Aircraft Rating - DC9 VS F100

I would like to get some others opinions.

Im currently new to AirlineSim, and really dont understand how a DC9 can have a passenger rating of minus 2, while a Fokker F100 can have a passenger rating of plus 4.

A DC9 fitted out with 717 style interior, has to be far superior to an F100 from a passenger perspective, surely - or is that just me as an aviation enthusiast? My 1st flying experience was on a DC9 over 40 years ago, after which I had a passion for aviation.

I flew on an F100 last week for the 1st time - it was a former US Airways jet, now flying for Alliance, and Alliance was flying the route on behalf of Qantas. It was surprisingly quiet, but other than that, it just didnt cut the grade. My partner, who has no interest in aviation, even said "it was very Barny Rubble"!

Im interested in other peoples opinions, because I think AviationSim have this seriously wrong. Or have AviationSim based the ratings actual public opinion?



Well, an F100 is by far more advanced than a loud DC9. The 717 style interior may add some value to the overall package, but still it’s a plane which design will be turning 50 soon. It’s loud, its airframe has witnessed many cycles and many DC9 look old inside as well. My personal preference would always be the more modern F100. The state of neglect of US Airways planes may not be the best indicator for that :P .

You think that was bad. You should go for a ride in a SAS Md80. My wife almost died when I told her it was 30 years old. (this was after the flight, for obvious reasons).

But this is a fair point. I know for sure most people have absolutely no idea about anything to do with planes. They don’t know how old they are, which ones are good ones, which ones are bad ones. They more rely on airlines reputation eg lufthansa good- air france bad.

Frankly what makes the biggest difference in passenger comfort is the state of the interior. If its been kept up to date then you’ll feel like your in a far more modern aircraft.

Personally I don’t see why there’s a difference, although not the same wide gulf you see between the F100 and DC9, between the Dash 8’s. The 400 has 3 green while the 300 has 1. Also the CRJ 700 has 5 green but the 200, 900 and 1000 are on 4. Unless your an aviation buff you won’t be able to tell the difference.

Likewise, not many people would know the difference between a B737-200 and a NG version.

As for the inside looking old, and wether or not it’s well maintained. Do we not buy new seating for every aircraft?

The fact of the matter is, 90% of passengers couldn’t tell the difference between a DC9 and an Airbus!

Except of the fact that one airplane causes ear bleeding while the other not. Or that a DC-9 is much smaller for the passenger than a modern Airbus… and the smallness of the engines… (believe it or not - that’s an important thing for many people "OH, LOOK THAT FAT ENGINES ) …

Noise isn’t really an issue for the average passenger, more the people dumb enough to buy a house under the flightpath of an airport.

If it is an issue, how do you explain the Concordes success?

As for fat engines, most airports, you can’t even see the engines from the walkway! The only time i’ve seen the engines is flying from LTN on Ryanair! And lets face it, for the cost of a Ryanair flight you’d be happy flying on a Fairchild Boxcar sitting on a box!

Arguments aside, I’m sure there are more factors in the rating systems than peoples fondness of certain types.

  1. It is. Not for the people under the flightpath but for the people about 5m away from the noisy engines. Did you ever fly?!

  2. Speed?!

  3. Never flew with Ryanair and I won’t do that in my lifetime. But anyway … at least here in Germany you have plenty of airports where you can see the apron, taxiways and so on … Also at any other airport where I was you were able to see the aircraft you’ll fly on (or at least the one next to eat like at MUC and the AB stands ). Of course you can’t see not from the gateway but through the LARGE WINDOW in the terminal which you have at every airport … ^^

  4. Sure.

Did I ever fly? Once or twice, yes.

Gave up active flying for the RAF in 1952.

Can’t speak for most German airports views unfortunately, as I’ve only seen a few from the air in the 1940’s!

I think that sentence has been used here before…

Let’s just put that argument aside for a minute and go back to some facts and thoughts:

  • airlines operating old aircraft usually have higher failure probabilities

  • Even well maintained aircraft have a tendency to show signs of wear or fatigue regarding both avionic and comfort features

  • in my humble opinion, people do recognize state-of-the-art equipment. Not because they would care for them out of their own impetus, but because marketing “informs” them. The same applies for the media/broadcasting. A modern fleet will be promoted through these channels. Take the A380 or B787 as examples. Or those seventies’ stickers claiming “beautiful L1011 TriStar” as their message ;).

The Concorde really was a special case

…as it was an exceedingly fast and luxurious, if not mundane way of crossing the Atlantic Ocean.