Why always the 737?

[Dockjock]

Why do low-cost startup airlines ALWAYS choose the 737? It seems to be almost without exception that whenever a new rumour comes out the plan is for 732s, then renew the fleet into NGs after 5 years.

I understand that for the domestic shorthaul market that these companies are after is ideally suited to the 737, but what about the A320? If fleet commonality is the overriding cost reducer the A320 (family) would provide this as well. What about something else altogether (is there anything)?

To answer my own question, is it just because there is a large number of old 732s on the market (discarded by last year's startups) and not that many old A320s? Just wondering, because the old 732 do not seem particularly efficient to operate, nor are they quiet etc. etc.

[Brenoch]

Well, noise is not exactly the number one priority for a new outfit..
If you can aqquire say three or four (maybe even more) 737´s for the price of one A320 I´m quite sure wich way to go if I where to start a "low-cost" operation.. By the time the operating costs of the 737´s are running away they, as you say, get NG´s because they then don´t have to retrain their crews from scratch but can send them to transition training..

--Disclaimer--
I might be wrong..

[ 13 December 2001: Message edited by: Brenoch ]

[Wino]

320s because of their higher landing gear require more equiptment to turn them around (belt loaders, stands for fuelers etc) that make them somewhat slower to turn around than a 737.

The 320 is actually not a good matchup with the 737s. What the 320 ideally replaces is the 727, and since there were 1830 of those built, Airbus had a huge instant market which boeing abandoned. (The 757 was the replacement for the 727 but it was larger and therefore not a direct replacement)

I have flown both and the 737 is THE quick turn machine, which is what short haul flying is all about.

Cheers
Wino

[NorthernSky]

Yeah, you can go for the Ford Fiesta 73, but wouldn't you rather fly a real airliner? The Airbus knocks spots off the Seattle product - just look at the woeful attempt to catch up with 1980s technology from the States - the NG.

Now, shall we switch off the engine anti-ice or the B system hydraulics?

[JJflyer]

Actually I rather fly the B737...

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going


Cheers

[Herod]

A REAL airliner, NorthernSky? You must be talking about the Fokker 27, or perhaps the DC3. The reason the 73 is chosen is because, with minimal engineering attention, it keeps on going, night and day. Try that in a Alfonse Aurevoir's Wonderjet

[schwabn]

Low cost airlines use the 737 because there is a huge market of cheap second hand 737's and they have a similar fuel consumption to the A320 but are far cheaper to both purchase and operate.

The 737NG outperform the A320 by far. They are the most economical short haul aircraft in existance and have a much lower fuel consumption.

[JJflyer]

A320 has an advantage over B737 when it comes to loading the hold. B737 is still a manually loaded airplane while A320 can use containers.

You could pick a -200 for about 1.5 million USD about a year go. I am sure that that price has gone down since last September. How many A320's can you pick up with that money?

[CaptainSquelch]

NorthernSky,

The question was not what your personal preferences are but why all (or most) new airlines choose 73's.

As far as I know there are not too many starting airline operators who ask their still to be hired pilots what plane they would like to fly. The boss buys the toys and we fly them ... or leave.

I do have my prefences but they are not so strong that I would quit my job and look for an airline that flies my taste.

Sq

[bluskis]

I am pleasently surprised that $1.5 million buys an elderly 737, however taking that figure and say 8% interest, thats $328 a day.
An airplane costing $20m would cost $4383 a day in interest.
I assume repayments have to be made, and depreciation allowed for, so the capital cost differences between a $1.5 million and a $20 million airplane are not insignificant, and there are probably more potential risk takers (financial that is) in the $1.5m range than the $20m range.