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.

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?

The SB34s are for not replacement in the short term and most (if not all) have received new cabins in the past 3 years. It's more for the SB20s which are penned to go in the next 2-3 years.

To quote from the above mentioned article:
I think we can put all speculations about Embraer 120s, DHC8-Q300s, DHC5s etc. to rest.

I understand that they want to replace the Saab 2000's with ATR varients, but wasn't there something in the Saab press recently about the withdrawal of aviation support for the Saab 340/2000 by Saab itself? Wouldn't that implicate a greater future cost if it was outsourced to a 3rd party or no party, if none took it up? I think brand new EMB-120's would be totally sustainable, something that TangoAlphad didn't explore out of the options I discussed ;)

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.

And the places to land if it all goes quiet up the front while halfway across the water to Stronsay at 300ft :eek:

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.

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

@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

Cheers mate, I was just comparing the older -300s to the -600s taking into consideration the narrower runway at CFN using what I had seen as a spotter from experience. They also have a Localiser for 21 at CFN btw.

If they have regular service, codeshare hub access and it can make Glasgow as a hub of sorts itself, then maybe.

I'd have more concern about these routes as standalone P2P stuff.