BIK_116.80
I think it comes down to utilisation. If you are only going to fly 2 or 3 hours per day then you would be better with the aeroplane with the low capital cost and you would be willing to accept the high cost per flying hour.
If you are going to fly a full airline schedule of 8+ hours per day then you need an aeroplane with a low cost per flying hour but would be willing to accept the high capital cost."
.
I think you are falling into the trap of thinking Alliance is competing with airlines operating the 146.
The 146 is slow, cumbersome, maintenance intensive, suspect for health and safety. Basically a nasty little pommy aeroplane whoes time has past.
The F100 is a pleasure to fly, the pax love it and you had better believe that the Alliance beancounters have done their sums, both for the aeroplane and the company.
How many F100s do you see parked against the fence??? There is even a 146 shell in Townsville, not worth flying to the desert!
Kanga 767
Don't think there has been a Herc operated on RPT since 1989!!
Maybe that's what is getting up your nose.
Strange how the White Rat seems to be over-represented here.
Virgin is over-extended, Qantas are panicking about their costs.
"Nothing but blue skies from now on"
(a spell check on the above threw up "Mantas" for "Qantas". I thought more like a vulture, but maybe Microsoft have a point
Last edited by Qduck; 15th Aug 2002 at 10:40.