Now that the new A320-Winglets have established themselves, I'm wondering if they have better fuel consumption than the B737-800?
I was told that Boeing used to be marginally better. Is that still the case?
Airbus’ next step is the large Sharklets™ wingtip devices, representing another element in the ongoing continuous improvement programme for its best-selling A320 Family. These devices improve aerodynamics, reducing fuel burn by up to 4 per cent – which amounts to annual savings of more than 900 tonnes of CO2 per aircraft.
Given that an A320's fuel burn rate is approximately 5.13 gallons per seat per hour, reducing this by 4% gives you 4.92 gallons/seat/hr.
Comparatively, a 737-800 burns about 4.88 gallons/seat/hr.
A 737-800 burns 4.88 gallons of fuel per seat per hour, compared with the comparable A320's burn of 5.13 gallons per seat per hour, according to The Airline Monitor, an industry publication.
So they're near enough the same.
The 737 MAX is more fuel efficient than the A320ceo. The A320neo, however, has marginally better range and fuel efficiency than the 737 MAX, but it is not in production yet.