|
Perhaps they could get their own ERJ145s as a short term replacement of the S2000, seeing as they already have crews trained on them?
|
Quote by J. Hinkles in US Airways mag sounds as if the ATR42 is a done deal.
|
Originally Posted by Fly757X
(Post 10170772)
The ATR42-300s are indeed rocks but the -600 that Stobart recently got to replace EHH & CBK wouldn't even attempt 25+ kts was diverting regularly during its first few weeks at CFN due to 22kts and upwards winds. The old-300s seemed to give it a go in +30 and make it as I always waited in anticipation for them diverting to LDY so I could get pictures of them but that rarely happened, sorry for the anecdote but it would seem ATR have tougher limits of the -600s
|
Originally Posted by chuboy
(Post 10171078)
Demonstrated crosswind for both versions of the 42 are the same (45 kts), my guess is the company limit in the SOPs was reduced after CBK went off the side of the runway at CFN on one of its famously crosswindy days.
|
Fleet replacement
Although I agree the ATR42 is a good replacement, the 48/50 seater capacity may not be completely filled by passengers, thus a 30 seater would probably be more economical? I suggest that they purchase new Embraer 120 Brasilia's which are still in production if the need arises, they are pretty sturdy aircraft and proven domestic aircraft which would be similar to the current Saab 340 fleet. Another option is the new Viking DHC-5NG Buffalo utility aircraft that have a capacity of 30-40 and are versatile for cargo operations too, not to mention the extraordinary short field performance. Another option for smaller aircraft could be the new 19 seater Cessna 408 SkyCourier for routes to say Campbeltown, Tiree, Benbecula etc?
|
Originally Posted by tibbs87
(Post 10171462)
Although I agree the ATR42 is a good replacement, the 48/50 seater capacity may not be completely filled by passengers, thus a 30 seater would probably be more economical? I suggest that they purchase new Embraer 120 Brasilia's which are still in production if the need arises, they are pretty sturdy aircraft and proven domestic aircraft which would be similar to the current Saab 340 fleet. Another option is the new Viking DHC-5NG Buffalo utility aircraft that have a capacity of 30-40 and are versatile for cargo operations too, not to mention the extraordinary short field performance. Another option for smaller aircraft could be the new 19 seater Cessna 408 SkyCourier for routes to say Campbeltown, Tiree, Benbecula etc?
|
To quote from the above mentioned article:
"The Managing Director aspires to start standardizing the fleet in 2019, with the ATR42 as the selected type to serve all routes besides the islands operations. He is especially concerned about the high costs to keep the Saab 2000s running. "Their maintenance costs are horrific", he said." |
Originally Posted by virginblue
(Post 10171670)
To quote from the above mentioned article:
I think we can put all speculations about Embraer 120s, DHC8-Q300s, DHC5s etc. to rest. |
The article I refered to also has a quote that the Saab 2000s are so expensive to maintian that they do not provide any cost advantage over the Saab 340s despite being 1/3 larger. Plus they are in a weight category that makes them rather expensive for a 50 seater when it comes to charges, fees etc. Add to that that their superior speed isn't really needed on Loganair's network. So bring on those ATRs - it will also give Loganair the option to add a few ATR72 depending on future expansion plans.
Islanders are to stay according to the article, Loganair looked at alternatives like the Quest Kodiak or the Caravan, but they lack the performance required around the Orkneys. |
Originally Posted by virginblue
(Post 10172581)
Islanders are to stay according to the article, Loganair looked at alternatives like the Quest Kodiak or the Caravan, but they lack the performance required around the Orkneys.
|
I can't think why you would ever be flying at 300ft regardless of how many engines you have. 500 is the transit minimum, I believe.
|
What do we make of Loganairs suggestion of an (BMI) Embraer hub at GLA serving European destinations? Didnt they try that many years ago (with 146's and 1-11s), equally inefficient then? A very good local brand name though (so long as it doesnt divert from what they're good at) Not exactly first flurry into Europe given theyre currently trying Bergen... Interesting times, a BRU route ex GLA with reasonable fares and frequency and suitable Star codeshare might work, particularly if the Embraers can still make money. CPH would be the other one I could think of and maybe Paris. FRA unlikely now against LH but maybe take over its half hearted Munich or DUS. MAD a bit of a trek in a tiny Emb http://shorturl.at/orFNR |
Sounds promising. Would be great for Scotland to have its own legacy airline.
|
Link does not seem to work, but story is - https://www.scotsman.com/news/transp...utes-1-4759063
|
Hope it will be in tartan and not bmi colours! |
@fly757x
The ATR42-600 has exactly the same cross wind limits as the ATR42-320 and this has not changed in recent times at CFN. the AT46 regularly lands in cross winds of uptown 35kt. The Reason they divert from CFN at >25kt is because the runway is 1,100m long and only 30m wide and with a non precision approach on both ends (with one being a dodgy NDB) it has short and narrow limitations which are standard ... |
European routes from Glasgow sound interesting. But is Glasgow ready for Bmi style fares to the continent, likely in competition with cheaper fares from Edinburgh?
Also, and tragically, the better marketing partner for such routes would probably have been flyBe :-( |
It does seem a big ask especially with all the competition. The fares will be key to this working but at least they are trying
|
Originally Posted by cumbrianboy
(Post 10181411)
@fly757x
The ATR42-600 has exactly the same cross wind limits as the ATR42-320 and this has not changed in recent times at CFN. the AT46 regularly lands in cross winds of uptown 35kt. The Reason they divert from CFN at >25kt is because the runway is 1,100m long and only 30m wide and with a non precision approach on both ends (with one being a dodgy NDB) it has short and narrow limitations which are standard ... |
Originally Posted by 01475
(Post 10181536)
European routes from Glasgow sound interesting. But is Glasgow ready for Bmi style fares to the continent, likely in competition with cheaper fares from Edinburgh?
Also, and tragically, the better marketing partner for such routes would probably have been flyBe :-( I'd have more concern about these routes as standalone P2P stuff. |
I’d imagine the links with Lufthansa and star alliance through BMI will be used as much as possible. As has been said the fares will be key but BRS has managed to sustain BMI well so hopefully the same can be done for Loganair. |
Originally Posted by 4567
(Post 10182261)
I’d imagine the links with Lufthansa and star alliance through BMI will be used as much as possible. As has been said the fares will be key but BRS has managed to sustain BMI well so hopefully the same can be done for Loganair. |
Just because theyre on different AOCs does not mean BMIs links with LH cannot be taken advantage of. |
Scottish operator Loganair has reported a pre-tax loss of £8.93m for the year to March 2018.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...iness-44633581 Seems like quite a risky maneuver to dip their toes into the European market using 145's given these losses. Probably also explains the delay in the new ATR aircraft. |
Was there not always inevitably going to be a loss in the first year they went solo?
|
Originally Posted by edi_local
(Post 10183489)
Was there not always inevitably going to be a loss in the first year they went solo?
And has virtually nothing to do with consideration of ATR / fleet replacement. |
Given the nature of the battle with Eastern that they got into I'm surprised it's not worse! (Suspect it is for Eastern...)
|
Originally Posted by CabinCrewe
(Post 10183555)
Yes, most of the losses were predicted
And has virtually nothing to do with consideration of ATR / fleet replacement. |
Originally Posted by 01475
(Post 10183564)
Given the nature of the battle with Eastern that they got into I'm surprised it's not worse! (Suspect it is for Eastern...)
Without the non-recurring items associated with the airline's former partner, Loganair would have recorded an underlying pre-tax profit of £2.95m. After the break-up with Flybe, Loganair spent £2.98m re-establishing its own brand and back-office functions. Delays in code-sharing agreements with new business partners cost a further £2.09m. But the biggest loss has been attributed to a price war with Flybe, estimated by Loganair to have cost it £6.8m |
I wouldn't be surprised if the ERJs at Inverness turned out cheaper to run than the S2000s!
|
Jonathan Hinkles confirms on BBC Radio Shetland that the ATR42 will likely be the replacement for the SAABs (I think the presenter said 340s...) and could be seen as early as next year. He ruled out using 145s on the Sumburgh route saying they are unsuitable but did say they will be used on Stornoway. |
Originally Posted by goldeneye
(Post 10181380)
Link does not seem to work, but story is - https://www.scotsman.com/news/transp...utes-1-4759063
Benbecula LM407 GLA 07:15 BEB 08:10 SF3 x67 LM407 GLA 10:50 BEB 11:45 ER4 6 LM409 GLA 15:00 BEB 15:55 ER4 7 LM409 GLA 16:00 BEB 16:55 SF3 x67 LM408 BEB 08:40 GLA 09:35 SF3 15 LM408 BEB 11:00 GLA 11:55 SF3 234 LM408 BEB 12:15 GLA 13:10 ER4 6 LM410 BEB 16:25 GLA 17:20 ER4 7 LM410 BEB 17:25 GLA 18:20 SF3 x67 Londonderry LM207 GLA 08:00 LDY 08:50 ER4 6 LM207 GLA 10:00 LDY 10:50 ER4 6 LM207 GLA 14:05 LDY 14:55 ER4 135 LM209 GLA 19:00 LDY 19:50 SF3 45 LM209 GLA 19:00 LDY 19:50 ER4 7 LM208 LDY 09:20 GLA 10:10 ER4 6 LM208 LDY 11:25 GLA 12:15 ER4 7 LM208 LDY 15:30 GLA 16:20 ER4 135 LM210 LDY 20:20 GLA 21:10 SF3 45 LM210 LDY 20:20 GLA 21:10 ER4 7 Stornaway LM470 GLA 07:00 SYY 07:55 ER4 x7 LM472 GLA 11:10 SYY 12:05 ER4 135 LM472 GLA 11:10 SYY 12:05 SF3 246 LM474 GLA 13:00 SYY 13:55 ER4 7 LM476 GLA 13:50 SYY 14:45 ER4 6 LM476 GLA 15:00 SYY 15:55 ER4 x67 LM476 GLA 16:00 SYY 16:55 ER4 7 LM478 GLA 18:00 SYY 18:55 ER4 x67 LM471 SYY 08:25 GLA 09:20 ER4 x7 LM473 SYY 12:35 GLA 13:30 ER4 135 LM473 SYY 12:35 GLA 13:30 SF3 246 LM475 SYY 14:30 GLA 15:25 ER4 7 LM477 SYY 15:15 GLA 16:10 ER4 6 LM477 SYY 16:25 GLA 17:20 ER4 x67 LM477 SYY 17:30 GLA 18:25 ER4 7 LM479 SYY 19:25 GLA 20:20 ER4 x67 The BM ER4 currently based at INV to operate flights to BGO, DUB and MAN continues to operate S19 Further Changes are highly likely over the coming months |
Does anyone know whether in theory the new agreements with KLM and Thomas Cook Airlines are eligble for ADS and if you depart from an airport that is exempt from APD the whole journey should not have APD (like the BA codeshare ones)? Looking at the websites there is no ADS option and it adds on all the APD as if they are just two standalone flights. |
Originally Posted by ifu05596
(Post 10215196)
Does anyone know whether in theory the new agreements with KLM and Thomas Cook Airlines are eligble for ADS and if you depart from an airport that is exempt from APD the whole journey should not have APD (like the BA codeshare ones)? Looking at the websites there is no ADS option and it adds on all the APD as if they are just two standalone flights. |
This is from the ADS website... not entirely clear!
5. Does it apply to onward connections?
|
Just thinking about this. Why would the APD not apply for onward connections?
I understand APD not applying for the initial 'lifeline' links between the highlands and islands and the mainland, but why should people not pay it on the onward legs? |
I agress with last poster. I can see an incentive re Highlands and Islands but not say Glasgow Manchester simply because they originated in eg Islay
|
Originally Posted by edi_local
(Post 10218121)
Just thinking about this. Why would the APD not apply for onward connections?
I understand APD not applying for the initial 'lifeline' links between the highlands and islands and the mainland, but why should people not pay it on the onward legs? |
Reading his post I assumed that if he books, say, Islay to Glasgow, he gets the discount. But if he books Islay to AMS, or to his TCX holiday he can't find a way to still get his discount on the first segment, which he should be able to do.
|
Originally Posted by inOban
(Post 10218171)
Reading his post I assumed that if he books, say, Islay to Glasgow, he gets the discount. But if he books Islay to AMS, or to his TCX holiday he can't find a way to still get his discount on the first segment, which he should be able to do.
On APD - my understanding for example is that you can do for example Inverness-Heathrow-New York for example and pay less APD than say Glasgow-Heathrow-New York and that people will actually position to Inverness to take advantage of this (saves a few hundred pounds if flying club world). When you try and do the equivalent on say KLM via Glasgow I thought the originating airport would determine the APD for the whole journey but seems not. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:13. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.