Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1619 times:
Rugged, bulletproof design. Interesting that the A320 has not had similar success in this segment. The A320 is supposed to be slightly more fuel-efficient than the 733, but I wonder if that is not offset by higher maintainance requirements?
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
Another major factor is the availability of 737s on the used aircraft market. There are many old 737-300s for sale from airlines upgrading to the NGs, and those are far cheaper than having to go to Airbus for a brand new A320. That may change now that Swissair and Sabena (both large AB customers) are dead and their fleets likely to hit the market.
Lowfareair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1513 times:
Pengiunflies: EasyJet didn't choose the 737 over the A320 because of efficiency or MX costs, they chose it because that's what they could get for the money. Remember that EZY started with a lone 732 a rich Greek bought with money his Dad gave him.
Go on the other hand, was trying to copy off of EZY, so they too invested in 737s.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6713 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1365 times:
If we look at other low fare airlines, for instance the European charter airlines, then you see everything ranging from 25 years old A300s to brand new A320 and A330. And in between aged A320s and loads of A310s. Alongside B737s/757s of all ages including 737NG.
So I don't think that any such conclusions can be made. It's just coincidental - and of course helped by the fact that 737 is the most common airliner type, and it has been around for so many years.
Regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs