Generated from the live game data — these are the numbers the server uses, not an approximation. Regenerate with npm run wiki.
Cost per seat-kilometre is the honest way to compare aircraft. It folds fuel, crew, maintenance, fees and passenger service into one figure, divided by the seats on offer. Lower is better. Each type is measured at a distance it would realistically fly, since comparing a turboprop and an A380 at the same range tells you nothing.
The figures assume a fuel price of $1.00/kg and quota at $0.07/kg. Market prices move, but the ranking between aircraft does not.
| Aircraft | Maker | Slots | Range (km) | Runway (m) | Price | Measured at (km) | ¢/seat-km |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 777-9 | Boeing | 426 | 13,500 | 3050 | $442M | 9,000 | 5.31 |
| A350-1000 | Airbus | 369 | 16,100 | 2700 | $366M | 9,000 | 5.42 |
| A350-900 | Airbus | 325 | 15,000 | 2600 | $317M | 9,000 | 5.52 |
| A330-900neo | Airbus | 300 | 13,334 | 2500 | $296M | 9,000 | 5.58 |
| 787-9 | Boeing | 296 | 14,140 | 2800 | $292M | 9,000 | 5.60 |
| 777-300ER | Boeing | 396 | 13,650 | 3050 | $375M | 9,000 | 5.65 |
| 767-300ER | Boeing | 269 | 11,070 | 2500 | $220M | 8,303 | 5.78 |
| 747-8I | Boeing | 467 | 14,320 | 3100 | $418M | 9,000 | 5.80 |
| A330-300 | Airbus | 300 | 11,750 | 2500 | $264M | 8,813 | 5.84 |
| 787-8 | Boeing | 248 | 13,530 | 2600 | $248M | 9,000 | 5.87 |
| A380-800 | Airbus | 555 | 14,800 | 3000 | $445M | 9,000 | 5.90 |
| 747-400 | Boeing | 416 | 13,450 | 3200 | $90M | 9,000 | 6.41 |
| A321neo | Airbus | 244 | 7,400 | 2200 | $129M | 1,500 | 7.20 |
| A321XLR | Airbus | 244 | 8,700 | 2300 | $142M | 1,500 | 7.28 |
| 737 MAX 10 | Boeing | 230 | 6,110 | 2600 | $135M | 1,500 | 7.40 |
| Il-96-300 | Ilyushin | 300 | 11,000 | 3200 | $40M | 8,250 | 7.41 |
| A320neo | Airbus | 194 | 6,300 | 2100 | $111M | 1,500 | 7.54 |
| 737 MAX 8 | Boeing | 189 | 6,570 | 2500 | $122M | 1,500 | 7.68 |
| A220-300 | Airbus | 145 | 6,297 | 1890 | $91M | 1,500 | 7.71 |
| 757-200 | Boeing | 239 | 7,222 | 2100 | $65M | 1,500 | 7.80 |
| 737-800 | Boeing | 189 | 5,765 | 2316 | $106M | 1,500 | 8.06 |
| A320-200 | Airbus | 180 | 6,100 | 2100 | $101M | 1,500 | 8.12 |
| E190-E2 | Embraer | 106 | 5,278 | 1450 | $61M | 1,500 | 8.41 |
| E175 | Embraer | 88 | 3,900 | 1442 | $46M | 1,500 | 8.97 |
| CRJ900 | Bombardier | 90 | 2,956 | 1939 | $48M | 1,500 | 9.27 |
| MD-82 | McDonnell Douglas | 155 | 4,635 | 2300 | $22M | 1,500 | 9.72 |
| Tu-154M | Tupolev | 180 | 3,900 | 2500 | $9M | 1,500 | 10.61 |
| 727-200 | Boeing | 155 | 4,000 | 2400 | $12M | 1,500 | 10.96 |
| Dash 8-400 | De Havilland | 78 | 2,040 | 1290 | $32M | 800 | 12.88 |
| ATR 72-600 | ATR | 72 | 1,528 | 1315 | $26M | 800 | 14.44 |
Widebodies dominate the top. Spreading crew and airframe costs over 300–400 seats is simply more efficient per seat than doing it over 180 — provided you can fill them. A route with 200 daily passengers will bankrupt a 555-seat aircraft no matter how good its seat-kilometre cost looks here.
The ATR 72 sits last, and that is not a mistake. Turboprops win on trip cost, not seat cost. On a thin 400 km route, a small cheap aircraft that breaks even beats a large efficient one flying half empty. This table ranks efficiency at scale; it does not tell you which aircraft suits a thin market.
Older types are marked in the fleet list in-game. Compare a Tu-154M against an A320neo here and the gap is roughly 25%. That gap is real: it comes from published fuel burn figures, not from a penalty the game applies to make old aircraft unattractive.