13 replies to this topic

[usernamehasbeentaken]

20-70 seat: I don't know, I have never operated these planes.

 

70-140 seat: Embraer EMB 195 AR.

It's a plane with good fuel consumption and acceptable range, which can fly lower demand routes like Munich to Sharjah and Bali to Adelaide. It's years are limited, but it's an overall acceptable plane.

 

140-200 seat: Airbus A320-200.

With a very long lifetime, it's a plane you can use and buy in a lot of worlds. It can serve shorter routes like Paris to Palma, or Jeju to Nanjing, but it can also serve long routes, like Singapore to Perth, and even New York to Dublin. It has an ok price, and good fuel consumption.

 

200-260 Seat: Boeing 757-200

With a relatively long lifetime and a range to cover some transatlantic and transcontinental flights, it can really work with a good midsized cabin and a very good price.

 

260-350 Seat: Boeing 767-200ER.

I LOVE this plane. It's such an amazing plane, with a good size to fill lower demand routes like London to Da Nang or Los Angeles to Malaga. It has a great price and amazing range of up to 8000 miles. It's lifetime is longer than the A320, and it's a very reliable plane financially.

 

350+ Seat: Boeing 777-200

I have only used this plane for one airline, but it's pretty good and has a good passenger count and long range, as well as an acceptable price.

 

Do you agree or disagree with these?

[RubberDuckGaming]

For the 20-70 seat I use the ATR. Anything with lower capacity than 50 is not worth operating.

[chenie2007]

For 140 seats to 200 seats, the 737-800 is better IMO

For 260-350 seats, the 767-300ER is better due to having more seats and being more efficient

For 350-440 seats, the 777-200/200ER/200LR is good

For 440+ seats, take a look at the 777-300 and 777-300ER. They're cash cows

[RubberDuckGaming]

Oh, and here’s my complete list.

 

Regional (50-70): ATR 72

The ATR is a versatile plane which has a surprisingly good range. It’s literally a perfect fit for most of the U.S. I usually go for the ATR 42 but recently I experimented with the 72, and I found it more profitable.
 

Short Haul (100-200): 737-300/700

Yes, I usually go for the slightly smaller option. Why? I often fly many routes that just barely have enough to fit a daily flight from one of these, Also, they’re cheaper and since I go all economy it competes equally against a legacy carrier’s 737-800.

 

Medium-Long Haul (250-300): 757-300

The 757-300 is cheaper than the 200 and is better in every way. It’s a no-brainer, especially when the 757 is already a great plane. And yes, I say long haul because the 757 is capable of flying to Europe from most of the U.S.

 

Ultra Long Haul: (300+): 767ER

All three ER variants are great choices. I usually go for the 200ER because the 757 takes care of everything shorter for me, but those who care about capacity would want to pick the 300/400.

[LearningFun100]

I have to disagree with everyone.

 

70-140 seat: BAE-146/Avro RJ

Pretty cheap, easy to get on the used market, great size, lasts a decent amount of time. 

 

140-200 seat: McDonnell-Douglas MD-81/MD-83 and 737-800

Mad-Dog 80s: Cheap, easy to get used, range is bearable, but can match my airline's needs easily. On longer flights, I use 737-800s equipped with winglets.

 

200-260 Seat: Airbus A321-200

I very much like this plane when needing to fill passengers on a plane. Easily suites the needs of my airline, but I usually have to get them new.

 

260-350 Seat: Boeing 767-300ER

I got this plane when working at another airline. I don't usually buy planes of this size, as I rather operate more flights in smaller planes, but was defiantly a well rounded plane.

 

350+ Seat: Boeing 767-400ER, Airbus A340-500, and 747-400ER

The 767-400ER is a decent plane, uncommon, but can do decently long routes. The A340-500 is my choice of plane after 2002 for trans-pacific routes that are incredibly long. The 747-400ER packs passengers, not much can be said, but I love it.

[Arianka]

20-70 seat: ATR 42/72, Avro's, Fokker 70 & E175.

Enough range and little runway usage compared to some and are perfect for little demand.
 

70-140 seat: 737-300/-700, E190 & Fokker 100.

Low fuel usage, more range, less runway usage.

 

140-200 seat: 737NG/MAX family, 757-200 and A320ceo/neo family.

They can fly very far, don't use much runway and very fuel efficient, also very profitable.

 

200-260 Seat: 767-300ER

It's perfect for everything.

 

260-350 Seat: 767-300ER/-400ER, 777 family, 787 family, A330 family, A340-300
Very fuel efficient, can stay profitable for a very long time and the 777's and 787's can fly basically everywhere

 

350+ Seat: 777-300ER, 747-8

These are the most efficient aircraft in-game for me, though they can't land everywhere, which kinda sucks.

[KJS607]

I'm going to throw my unwanted two cents in:

 

Under 70 Seats: Dash 7 onto Dash 8-300 onto Q400

 

Q400 is here because you can use 70Y comfortable config right up to tight 90Y, which gives you extreme flexibilty and outstanding performance along the way.

 

70-140 Seats: DC-9-30 onto Boeing 737-500 onto Boeing 717.

 

Although personally, I'd discount the above category, as in relaity, you'd be looking at up to 150 seats for cabin crew requirements, in which case the 737-300 is a fantastic workhorse. The 717 deserves a shoutout here for fabulously low maintenance costs and a low purchase cost thanks for minimal development costs, alongside quick turnarounds.

 

140-200 Seats: Boeing 727-200 onto MD81/3 onto Boeing 737-800

 

Or A320, difference is negligible and if you're going to operate the A321 for the category above, save yourself overheads of two fleets.

 

 

200-260 Seats: DC-8-63 onto Boeing 757-200 onto A321-200(nx when available)

 

While Boeings' 737-900ER/MAX 9 offer slightly better economics than the A321 with lower loads, if you can fill the seats in a high desity configuration, the A321 is unbeatable, particularly in NEO form.

 

 

260-350 Seats: Douglas DC-10 onto Boeing 767-300 onto Boeing 787-9

 

Or again A350-900 if you're running an Airbus fleet.

 

 

350+ Seat: Boeing 747-100/200 onto Boeing 747-400 onto 777 family

 

Later on, I'd again switch to the rediculously good A350-1000

[Hans.]

20-70 seats: ATR 42/72 for most routes. However, if the routes are longer the Q400 is usually better than the ATR due to its speed.

 

70-140 seats: BAe-146/Avro RJ and then Embraer E-Jets. I love the Avros, and there really isn't a "perfect" replacement. But the E-Jets are better than most of the other options. On the upper end of this category, the 717 is great, but it doesn't give the flexibility of having different sized variants in the same family like the Avros and E-Jets.

 

140-200 seats: Boeing 737 Classic then Boeing 737NG and then 737MAX. Sometimes I'll go with the A320 family to change things up, but overall the 737s provide the best overall balance between cost and flexibility.

 

200-260 seats: 757-200 and 737-900 (low-end) to 767-200ER and 767-300ER (high-end). Generally, I just use the 767s in this category.

 

260-350 seats: 767 family or A330 (low-end) to 787 and 777 (high-end). Again, 767s are excellent.

 

350+ seats: 747-400 to 777-300 or A350-900. I usually don't operate types in this category, but when I do I usually stick with the Boeings.

[j___duran]

Regional- E-170 & E-175 

The E170STD has pretty decent runway length so I can take it most everywhere! I usually keep it as a sub fleet given that the 175 is more economical. The difference is minimal but given that the overhead cost isn't affected I usually keep the bulk of regional fleet filled with the E-Jet fleet

 

I don't like to do anything smaller. Partly because I personally HATE the CRJ family and because the ERJ-145 Family (and other 50 seat jets) just doesn't have the economics for me to care enough about them. 

 

Short/Medium haul- Airbus A320 Family

A318- Its sort of an underrated plane! I adore it! This is partly due to the fact that I often make GRR a HUB for my airlines so its usefulness in that small city is unrivaled. Its also fills the gap between fleets beautifully!

A319/A320- When its said and done these sisters are true workhorses. I usually pick one to stick to since they are so similar. I like the 320 a little more but it also kind of depends on what's going on and where my bases are!

A319LR- I LOVE this plane for small transatlantic! especially out of my GRR base!

A321- I ADORE the 321! I use a legacy configuration! so 5-24-179 and its the perfect sweet spot of flexibility and profitability! I can use it on ORD-KEF or DUB or I can use it on ORD-DTW and it'll still just absolutely rake in the money for me!! Its NEO sister is even better!

 

I think the 737 Family is great! typically I order them as well because I want to get as many planes as fast as possible to open as many new routes but in the sandbox world I stick to only one aircraft family!

 

Medium haul- BOEING 757 FAMILY

757-200- In real life this plane is known as the plane that can do everything! This aircraft family even ages like a fine wine <3 if I operate both the 321 & 757 families ill typically have a subfleet of 752's that I use for South America & Europe

757-300 THIS PLANE IS LITERAL GOLD!!!!! This plane is my domestic and medium haul workhorse! This plane in real life was very underrated (it came out right before 9/11 so it never really had the chance it deserved!) Currently UA & DL operate the snot out of this plane! Its just such a workhorse! widebody economics for narrowbody costs. This plane does not have a direct replacement. That's usually what I struggle with. Good news is these games end at 2030 at the latest so no love lost if they stick around till the end of the game

 

Medium/Long I usually use both the A330-300 and the 767-300ER. They're both great planes! I have to say that the 767 edges out the A330 in the sense that I can put the 67 on more routes due to its smaller capacity! that makes it alot more flexible! 

 

Long haul. ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS the 777 and 787 Families!!!!!!

777- I love a subfleet of the -200 for medium haul actually! so that makes the family fairly flexible! I ADORE the 200LR and the 300ER!!! both great airplanes! 200ER is great too!

787- That aircraft Family is known for its economics so you cant go wrong there! I cant say I use the A350 so I don't know enough about how it competes. 

 

Odd subfleets:

747D- I use them on HUB to HUB and transatlantic to LHR & FRA great plane if you can fill it! plus you can mix the fleet with the -400ER and -8i so it has some economics too it!

A380- freaking BEAST!!! A lot of money coming in if you can fill those seats! if not then its a thorn in your side! you gotta be aggressive in making sure your competitors don't outprice you!

Q-200- hardly uses any runway. but i can only think of maybe 5 or so cities that only it can go that even my E-170's cannot. 

A330NEO- I know that its a good plane but I just haven't found the perfect fit for it yet! 

 

Hope you can chew on that info! 

[pupperoni]

If we're talking about modern planes (after 1980),

50-100 seats: I really like the Avro RJ/BaE 146, it can take off from pretty much anywhere, is faster than turboprops, has decent fuel burn per seat, and has enough range to connect the US east coast, Europe, or most of China

100-200 seats: A320-200s are hard to beat for efficiency, they're really well-rounded. Often the most common plane in my fleets. The A319LR is also amazing for when I need to connect small transatlantic airports, since it's got such a long range and can be used profitably for both short and long haul.

200-300 seats: As a cheap starter plane, the Tu-214 is unbeatable. It costs less than 1/3rd of an A321 but has nearly as many seats (210) and the fuel efficiency with winglets isn't bad either. For the upper end of this size class, the 757-300 is amazing. It has 295 seats, is cheaper to buy than an A320 or 737, and can fly transatlantic, China to Europe, Dubai to almost anywhere, or even just connect local cities.

300-500 seats: I like having a mixed fleet of A330-300s and A340-300s. The 340s are more efficient and can fly further, but need a longer runway and have a longer turn time. The 330s fill the gaps where the A340s can't fly. Later in the game, 787-8s and A350-900s are always amazing. I think the A350-900 might have the best fuel burn to passenger ratio in the game, not to mention its incredibly good range and good runway performance.

500+ seats: I usually don't have a ton of planes in this size category, but I always have some 777-300s because they're very good long-range large-capacity planes. Their only downside is they need a really long runway. When the 747-8 comes out I will usually pick up some of those, I like them more than the A380.
 

[TheBlock]

under 70, \

 

prop/turbo props

depends, for runway its always DHC 6 to Dash 7 for extreme runways, the Convairs and YS-11 I like too keep till the 90's when I can get ATR's, ATP's and Dash 8-300's used at cheap price for replacements. After its ATRs or Q-400

 

70-140

 

Too many great planes, so heres some

 

E-jets and Spacejets for shorter half of this spectrem, but the otherhalf is A220 and C919 all the way. In the pass its 737-200/500's, DC-9-10/30 and MD-87 (Depends which subfleet I feel like)

 

140-200

 

737NG and A320 family

 

200-260

 

757-200, DC-8-70's

 

260-350

 

767, A310, 767

 

350+

747's for range until 777's come, keep my 747 for high capcity long range after 777-300. 787 or A350 replaces them

 

 

Odd types:

For airports with under 700 range but are close to eachother and with lots of range the Mercure is a good type, A340-600 is good for longer ranges but gets killed by a 777-300ER right after. 747D for high capacity but short range until older 777-200's replace them or newer 787 or A350's.

 

Keep in mind most of this comes with only a few airline experience, as up till recently i use to fly only warsaw bloc airlines so I used only Soviet types, none of which have made it to the list for various reasons (still my personal favourites)

[maumagro]

Hi guys, here's a spoiler on what I'm working on.

 

More details soon.

[Pacific]

Hi guys, here's a spoiler on what I'm working on.

 

More details soon.

Looks good. An idea for improvement is to include the initial purchase price as well as this is directly linked to maintenance costs.

[maumagro]

Looks good. An idea for improvement is to include the initial purchase price as well as this is directly linked to maintenance costs.

 

Can be done. In fact, I could add as much info as needed. Range, delivery years (start-end) are already there.