Us Airways B737 Vs. A320 Family

[USA320Pilot]

Some of the traditional "pessimists and naysayersâ€￾ on this message board questioned and disputed my comments on Boeing vs. Airbus fuel efficiency in US Airways' fleet.

Instead of voicing strictly my thoughts I wanted an expert opinion on Boeing vs. Airbus fuel efficiency. Thus, I sent an email to US Airways Program Manager of Fuel Optimization Mike Pulaski and asked him to provide information on B737 and A320 family fuel flow/consumption. According to Pulaski the average fuel flows per hour for each aircraft are:

B737-300: 5,900 lbs/hour
B737-400: 6,300 lbs/hour
A319: 5,600 lbs/hour
A320: 5,900 lbs/hour
A321: 6,600 lbs/hour

“Historically fuel efficiency declines with age and therefore, the Airbus are more efficient when compared to their delivered performance level than the older Boeings,â€￾ Pulaski said.

The A319 is lower than the B737-300, the A320 is equal to the B737-300, both the A319 & the A320 are lower than the B737-400, and the A321 with a maximum gross takeoff weight 205,000 pounds that is dramatically higher than the B737-300/400 has the highest fuel burn rate.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[airbiiguy]

thanks for the info.

 

[sfb]

B737-300: 5,900 lbs/hour
B737-400: 6,300 lbs/hour
A319: 5,600 lbs/hour
A320: 5,900 lbs/hour
A321: 6,600 lbs/hour

It helps to add a bit of context, though.

The A319 carries 120 passengers while the 737-300 carries 126 passengers in US Airways' configuration. Consequently, the 737-300 burns 47 lbs of fuel per seat per hour and the A319 burns 47 lbs of fuel per seat per hour. (The division works out to 46.83 for the 733 and 46.67 for the A319, but only two significant figures are appropriate since only two are shown in the table kindly provided by USA320Pilot.) So when comparing the A319 and 737-300, fuel burn per seat is identical. Comparing the A320 and 737-400, seating 142 and 144 respectively, the A320 offers a savings of 2 lbs per hour per seat. (44 vs. 42).

It's also important that the heavier Airbuses pay significantly higher landing fees. The OEW of the A319 is 88,400 lbs as compared to the 733 at 72,500 lbs. The A320 at 90,400 lbs is dramatically heavier than the 734 at 74,200 lbs.

 

[USA320Pilot]

SFB:

My point was on fuel flow only, nothing else.

In regard to landing fees or other information I suggest you and Hope777 go find out the exact data like I did on fuel consumption.

Separately, in regard to your argument, which was not in my original post, what effect does high fuel prices and low revenue have on your analysis?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

To add to sfb's comments, here's the fuel figures the company submits to the BTS. These are cost of fuel per flight hour, not gallons or pounds.

B737-300 $745.25
A319 $757.42
B737-400 $798.24
A320 $878.02
A321 $954.12

Jim

 

[Rico]

Thing is, those "extra" seats in the 737 come at a price... It is the most uncomfortable coach class in the fleet.

Heck, most people would even prefer RJ seating over getting the Middle-Seat experience on a 737.

IMO it is one of the reasons the E-170 has been so popular with the passengers, who have been used to 737's instead.

 

[fr8tmastr]

Does anyone have an idea what the fuel burns are for the 73-700 & 800? I would think there have been some improvements

 

[aafsc]

Thing is, those "extra" seats in the 737 come at a price... It is the most uncomfortable coach class in the fleet.

Heck, most people would even prefer RJ seating over getting the Middle-Seat experience on a 737.

IMO it is one of the reasons the E-170 has been so popular with the passengers, who have been used to 737's instead.

[post="254529"][/post]​

People seem to enjoy Southwests' 737s.

 

[westcoastflyer]

You must also take into acount that the Airbus aircraft fly about 35 knots true airspeed faster versus the Boeing at economy cruise. That's about 8% faster; so even if the fuel flows per seat are similar, you're still much further ahead in the Airbus.

 

[Rico]

Hmmm, well, they seem to enjoy jetBlue's Airbus seats even moreso smarty-pants...

 

[GeezLouis]

The A319 is lower than the B737-300, the A320 is equal to the B737-300, both the A319 & the A320 are lower than the B737-400, and the A321 with a maximum gross takeoff weight 205,000 pounds that is dramatically higher than the B737-300/400 has the highest fuel burn rate.

[post="254512"][/post]​

You didn't mention the fact that the Airbus is structurally a piece of sh*t! A "throw-away" airplane! The Boeings would last longer and be cheaper to maintain, if the airplanes were the same age! Too bad hindsight is 20/20......

 

[fr8tmastr]

That's a good point, does anybody know the speeds of the new 73's?

 

[bwipilot]

I'm surprised that the burn isn't better on the buses. I'm also surprised at US's fuel burn rates. I saw numbers on SWA's fuel burns per block hour of 760 gal/hr for a 737-300; 740 gal/hr for a 737-700 w/o winglets and 710 gal/hr w/winglets. Assuming Jet-A weighs about 6.7 lbs/gal, SWA is burning 5092 gal/hr (300), 4958 gal/hr (700 w/o wl), and 4757 gal/hr (700 w/wl). Of course, SWA flys about 7 less people (1500 lbs) because of lower load factors--but that would account for only about 100 lbs/hr of fuel. Maybe US's 737 stage length is shorter. Taxi times are longer--but that's still block hours and jets burn less fuel taxiing than flying even if they don't get anywhere. Things that make you go hmmm.

 

[bwipilot]

Average cruise in the 737-300 is about .74 mach, 737-700 is .78 mach.

 

[fr8tmastr]

Thanks for the speeds and burn numbers. So if you compare the AC of similar generations the boeing is more efficient.