The SAX Q400

[mupepe]

This one passed in LUX. for demo flight enroute to SA!!

[MarkD]

mupepe that photo doesn't show for me but the demo must have been good as Luxair signed for 3+3.

[Q4NVS]

SAX Q400 #2 (ZS-NMS) arrived in SA on 18th July 2006.

Saw it prancing @ the "Bone Yard" between 03L and 03R today.

According to what I could gather, it should be in Scheduled service from 24th July 2006.

Oh Boy, with the current trend in Fuel Costs and load factors believed to be at 90%+, those "Bean Counters" at SAX must be smiling all the way to the banks. Especially considering that the Q400 (according to Bombardier), has a break even load factor of only 35%.

Now that's a profit machine if u ask me...

[grjplanes]

It is scheduled to enter the JNB-GRJ route on 24 July, then both Q400s will be flying the route twice daily. I note that SAX has changed flying times for later on in the year, with flights in both directions scheduled for 2hours on the dot, currently being 2h15 south and 2h05 north. But then also having longer turnaround times, between 35mins and 50mins.

Don't think they can break even on 35% capacity on the JNB-GRJ route, with prices starting at R378 one-way all included, R220 + taxes... maybe need at least 60% I would guess, probably not too difficult getting that though most of the time?

[Shrike200]

I was wondering about this whole Q400 thing. Just comparing them to the perhaps extreme example of Nationwide's newest (newest on the line, not newest overall!) B732's for example. They were aquired for a pittance (I've heard some extremely low rumours, but ALL under 1 million USD in any case).

It seems you could buy Nationwide's entire fleet for the same price as one Q400! Now I'm sure this isn't quite the case, but you get my drift.

So, certainly fuel and maintenance costs will be considerably higher, I think a B732 burns roughly 4.5-4.8 tons JS-GG: BUT, you get a 110 seater, smooth riding jet (actually, as I said above, you get a whole bunch of them!) In the *very* long term, sure, it loses out - but what about the here and now, or at least the intermediate future? Bear in mind that these B732's can be bought for cash, sparing onerous long terms leases/loan repayments etc - they can be brought on line and start generating income very quickly, not just servicing debt. It's a known machine, spares seem to be available, there's crew and even simulators available here too.

My complete ignorance of financial affairs is no doubt showing by now, but I'd welcome any obvious rebuttals/comments!

And just to add, I'm sure this only makes sense in an African context, Europe etc will no doubt look askance at the venerable Fluffy!

[Q4NVS]

Mmm
Heard the (new) Q400 today flying FAJS - Lubumbashi (DRC) - FAJS.


CRJ already too small for this SAX route?

Short term (next 3 years), B732 probably makes sense, but Eish it's Noisy hey

[George Tower]

Just out of interest what is the sector length from JNB to Lubumbashi? I know SAX has a few sectors to Namibia from both CPT and JNB, any plans to replace CRJs on these sectors?

Shrike I think your pretty much spot on about Nationwide in your thinking - they have operated successfully using their more mature aircraft and survived in business when many have come and went. I guess the question is how many people will want to travel on +/-560nm sectors in a turbo prop. I know its faster than most but still......The other thing is of course that with the 737 because its faster you can be more productive - more ASK for a given time.

Interesting I ask my Mom yesterday what would you sooner fly in, jet or prop and she replied jet. When I asked why her first thought was safety followed by comfort. Now she knows about as much as aviation as the journos we all know and love. But the point is here about perceptions.

May be some of our more learned members could shed light on just how important a factor this is from a marketing point of view - not so much on monoploy routes but like GRJ where folks are used to a 737 service.

[madherb]

Old aircraft vs new

A few other points to consider - new aircraft are much more fuel-efficient, and emit fewer pollutants than the old tech aircraft; also, they come with warranties, while oldies tend to suffer from 'old aircraft' maladies which cause costly delays. Spares availability gets to be a problem with some older types as well. They certainly are cheap to acquire, but will have to be replaced much sooner. Noisy as all hell as well..........
M

[Shrike200]

Well....they're quiet inside, and that's what counts for me! No propeller vibrations either. I must admit I've never flown in a Q400, just read these and other forum comments, so I don't actually know what they're like, maybe they don't buzz as much as the B1900, for example (not that it buzzes much, just that I'm familiar with it). There was a good debate about ride comfort in them on airliners.net, and jets were preferred there, although they were actually comparing RJ's to the Q400, so space became a consideration then too.

For me, if somebody said choose a plane for Joburg to George and the choices were B732 or Q400, I'd take the B732 anyday, all other things being equal - but if the turboprop is so efficient, surely that must be passed onto the customer somehow, to make them *want* to fly in it? And this is what makes me curious - despite the Q400 being more efficient etc, you *can't* pass any saving on to the customer, because there aren't any just yet, you're too busy paying the initial purchase price! Or doesn't it work like that? I've no idea how this kind of finance is arranged.

I'm sure the average Joe Paxman prefers a jet - but there's a lot of power in offering cheap seats to sway the masses. The only problem is that the seats can't be cheaper, due to the above reason. So, it's a lose lose situation to me. For all the remarks about their age, the B732's actually get off the blocks pretty reliably I reckon.

Again, only in Africa. B732's would probably be shot down in Europe for being so thundery on the way up. Personally, I like the noise, but then I don't have to live next to it!

P.S. How much does a Q400 burn to George, realistically - not at LRC cruise, but at the power settings it's normally operated at?

[Q4NVS]

All about perception, that's 100% correct.

But who cares about perception when you log onto flysax.com, 1time or kulula.com etc. All the pax then look for is the cheapest seat. Ask Flybe.com in UK - one of the biggest Q400 operators in the world and ever expanding.

Sure, as we all know them (the passengers), once they have acquired the cheapest seat ever available, then suddenly, they expect 5 star treatment as well. You just gotta love it.

As far as I can gather, the Q400 is extremely quiet: Partly due to the propellers spinning at 850 rpm in normal climb/cruise, as well as the ingenious (but simple) Noise and Vibration Supression system.

As previously noted, Fuel Burn is believed to be about 2000kg's or less to George at Max Cruise Power (TAS 360), which is used by SAX. Otherwise I am sure those block times will not be possible.

Sure, the financing is complicated, but as with property (i guess), once you have decided that you can afford it, the you can if you stick to the plan. If you decide to settle your debt in advance, because of increased profit margins, then that is an excellent plan. Think about it, "sooner" you will have an excellent/valuable asset that is paid 4 - Then its just smiling to the bank.

Guess that takes a while though...

[George Tower]

My only other question about the Q400 is the Namibian routes +/- 650-700 nm. Has SAX considered the Q400 for these routes. Surely fuel burn will still be less than the CRJ and with another 20 seats available, however will it work with the customers even though it is technically possible?

[Q4NVS]

Can't say - guess you will have to ask SAX then

Wrt the customers, I personally do not understand the continuing harping on about them. Sure, if you gave them a picture of each and asked them to choose which aircraft they would like to fly in, then they would possibly choose the 732 instead of Q400.

Hey, ever considered telling them that the one is 30 years old versus the other 3 weeks - not sure they will even believe it, thats how oblivious most are.

Instead, give them a "Cheap" seat and they'll all grab at it like Candy!

[grjplanes]

If it went to Lubumbashi on Friday, that explains why the flights was so late, wouldn't that take a bit long?
Today the Q400 flight to George was about 2 and half hours late, does anyone know why this would have been. I don't think it had any other routings for the day, cause all other SAX flights is on time, and there is only one rotation on a Saturday.
Question about ordering more: before replacing other -300s and CRJs on routes, wouldn't it be wiser to first replace the DC-9s on the CPT-PLZ-DUR routing? They would probably then need 3 Q400s for that?

[Q4NVS]

Won't have anything to do with flights being late, as this was the 2nd (new) Q400, not the 1 currently in revenue service...

It is believed that there are "possibly" more aircraft on the way (to replace DC9's) - not necessarily Q400's.

Keep em pealed

[grjplanes]

Surely if they can do JNB-GRJ with the Q400, then the shorter CPT-PLZ and DUR-PLZ should also be possible, no altitude either.
But if not, would they stay loyal to Bombardier, are we looking at maybe CRJ-700 or -900?

[nugpot]

The a/c that went to Lubumbashi was actually the first a/c NMO, NMS was pressed into service a day early to take up NMO's flying.

I was impressed though with the time to Lubumbashi - 2hr20, which is not significantly longer than the CRJ. The captain did admit that it was off 03 at JNB and on to 07 at FBM, so no time wasted in terminal areas.

The DC9's are wet-leased and will be replaced shortly with SAX a/c. Crews are already trained and a/c should arrive within weeks.

[philby737]

Originally Posted by Q4NVS

Won't have anything to do with flights being late, as this was the 2nd (new) Q400, not the 1 currently in revenue service...

It is believed that there are "possibly" more aircraft on the way (to replace DC9's) - not necessarily Q400's.

Keep em pealed

Quite frankly all this winging about the DC9's and F28's is getting a bit . I understand the frustration of the Sax crew by having their turf operated on by some non-scheduled charter operation, however the fact is they do not have the capacity at present to operate these routes themselves. Maybe they should look at this situation from the other perspective and realise that these CREWS have done much to salvage their reputation in the market place. The crews of these aeroplanes, with the consiberable fewer resourses of Sax, have operated selflessly to achieve one goal, get the flight done in a professional manner , to a standard that meets Sax requirements, if not a higher one, and always with Sax at the top of the agenda. perhaps a little more consideration of the personal sacrifices that these crews have made is warranted and maybe a little more appreciation is called for.

[nugpot]

Originally Posted by philby737

Quite frankly all this winging about the DC9's and F28's is getting a bit .

I'm sorry sir/madam. I can't find any post that complained about the DC9's. Most posters were stating the obvious. SAX needs to get its own crews and planes on those routes. No pilot group want a virtual airline operating under their callsigns and colours, and rightly so.

Serviceability aside, I think that the Executive operation was well executed and their cabin crew were top-notch.

[Q4NVS]

Ditto

As said by Nugpot, nor can I recall any post aligned with your complaint...

[philby737]

Originally Posted by Q4NVS

Ditto

As said by Nugpot, nor can I recall any post aligned with your complaint...

It is implied, directly/indirectly by references to the replacement of these aircraft. The disdain that the Sax operators feel toward these operators is well known, and understood. All I am saying is that if their are issues, then they should be directed accordingly.