Turbo props for Duo !!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dole Q
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbo props for Duo !!!
It has been rumoured for sometime that Duo are putting the clock back 20 years by operating Saab turbo prop aircraft from June onwards. Apparently the ex Cabin Crew Manager from BA who now seemingly runs the show at BHX has confirmed this to the Cabin Crew at a 'forum' recently.
Birmingham Executive Airaways circa 1983-1988 had one of these type operating which almost broke the back of the airline as the single saab was dogged with so many tech problems they had to send it back and replace it with 3 Gulfstream 1 turbo props.
Seems an odd choice based on the history of this a/c type.
Birmingham Executive Airaways circa 1983-1988 had one of these type operating which almost broke the back of the airline as the single saab was dogged with so many tech problems they had to send it back and replace it with 3 Gulfstream 1 turbo props.
Seems an odd choice based on the history of this a/c type.
Last edited by Hawk; 1st Apr 2004 at 09:41.
Presumably this bad past experience was with the Saab 340, which certainly had a lot of early engine problems (none of the other turboprops introduced at the same time used the GE CT7 engine), in particular with the propeller brake on the starboard engine which used to jam on ! (on the ground, I hasten to add). Apparently Comair in the US, who had a big early fleet, had a huge engine unscheduled removal rate. But I believe Saab and GE eventually cracked it.
Is it the 340 in prospect ? There are a lot of Saab 2000s on the market (in fact most of the ones built are up for grabs), different kettle of fish altogether. Different engine, better economics, faster, more modern design.
Is it the 340 in prospect ? There are a lot of Saab 2000s on the market (in fact most of the ones built are up for grabs), different kettle of fish altogether. Different engine, better economics, faster, more modern design.
Pilot of the Airwaves
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Close to the Med
Age: 74
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Birmingham Exec took delivery of Saab340 s/n 008 G-BSFI, just before new year 1985 and returned it to Saab in mid Dec of the same year.
It returned to the UK in November 1986 as G-HOPP of Manx and remained until Oct 1988.
For the aircraft not being passenger friendly, I flew many times from LHR to Liverpool on this aircraft. Couldn't fault it.
It returned to the UK in November 1986 as G-HOPP of Manx and remained until Oct 1988.
For the aircraft not being passenger friendly, I flew many times from LHR to Liverpool on this aircraft. Couldn't fault it.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ace Rimmer, that makes sense because they are both built by the same manufacturer, Bombardier. So might share some commonality.
Then again, maybe Duo are looking at Q400 and not Saabs.
It was the Saab and CRJ bit I didn't understand.
Then again, maybe Duo are looking at Q400 and not Saabs.
It was the Saab and CRJ bit I didn't understand.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure introducing a Saab 2000 is putting the clock back 20 years - maybe 10!!
Seriously, turboprop aircraft are considerably cheaper to operate on short sectors than regional jets. Inside they are as comfortable as regional jets so what's the problem? FlyBe have shown it can work as have other airlines throughout Europe. So if Duo are struggling to make money on some shorter routes with their CRJs why not look at a cheaper option? It all comes down to costs and revenues at the end of the day and if you can minimise the former you should increase your profits!!
Seriously, turboprop aircraft are considerably cheaper to operate on short sectors than regional jets. Inside they are as comfortable as regional jets so what's the problem? FlyBe have shown it can work as have other airlines throughout Europe. So if Duo are struggling to make money on some shorter routes with their CRJs why not look at a cheaper option? It all comes down to costs and revenues at the end of the day and if you can minimise the former you should increase your profits!!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe have gone down that same route regarding the Q400 but these a/c are always going tech, it seems to be a fact of life for them at flybe, they are tech more times than the F27 was, god bless it's little cotton socks, don't know if it's a manufacturures prob or the maintainance at Flybe, not sure.
CHEERS!!!!!
CHEERS!!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Northern Wastes
Age: 45
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R.E Q400 going tech
Best L\controller,
No its not a flybe maintainence issue,
the thing to remember is that although the Q400 shares the same dash-8 heritage as the others it is in fact a totaly different aeroplane in terms of performance and technology.
As with any new type there are operational niggles that occur only once the a/c has been in service for a reasonable period of time. I think the company would accept that the dispatch on the new 400's was less than ideal but its getting better all the time as more experience is gained.
It still suprises me that peple have this anti-turboprop mentality, Have you ever had a look at the sharp end of a Q400/ATR72/S2000, they would put a lot of the older 737 flight decks to shame.
Seems like good economic common sense to operate a fuel efficient a/c on shorter high frequency routes to me, how many jets will shift 78 pax out of an 1800 metre runway cruise at 360kts and only burn 1000kgs an hour???
No its not a flybe maintainence issue,
the thing to remember is that although the Q400 shares the same dash-8 heritage as the others it is in fact a totaly different aeroplane in terms of performance and technology.
As with any new type there are operational niggles that occur only once the a/c has been in service for a reasonable period of time. I think the company would accept that the dispatch on the new 400's was less than ideal but its getting better all the time as more experience is gained.
It still suprises me that peple have this anti-turboprop mentality, Have you ever had a look at the sharp end of a Q400/ATR72/S2000, they would put a lot of the older 737 flight decks to shame.
Seems like good economic common sense to operate a fuel efficient a/c on shorter high frequency routes to me, how many jets will shift 78 pax out of an 1800 metre runway cruise at 360kts and only burn 1000kgs an hour???
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JarJam
I agree I think the Q400 is a fantastic a/c but I'm only going on working with the fleet from a handling agents point of view, I'm not mecanically minded so I'm not even gonna go there, I think the turboprop is a great airliner and as you said more economical, for instance BE fly LBA-BHD and burn on average 850kgs JET2 fly LBA-BFS and burns an average of 2000kgs now I know that its a 737 and the BE is a Q400 but still jet2 only carry the same amount of pax and I'm sure BFS isn't much different in distance, Iremember when BE were using the CRJ they were using the same amount of fuel as they do with the ne Q400 so it says something doesn't it.
CHEERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
CHEERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the launch of EXT routes last July, Jim French commented that the reasons for getting rid of the CRJ's were because of fuel economy. He said that a Q400 has operational costs similar to the latest 737's, in terms of £/seat/km. I would imagine that the commercial risk of only needing to fill 78 seats would be much lower too.
Does anyone know a good source of information on relative fuel economies of different aircaft types, especially as compared to travelling by car or train. These figures are not as widely available as for cars, but I would be interested to know more, in terms of environmental impact etc.
I wonder if recent protests about Coventry Airport would have been any different if TOM had been using Q400s? I somewhat doubt it, but would imagine that living next to an airport which only operated this a/c type would be a pretty quiet experience - I think its noise footprint is 1/20th of a 737-200.
Does anyone know a good source of information on relative fuel economies of different aircaft types, especially as compared to travelling by car or train. These figures are not as widely available as for cars, but I would be interested to know more, in terms of environmental impact etc.
I wonder if recent protests about Coventry Airport would have been any different if TOM had been using Q400s? I somewhat doubt it, but would imagine that living next to an airport which only operated this a/c type would be a pretty quiet experience - I think its noise footprint is 1/20th of a 737-200.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and don't forget - due to its lower costs - you don't need to fill all 78 seats to make money. Don't know what the break even is, but it depends on yields etc.
As for relative fuel economy with other transport, not sure how meaningful this measure is, how about looking at cost of providing high speed rail line compared to new runways? ERA have a lot to say on this subject:
http://www.eraa.org/publications.html#discrimination
As for relative fuel economy with other transport, not sure how meaningful this measure is, how about looking at cost of providing high speed rail line compared to new runways? ERA have a lot to say on this subject:
http://www.eraa.org/publications.html#discrimination
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brabazon
I am led to believe that the marketing info for the Q400 put it's break even at 26-28 seats at an average fare of approx £80.00 each way.
Yes flybe are getting no where near £80.00 by some of the tickets they sell but there is no doubting the aircrafts fantastic economics. After those 26-28 seats are sold you still have another 50 in which to earn the revenue/yield you are looking for.
I am led to believe that the marketing info for the Q400 put it's break even at 26-28 seats at an average fare of approx £80.00 each way.
Yes flybe are getting no where near £80.00 by some of the tickets they sell but there is no doubting the aircrafts fantastic economics. After those 26-28 seats are sold you still have another 50 in which to earn the revenue/yield you are looking for.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's it, so even though the break even for the Q400 is not much above the Q300 the fact that you've got 78 seats rather than 50 should give you greater profit potential. It's all down to managing your traffic through your fares.
In theory if FlyBe stick to niche routes which do not have 737-size potential then operating the Q400 with similar seat-km costs should be a winner. Time will tell.
In theory if FlyBe stick to niche routes which do not have 737-size potential then operating the Q400 with similar seat-km costs should be a winner. Time will tell.
How on earth can anyone tell what the 'breakeven' point is on a particular aircraft type?
Doesn't it depend on utilisation, sector length, overhead bite, handling costs, yield per passenger, etc., etc?
I'm sure the cutest operators out there know the breakeven points on specific routes, but not on aircraft type.
Unless you're trying to sell aeroplanes, this one's for the beancounters.
Doesn't it depend on utilisation, sector length, overhead bite, handling costs, yield per passenger, etc., etc?
I'm sure the cutest operators out there know the breakeven points on specific routes, but not on aircraft type.
Unless you're trying to sell aeroplanes, this one's for the beancounters.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knowing your breakeven point is pretty critical for an airline, it's no point in setting your fares so low that you can't make a decent profit. Of course it varies by utilisation etc, but for a given aircraft on a given route an operator should know how many seats they need to fill at a given yield. The "beancounters" may work out the figures, but both commerical and operations departments should know their aircraft's breakeven loads.