sancho99504 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 505 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4595 times:
Both aircraft have very similar range and engines are fairly close in thrust ranges. The 169k MTOW A320 has a range of 2950nm while the 174K MTOW 738 has a range of 2940nm. The IGW A320 with IAE V2527-A5s produces 26500lbs of thrust while the IGW 738 with CFM56-7B27 produces 27300lbs of thrust. I believe that IAE came out with another model of the V2527 that produces 27500, however I believe you can pay to have the V2533-A5, which produces 33000lbs of thrust from the A321 installed as well.
For fuel efficiency, I believe the A320 has better fuel burn over longer stages, while the 738 has better fuel burn over shorter stages. They're both fantastic aircraft, but in a standard configuration, you can get an additional 12 seats of revenue on the 738 vs the A320.
max seating I believe is 179 on the A320, so in a high density layout its 10 seats. However in a standard configuration, the A320 is 12F138Y and the 738 is 12F150Y for a difference of 12 seats. I believe some airlines are 16F144Y on the 738. CO standard is 20F132Y for 152 seats or UA is 16F48W96Y for 160. AAs 738 is 16F132Y or 16F144Y. Now in high density, Easyjet seats 183 on the A320 while Ryanair seats 189 on the 738.
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6175 posts, RR: 74 Reply 4, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4114 times:
I have done comparisons between 737-800(W) and A320s (CFM56-5B and IAE V2500-A5) in the past using the numbers from the manuals used.
There's never a clear cut on which is more efficient etc, that's why there are several comparions above.
Note there's a 20ton payload fuel burn comparison, instead of all the comparisons being based on seats, as seat configurations can change, depending on what the airline configs are, etc etc etc.
If fuel is cheap, the 738W is probably the way to go (and it's faster on Long Range Cruise). If fuel is expensive, you'd definitely consider the 320 if your average sector length suits it. And if you go for the 320, if fuel is cheap, go with the CFM56s, their maintenance is cheap, but if fuel is expensive, the savings on the maintenance easily gets eroded by fuel costs (but also remember those IAE engines are not cheap either).
More power? Depends on your engine options.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6172 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1532 times:
I used to think the A320s were POS until I started flying on them a few times with UA. And boy, I have to say that compared to the 738 the A320 is a more fascinating airplane to fly on. Not as good as the 738 in turbulence (feels a bit like a paper airplane in chop) but other than that, they are awesome machines.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
max seating I believe is 179 on the A320, so in a high density layout its 10 seats.
The 179 limit only applies to U.S-registerred aircraft. For some reason the FAA has a one-seat differrence in their A320 type certificate than the EASA (European counterpart to the FAA) which has a 180 seat limit. Many A320s operate with 180 seats.