747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5002 times:
I have learned that engine numbers do not always matter, when it come to fuel burn. I wanted to know which burn more fuel, say on the SFO-LAX or LAS-LAX run, a BAe 146/ RJ or a 737 classic? I mean with the same amount of passengers of course. A BAe 146/ RJ has four engines, but the two CFM 56-3 on 737 classic or much bigger and more powerful. So which one burn more fuel?
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4911 times:
Now why on earth would you be running numbers on an almost-empty 737? The RJ carries 85 peeps. 737-300 should carry 8F and 128Y or, single class, as many as 140 or so. If it is dollars you are concerned with there is the significant number.
Then there is maintenance and dispatch reliability. We can talk all the THEORY we want here but here is an indisputable fact for you.
Twenty years ago there were BAe-146 and B-737 operating the very routes you ask about. Three airlines had the BAe, Royal, PSA and AirCal. Today there are none. But there still are 737s flying these routes.
Why?
Overall economics. Not just fuel burn, even in this day of higher fuel prices.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Jul 2006, 622 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
