This isn't meant to start an airbus vs boeing discussion, but simply, after Airbus adds the sharklets to the a320 series, will the a320 series be more efficient than the 737ng series?

If I recall correctly, The A320 is more efficient than the 737 by about 3-4 percent (both Without winglets). Realize, the 737 NG's biggest changes were in the wings and engines. Even then they didn't beat airbus, but they got close enough to where Fleet commonality became a heavy factor. Southwest, for example, isn't going to switch to A320's anytime soon. It would be very expensive to do so.Boeing 737 with winglets vs. A320 without winglets - they are neck and neck, boeing might have an edge by like 1% or something.Boeing Clames 3.5-4 Percent, on their winglets on routes over 1000 NM. Airbus clames 3.5 Percent on similarly long routes.Thus, The A320 should be slightly more efficient, but boeing's right there. by only a couple percent, which with a proper business model will not make or break. (Southwest and Ryanair are doing fine, so is Jet-blue). It's a matter of apples vs. apples. Red Delicious or Granny smith, take your pick.Keep in mind this is all based on information I've received from the blagosphere. It's not by any means accurate, but an assessment of that information

Both A320 and 737NG are so "close" in terms of efficiency, economics of flight, fleet maintenance, etc. that other factors dominate choice of aircraft - better pricing, perceived "roominess" of A320, etc. Even a brand new operator with no 'commonality' issues could spend long time debating which of these two aircraft to select. If Airbus indeed had a 3-4% edge across the board - no one would select 737NG, it would be a significant difference.

I don't know without winglets or with the new sharklets, but I always thought that in the case of the 737ng with the winglets and the a320 series with the wingtip fences the 737ng was slightly more fuel efficient, but I was probably wrong. What about performance of the aircraft between the current ng with winglets, the a320 series with fences, and the later performance comparison between the 737ng with winglets and the new a320 series sharklets?

Both A320 and 737NG are so "close" in terms of efficiency, economics of flight, fleet maintenance, etc. that other factors dominate choice of aircraft - better pricing, perceived "roominess" of A320, etc. Even a brand new operator with no 'commonality' issues could spend long time debating which of these two aircraft to select. If Airbus indeed had a 3-4% edge across the board - no one would select 737NG, it would be a significant difference.

Exactly. I'm cycling through my brain for a fitting analogy, but none is leaping to the forefront...

What about performance wise? Which aircraft, the ng with winglets or a320 with wingtip fences, outperforms the other? What aircraft will outperform the other when the a320 series gets the sharklets? Also, since the fuel economy are currently so close on both aircraft, does that mean that the added efficiency of the a320 sharklets will decrease 737 sales, or do you guys think that the sharklets won't affect 737 sales very much?Thanks.

To a large extent it will depend on the customer as to what they go for, since the economics of winglets of all types really kick in on longer flights, the relative benefits are affected by the kind of flights an airline makes. You can see evidence of that with the shorter range B747-400D, which generally does not have winglets, because it is optimised for short flights where the range of those flights is not considered lengthy enough to make winglets especially beneficial. In such circumstances, other things are often more important than winglets, for example, serviceability rates, pressurisation cycles the aircraft is projected to be able to endure, etc.As far as winglets go, a good example of how that pans out where purchasing decisions are concerned, is to consider how much winglet options cost - they are surprisingly expensive accessories despite their small size - so if an airline buys an aircraft from new, and plans to get rid of that aircraft after perhaps five years, the savings they make with winglets may not be as much as the cost of having the winglets put on in the first place. In which case it would make sense not to have them, or to perhaps look for a deal from either Boeing or EADS that suits their particular business plan, such as an agreement for a lease, or a promise of a buy back or whatever. There are all kinds of convoluted deals such as those which take place in the airliner sales business, for example, when you hear of airlines cancelling orders for aircraft, what they actually often do, is defer their deposits onto another type with the same manufacturer. El Al did that just a couple of weeks ago when they 'cancelled' the order for a few B777s which they had placed in 2008, which were due for delivery in 2012, but the deposits they put down will stay with Boeing and probably go as markers for B787s at some point in the future, so a cancellation is not always indicative of a lost sale, and there are many such deals like that which go on. In the case of Israel and El Al, since the US is a major supporter of Israel, they will tend to naturally favour Boeing. For similar reasons, you will see a lot of Arab airlines cheerfully buying Airbuses as a snub to US industry.Beyond board-room politics, the first EADS Sharklet-equipped aircraft are being delivered in 2012, so it is far too early to bank on the economic benefits that are claimed for them. Both Boeing and EADS are well known for sticking out press releases claiming their latest innovations will enable their planes to fly to the moon and back on a teaspoon full of jet fuel, so I would take the projected savings with a hefty pinch of salt at the moment, until there is better data on what those sharklets will actually achieve.So even if one aircraft family edges it on economy, there are still other factors; domestic support for purchasing is as rife as political international support. Just take a look at the average A380 paint job - Emirates, Lufthansa, Air France... As one example, Air France will pretty much always buy EADS stuff even if there is a there is a slightly better choice, similarly, a number of airlines in the US will want to support their own domestic industries, since there are often financial incentives for doing so beyond operating costs, so you can expect to see plenty of 747-800s with US flags on them. Some years ago, British Airways were famous for never buying Airbus, even though they theoretically would be expected to support BAe's part in EADS, but they were probably thinking about transatlantic route concessions to the US, so much so that there were jokes about BA being short for Boeing Always. But of course that has changed in recent years, so you never can tell for sure. Fleet commonality, engine commonality, and ease of cross-type ratings also come into play. Which means that although that winglet battle is going to be part of the equation, it probably won't end up being the deciding factor for quite a few airlines.Al

Thanks for the reply Al and everyone. Now, about the aircrafts' performance. Which plane currently outperforms the other, and, although it is to early to tell, which do you think will outperform the other after the sharklets?Thanks.

Which plane currently outperforms the other,

If you know anything about aviation you should know this question makes very little sense. What kind of performance are you talking about? Speed when your firewall engines? Indicated or true? At what weight? And even if you ultimately find out that one flies 10 kts faster this result is meaningless considering it has nothing to do with real flying regimes. I suggest you spend time more productively by trying to educate yourself about different speeds and various cost factors which airlines apply to arrive at optimum trip cost and where speed alone is only one of many factors.

If you know anything about aviation you should know this question makes very little sense. What kind of performance are you talking about? Speed when your firewall engines? Indicated or true? At what weight? And even if you ultimately find out that one flies 10 kts faster this result is meaningless considering it has nothing to do with real flying regimes. I suggest you spend time more productively by trying to educate yourself about different speeds and various cost factors which airlines apply to arrive at optimum trip cost and where speed alone is only one of many factors.

Well both the A320 and 737-800 have a max speed of Mach .82 and a cruising speed of .78, so there about even there. The 737-800 has a higher service ceiling then the A320 41k vs 39k. The A320 as said is a little more efficient with fuel burn, but when you consider that the 737-800 carries more passengers and about 270 more cubic ft of cargo, it may actually be more economical then the A320.

If you know anything about aviation you should know this question makes very little sense. What kind of performance are you talking about? Speed when your firewall engines? Indicated or true? At what weight? And even if you ultimately find out that one flies 10 kts faster this result is meaningless considering it has nothing to do with real flying regimes. I suggest you spend time more productively by trying to educate yourself about different speeds and various cost factors which airlines apply to arrive at optimum trip cost and where speed alone is only one of many factors.

I'm sorry if my question wasn't clear enough; what I'm trying to find out is which one, under the same factors, can reach cruise speed and altitude, the quickest. I know that the speeds and altitudes at which airliners fly are dependent on many other things and are not necessarily indicative of the performance of an aircraft. I am sorry my question was vague, but what I want to find out is which one reaches cruise, under the same factors, the quickest, or has the potential to, and how will the new sharklets affect this issue.

I'm sorry if my question wasn't clear enough; what I'm trying to find out is which one, under the same factors, can reach cruise speed and altitude, the quickest.

Again, question makes very little sense. What are the "same factors"?? There are simply too many factors involved to answer such question or even establishwhat "same" factors are. You are simply wasting time pursuing such topics.

There isn't much hard data on how well those sharklets perform yet; they are due for delivery in 2012 on production aircraft, so I think at this point it is not possible to give an answer that would be anything other than either mere speculation based on the optimistic projections of EADS.Al

Again, question makes very little sense. What are the "same factors"?? There are simply too many factors involved to answer such question or even establishwhat "same" factors are. You are simply wasting time pursuing such topics.

Okay, let's say the wind, weather, including temperature, pressure, payload, etc. were exactly the same on a flight on an ng and an a320 (I know this is obviously not possible). Which aircraft performs better. If you don't understand my question, here it is simpler: excluding outside factors (only looking at the aircrafts) which one currently has better performance. Forget about when the sharklets arrive because, it is true, as Al said, that anything that can be said is just speculation. One last thing, to some this might be a waste of time, but, to me it is not as I want to learn more about the competition between the two aircraft. If this truly was a waste of time to me, why would I be writing in this post in the first place?

kjjj 11223344, I have to go with the 737-800, more passengers, higher ceiling.