New Rpt To Kgc

[Deejay 1]

Congratulations to Air South Regional commencing a new 4 times a day Titan
RPT ADL - KGC, Tuesday 13 Feb.

Timings appear to be very good, so hats off to them.

Timing of launch also very good, as this weekend is KI Cup Carnival a very busy time for the Island.

It is based out of the GA terminal with word being that they want to try adn emulate the old pre Airnorth Emu Airways style of service ie check-in for day trippers 10 mins prior etc etc.
No mention of Islander/Resident fares yet, be interesting to see if they go down that path, commercially they would be mad if they did methinks.
Fares also seem to be reasonable too.

One wonders where to next.

Rock on!

[Captahab]

??
13 Feb 2008 eh, that should give them plenty of time to get ready.


Ahab

[Deejay 1]

Aye Cap'n

It's not for 2008 me hearty, it's for 2007!

13 Feb in 2008 is Wednesday, so naturally the Tuesday prior would be the 12th!

Anyway good luck to them!

Rock on!

Deejay 1

[A37575]

RPT Services. With an old twin that can barely obtain a positive rate of climb if an engine fails at lift off. Best of luck to the passengers on hot day!

[23 Metros In a Row]

Given that Rex provides 5 return flights a day using Saab340 equipment, and 6 on Friday, Air South have obviously got a tax problem.
A 9 seat 1976 model Cessna Titan really cannot provide the level of service and safety that anyone wants.
And yes, in 1972 a Cessna Titan DEMONSTRATED a positive rate of climb at MTOW in the clean configuration with critical engine inoperative below 5000 feet, at ISA, in the TEST environment, with a TEST pilot who knew what he was doing, and what was needed for certification. The aircraft Air South operate are now 35 years on from that date, and are definitely not flown by people of the calibre of Cessna's certification test pilot team.
To say this is going back ten years is an understatement.

[gaunty]

I simply dont believe it.:{ Back to the future yet again.:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Chadzat]

Good to see Ppruners being so positive again. :rolleyes:

Perhaps the aircraft type and/or schedules have been put in place just to get the service up and running? Its not impossible to change around schedules and aircraft types later down the track to suit the route.

Rex has the monopoly on a lot of routes here in SA so good luck to them.

[Jawz]

23 metros, a375 and gaunty.

What are you on about? Tell me http://www.skytrans.com.au have had it wrong for the last so many years and that it dont get hot in Cairns????

And then there is http://www.airtasmania.com.au/

Seems to me it would be alot easier to fill 9 seats and make money than say 30 or so?

But i bet you guys could do it better :rolleyes:

Good luck Air South.:D

[cunninglinguist]

In the good old days ( only just over a decade ago ) the island had Kendells, Air KI, Emu and Albatross, the latter 3 with 2-3 return flights a day.
Wot happened to all the traffic :confused:

[areal]

Southern Sky MK 2 ?
:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Deejay 1]

JAWZ

It's KSC - depends. IATA call it KGC, which is what appears on a "ticket", and is the travel industry standard. Even East West Loco down in sunny Tassie would call it that. Plane drivers and ASA call it KSC.
Can you please point to a web site that lists "YOUR" codes.

CUNNO

A ferry company called Sealink I reckon is what happened. Frequency, price (yes they are the most expensive ferry trip per nautical mile in the world) but with "cheaper" up front fares, resident fares and with the increase in costs for aviation - fuel, maintenance, Air Services and I don't read too many stories about pilots wanting LESS money, suggests that the cost of flying has increased disproportionately to ferry travel.

Given that Sealink have a signed-by-the-state-government-monopoly over the route ie the cheapest distance on sea is the shortest distance from one bit of land to another, they are unlikely to EVER see real competition unlike the airlines, which would test them.
And lets not forget that Sealink tried their own airline using an Airnorth leased Shorts to try and gain via vertical integration. Did it work? No.

The Island is a nightmare with regards to aircraft cycles, fares, the passengers (amazing how many would take back a KFC bucket still with food in it to eat - food poisoning? Nah rock solid guts down there!), those early morning fogs, lack of ILS, excess baggage, the freight and mail, water samples, etc etc etc.

JETA_OK

They might not have a spare Bandit to throw down there.
Agree that 9 seats easier to fill, although with fares of around $100 one way, they would need to have a load factor of min 80% to cover the hourly cost, suggesting that as in the B1900 Emu days, freight was the go.
One wonders if any "assistance" has been provided to ensure that SA's Tourism Icon is readily accessible for international visitors.

But it AirSouth can make a go of it, then good on 'em.

Rock On!

[bushy]

Who says they are "clapped out"
Who says our pilots cannot get book performance out of them?? They should not be licenced if they cannot.
If the other companies cannot stand the competition maybe they should not be there. This seems to be a commercial issue rather than a safety one. With this sort of thinking we are heading back to the 1950's, with monopolies, high fares and limited services. And a few protected operators.
Let them have a go. If the public do not like it the market will sort it out.

It is insulting to say our pilots cannot get book performance out of these aeroplanes.
Are the turboprop pilots able to get book performance out of theirs, or are they substsndard too?

I smell an aeroplane salesman.

[gaunty]

bushy

before you start smelling out aircraft salesmen, and I am still to understand your problem with them, you should educate yourself on the difference between modern public transport standards and air taxi services.

Yes Titan or King Air will both, competently flown and maintained, produce book figures, BUT there are NO "book figures" for proper EFATO Transport Category operations for either or ANY aircraft <5700kg. Aircraft salesmen Boeing, Airbus or Piper Tripacer can't change that simple fact.

Were our regulator up to speed, and they are getting there, they would proscribe the use of the word "airline" to any thing that was not Transport Category and clearly define the Commuter <5700kg differences to the passengers and let them make the choice.

This was why I was a vehement protester to the ill conceived attempts at a new Part 121A and Part 121B. :rolleyes:

JetA_OK whatever.:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[23 Metros In a Row]

Gaunty
Interested to know your thoughts of the "best" break between the new proposed 121 operations and the lower compliance requirements of Part 135.
Some of the industry seems to think that the line in the sand should be above 19 seats, and all that sails below should be relegated to 135 ops; all above Part 121 OPS.
Some think that an operation of a nine seat aircraft, regardless of its power, in "air taxi operation" - (read current low cap single pilot piston rpt) is indeed a 135 operation - air taxi - and hardly air transport category. Probably true.
Is a 19 seat, Rex Metro 23, two crew operation a part 135 operation? It would not be, as they in this case would be 121. But as a result you could have two types in the same market under different compliance standards offering what the public may consider the same product.
To make it really difficult, a 14 seat bandit or caravan operation would fit into lower compliant Part 135 air taxi. Seems there be no limitations proposed that would determine how to protect the great unwashed????

[gaunty]

23 Metros In a Row
Mate up to my ar$e in alligators at the moment, all positive stuff but stuff that needs to be attended to.

Your question is fundamental to the whole issue of PUBLIC TRANSPORT, where do you draw the line and probably deserves a thread in its own right.

My fundamental objection to the proposed 121A/B was that the application of a Transport Category (Airline) Reg was misleading in that it implied Transport Category (FAR25) certification, maintenance, performance and operations for <5700kg aircraft when it was patently not possible albeit they were aligning training and maintenance standards.

I am also a champion of Part 135 ops as the logical extension of the FAR suite. This cover all weight (yes up to B747) and certification categories in regard to the aircraft use and makes clear the difference between "airline" and "air/taxi or on demand charter". I would oppose putting a weight limit on Part 135 as it would then be as confusing as a Part 121B.

You are right it gets difficult for RPT when you go under 19 pax because then you fall out of the commuter category protection. It was a bit simpler in the in the old Reg 203 exemption "commuter/third level airline" days for passengers to recognise where they sat (figuratively speaking :p ).

FIFO operations have not been properly brought under control, although anyone who ignores the WA Coroners recommendation in this regard is flirting with financial catastrophy.

We need not go over the SFAR32/42 thing again.:E
Some think that an operation of a nine seat aircraft, regardless of its power, in "air taxi operation" - (read current low cap single pilot piston rpt) is indeed a 135 operation - air taxi - and hardly air transport category. Probably true. exactly, single/multi piston/turbine/single-two pilot all same all same. Basically anything <5700 kg vis a vis FAR23.

Problem here is that the Cessna Mustang, some of the CitationJets and the VLJs are certified FAR23 but have FAR 25 performance and it is the only performance information available in the manual.

Maybe we need, for the modern aircraft anyway, to step outside the simple weight issue and categorise the aircraft not on the basis of weight but FAR23 v FAR 25 performance. When these Regs were created it was to separate littleuns from public transport airline biguns for the public benefit no one could have foreseen the Williams engine and VLJ et al.

IMHO the public are of the perception that if the operator has "airline" in the name and/or is approved for "airline" operations, or has "turbine engines/2 pirates, then the aircraft meets the same standard of operation as an airline.

That is IMHO is the starting point.

The other consideration and that was what prompted my remark at the beginninng of the thread is that from where I sit and observe the multi engine piston types are fading out of operation even faster than the owners imagine.

I watched 3 Senators and MHR and a couple of very senior Public Servants step out of a multi piston the other day, aircraft/pilot OK as is the org, they are using them because that is all their budget will allow.

Why the low budget, because each year they have to tell the Budget office what their travel might be with a cost, someone rings up gets the lowest quote and that becomes the fixed budget. When the quoting is on, everyone cuts the guts out of everyone else hence the race to the bottom with the oldest and cheapest. Then the pollies wonder why next year their fave operator isn't there anymore. The Govt system actually rewards cheapo operators.

There is an answer to the above scenario but I have other fish to fry for the moment. Alligators call.

I'll try and find it but Bruce Byron published a seminal paper on this very subject, I think I've posted it here, when I get a moment I'll see if I can find it.