SAX Q400
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: eastern europe
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAX Q400
howzit!
any additional news on this subject? read that they will be starting off with 2. any plans for more? common rating with Q300?
ATC are going to be in for a shock when these things hit SA. look forward to hearing how the beast performs on a highveld summer!
cheers
any additional news on this subject? read that they will be starting off with 2. any plans for more? common rating with Q300?
ATC are going to be in for a shock when these things hit SA. look forward to hearing how the beast performs on a highveld summer!
cheers
Faster dash 8's yippee. do they still have to slow to 190kts in turbulance?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai
Age: 56
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another Turboprop with jet fuel flows. Gonna be funny watching them trawl around in the low 20's with most of us in the mid 30's. Anybody have any idea of the WAT limit out of JNB?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: eastern europe
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spent quite a few years roasting my nuts at 350, so 240 ainīt that bad for a change ;-)
jet fuel flow? comparing the Q400 (72 pax) to the F70 (75 pax) iīm using just less than half the fuel per hour that we used on the F70. And considering a TAS difference of 55 knots the time saved on the jet on the shorter sectors, say up to 400nm, isnīt of any significance.
jet fuel flow? comparing the Q400 (72 pax) to the F70 (75 pax) iīm using just less than half the fuel per hour that we used on the F70. And considering a TAS difference of 55 knots the time saved on the jet on the shorter sectors, say up to 400nm, isnīt of any significance.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai
Age: 56
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL - lets get real here. Try compairing it to a MODERN jet. Looking at the figures of a E170/5 they are pretty close and its 100kts faster and 12000ft higher.
Its gonna have the same probs that killed a SAAB2000. Close to jet speeds (on short legs) for jet costs.
I have spent many 1000's of hrs in the low 20's, i'll stay in the mid 30's thanx.
No commments on its WAT limit?
Sorry guys, props are for boats
Its gonna have the same probs that killed a SAAB2000. Close to jet speeds (on short legs) for jet costs.
I have spent many 1000's of hrs in the low 20's, i'll stay in the mid 30's thanx.
No commments on its WAT limit?
Sorry guys, props are for boats
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: eastern europe
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you are absolutely right. the F70 is no longer really a modern jet with itīs old Tay engines. BUT, if the the jungle jets are so great why didnīt SAX buy them? Talking to the guys that fly them here in europe they have lots of good things to say about the Embraer, but they also state that they are a bit underpowered . All good for the low altitude airports here but what about a lekker highveld summer?
I think Jets are for kids sounds a little better - or maybe two screws are better than four blows?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then why the wordwide move away from regional jets back to TPs?? The ERJ and CRJ order books aren't exactly full, but the ATR 42/72 and Dash8 have large order backlogs. Quite a few airlines have cancelled options on RJs in favour of TPs.
All precipitated by the rise in fuel prices - must be a pretty good indication that the beancounters figure TPs are more efficient on the shorter routes.
All precipitated by the rise in fuel prices - must be a pretty good indication that the beancounters figure TPs are more efficient on the shorter routes.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai
Age: 56
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm - think u better check the stats, ERJ/CRJ/Ejet order books are VERY full. Build 200 ATR/dash TP's in the last few yrs. The discussion was about Jets speeds at TP costs. History has shown this NOT to be the case. SAAB 2000 and Do228 are case in point.
However, think u got me wrong, still very much a place for TP's on some sectors. They operate lower, slower and are lighter, ergo use less fuel. And in todays market, if we as the drivers wanna keep our jobs, the bean counters need to get the equipment right.
Think a TP is great for around the coast, short sectors, no thunderstorms. Just dont see the PAX being over joyed when they see a TP to GRJ when they can fly a jet with the Competition.
However, think u got me wrong, still very much a place for TP's on some sectors. They operate lower, slower and are lighter, ergo use less fuel. And in todays market, if we as the drivers wanna keep our jobs, the bean counters need to get the equipment right.
Think a TP is great for around the coast, short sectors, no thunderstorms. Just dont see the PAX being over joyed when they see a TP to GRJ when they can fly a jet with the Competition.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: eastern europe
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unfortunately its true that a normal, run of the mill, uneducated (in flying terms) pax will prefer a jet because its "modern" and all props are "old and dangerous". and in these cases its the beancounters who have a very tough job because the right aircraft for the job might be a prop but the opposition is flying with a lekker shiny jet. so its a case of keeping up with the jones's which often leads to the company folding because of the huge costs incurred. just got a message a few minutes ago that one of the newer companies down the road has folded this morning. they had shiny new jets for realtively short routes. they started flying these routes with the jets because the PAX wanted it like that (launching statement in the press!).
BUT!! still want to know what the situation with the SAX Q400s is!!! When? How? etc.
BUT!! still want to know what the situation with the SAX Q400s is!!! When? How? etc.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
knertius,
are you referring to one of the loco's???
just got a message a few minutes ago that one of the newer companies down the road has folded this morning. they had shiny new jets for realtively short routes. they started flying these routes with the jets because the PAX wanted it like that (launching statement in the press!).
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: eastern europe
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not in SA. is over here in austria. not gone completely bust yet, but have grounded their fleet for the day. but, judging from their intense money burning past, i donīt see them getting out of this one.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: eastern europe
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
donīt worry, deskjocky, i still had SA as my location when you posted. hasnīt been correct for a number of years. changed after your original post to where i really am flying. but iīd rather be back home in SA....
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by knertius
BUT!! still want to know what the situation with the SAX Q400s is!!! When? How? etc.
First Q400 to be operational (I have a little doubt about that) 1 May 2006 and will fly JNB-BFN-JNB and JNB-GRJ-JNB x2. Second a/c to be operational 1 July and will just double up on the above schedule.
Obviously the a/c will have to operate from JNB until all operational and technical issues are sorted out. Last I heard, configuration was full-house up front with double hot galleys.
There are also 2 extra CRJ's on lease to service coastal route ipo DC9's of Executive.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: #37 for Start
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't knock it till you've tried it!
Here are just some interesting facts vs EMB 170 Series and others:
Distance to climb from SL to 25000'
Q400: 51nm
Regional Jet average: 60nm
Breakeven loads (dependant on fare structure)
(North American used in both cases)
Q400: 34%
EMB 170: 51%
Annual fuel cost savings over EMB 170 Series
(Based on 300nm sectors @ 2600 flights)
US $300 000
If u ask me, the beancounters got this one right...
Distance to climb from SL to 25000'
Q400: 51nm
Regional Jet average: 60nm
Breakeven loads (dependant on fare structure)
(North American used in both cases)
Q400: 34%
EMB 170: 51%
Annual fuel cost savings over EMB 170 Series
(Based on 300nm sectors @ 2600 flights)
US $300 000
If u ask me, the beancounters got this one right...
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there is any doubt that it is a good aircraft if utilised correctly. SAX unfortunately did not read the fine print. How about 700 - 800nm sectors?
Also, they are quite expensive and initial projections are that they will cost at least the same to operate as the CRJ. Obviously it has 24 seats more, but you have to fill them first......
Lets see how the first two in SAX service behave. I hope that they do justice to the hype.
In any case, with the possible exeptions of the 727 and the Piper Cub, ANYTHING climbs better than the CRJ.
Also, they are quite expensive and initial projections are that they will cost at least the same to operate as the CRJ. Obviously it has 24 seats more, but you have to fill them first......
Lets see how the first two in SAX service behave. I hope that they do justice to the hype.
In any case, with the possible exeptions of the 727 and the Piper Cub, ANYTHING climbs better than the CRJ.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: around
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nugpot
In any case, with the possible exeptions of the 727 and the Piper Cub, ANYTHING climbs better than the CRJ.
Air Botswana's BA146's and any F28 way worse than CARJ on the climb!
