine.

Well how many of these routes do you have

Plus with 747-8i you can put more frequencies which increases rating

[LJ Aviation]

It isn't. Many major sectors such as LGW-JFK produce ample demand for at least 2 daily A380 flights. As long as your intended route is quite major, then the A380 will work just fine.

Well how many of these routes do you have

Plus with 747-8i you can put more frequencies which increases rating

 

Since most modern world start at 1990 and above. Here is my list:

 

Bombardier Q400

A319 and A319LR

A320-200

A321-100

B737-400

B737-800WL

B737-900ER

B757-300

B767-400ER

A330-300

A340-200

A340-300

B777-200

B777-300

 

*B747-400, although the fuel consumption might a bit higher than typical modern airplane.

 

Those are the aircraft that worth the money mainly because the lower fuel consumption vs capacity and distance. I wouldn't put my money on other aircraft.

I don't think 764ER is good. I like 763ER better.

A330/340 and 777s are the BEST for longhauls

I also think 787-9 and A350-900 should appear on the list

[LJ Aviation]

B767-300ER

A300-600

B777-300(ER)

B777-200LR (if you have ultra long flights)

A330-300 best all around

and of course A320s

737s

747s in early stages

A380s if you can fill them

E-Jets are good also

[LJ Aviation]

757s are also good because you can put them on thin transatlantic flights ex Providence to London

[LJ Aviation]

avoid 747SP they are less profitable

avoid supersonics

avoid helicopters

avoid Russian planes, their fuel economy is really bad maybe TU-204 is not that bad but Ive never flown it

Avoid small planes

 

buy: 767 except 400ER all 757s 320s 330-300 350-900R 380s 747s except for SP

[LJ Aviation]

There is no best option for the 220-240 seat market. Every available option has shortfalls:

Boeing 757-200:Terrible Fuel efficiency. Great range

Airbus A321-200: Decent fuel efficiency. Vastly inferior range

Airbus A321neo: Decent fuel efficiency. Inferior range

757s are the best bc you can put it on thin transatlantic routes and they come out way earlier than A321s