Is 1time Cat II/III rated?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South Africa
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAJS - Rwy 03L/R and 21L Cat II
FACT- RWY 19 Cat II and RWY 01 Cat IIIb
FACT- RWY 19 Cat II and RWY 01 Cat IIIb
Has it since been replaced?I can't contribute anything towards the topic technically, other than to say I have witnessed (from the jumpseat) three Autolands during my piddly life : one on a Comair 734 into Durban, one on a 1time MD83 into Cape Town, and one on a 1time MD87 into Jo'burg (which was with one of the Airline's Training Captains). On all three occasions the various Captains mentioned to me that they dont like using it because it lands too hard, and passengers think they have
up the landing .WRT the fuel bill : 1time are billed daily for their fuel. They do not operate a forward account, nor do they have any fuel hedges. From what I remember, its illegal to forward sell fuel in this country without charging interest - hence the reason you can't purchase fuel on a credit card. You need a seperate account that attracts interest from date of sale. They would thus need to finance their forward account through one of the banks (like SAA do), and it would be the bank suspending their facilities, not the oil company.
Peace.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: RSA
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just goes to show that in these anonymous forums
any old fool can post under the disguise of being
a "HEV" in our aviation fraternity, whether it be from
a german mountain top or not!
Thanks to those with the informative replies
that the original poster required
any old fool can post under the disguise of being
a "HEV" in our aviation fraternity, whether it be from
a german mountain top or not!
Thanks to those with the informative replies
that the original poster required
Join Date: May 2006
Location: George, South Africa
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the fuel of 1Time I have a little question. DC9 vs MD-82/3, fuel-efficiency.Although I know both these aircraft isn't very fuel-efficient at all, I believe the MD-82/3 is better than the DC9. Now I have witnessed lately that 1Time sends in a DC9 on the JNB-GRJ route quite often, and then they're fully booked in at least one of the directions. But in the last 2 weeks (outside school holidays) they've sent in MD82/3 more often, and then there's always some room left.So I'm wondering, take JNB-GRJ route, what is more fuel-efficient for them, flying a DC9 full at 110 pax, or flying a MD82/3 with 110 pax. Say the pricing worked the same, start from around R480, by full or 110 pax pricing at around R1200.Is it worth it for them to still have DC9s, and for how long will they still be operating for 1time mainline service?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Mars
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DC9's are supposed to be discontinued at the end of July this year but I see some are still in service, the reason for the use of George and to Joburg is probably the miss conception that the MD87 looks very similar to the DC as its seats 130 pax, the DC9 105 pax and not 110 as stipulated or the MD has gone tits up and a replacement a/c has been brought
in, the MD JT8-217/219 use less fuel that the DC9 JT8-15, so yes 100 pax on the MD is more efficient than the DC9
in, the MD JT8-217/219 use less fuel that the DC9 JT8-15, so yes 100 pax on the MD is more efficient than the DC9
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South Africa
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the MD JT8-217/219 use less fuel that the DC9 JT8-15, so yes 100 pax on the MD is more efficient than the DC9
MD82 fuel burn : 950 Gallons/Hour (3167lbs/hr/engine)
DC9 fuel burn : 870 Gallons/Hour (2900lbs/hr/engine)
If you extrapolate that out, @ 110 pax, the MD82 uses 32.6L/seat/hr and the DC9 uses 29.9L/seat/hr. Expressed differently, the fuel cost per passenger is only equal when a DC9 is carrying 110 pax and the MD82 is carrying 120 pax (and for interests sake, the MD87 is carrying 114 pax. The MD82 matches the MD87 per seat fuel burn at 140 vs 132). That is of course bearing in mind that the 950 Gallons/Hour burn quoted above is for a full MD82. At 120 pax, the burn will be slightly better.
The trip cost also doesnt only consist of fuel. There are lease payments, insurance costs, maintenance etc all built into the hourly figure. All things considered, generally speaking, if you can fill a plane with more than 114 pax on a route like GRG, it makes sense to send a MD87. Anything less than 114 and your trip costs and corresponding yields will be better on a DC9. If you can get a load factor above 142 pax, send the MD82. If you dont have a MD87 available, and you can get a load factor above 120, send the MD82.
