100 replies to this topic

[Michael.]

Dude! Seriously,

Why are you going around necro'ing all these old threads? With absolutely nothing new to add?

 

You're litterally the worst person to have in a Forum.

This post needs to be pinned. 

[tigerair737]

For me, the Canadair Yukons made my DOP go up by hundreds of thousands when I was starting out. A good aircraft for flights below 3hrs in the 70's.

 

Regards,

tigerair737

[KINGXyro]

Airbus A319-100 LR!

 

I'd say this is better than the A320-200. The A319 boasts longer range, cheaper maintainance costs and sadly lower seating.

 

I run both airliners at the same seating configuration. The A319 is the star player for my airline. On long-haul transport I'd say the 777 and the 787. With longer range and more fuel efficient than their Airbus counterparts.

 

If you're looking for regional airliners.

 

The ATR fleet is better than the Bombadier Dash series.

The ATR fleet beats up the Bombadier Dash series. Even the newer Bombadier Dash Q400 "NextGen" gets beated up here.

[Ho Lee Fuk]

757 is OP on transcontinental flight(JFK-LAX,JFK-SEA etc)

[kawaiisovietball]

727 is a bit LOL on flights around 1500 mi

[markantony9692]

737-300. I just bought a 757-200 and honestly, the demand between DUB- east coast is atrocious. So basically I'm making more between DUB and ZRH than DUB-BOS... but still, $400k a day is 400k a day

[Jacob Sartorius]

Beachcraft Bonanza is the best 

Tons of seats

Very fast

lots of Miles

Cheap 

 

 

        ......

[markantony9692]

Just like the Concorde is the most efficient aircraft ever... seriously?

[zortan]

777, 767, 737-300 and up, Dash7, An-72, 787, 747-300 and up especially 747sp, for helicopters, westland 30 and boeing 234 series.

[Hans.]

ATR 72-500 is very profitable for regional flights (about 500 miles or less). ATR 42-500 is also good, but not quite as efficient. The ATR 42 works well for routes that are too small for the 72 or when you want to increase frequencies. All of my airlines in AE are regional airlines and I always use both types. With a fleet of about 10-20 ATRs I can make a pretty good daily profit while operating a realistic airline. I also use the smaller B737s and A319.

[Thefireset]

ATR 72-500 is very profitable for regional flights (about 500 miles or less). ATR 42-500 is also good, but not quite as efficient. The ATR 42 works well for routes that are too small for the 72 or when you want to increase frequencies. All of my airlines in AE are regional airlines and I always use both types. With a fleet of about 10-20 ATRs I can make a pretty good daily profit while operating a realistic airline. I also use the smaller B737s and A319.

 

I find funny that you are saying on 3 olds topics  that ATR are the best regional aircraft. But in fact, Bombardier Q400 are  much more efficient. 

[Hans.]

Sorry. Just trying to add useful information for any new players who are interested. I haven't found the Q400 to be more efficient, but I operate on short flights (less than 500 miles), so in my experience the ATR is more economical on those distances. There are a lot of other players who agree that the ATR's are just as good or better than the Dash 8 series. The Q400 is probably better for routes over 500 mi, but can't operate economically to really small airports where there isn't much demand. Also, their is no great replacement for the ATR 42 after early 2000s since the Dash-8-300 is no longer produced.

 

I'll have to try creating an airline with the Q400 as the only fleet type sometime and then switch to ATRs and evaluate the differences. 

[Tesla]

I am running CS300s in my current airline. With a seat configuration of 16 business and 115 economy (very low density compared to 160Y), and 74 out of 140 hours unused (excellent for OTP), my least profitable CS300 still makes 1.9 million per month considering lease costs, operating costs and several other factors. This would be even better if with depreciation rather than with lease payment  

[Thefireset]

Sorry. Just trying to add useful information for any new players who are interested. I haven't found the Q400 to be more efficient, but I operate on short flights (less than 500 miles), so in my experience the ATR is more economical on those distances. There are a lot of other players who agree that the ATR's are just as good or better than the Dash 8 series. The Q400 is probably better for routes over 500 mi, but can't operate economically to really small airports where there isn't much demand. Also, their is no great replacement for the ATR 42 after early 2000s since the Dash-8-300 is no longer produced.

 

I'll have to try creating an airline with the Q400 as the only fleet type sometime and then switch to ATRs and evaluate the differences. 

 

I think both aircraft (ATR and Q400) are efficient, I understand that some prefer ATR and other Q400. Maybe I prefer the Q400 partly because I'm Canadian...

 

The next time, if you want to say some informations to new player, I recommand you to just use one topic, I think it will be better for all of us.  

 

I compare both with my gigantic airlines. The screenshots are on my gallery. The ATR are more fuel efficient but the Q400 can be use more times in a day. So, finally, the Q400 is more efficient.

[Tesla]

I think both aircraft (ATR and Q400) are efficient, I understand that some prefer ATR and other Q400. Maybe I prefer the Q400 partly because I'm Canadian...

 

The next time, if you want to say some informations to new player, I recommand you to just use one topic, I think it will be better for all of us.  

 

I compare both with my gigantic airlines. The screenshots are on my gallery. The ATR are more fuel efficient but the Q400 can be use more times in a day. So, finally, the Q400 is more efficient.

I find that the ATR is more fuel efficient but if run in a similar way to a Q400 it is very difficult to make profits with, especially as a starter aircraft.

[Tesla]

Dude! Seriously,

Why are you going around necro'ing all these old threads? With absolutely nothing new to add?

 

You're litterally the worst person to have in a Forum.

'Necro-ing' a 2 month post isn't the worst thing ever. It is a little annoying, but if it triggers interesting discussion then that's great. Necro-ing a 2-3 year old topic as I have accidentally done in the past however is not

[Marb1]

The 767-300 and 767-300ER

[KJS607]

197Y - configured Boeing 737 MAX 200 / 156Y - configured Bombardier CS300

[WAZZ]

If you mean profit as in it makes money (no matter how small), then anything can make money. I'm not joking. $1 of profit is profit, even if it doesn't seem like profit.

 

As for which makes the most money, Tupolev 204-100, Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Boeing 747, Boeing 777, Airbus A330-300, MD-83, and the MD-11 have all worked wonderfully for me.