Why do Boeing winglets on 73X series cost 3x more than Airbus winglets on 32X series?
Boeing winglets cost 3 million AS$ while Airbus winglets cost only 1 million AS$.
Why are Boeing winglets so much more expensive? The price of the Wingleted Boeing aircraft shoudl eb reduced by 2 million AS$ to make the winglet cost comparable to Airbus. While IRL the winglets may have a slight cost difference, I am sure that the price difference between Boeing and Airbus is not 300%.
I don't know the exact data of those two aircraft but I assume that the difference was chosen to reflect the actual increase in profitability for each version. Could it be that the Boeing winglets 'boost' the stats at a higher rate than the Airbus ones? That would explain why that model has a higher price increase. For the sake of game balance and not to resemble irl prices, I'd guess.
I don't think there is any boost in anything among the two wingets versions. There is no difference in speed and the liking among passengers is the same.
WIth Boeing wingletted version, the wingletted version si actually MORE EXPENSIVE to operate than non-winglet version when considering the increased capital cost. It saves fuel, but capital increase (higher lease rate) more than eliminates any fuel savings. So unless you get a wingletted Boeing on used market with great rate, it's better to use non-wingletted Boeing version (737 family). This is especially true with 737-900ER version. For 737-700 HGW and 800HGW the wingletted version becomes a bit cheaper on some odd very log routes, but on 737-900 ER BGW and 737-900ER HGW, wingletted version always comes more expensive to operate than standard non-wingletted version.
Airbus is reverse. Wingletted version saves fuel, there is slight capital increase, but the savings in fuel is more than the increase in capital (increase in lease rate). So wingletted Airbus version is cheaper and better to operate than the standard version of Airbus A320 family.
Please send this to support@airlinesim.aero again, we will have a look...
I agree with the wrong pricing. It's actually reflected in the use of both aircraft. Using winglets for the 737 currently is only making sense, if you need the additional range (that is compared to an Airbus aircraft not that much, but given by the actual aircraft performance).
list prices for winglets for Boeing aircraft may be found here: http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/products_list_prices.php
Cost for labour (http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/services_retrofit.php) and certification has to be added.
Airlinesim takes into account: winglets for Boeing 737 are commercial bullshit: they may safe money on an excel sheet, but to add drag and weight to reduce some other drag. doesn’t really help 
When manufactures add winglet options on their planes, it definitely has more advantages. When you add winglet on plane, it is not reduce "some other drag"; it reduces induced drag, that is A LOT of drag.
Airbus A320 standard versions already have a winglet on it, but i think those winglet don't have high efficiency to reduce induced drag. The enhanced versions are using the winglet similar to the one used on Boring jets. I think it do have a great efficiency to reduce the drag and increase the lift. I think maybe they have lower prices on enhanced versions because you are just exchanging winglets.
Boeing 737 standard versions don't have winglet on it. Adding winglet on them can definitely reduce induced drag and increase efficiency. When you complain about the price, you should also look at the increase of range of aircraft, especially for 700 and 800 versions. For 737-900ER BGW, i think it is worthless to add winglets because you are using those planes for shorter flights. For 737-900 HGW, because the standard versions can operate a pretty long flights, it might not seem so important to add winglet on it, but again, it can increase the range.
If you are not using 737 or 320 for longer flights, it is usually unnecessary to have a winglet.
I don't think there is any boost in anything among the two wingets versions. There is no difference in speed and the liking among passengers is the same.
WIth Boeing wingletted version, the wingletted version si actually MORE EXPENSIVE to operate than non-winglet version when considering the increased capital cost. It saves fuel, but capital increase (higher lease rate) more than eliminates any fuel savings. So unless you get a wingletted Boeing on used market with great rate, it's better to use non-wingletted Boeing version (737 family). This is especially true with 737-900ER version. For 737-700 HGW and 800HGW the wingletted version becomes a bit cheaper on some odd very log routes, but on 737-900 ER BGW and 737-900ER HGW, wingletted version always comes more expensive to operate than standard non-wingletted version.
Airbus is reverse. Wingletted version saves fuel, there is slight capital increase, but the savings in fuel is more than the increase in capital (increase in lease rate). So wingletted Airbus version is cheaper and better to operate than the standard version of Airbus A320 family.
I push my 737-900ER Winglets to the MAX (haha, pun intended) range they can fly. 120 Seats DME-REP 4520mi, 6-x daily, feeding my SE Asian hub.
The fact that I can feed a hub with a Narrowbody aircraft means that I can beat the snot out of any competitors on cost between SE Asia and Northern Europe.
There is more to business than line item costs. If a slightly higher cost opens up something that gives you an overall lower cost structure, it costs LESS!
See also: Total Costs of Ownership
@dalexan1 - Because I never configure my planes with full seat capacity, the "additional range" the wingletted 737s offer actually makes no difference to me becaue I can get the same range for the number of seats installed onboard using the base version.
@dalexan1 - Because I never configure my planes with full seat capacity, the "additional range" the wingletted 737s offer actually makes no difference to me becaue I can get the same range for the number of seats installed onboard using the base version.
When you say full seat capacity, do you mean the 220 passengers in slimline seats? I do not use those. I use 16 Lie-Flat 160 and 105 Comfort Plus. The fewer seats you have the more range you can squeeze out of the Winglet version.
Here is what I mean: Note the lighter shaded ~250km area that has quite ALOT of population such as Hong-Kong, Guangzhou, Shenzhen metro area (50 million), the North East USA area that has an insane population density, and finally REP my 2000 departure SE-asia hub.
Here are all of the airports that the non-winglet version cannot do with an international config (16J/105Y) as noted above.
I cannot wait for the real MAX. Although, I may go A320neo Sharklet when the A321NEOLR becomes a reality!
None of these routes above is doable with a 737-900ER,
even with less passengers than on your unrealistic low configuration.
With or without winglets doesn't matter.
IMHO, defining this kind of flights as cheating (as it is a misuse of some glitches within the performance system) would solve a lot of slot issues.
if you reduce a little bit of a big thing it's still a big thing. And winglets are also more weight so some more induced drag du to the reduction of induced drag.When manufactures add winglet options on their planes, it definitely has more advantages. When you add winglet on plane, it is not reduce "some other drag"; it reduces induced drag, that is A LOT of drag.
If you are able to save 1 to 5% of fuel on longer trips, you will have a bad time to find this savings on your fuel bills: Giving an aircraft a good wash and reducing the block fuel to the legal minimum should have more impact than a winglet.
If you want to sell your aircraft after some time, a winglet could be a great opportunity to get a higher price for a used aircraft. A higher resale value leads to lower costs of financing. And within this world of Excel calculations you will find the reason for winglets, not because of less fuel burn, which is not detectable.If you are not using 737 or 320 for longer flights, it is usually unnecessary to have a winglet.
... If you want to sell your aircraft after some time, a winglet could be a great opportunity to get a higher price for a used aircraft. A higher resale value leads to lower costs of financing. And within this world of Excel calculations you will find the reason for winglets, not because of less fuel burn, which is not detectable.
Am I the only one missing some logic here?
IF there is no detectable operational saving or other operational benefit, why would anybody want to pay more for it?
So, how could I reduce costs for financing when I pay extra for something you call useless, which in return I should sell for even more to the next customer who’d also know he’s paying extra for something useless?
These are not privately sold cars where some extra “bling” worth 1000$ could really add 1100$ to its (perceived) value.
Winglets reduce the time to climb by quite some minutes leading to lower fuel burn at high fuel consumption rates in the lower atmosphere leading to more fuel available for cruise range or the ability to take off at less fuel weight thus tankering less fuelt to altitude and therefore a further reduced fuel consumption in the climb.
They also give a slightly lower fuel consumption rate in the cruise due to better wingtip vortex shedding.
Therefore on short haul many rotation aircraft they have a benefit of saving on every climb which is why many low cost european went for them in a big way as their 8 10 sectors a day mostly in the climb quickly add to large savings over a year when fuel was way over 100 dollar a barrel.
They added bonus was that some designs suddenly found a beneficial range boast which along with the public's acceptance of being more squeezed in made them have a better seat mile cost compared to overpowered narrow bodied aircraft like the RR powered 757's
What is basically the issue that can’t be modeled by the current performance system. … Otherwise the higher price would actually be rather competitive (which is a guess and no calculation).
None of these routes above is doable with a 737-900ER,
even with less passengers than on your unrealistic low configuration.
With or without winglets doesn't matter.
IMHO, defining this kind of flights as cheating (as it is a misuse of some glitches within the performance system) would solve a lot of slot issues.
Why is it cheating?
It is well within the payload capacity of the plane as defined by Airlinesim - see the performance. The configuration uses wider, long-haul seating - Similar to ANA's 787 seats in economy and United's 757 Business class:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4130/5054993667_1b0b0b687c_z.jpg
It is not my fault that I can purchase the 737-9MAX already.
I also fly AN-140s from KHV to Japan that fill up which is *impossible* in real life too...what self respecting Japanese person would fly Hakodate-Khabarovsk-San Francisco on a Russian carrier instead of JAL/ANA....
Max Range with Winglets, 2 Auxiliary tanks, at full 2-class capacity is 5900km according to Boeing - AS' performance tool does show MTOW declining around 5900km. 100 less passengers reduces the weight by a couple of tons...ergo more range.
Source: http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/737family/pf/pf_900ER_back.page
Therefore on short haul many rotation aircraft they have a benefit of saving on every climb which is why many low cost european went for them in a big way as their 8 10 sectors a day mostly in the climb quickly add to large savings over a year when fuel was way over 100 dollar a barrel.
Yet here they both (739ER/739ER-WGL) have the same ABC-ABC (takeoff and landing) fuel burn of 2,632 liters.
Yet here they both (739ER/739ER-WGL) have the same ABC-ABC (takeoff and landing) fuel burn of 2,632 liters.
Something that will probably fixed with the next performance update.
Right @SK?
Am I the only one missing some logic here?
IF there is no detectable operational saving or other operational benefit, why would anybody want to pay more for it?
So, how could I reduce costs for financing when I pay extra for something you call useless, which in return I should sell for even more to the next customer who’d also know he’s paying extra for something useless?
These are not privately sold cars where some extra “bling” worth 1000$ could really add 1100$ to its (perceived) value.
http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2014/02/18/uniteds-new-plan-for-saving-fuel-more-wings/
"Each traditional pair of winglets on the 737 cuts fuel consumption by 3.5% to 4% on flights of more than 1,000 nautical miles. The split scimitar upgrade—which costs $545,000, before discounts–will reduce fuel burn by up to 2% more, says United, which hopes to save up to $60 million a year because of the devices, once its fleet is outfitted."
@Ufsatp
I don't think you understood AK's post. His statement
"IF there is no detectable operational saving or other operational benefit, why would anybody want to pay more for it"
was meant for AS - the aircraft and winglets perform in AS (or better to say the way they do not perform) -, it was not meant to reflect on real life and how does the aircraft and winglets perform in real life aviation world.
