>This isn't a slam towards B6
at all (hence my username)-but why do you think they decided to go with the A320 instead of MD
-80 series. Md-83's have similar range, weight, passenger capacity, and are a lot cheaper than A320's were. I realise the fuel costs are a little greater, and A320's are a little wider, but enough to make a difference?<
As has been stated, the A320 was available new, and B6
did not want a single used plane.
Also, the range is not similar at all. The A320 can do trans-cons, the MD
-83 can make it about 2000 miles before crapping out.
-83, however, is actually lighter than the A320 and 737 and uses less fuel, that is one of the reasons it was attractive to airlines. Also, they carry less cargo, and that is an issue for some carriers.
's do have the range (Alaska's long range MD
's that flew to Russia)<
-GDX (Magadan, Russia), which was the first leg on their Russian Far East flights, is only 1698 nm, which is in the range of the MD
-83 and not close to the length of US trans-cons
>but overall it is an old and outdated design<
Not really, considering you they can easily be had with glass cockpits and newer software. Hell, the MD
-90 has versions of A320 engines on them.
> small bins, small lavs, <
Considering the 717, which is related to the MD
-80, can take Boeing's Big Bins, so can the MD
-80 be readily converted. As far as lavs go, all airplane lavs are small
>difficult to upgrade to the personal TV
No, they should be as easy as anything to upgrade, it is just a matter of the airlines that fly them not doing it. If B6
can put screens in the E190, they can put them on the MD