737NG or A320 for MAS?
February 4th, 2008 | by Dusk |
Mas is going to replace the 737-400 fleet. MAS had been using it for the last 15 years. Which one do you prefer?
Boeing 737 NG

Airbus A320

About the 737 NG
Wikipedia for the 737 family

| Passengers | |
|---|---|
| Typical 2-class configuration | 162 |
| Typical 1-class configuration |
189 |
| Cargo | 1,555 cu ft (44 cu m) |
| Engines (maximum thrust) |
CFMI CFM56-7 27,300 lb |
| Maximum Fuel Capacity | 6,875 U.S. gal (26,020 L) |
| Maximum Takeoff Weight | 174,200 lb (79,010 kg) |
| Maximum Range | 3,060 nautical miles (5,665 km) |
| Typical Cruise Speed (at 35,000 feet) |
0.785 Mach |
| Basic Dimensions | |
| Wing Span With Winglets |
112 ft 7 in (34.3 m) 117 ft 5 in (35.8 m) |
| Overall Length | 129 ft 6 in (39.5 m) |
| Tail Height | 41 ft 2 in (12.5 m) |
| Interior Cabin Width | 11 ft 7 in (3.53 m) |
About the Airbus A320
Wikipedia for the a320 family
| AIRCRAFT DIMENSIONS | ||||||
| metric | imperial | |||||
| Overall length | 37.57 m. | 123 ft. 3 in. | ||||
| Height | 11.76 m. | 38 ft. 7 in. | ||||
| Fuselage diameter | 3.95 m. | 13 ft. | ||||
| Maximum cabin width | 3.70 m. | 12 ft. 1 in. | ||||
| Cabin length | 27.51 m. | 90 ft. 3 in. | ||||
| Wingspan (geometric) | 34.10 m. | 111 ft. 10 in. | ||||
| Wing area (reference) | 122.6 m2 | 1,320 ft2 | ||||
| Wing sweep (25% chord) | 25 degrees | 25 degrees | ||||
| Wheelbase | 12.64 m. | 41 ft. 5 in. | ||||
| Wheel track | 7.59 m. | 24 ft. 11 in. | ||||
| BASIC OPERATING DATA | ||||||
| metric | imperial | |||||
| Engines | two CFM56-5 or IAE V2500 | two CFM56-5 or IAE V2500 | ||||
| Engine thrust range | 111-120 kN | 22,000-27,000 lb. slst | ||||
| Typical passenger seating | 150 | 150 | ||||
| Range (w/max. passengers) | 4,800 (5,700) km. | 2,600 (3,000) nm. | ||||
| Max. operating Mach number (Mmo) | 0.82 Mo. | 0.82 Mo. | ||||
| Bulk hold volume - Standard/option | 37.41 m3 | 1,322 ft3 | ||||
| DESIGN WEIGHTS | ||||||
| metric | imperial | |||||
| Maximum ramp weight | 73.9 (77.4) tonnes | 162.9 (170.6) lbs. x 1000 | ||||
| Maximum takeoff weight | 73.5 (77) tonnes | 162 (169.8) lbs. x 1000 | ||||
| Maximum landing weight | 64.5 (66) tonnes | 142.2 (145.5) lbs. x 1000 | ||||
| Maximum zero fuel weight | 61 (62.5) tonnes | 134.5 (137.8) lbs. x 1000 | ||||
| Maximum fuel capacity | 23,860 (29,840) Litres | 6,300 (7,885) US gal. | ||||
| Typical operating weight empty | 42.4 tonnes | 93.5 lbs. x 1000 | ||||
| Typical volumetric payload | 16.6 tonnes | 36.59 lbs. x 1000 | ||||
Related news
MAS To Finalise Purchase Of New Aircraft By End Of Q1
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 31 (Bernama) — Malaysian Airline System Bhd (MAS) aims to finalise its needs for wide- and narrow-bodied aircraft by the end of the first quarter this year.
“The national carrier has not decided whether it will be an Airbus or Boeing,” MAS managing director, Datuk Idris Jala, said at the launch of its Business Transformation Plan here today.
As a preparation to purchase new aircraft, MAS undertook a rights issue and redeemable convertible preference shares exercise to partially raise fund to the tune of RM1.5 billion in 2007.
The fund, together with its cash balance, will enable MAS to finance the aircraft acquisition.
Meanwhile, MAS’ executive director/chief financial officer, Tengku Azmil Zahruddin, said MAS would decide on the narrow-bodied aircraft first.
“We are at the tail-end of the evaluation for the narrow-bodied aircraft.
“However, due to the backlogs both in Airbus and Boeing, we may lease the type of aircraft we want before taking delivery of our own,” he said.
Idris said aircraft purchase was the single biggest decision MAS has to make.
“When you make that decision into the future, you better know what you are doing (because) it is about RM20 billion commitment,” he said.
Idris said the general principal in increasing fleet size was to reduce the different types aircraft, increase the density in the economy seat, buy aircraft for core network and lease for the non-core network.
“The logic is simple. For core network, owning the aircraft gives us the flexibility to dispose of and change the aircraft based on the market.”
Currently, MAS leases most of its aircraft.
Idris also hoped to ride on airlines that have ordered new fleet but would not be able to realise the orders.
“When they don’t need the aircraft they will sell it at a lower price. Some airlines are making losses but made a lot of aircraft orders. So, I do believe we want to take them,” he said.
On Airbus A380, Tengku Azmil said progress was not good in the ongoing talks.
He, however, said MAS would definitely ask for compensation.
– BERNAMA
*News posted by our forum member at http://forum.flydamnit.com/index.php?topic=516.0
5 Responses to “737NG or A320 for MAS?”
By Tony on Feb 8, 2008 | Reply
As a passenger, A320 is much better than 737NG. The 737NG’s seat has only 17inch, but A320’s seat has 18-19 inch. Also, A320 is more stable during the flight in my experience. Moreover, 737s have a lot more accidents than A320, 8 for 737 vs 1 for A320 in 2007. 4 of them are 737NG.
photos for new A320 cabin:
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Airbus+A320&airlinesearch=Virgin+America%7CUntitled+%28Virgin+America%7CSkybus+Airlines+%28Virgin+America%29&countrysearch=&specialsearch=cabin&daterange=&keywords=&range=&sort_order=&page_limit=15&thumbnails=&calccount=1264073&truecount=false&engine_version=6.0
By Dusk on Feb 9, 2008 | Reply
With Malaysia’s weather, I think the A320 would be more bumpy due to the critical wing design. Clouds and thunderstorm all around.
By George on Mar 8, 2008 | Reply
I flew for MAS with 737-800. We flew to China which is quite a long flight. Also we landed in Kunming which is about 6000 FT above sea level. It depends, what MAS wants to fly with those planes. I didn´t find any reason, why 320 is better than NG. It is definitely better than 737-300-500. But NG? Not at all. Yes, for passengers is maybe important 18inches vs 17 inches. However, if I would be a responsible manager, I want something more than this. What about fuel tank capacity vs gross weight? And operational range consequently. What about climb performance? and so on. No. I really didn´t find any reason. Accidents? Well, mostly depends on who is sitting inside.
By Dusk on Mar 19, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for the feedback George