12 replies to this topic

[qwertyasdf]

Which aircraft is more profitable? The turnaround time for the a300 is 2x faster, but the 747 has like 200 more seats...

[hayhaa]

what do you think?

[vistaraR1]

Generally Aircrafts with more seats are more profitable.

A300B2 has 345 seats + shorter range (2800mi) and the fuel flow per pax is 110

Now 747 has 550 seats+ longer range (7141mi) and fuel flow per pax is 127

There's not much difference between per pax fuel flow.

So the clear winner here is B747.

[qwertyasdf]

Generally Aircraft with more seats are more profitable

ok, thanks!

[vistaraR1]

[konj1]

Only A300 (or DC-10 or L1011) if you want to build a smaller airline because better frequency is cool. 

All of above including 747 if you're serious (flooding the market).

[Jarkii]

I use all of them (A300,L-1011,DC-10,747), so i can replace my older fleet quicker (707, DC-8, CV-880/990, IL-18)

[vistaraR1]

I use all of them (A300,L-1011,DC-10,747), so i can replace my older fleet quicker (707, DC-8, CV-880/990, IL-18)

Even I use all of them

[DusanGB]

I will say B747

[zipp]

Tbh I buy the ones I like

[bAnderson]

747-100 is a good aircraft, as is 200B. Don't bother with Airbus early jets. The only good Airbus planes start at A318 and go to A380. Screw A310 and A300.

[vistaraR1]

747-100 is a good aircraft, as is 200B. Don't bother with Airbus early jets. The only good Airbus planes start at A318 and go to A380. Screw A310 and A300.

A300B4 is good. It makes huge amount of money.

[davedave]

If you're looking for maximum growth/profit, but both.

 

I like the 747-100s with the short-takeoff engine option. There are a few airports only they can serve long-haul until the 767, which can be very profitable when everyone else is off chasing longer/fatter routes with their 747-200s.