The SAX Q400 [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

grjplanes

2nd Jun 2006, 18:58

The Q400 is flying into GRJ twice daily now, but it seems to me that it is struggling to keep up with the schedule. Most of the time since it started two weeks ago it was between 20 mins and an hour behind schedule. I get the idea that it is the south flight proving to be tight, scheduled for 2h15mins, doing it in about that or maybe few minutes less, depending on other aircraft arriving around the same time (in which case there is usually two other flights also scheduled to arrive in that half-hour window). The north flight is scheduled for 2h05 mins, and it seems that it can do it in 1h45 sometimes...? It only gets 20mins turnaround time at GRJ, which I think is also not enough, they struggle to do it, takes at the least 30mins. Strangely the other two SAX flights operated by F-28s (same amount of seats...) gets 70mins and 45mins scheduled turnaround times respectively??? Explain that, even the CRJs got 45mins before, the only CRJ flight now being operated on Sundays gets 30mins? Someones calculations is proving not to be working out?

Another point bothering me on this route, is the morning flight from JNB-GRJ is the first one departing at 07:20, but arrives 3rd at 09:35, after BA which departs 07:30 arriving 09:25 and Nationwide departing 07:40 arriving 09:30. OK all three within 10 mins, but still if I'm a business traveller asking for the earliest flight, I expect it to be the first arriving also...?

knertius

2nd Jun 2006, 19:50

one thing that one has to get used to is the fact that it just isn´t a DH8-300, and that´s what the handling crews, ATC and the pilots have to realize. It takes quite a bit longer to refuel, unload, load, board etc. ATC here in europe often treat you as just another turboprop and then start getting nervous when you start outclimbing CRJs, heavy airbuses and boeings etc, admittedly usually below FL100 when everyone is still doing 250 KIAS. And from a pilot´s point of view it´s a bit of an eye opener when a heavy Q400 doesn´t really want to slow down when advancing the condition levers to max and a rapid speed reduction was hoped for as one is used to on the 300.
The jets will have a substantial time advantage on flights that are in excess of, say, 500nm. But below that the Q400 really does make economic sense if the loads are right. The Q400 isn´t even close to perfect but, being a pilot, I do tend to look at it from a "fun" perspective. And I am having fun on the thing!!!

Avi8tor

9th Jun 2006, 05:02

Have been watching the Q400 with interest. Seems to be alot of hype around it. Still need to chat to somebody who has really flown it.

To be honest, i cant see it being a ball of fire. It only has the same power to weight ratio of a J41. J41 has 3300shp for just under 11 000kg's and the Q400 is 10 000shp for just under 30 000kg's. Makes me think its gonna struggle out of FAJS on a good summer day.

Also would be interested to hear what REAL TAS and REAL fuel flows it has over a GRJ sector.

Deskjocky

9th Jun 2006, 07:34

I have my real doubts about its continued operation to GRJ, its not about the aircraft but rather the competition. Like it or not the pax still like jet over TP so with BA and CE operating jets I can see any advantage for SAX as they will have to lower prices over time to attract the traffic.:hmm:

I dont know what the guys at SAX are up to-to me I would keep this aircraft on BFN- period. I see it does some sectors as does the F28, now why send the F28 to BFN in the morning when you can send it to GRJ instead?? Send the Q400 to BFN will make you more cash out of the same traffic.

knertius

9th Jun 2006, 11:51

Then the J41 must be a rocket!!! ;)

Q4NVS

9th Jun 2006, 18:18

TAS varies between 360 and 372 Kts
Fuel Flow in the region of 1050 kgs/hr

As far as I know, that is similar to an ERJ, but atleast 39 pax more to pay the bills.

DJ, as understood from a friend, when the second Q400 arrives in a few weeks time, the F28 will soon be a thing of the past (or used to help out on high demand routes somewhere else). :oh:

MarkD

9th Jun 2006, 18:27

Did SAX specify the PW150E hot/high engine option?

grjplanes

9th Jun 2006, 20:26

I see it does some sectors as does the F28, now why send the F28 to BFN in the morning when you can send it to GRJ instead?? Send the Q400 to BFN will make you more cash out of the same traffic.

Currently both the Q400 and F-28 is serving both GRJ and BFN. The Q400 does the morning and 3rd rotation to GRJ and then in the evening to BFN. While the F-28 does a morning rotation to BFN and then the 2nd and 4th rotation to GRJ. In line with this I agree that at least have a jet aircraft for the morning flight, to compete on the route for that time of the day ( for business travellers), like I said before you've got both BA and CE departing to GRJ within 20 minutes after SAX, but they still arrive before it... Probably won't be possible though when the second Q400 replaces the F-28?

What is the possibility of more Q400s, for replacing the DC-9 on CPT-PLZ-DUR?

knertius

9th Jun 2006, 22:26

as nice as it is to hear those Spey engines on the F28 it´s time that they went for an extended holiday in some american desert! The Tays on the F70 chew about 1700kg of fuel with 80 pax. The Speys will probably gobble up quite a bit more, I suspect. Time to move to more modern equipment. Q400 is a start and should be a success if operated on the right routes. Am watching the GRJ route with interest. It is about equal to the maximum distance that we operate the Q400 over here. At the end of the day most people book their flight based on the price. If the price is right SAX will be filling up the flight to GRJ. Most people won´t have a clue what aircraft they are flying until they bang their heads on one of those six blade props!

DHC8-FO

13th Jun 2006, 16:49

I wish my company in the states would have gotten ahold of the -400 when the boneheads had the chance to get 'em for pennies on the dollar. Now were taking in more tired -100's to replace our great 200's. Great. Thats what happens when you let the pencil jockeys run the show. But on a positive note we get to keep our -300's until 2009 or something like that.

Just a note, whats the max pitch on landing for the -400, looks like it cant be much. 3 or 4 degree's?

flare and touchdown!

13th Jun 2006, 20:30

Not only are South African going to use them on Bloemfontien and George, but more are scheduled to do peak Kruger and Gabarone routes from Johannesburg. (information released by SAX)

skywaytoheaven

14th Jun 2006, 10:05

DHC8FO, I remember it being actually more than the -200/300, around 9 degrees or so, don't quote me though.

grjplanes

14th Jun 2006, 21:07

Am watching the GRJ route with interest. It is about equal to the maximum distance that we operate the Q400 over here. At the end of the day most people book their flight based on the price. If the price is right SAX will be filling up the flight to GRJ. Most people won´t have a clue what aircraft they are flying until they bang their heads on one of those six blade props!

Would be interesting to see how passengers at GRJ take to the Q400 in about 6 months time. For a couple of years now GRJ was the only airport in South Africa where no scheduled flights were operated by prop-planes, mostly ERJs, 737s and MD-80s. Now within a year SAA/SAX has gone backwards on the route, from 3 daily SAA (2x738+1xA319) to 3 daily SAX (2x732+1xCRJ) to now 4 daily prop-planes. The white 732s didn't always appeal to everyone also. If they were to compete with the other carriers operating jet-aircraft, would it be wise to buy newer CRJs (CRJ700 or CRJ900), how much more economical is the new generation CRJs?

IMC007

14th Jun 2006, 21:10

DHC8 FO

The max pitch up in the flare on the Q400 is 6 degrees anymore than that and you set of the Touch Runway warning light which should be renamed 'Find another job' warning light because that's what you'll be doing when the Chief Pilot is finished with you.

grjplanes

11th Jul 2006, 22:15

When is the 2nd Q400 expected, I note that it is scheduled on the JNB-GRJ route as from 24 July, replacing the F-28, meaning all 4 daily flights by SAX on the route will be with the Q400 then.

reptile

12th Jul 2006, 09:29

Crew left for Canada last night to fetch the a/c. Will be in revenue service from the 24th.

Skidoo

12th Jul 2006, 14:44

Flying the arrival the other afternoon for 06R in YYZ happened to look down at downsview airport (Bombardier plant). The only a/c on the ramp was the SAX Q400, only got a ten second glance but it looked good seeing that tail uphere.... enjoy.

mupepe

13th Jul 2006, 18:24

This one passed in LUX. for demo flight enroute to SA!!:D
http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/44a82193z998095d5/1087re2/__sr_/1e0fre2.jpg?phodptEBSJ.3VZW6

MarkD

13th Jul 2006, 23:46

mupepe that photo doesn't show for me but the demo must have been good as Luxair signed for 3+3.

Q4NVS

20th Jul 2006, 10:51

SAX Q400 #2 (ZS-NMS) arrived in SA on 18th July 2006. :D

Saw it prancing @ the "Bone Yard" between 03L and 03R today.

According to what I could gather, it should be in Scheduled service from 24th July 2006.

Oh Boy, with the current trend in Fuel Costs and load factors believed to be at 90%+, those "Bean Counters" at SAX must be smiling all the way to the banks. Especially considering that the Q400 (according to Bombardier), has a break even load factor of only 35%. :ooh:

Now that's a profit machine if u ask me...:suspect:

grjplanes

20th Jul 2006, 20:50

It is scheduled to enter the JNB-GRJ route on 24 July, then both Q400s will be flying the route twice daily. I note that SAX has changed flying times for later on in the year, with flights in both directions scheduled for 2hours on the dot, currently being 2h15 south and 2h05 north. But then also having longer turnaround times, between 35mins and 50mins.

Don't think they can break even on 35% capacity on the JNB-GRJ route, with prices starting at R378 one-way all included, R220 + taxes... maybe need at least 60% I would guess, probably not too difficult getting that though most of the time?

Shrike200

21st Jul 2006, 06:30

I was wondering about this whole Q400 thing. Just comparing them to the perhaps extreme example of Nationwide's newest (newest on the line, not newest overall!) B732's for example. They were aquired for a pittance (I've heard some extremely low rumours, but ALL under 1 million USD in any case).

It seems you could buy Nationwide's entire fleet for the same price as one Q400! Now I'm sure this isn't quite the case, but you get my drift.

So, certainly fuel and maintenance costs will be considerably higher, I think a B732 burns roughly 4.5-4.8 tons JS-GG: BUT, you get a 110 seater, smooth riding jet (actually, as I said above, you get a whole bunch of them!) In the *very* long term, sure, it loses out - but what about the here and now, or at least the intermediate future? Bear in mind that these B732's can be bought for cash, sparing onerous long terms leases/loan repayments etc - they can be brought on line and start generating income very quickly, not just servicing debt. It's a known machine, spares seem to be available, there's crew and even simulators available here too.

My complete ignorance of financial affairs is no doubt showing by now, but I'd welcome any obvious rebuttals/comments!

And just to add, I'm sure this only makes sense in an African context, Europe etc will no doubt look askance at the venerable Fluffy!

Q4NVS

21st Jul 2006, 12:04

Mmm :oh:
Heard the (new) Q400 today flying FAJS - Lubumbashi (DRC) - FAJS.

:ooh:
CRJ already too small for this SAX route?

Short term (next 3 years), B732 probably makes sense, but Eish it's Noisy hey :zzz: :{

George Tower

21st Jul 2006, 12:38

Just out of interest what is the sector length from JNB to Lubumbashi? I know SAX has a few sectors to Namibia from both CPT and JNB, any plans to replace CRJs on these sectors?

Shrike I think your pretty much spot on about Nationwide in your thinking - they have operated successfully using their more mature aircraft and survived in business when many have come and went. I guess the question is how many people will want to travel on +/-560nm sectors in a turbo prop. I know its faster than most but still......The other thing is of course that with the 737 because its faster you can be more productive - more ASK for a given time.

Interesting I ask my Mom yesterday what would you sooner fly in, jet or prop and she replied jet. When I asked why her first thought was safety followed by comfort. Now she knows about as much as aviation as the journos we all know and love. But the point is here about perceptions.

May be some of our more learned members could shed light on just how important a factor this is from a marketing point of view - not so much on monoploy routes but like GRJ where folks are used to a 737 service.

madherb

21st Jul 2006, 14:54

A few other points to consider - new aircraft are much more fuel-efficient, and emit fewer pollutants than the old tech aircraft; also, they come with warranties, while oldies tend to suffer from 'old aircraft' maladies which cause costly delays. Spares availability gets to be a problem with some older types as well. They certainly are cheap to acquire, but will have to be replaced much sooner. Noisy as all hell as well..........
M

Shrike200

21st Jul 2006, 16:06

Well....they're quiet inside, and that's what counts for me! No propeller vibrations either. I must admit I've never flown in a Q400, just read these and other forum comments, so I don't actually know what they're like, maybe they don't buzz as much as the B1900, for example (not that it buzzes much, just that I'm familiar with it). There was a good debate about ride comfort in them on airliners.net, and jets were preferred there, although they were actually comparing RJ's to the Q400, so space became a consideration then too.

For me, if somebody said choose a plane for Joburg to George and the choices were B732 or Q400, I'd take the B732 anyday, all other things being equal - but if the turboprop is so efficient, surely that must be passed onto the customer somehow, to make them *want* to fly in it? And this is what makes me curious - despite the Q400 being more efficient etc, you *can't* pass any saving on to the customer, because there aren't any just yet, you're too busy paying the initial purchase price! Or doesn't it work like that? I've no idea how this kind of finance is arranged.

I'm sure the average Joe Paxman prefers a jet - but there's a lot of power in offering cheap seats to sway the masses. The only problem is that the seats can't be cheaper, due to the above reason. So, it's a lose lose situation to me. For all the remarks about their age, the B732's actually get off the blocks pretty reliably I reckon.

Again, only in Africa. B732's would probably be shot down in Europe for being so thundery on the way up. Personally, I like the noise, but then I don't have to live next to it!

P.S. How much does a Q400 burn to George, realistically - not at LRC cruise, but at the power settings it's normally operated at?

Q4NVS

21st Jul 2006, 16:26

All about perception, that's 100% correct.

But who cares about perception when you log onto flysax.com, 1time or kulula.com etc. All the pax then look for is the cheapest seat. Ask Flybe.com in UK - one of the biggest Q400 operators in the world and ever expanding.

Sure, as we all know them (the passengers), once they have acquired the cheapest seat ever available, then suddenly, they expect 5 star treatment as well. You just gotta love it.:cool:

As far as I can gather, the Q400 is extremely quiet: Partly due to the propellers spinning at 850 rpm in normal climb/cruise, as well as the ingenious (but simple) Noise and Vibration Supression system.

As previously noted, Fuel Burn is believed to be about 2000kg's or less to George at Max Cruise Power (TAS 360), which is used by SAX. Otherwise I am sure those block times will not be possible.

Sure, the financing is complicated, but as with property (i guess), once you have decided that you can afford it, the you can if you stick to the plan. If you decide to settle your debt in advance, because of increased profit margins, then that is an excellent plan. Think about it, "sooner" you will have an excellent/valuable asset that is paid 4 - Then its just smiling to the bank.:D

Guess that takes a while though...

:ok:

George Tower

22nd Jul 2006, 08:32

My only other question about the Q400 is the Namibian routes +/- 650-700 nm. Has SAX considered the Q400 for these routes. Surely fuel burn will still be less than the CRJ and with another 20 seats available, however will it work with the customers even though it is technically possible?

Q4NVS

22nd Jul 2006, 13:47

Can't say - guess you will have to ask SAX then :rolleyes:

Wrt the customers, I personally do not understand the continuing harping on about them. Sure, if you gave them a picture of each and asked them to choose which aircraft they would like to fly in, then they would possibly choose the 732 instead of Q400.

Hey, ever considered telling them that the one is 30 years old versus the other 3 weeks - not sure they will even believe it, thats how oblivious most are.

Instead, give them a "Cheap" seat and they'll all grab at it like Candy! :sad:

grjplanes

22nd Jul 2006, 17:14

If it went to Lubumbashi on Friday, that explains why the flights was so late, wouldn't that take a bit long?
Today the Q400 flight to George was about 2 and half hours late, does anyone know why this would have been. I don't think it had any other routings for the day, cause all other SAX flights is on time, and there is only one rotation on a Saturday.
Question about ordering more: before replacing other -300s and CRJs on routes, wouldn't it be wiser to first replace the DC-9s on the CPT-PLZ-DUR routing? They would probably then need 3 Q400s for that?

Q4NVS

22nd Jul 2006, 19:32

grjplanes

25th Jul 2006, 19:51

Surely if they can do JNB-GRJ with the Q400, then the shorter CPT-PLZ and DUR-PLZ should also be possible, no altitude either.
But if not, would they stay loyal to Bombardier, are we looking at maybe CRJ-700 or -900?

nugpot

26th Jul 2006, 19:49

The a/c that went to Lubumbashi was actually the first a/c NMO, NMS was pressed into service a day early to take up NMO's flying.

I was impressed though with the time to Lubumbashi - 2hr20, which is not significantly longer than the CRJ. The captain did admit that it was off 03 at JNB and on to 07 at FBM, so no time wasted in terminal areas.

The DC9's are wet-leased and will be replaced shortly with SAX a/c. Crews are already trained and a/c should arrive within weeks.

philby737

27th Jul 2006, 19:15

Won't have anything to do with flights being late, as this was the 2nd (new) Q400, not the 1 currently in revenue service...

It is believed that there are "possibly" more :D aircraft on the way (to replace DC9's) - not necessarily Q400's. :cool:

Keep em pealed :sad:

Quite frankly all this winging about the DC9's and F28's is getting a bit :yuk: . I understand the frustration :mad: of the Sax crew by having their turf operated on by some non-scheduled charter operation, however the fact is they do not have the capacity at present to operate these routes themselves. Maybe they should look at this situation from the other perspective and realise that these CREWS have done much to salvage their reputation in the market place. The crews of these aeroplanes, with the consiberable fewer resourses of Sax, have operated selflessly to achieve one goal, get the flight done in a professional manner , to a standard that meets Sax requirements, if not a higher one, and always with Sax at the top of the agenda. perhaps a little more consideration of the personal sacrifices that these crews have made is warranted and maybe a little more appreciation :D is called for.

nugpot

27th Jul 2006, 21:53

Quite frankly all this winging about the DC9's and F28's is getting a bit :yuk: .

I'm sorry sir/madam. I can't find any post that complained about the DC9's. Most posters were stating the obvious. SAX needs to get its own crews and planes on those routes. No pilot group want a virtual airline operating under their callsigns and colours, and rightly so.

Serviceability aside, I think that the Executive operation was well executed and their cabin crew were top-notch.

Q4NVS

31st Jul 2006, 16:03

Ditto :=

As said by Nugpot, nor can I recall any post aligned with your complaint...

:ok:

philby737

31st Jul 2006, 20:47

Ditto :=

As said by Nugpot, nor can I recall any post aligned with your complaint...

:ok:

It is implied, directly/indirectly by references to the replacement of these aircraft. The disdain that the Sax operators feel toward these operators is well known, and understood. All I am saying is that if their are issues, then they should be directed accordingly.

nugpot

31st Jul 2006, 21:06

It is implied, directly/indirectly by references to the replacement of these aircraft. The disdain that the Sax operators feel toward these operators is well known, and understood. All I am saying is that if their are issues, then they should be directed accordingly.

You are completely mistaken. I have been involved in this process from before the aircraft arrived and have signed on with these crews for 10 months. I have not noticed any ill feelings towards the Executive crews. Please don't project your perceived attitude.

The case for the replacement of the DC9's is a clearcut scope clause issue. SAX management knows that the pilots want to operate those routes with our own aircraft and they have trained all the replacement crews already - to such an extent that we are significantly overcrewed on the CRJ, just waiting for the replacement aircraft to arrive.

The DC9 operation is already 7 months overdue for replacement, and SAX is paying a significant penalty in crew costs and bypass pay.

I say again, there is no disdain for the DC9 crews or their operation. There is only a sense of frustration that our own aircraft have not been able to service our own routes and passengers.

SAX has used Executive before and will use them again. The operation must stop because it affects SAX crews in terms of upgrades and base choice.