SAX Q400 [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

knertius

23rd Mar 2006, 07:47

spent quite a few years roasting my nuts at 350, so 240 ain´t that bad for a change ;-)
jet fuel flow? comparing the Q400 (72 pax) to the F70 (75 pax) i´m using just less than half the fuel per hour that we used on the F70. And considering a TAS difference of 55 knots the time saved on the jet on the shorter sectors, say up to 400nm, isn´t of any significance.

Avi8tor

23rd Mar 2006, 08:36

LOL - lets get real here. Try compairing it to a MODERN jet. Looking at the figures of a E170/5 they are pretty close and its 100kts faster and 12000ft higher.

Its gonna have the same probs that killed a SAAB2000. Close to jet speeds (on short legs) for jet costs.

I have spent many 1000's of hrs in the low 20's, i'll stay in the mid 30's thanx.

No commments on its WAT limit?

Sorry guys, props are for boats

knertius

23rd Mar 2006, 09:39

you are absolutely right. the F70 is no longer really a modern jet with it´s old Tay engines. BUT, if the the jungle jets are so great why didn´t SAX buy them? Talking to the guys that fly them here in europe they have lots of good things to say about the Embraer, but they also state that they are a bit underpowered . All good for the low altitude airports here but what about a lekker highveld summer?

Round Engine

23rd Mar 2006, 11:24

Sorry guys, props are for boats[/QUOTE]

:} I think Jets are for kids sounds a little better - or maybe two screws are better than four blows?;) ;)

wheels up

23rd Mar 2006, 14:38

Then why the wordwide move away from regional jets back to TPs?? The ERJ and CRJ order books aren't exactly full, but the ATR 42/72 and Dash8 have large order backlogs. Quite a few airlines have cancelled options on RJs in favour of TPs.

All precipitated by the rise in fuel prices - must be a pretty good indication that the beancounters figure TPs are more efficient on the shorter routes.

Avi8tor

24th Mar 2006, 05:56

Hmmm - think u better check the stats, ERJ/CRJ/Ejet order books are VERY full. Build 200 ATR/dash TP's in the last few yrs. The discussion was about Jets speeds at TP costs. History has shown this NOT to be the case. SAAB 2000 and Do228 are case in point.

However, think u got me wrong, still very much a place for TP's on some sectors. They operate lower, slower and are lighter, ergo use less fuel. And in todays market, if we as the drivers wanna keep our jobs, the bean counters need to get the equipment right.

Think a TP is great for around the coast, short sectors, no thunderstorms. Just dont see the PAX being over joyed when they see a TP to GRJ when they can fly a jet with the Competition.

knertius

24th Mar 2006, 07:08

unfortunately its true that a normal, run of the mill, uneducated (in flying terms) pax will prefer a jet because its "modern" and all props are "old and dangerous". and in these cases its the beancounters who have a very tough job because the right aircraft for the job might be a prop but the opposition is flying with a lekker shiny jet. so its a case of keeping up with the jones's which often leads to the company folding because of the huge costs incurred. just got a message a few minutes ago that one of the newer companies down the road has folded this morning. they had shiny new jets for realtively short routes. they started flying these routes with the jets because the PAX wanted it like that (launching statement in the press!).

BUT!! still want to know what the situation with the SAX Q400s is!!! When? How? etc.

Deskjocky

24th Mar 2006, 07:49

knertius,
just got a message a few minutes ago that one of the newer companies down the road has folded this morning. they had shiny new jets for realtively short routes. they started flying these routes with the jets because the PAX wanted it like that (launching statement in the press!).

are you referring to one of the loco's???:eek:

knertius

24th Mar 2006, 08:34

not in SA. is over here in austria. not gone completely bust yet, but have grounded their fleet for the day. but, judging from their intense money burning past, i don´t see them getting out of this one.

Deskjocky

24th Mar 2006, 09:28

thanks! should have looked at your location:\

Anyone know how Airlink is making out with their ERJ's?

knertius

24th Mar 2006, 11:36

don´t worry, deskjocky, i still had SA as my location when you posted. hasn´t been correct for a number of years. changed after your original post to where i really am flying. but i´d rather be back home in SA....

nugpot

24th Mar 2006, 14:00

BUT!! still want to know what the situation with the SAX Q400s is!!! When? How? etc.

From SAX Company newsletter.

First Q400 to be operational (I have a little doubt about that) 1 May 2006 and will fly JNB-BFN-JNB and JNB-GRJ-JNB x2. Second a/c to be operational 1 July and will just double up on the above schedule.

Obviously the a/c will have to operate from JNB until all operational and technical issues are sorted out. Last I heard, configuration was full-house up front with double hot galleys.

There are also 2 extra CRJ's on lease to service coastal route ipo DC9's of Executive.

knertius

25th Mar 2006, 19:19

thanks for the details, nugpot!

Q4NVS

27th Mar 2006, 21:41

Here are just some interesting facts vs EMB 170 Series and others:

Distance to climb from SL to 25000'
Q400: 51nm
Regional Jet average: 60nm

Breakeven loads (dependant on fare structure)
(North American used in both cases)
Q400: 34%
EMB 170: 51%

Annual fuel cost savings over EMB 170 Series
(Based on 300nm sectors @ 2600 flights)
US $300 000

If u ask me, the beancounters got this one right...:E

nugpot

28th Mar 2006, 07:42

I don't think there is any doubt that it is a good aircraft if utilised correctly. SAX unfortunately did not read the fine print. How about 700 - 800nm sectors?

Also, they are quite expensive and initial projections are that they will cost at least the same to operate as the CRJ. Obviously it has 24 seats more, but you have to fill them first......

Lets see how the first two in SAX service behave. I hope that they do justice to the hype.

In any case, with the possible exeptions of the 727 and the Piper Cub, ANYTHING climbs better than the CRJ.

makeapullup

28th Mar 2006, 10:28

In any case, with the possible exeptions of the 727 and the Piper Cub, ANYTHING climbs better than the CRJ.

Air Botswana's BA146's and any F28 way worse than CARJ on the climb!:ok:

wheels up

29th Mar 2006, 11:52

Hmmm - think u better check the stats, ERJ/CRJ/Ejet order books are VERY full.

OK. Checked the stats and here they are:

From Flight International 31 Jan - 6 Feb in article entitled "TURBOPROPS BOUNCE BACK; ATR and Bombardier enjoy a renaissance of their propellor driven airliners as demand for small jets collapses"

In summary:

2004

Western TP Net Orders

ATR 42/72: 12
Dash 8 series: 32
Beech 1900: 1
TOTAL 45

Western RJ Net Orders

Dornier 328: 18
CRJ: 130
ERJ: 108
TOTAL 256

2005

Western TP Net Orders

ATR 42/72: 90
Dash 8 series: 61
Beech 1900: 0

TOTAL 151

Western RJ Net Orders

Dornier 328: -6
CRJ: -1
ERJ: 90
TOTAL 83

Here are some quotes from the article:

"Soaring fuel prices have brought the 10 year reign of the small regional jet to a sudden halt"

"....it is no suprise that the production of the CRJ200 is about to be suspended while output of the ERJ is to be significantly curtailed"

"Bagnato says that rising fuel prices have prompted the demise of demand for the small regional jet and the resurgence of the turboprop."

"Bombardier and Embraer have virtually ceased 50 seat jet production, leaving the 30 to 70 seat band to the turboprops"

Can't argue with the numbers!

George Tower

29th Mar 2006, 12:26

I have no doubt that the Q400 will work for SAX in so far as that it will do everything that they want. There are the nuances of these fast turbo-props like turbulence penetration speed of 210KIAS but should do ok for them. Flybe have invested heavily in them and they seem to be confident that they can run them profitably in regional ops as a discounting business model. The long sectors will no doubt errode some of the advantage but the benefits derived from a single fleet may well save them overall

The only thing that irks me as a free marketeer is that these things ain't cheap - $18m+ so has SAX been making the profits to pay for these or is it just one of the perks of being state-owned that you can buy nice new aeries under cut the competition but have no track record of profitability to raise finance on commercial terms. Anyway I'll get off my soap box now.

MarkD

29th Mar 2006, 13:35

Apparently BBD are looking at stretching Q400 to about 90 seats. Their CRJ705s and CRJ900s are being range extended to fill long thin routes the Q400 can't reach.

nugpot

29th Mar 2006, 13:46

has SAX been making the profits to pay for these or is it just one of the perks of being state-owned that you can buy nice new aeries under cut the competition but have no track record of profitability to raise finance on commercial terms.

Hello GT

Common misconception. SAX has never been re-capitalised by Transnet or Government. Finance has had to be raised on commercial terms. SAX has pleaded with Transnet for a re-cap, but has been turned down. The airline has made an operational profit for almost its entire existence, but finance costs on the RJ's have been a bit of an financial burden.

Let's hope that the plan for the future solves that particular problem.

Avi8tor

29th Mar 2006, 18:28

Interesting FACTS being quoted out of Flight Int. Just as matter of interest, put the 70 seat Ejets and CRJ900 figures in that, then have another look. U have to compare apples to apples.

BTW, operating profile means that u make money BEFORE u pay for the aircraft. SAX has some R800mil debt. It lost R180mil last yr alone!! And if u dont wanna believe it, just read Transnet's annual report.

It is sad that the govenment seems intent on keeping loss making airlines in business, instead of building houses and fighting crime.

I DONT want to turn this into a SAX bashing thread. But I really would like to see the industry run on a PROFITABLE basis. Its the only way we will see long term growth.

nugpot

29th Mar 2006, 18:46

BTW, operating profile means that u make money BEFORE u pay for the aircraft. SAX has some R800mil debt. It lost R180mil last yr alone!!
It is sad that the govenment seems intent on keeping loss making airlines in business, instead of building houses and fighting crime.
I DONT want to turn this into a SAX bashing thread. But I really would like to see the industry run on a PROFITABLE basis. Its the only way we will see long term growth.

You are right about the loss. SAX has been operating as a feeder to SAA since its inception. Lately some of the more profitable routes have gone their way (Coastal and JNB-GRJ). Part of the Q400 strategy is to turn this situation around and make a pure profit.

The point I was trying to make was that SAX has never received money to buy or lease a/c. They have always had to finance it commercially. All airlines have debt. Most that fold do so because they have been unable to service that debt. SAX has managed to keep going for 12 years now, and I think it has a bright future.

Avi8tor

29th Mar 2006, 19:02

The R800 mil in debt is NOT that to finance aircraft, this is money borrowed to keep the doors open. Transnet has stood good for the money, SAX has NO assets against which to secure that kind of loan independently. I would love to see SAX turn the corner. But i don't see the Q400 as the solution.

It is NOT suited or efficient on a 600nm sector to GRJ. It has to compete against a very low cost JET shortly on BFN. Until all 8 are delivered and the CRJ’s are phased out, there will be NO economies of scale. To run 3 fleets is madness.

I think I am on record as to the solution for the SAA branded feeders and their long term growth.

George Tower

29th Mar 2006, 19:51

With SAX's financial affairs so closely tied in with Transnet I think to use the words "operational profit" and pretend that all is well is a bit misleading. Its always easy to bash anything to do with SAA/SAX and I think that would be bad. BA Citi-Express now BA Connect shows that even BA makes a dogs breakfast of the regional stuff as well.

I just think that a complete fleet replacements of Q400s at nearly $20m per aircraft (they ain't going to get much discount if you look at the the Flybe prices and they ordered a lot more) is going to have to be financed some how, and I'm sure that a private business in the same financial standing would not manage to obtain it.

wheels up

30th Mar 2006, 04:21

Interesting FACTS being quoted out of Flight Int. Just as matter of interest, put the 70 seat Ejets and CRJ900 figures in that, then have another look.

All included above:

CRJ = CRJ 100/200, CRJ440, CRJ700-701, CRJ700-705,CRJ900

ERJ = ERJ-135,140,145, 170, 175,190,195

Excuse my ignorance but what is an Ejet?

Q4NVS

30th Mar 2006, 08:47

Some news from the grapevine:

SAX turnover for the financial year ending March 06 is forcasted to be just short of R1bn - That is approximately R100mil over budget. This means they are performing better than even they expected.

Gross profit for the same year is expected to top R180mil - now pardon me, but if the previous figures as posted are true, then that alone is a turn aorund of R360mil in 12 months!

Given the loads that are being carried, they are in SERIOUS need of BIGGER aircraft...

Wrt the "cheaper" jet on FAJS to FABL route - let's wait and see:
1Time @ 7 Schedules per week versus SAX 7 Schedules per day (excluding the CRJ)
Surely they will need 60%+ loads, if not more, to make this viable, versus maybe 30% on a DH8.
(Difference in fare @ R112 per ticket)
Btw, who has flown in a DC9 lately..?

Q400: It is believed to only be the start of greater things to come...:E

George Tower

30th Mar 2006, 09:06

ERJ,

Your figures sound impressive. Interesting that because of the whole Transnet/State ownership thing we can't get an accurate picture. Enron and Worldcom are still too recently etched in the memory! During the period you are looking at didn't SAX get given SAA's coastal routes, which if you ask me could account for a large chunk of that extra revenue.

Nice to get that given to you on a plate. Someone said the Q400 could be start of bigger things to come - you mean like SAX taking over all SAA's domestic flights, or that roumered SAA low cost (please spare us) eek:

George Tower

30th Mar 2006, 09:15

Wheels up

I think an Ejet is slang for Embraer's regional jet offerings. The E170/175/190/195. Note sure whether they have been the sales success Embraer hoped. I rather think Embraer will have to bet the mortgage on the sales success of these as I can't see the pencil jets (135/145) competing with the Q400 and ATR in view of current fuel prices.

knertius

30th Mar 2006, 09:40

all this economic talk is interesting and relevant. BUT... while taking off in the Q400 yesterday and having my front teeth make contact with my tonsils I couldn´t have cared less for the beancounters! It was just a helluva lot of fun and POWER!!!!!! To all the boys and girls at SAX: ENJOY THE BEAST! :)

Deskjocky

30th Mar 2006, 10:09

GT,
Nice to get that given to you on a plate. Someone said the Q400 could be start of bigger things to come - you mean like SAX taking over all SAA's domestic flights, or that roumered SAA low cost (please spare us) eek:
What exactly were SAX given that they dont already have? The routes they operate on require no special right to operate- BA/Kulula and the other carriers operate the same routes. SAX have always had the SA designator and FFP benefits so quite what was "given on a plate" is not clear. SAA under the franchise agreement it has with SAX is entitled to a portion of this "new" revenue so SAX is by no means getting a free ride.

I also fail to grasp your attitude to proposed SAA changes, rumoured or otherwise, to become a more cost effective and efficient airline with a product that speaks to the way the market is moving. Surely that in the interests of the travelling public and the country as a whole? or would you prefer that SAA just stay as it is- a situation we all agree is not satisfactory.

SAX is investing in their future- the only way they can keep the loco's off their routes is to offer more capacity, particularly at peak times, more frequently- whilst keeping your costs as low as possible- all at similar fares to the loco=the Q400 fulfils that brilliantly. Yes it is the start of bigger things for SAX.

The loco's on the other hand are running out of expansion room as there are not really any more domestic routes left that carry the critical population density necessary to maintain their services. If they try and stay on routes like BFN they will only dilute the profits made on CPT and DUR. In the end the market will dictate who wins and who looses. Jets don’t always win- even new ones.

Solid Rust Twotter

30th Mar 2006, 10:24

Unfortunately, once publicly funded airlines have put the locos out of business as appears to be the plan, prices will once again become ridiculous to reflect well on the books of the national carrier.

Of that I have no doubt...

Deskjocky

30th Mar 2006, 10:56

SRT,
The market will take care of any excess capacity in the normal way- its all about supply and demand.

To date demand has slightly outweighed supply with the domestic market growing by 55% over the last 4 years- the growth has been steady- with possible the exception of last year where the market grew over 17% in one year.SAA has shared in this growth as have the other carriers- however SAA no longer has the market power to drive players out the market- simply because the cost structure of the other carriers is lower than SAA's and therefore their propensity to survive a price war is so much better. Hence some fairly radical changes are going to be implimented in SAA to position the company to go forward. These plans will not involve more aircraft than the airline alrady has on the books but will look into the reduction of costs through a more relevant business model. Since SAA's load factors are at an all time high already and its competitiors are still in business- Im sure no one is going to drop out the market because of these changes. What SAA wants is to make more money out of the business it already owns- without increasing/decreasing the fares.

Whether the other airlines stay in business is more a function of how they run their own businesses- flying to places like BFN is not going to keep you in business for long.