View Full Version : Mac-air to base a Saab in SYD

8th Jan 2004, 18:44
Apparently Mac-air have plans to base a Saab in SYD. The Saab will replace the Metro aircraft currently operating the old Horizon routes.

Flying Mechanic
8th Jan 2004, 19:01

A mate of mine, who flies for [email protected], is off on Monday with another Captain to Sweden, do his SAAB 2000 endorsement.

He is really stoked mate !!! He has come along way since his days in the straits, as a First Officer on the BN2-200, with tip tanks.

He is that stoked, that he is crackin' VBs' at the Redfern RSL tonight !

It's great to see a mate become a heavier "T."

Wahmutta yupla bulla ?

Planned Root
8th Jan 2004, 22:23
What do they propose to use a SAAB 2000 for?:confused:

9th Jan 2004, 06:50
Perhaps Syd-BN at near jet speeds/less cost per seat mile.

Why haven't other operators looked at this aircraft before?

9th Jan 2004, 10:41
Great - another nucking foisy sucking faab in SYD...........

Capt Claret
9th Jan 2004, 10:43
probably because in the mind of most pax a 20+yr old 146/DC9/737/727 is more modern than a brand new propeller airplane. ;)

9th Jan 2004, 11:51
Props are for boats!?

As much as I despise the phrase (at least until I lose the props anyway!) this is the attitude of the SLF. CC you hit the nail on the head.

Jet A, sounds fair & reasonable, can't see any reason why QF don't have a Q400 on SY-CB shuttle. It'd make for a quicker sector gate-gate than a 737 with push-backs, intersection dep's and all.

I guess there aren't any Conordinos in Oz for the same reason we don't see QF spending cash on Q400's???

Until the marketers/media convince the travellers, and the travellers convince the bean-counters, the bean-counters probably won't be sending us boat Captains out at "near-jet" speeds!!!

Good luck M-air, I shall be looking on with much interest.

I'm gone!
9th Jan 2004, 18:12
Gday all,

Sails are for boats!!

I'm gone!:ok:

9th Jan 2004, 23:20
Not that noisy inside I believe. There is definitely a market for SB2000 or Q400 speed turboprops intercity cheaper than 'jet'fares'.

I would imagine there are alot of punters who would rather pay less and wouldn't really give a shite about props/jets.

Anyone wanna go halves in a couple?????:ok:

TAY 611
10th Jan 2004, 03:25
"Props are for boats" What a lot of [email protected] can these guys really get their heads through the cabin door..
Props have their place and high speed ones like the Saab 2000 and the Q400 do a great job on the thinner routes above any jet. FYI the Saab 2000 is Cat IIIA, hand flown, through a HUD and as I understand it is a very powerful aircraft. Aparrantly on the Zurich-London sector, Crossairs Saab 2000 did a better sector time than the AVRO RJ..So watch out all you 146 drivers..

Peet Conrad
10th Jan 2004, 06:37
Who are you jokers kidding. I can really see that a turbo prop competing against a jet on sy ml bn. Are you living in Alice in Wonderland?

The Saab 2000 beat the 146. What a bloody feat. It's is hardly a well performing jet. I doubt it but obviously the prevailing weather, traffic etc were identical.

If you are going to submit to intelligent coversation do a little research.

Perhaps Syd-BN at near jet speeds/less cost per seat mile

Yes lets compare the seat costs of a Saab 2000 and a 767 or even 737.

And yes props do belong on boats

10th Jan 2004, 08:31
Peet - I am no beancounting expert, and I may have got my terminology wrong, but are you telling me that paying the lease and operating a B767, and all the cost factors and infrastructure that entails, is cheaper than a SB2000?

Would a full or near full 2000 or a 1/2 - 3/4 empty 767 make the money?

Easier to fill a 2000 with cheaper tickets would be my 'guess'.

11th Jan 2004, 09:13
I thought PROPS were for scrums!!!!

compressor stall
11th Jan 2004, 10:21
"Mrs" Stall's mother was heard to remark that she did not want to fly from some regional coastal town to Sydney on "One of those little propellor aircraft."

The little aeroplane was a Dash8. She drove a couple of hours to BNE and got on a jet to SY.

Fortunately it is not hereditry. Mrs Stall is learning to fly. :O

12th Jan 2004, 00:19
The S20 is a very versatile aircraft despite the noise and vibration caused by the 6 bladed Dowty Rotels. The down rated AE2100s (compared to the burners in the latest Herc) are not that bad, the ANC helps the pax, but you will still find it noisy in the front.

At Mac-air it will be interesting to see how and where they operate them. With so many of the only 60 approx ever produced, now sitting around, you should be able to get attractive leasing/purchase deals from Saab etc. The economics are interesting when comparing to the ATR and Q300 despite the S20 being out of production and small in number.

We operated up to 34 of them ranging in 12 minute flights from Basel-Zurich/Bern to 3 hour legs to Spain or Norway. With Mach0.62 at 31,000 (now limited to 28,000 until RVSM approval) we were just a tad slower than the Avro RJ85/100 but comparable in block times on up to 70-80 min flights. With our slower speed we sometimes were annoying to ATC. With short field, steep approach performance, CatIIIa with HUGS, Glass with the Proline 4, all weather-icing capability, GPS&INS, one FMS, an APU etc etc., you should find somewhere to fly it as well as a delight to drive.

Dispatch reliability was definitely a problem in the early years although Saab overall usually quoted it as better than the 340. With some problems on the props ironed out for example, things have got better in the last years. Mac-air with its 340 experience should have no major problems with the introduction, and I gather Saab will very much support the intro downunder. Any chance of Hazelton-Kendell / REX? also moving into the 50 seat market by selecting the 2000? With Qantas ordering more Q300s there must still be a few Aussie pax prepared to pay and who don't mind seeing and hearing big blades on the outside of the engines if they have no choice!?

Goodluck with the "Concordino"!

Kaptin M
12th Jan 2004, 05:14
"FYI the Saab 2000 is Cat IIIA, hand flown"
Cat IIIA is autoland in zero viz.

There may be enough pax willing to fly at a reduced fare, but I think that Mrs Stallie's mindset is typical of the majority, ".... little propellor aircraft."
In case no-one had noticed :D the airlines don't fly F27's or F50's any more, having replaced them with jets.

14th Jan 2004, 20:14
I gotta support the comments being made here regards to prop versus jet. The Saab 2000 can be capable of a mission to mars (hey it weren't built by the brits!!:8 ) and the public still won't care. Ever seen how you can make a brand new C310/727/whatever by giving it a fresh coat of paint???? if it looks the part, and isn't noisy or rattly inside, consider it a PR success.

Someone earlier mentioned something about comparing a Saab 2k to a 767 on a per seat cost basis. well, per seat I'd hate to say the 76' would come out on top. If you're gonna make comparisons, make sure it's apples with apples. Of course a 152 is gonna be cheaper than a 747, but how many 152s do you need to lift the same load. You're getting your terminology mixed up by comparing aircraft operating costs rather than the seat cost that you tried to quote. As for half empty 76's/73's??? havent seen that on the trunk routes for a while!

BTW, thats awesome that the BAAS 2k has IIIa b or c capability, but can someone actually tell me why it'd be any use here??

And yeah Kap, ain't many li'l fokkers around nowadays, but they've actually mainly been replaced by smash 8s the odd BAAS, ATRs and the like, rather than jets ;) The RJ revolution is not quite as quick and thorough as many would've hoped. With a bit of luck that'll change in the future.

TAY 611
16th Jan 2004, 04:56
Ah-Er Kap for one that advertises they are from Europe who did you do your LVP training with? Or perhaps it is time to get the books out, Cat IIIA is not a zero vis approach.. Actually: "No DH or DH below 100' & RVR 200m" and it is hand flown using HUD technology on some types of aircraft (incl Saab 2000)..There is equipment and weather outside Boeing and Australia that gets used regularily and very effectively with LVP's active.
As pointed out earlier anything below Cat I in Aus could not justify the cost. Interesting point about the RJ revolution not being quite as expected. I think that this is probably due to the cost of operating a jet that only has the same amount of seats as most turboprops. If the low cost carrier model is any guide then the cost of the ticket is foremost on most peoples minds.

16th Jan 2004, 06:12
sorry Kapt M but the SAAB 2000 is most definately cat IIIA, hand flown on the hud.
autoland has absolutely nothing to do with it.
as a matter of fact it does a much better job of it than any autoland i've seen.


Kaptin M
16th Jan 2004, 07:35
My unreserved apologies - you are quite correct, and I was WRONG.
For due penance, I shall list the various categories below
All are precision instrument approaches and landings:-
Cat 1 - DH not lower than 200', vis not less than 800m, or RVR not less than 550m.
Cat 11 - DH lower than 200' but not lower than 100', and RVR not less than 350m
Cat 111A - DH lower than 100', or NO decision height and RVR not less than 200m
CAT 111B - DH less than 50' and RVR less than 200m but not less than 50m.
CAT 111C - no DH and no RVR limitations.

The lower value of DH or vis/RVR will determine the category of the operation.
The highest category that can be applied is determined by (a) Crew qualifications, (b) Ground facilities, (c) aircraft equipment, and (d) weather conditions.

Are there any airports in Oz of Cat 111A capability?

(BTW, TAY, I'm definitely NOT from Europe!)

16th Jan 2004, 14:27
So, could the 2000 make money in Oz??