Wass-goin-on Guv ??? [Archive]

Bally Heck

16th Jul 2001, 16:13

Guvnor

Still not convinced you are for real....but if you are...

The Tristar is a nice aircraft and nostalgia has it's place....but.

Why start an airline with an aircraft where flight deck crew costs, fuel costs and maintenance costs are fifty per cent greater than the 767 or A 300/310.

Those fifty per cents add up to a very very large amount of money. Witness the fact that all the major airlines and most of the minor airlines consider it past it's sell by date and uneconomical to operate.

I also think it's maybe a bit big for testing the market on a relatively small catchment area.

With the best will in the world, I don't think I would invest under those conditions or leave a secure job to fly them.

I do wish you success (if you are real) and I hope it works. Me? I'd fork out for the increased leasing costs of a twin jet and make a profit. (or a smaller loss)

The Guvnor

18th Jul 2001, 16:24

Ballyheck: if you want a rundown of L1011 economics vs more 'modern' aircraft, check out the following figures from the US DOT:
http://www.celticairways.com/L1011econ.html

As you can see, the longbody L1011 250 is streets ahead of everything else!

This is due to:

1) Much lower capital costs: you can buy every L1011 in existence for the cost of a single B777!

2) The argument about 2 vs 3 flight deck crews is an interesting one... with an FE, you can fly much longer without additional crew members (which gets very expensive in the case of 2 crew ops).

3) Maintenance costs are lower for the L1011: manhour requirements are higher and parts are a lot cheaper. 'Modern' aircraft require lower manhours spent on them (within the first few years of life); that goes up steeply thereafter and the parts are very, very expensive!!

4) Fuel burn: the RB211 524B4Is burn 15 to 20% less than a CF50C2.

5) From the pax point of view, an L1011 offers a much smoother ride; better cabin comfort through the renewal of cabin air every 3 minutes ('modern' aircraft recirculate air for the whole flight); and the cabins are usually pressurised to a lower level.

As for going for twins rather than trijets, the pax prefer to have as many engines as possible and don't forget either that ETOPS certification has to be earned for new carriers.

Finally, as for carriers in small markets: what about the success (at least untill they got into a p!ssing match with Austrian Airlines) of Lauda Air?? :D :D :D

Desk Driver

18th Jul 2001, 17:49

So Guv how come the 767, 777 & A330 seem to be so popular. Can that many airlines be that wrong? :rolleyes:

Bally Heck

18th Jul 2001, 22:39

Gov

To take your points one by one

1) Interesting, but irrelevant.

2) This statement is kind of self defeating. The sectors you are planning are well within two crew range and yes it does get very expensive with three crew whether the additional guy is pilot or an engineer.

3) Not sure how you work that one out. You have an extra engine which means engine maintenance is 50% higher. Also the engines have much less life in them so replacement costs (in the first few years) will be much higher. When the "modern" aircraft are no longer modern they will be on a par with the L1011 today as far as maintenance is concerned.

4) "the RB211 524B4Is burn 15 to 20% less than a CF50C2" Maybe so but you have three engines burning 80% still comes to 240% compared to two engines burning 200%.

5) Have to say that I totally disagree with this one. Smoother ride...If your in turbulence, your in turbulence. If you are not then the ride on any big jet is smooth.

Cabin air quality, I refer you to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cabinair/index.html. Another urban myth crashes and burns.

Your point about ETOPS clearance being earned is a fair one although I think it is an engineering hurdle rather than an operational one. The operational requirements are not too onerous JAR-OPS 1.246. The engineering approval is a bit trickier but is you use a organisation which holds approval then this shouldn't be a problem.

Lauda Air have never operated L1011s. They do operate 767-300ERs. Source... [URL=http://www.laudaair.com/e/ueberuns/geschichte/index.asp.]http://www.laudaair.com/e/ueberuns/geschichte/index.asp.[/ URL]

Now finally I had a look at you web site for L1011 economics. I don't know too much about most of your figures so I will give you the benefit of the doubt except for navigation charges (greater for almost every other type than the L1011) I was under the impression that the charges were based on MTOW.

And the nail in the coffin.

Your fuel figures as far as I can deduce are based on a fuel price of 20c per litre. The best price I can find on the net (after an addmitedly cursory browse) is 67c per litre.

This puts your DOC for the 2000 mile trip up to $145000. For a 767-300ER it is $128000.

DOC per seat, $152 and $128 respectively.

I await with bated breath.

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: Bally Heck ]

A7E Driver

18th Jul 2001, 23:55

Does that mean you don't want to invest Bally?

Niaga Dessip

19th Jul 2001, 00:57

Great stuff boys - this is the thread that makes this board the best show in town :p

Niaga Dessip

19th Jul 2001, 01:09

....then again I do only come from a very small town... :D

411A

19th Jul 2001, 10:18

Desk Driver--
The MAIN reason large profitable airlines in the USA purchase new aircraft is that, under US tax rules and regulations, the depreciation period for new aircraft is over twice as long as used types.
Bean counters, as we all should know, have a very large say in the operation.
For small start-up carriers, pre-owned types make much more sense due to much lower capital cost.

Evanelpus

19th Jul 2001, 17:29

So Guv, What is happening about your proposed start up operation?

You have avoided the question like a true politician again and again. Is it ON or OFF?

Chocks Wahay

19th Jul 2001, 19:22

Boeing's website says this about cabin air:

"All Boeing jetliners, from the earliest to the latest, have been designed to deliver approximately the same cubic volume of air per minute per passenger. The principal difference is that on newer aircraft, the air is a mixture of about 50 percent outside air and 50 percent filtered/recirculated air. Among the benefits of this design is an increased humidity level compared to the much dryer cabin environment in older jetliners"

DrSyn

19th Jul 2001, 19:25

In addition to Bally H's observations, I must add that the fuel figures quoted seem to be rather odd. Having flown 767s from the earliest -200s registered in Europe to the latest -300s, all models used versions and developments of the CF6-80 (other operators use RBs & PWs). The CF6-50 (which I assume you meant, Guv) was fitted to DC10s which are not involved here, and hence are not up for comparison.

Each development of the CF6-80 that I have flown has resulted in an increase in thrust and a reduction in specific fuel consumption.

As fuel has become the largest DOC in the past couple of years, the following may be of interest (with thanks to dispatch).

This morning, L1011-200 LGW-YQX - 360 pax - TET: 4:55 - FBO: 44 k Kg (97 k Lb) = 8950 Kg/hr, or 24.8 Kg/pax/hr. If flown by 767-300, same route, (328 pax), TET: 5:05 - FBO: 25.5 k Kg (56.1 k Lb) = 5020 Kg/hr, or 15.3 Kg/pax/hr..

Now, whichever model we're talking about, that puts the L1011 fuel/pax/hr hugely (60%+) above that of the 767. Even with the additional 32 pax, that's an awful lot of maintenance and spares before you draw even! Where the 20% "less" comes from, I simply cannot see. [Figures for the A330, anyone? - The 777 has yet to enter the IT Charter market, so is not really relevant]

As a fellow Gatbasher I nonetheless continue to wish you well in your endeavours, Guv.

sky9

19th Jul 2001, 19:56

Guv;

It seems to boil down to: If its so good, why in a free market is it so cheap?

It's the same as talk. As we all know, posting on this BB costs nothing. In the meantime we all eagerly wait and wait and wait for the airline (and Danny waits for the advertising revenue).
:rolleyes:

The Guvnor

19th Jul 2001, 22:11

Bally Heck - the most important point in my last email (the fact that the capital cost of an L1011 is zip) you dismiss as irrelevant! :eek:

I'd like to see you do PIK-LAX with one crew (or SFB or FLL) in a 767 or A330 with a single crew ... :D

The figures, as it says on the site, are US 1998 DOT results, hence the low fuel prices. The current prices we're using for our projections are confidential, but I can say that the average figure for the route structure is under US$1/USG.

And as for the cabin air issue, 50% recycled air is still bad news; and I understand in the case of Airbuses it's 100%?

My point about Lauda Air was in reference to them being a small company operating in a small market, which you brought up. I'm fully aware they have never operated L1011s!!

Finally, the reason I compared the L1011 with the DC10 is that it is its closest peer - the B767s and A330s are considerably more modern.

DrSyn - if you check with dispatch, I suspect you'll find that your L1011-200 has RB211-524B02 engines (though with your fuel figures, it looks more like a -22B burn!). The aircraft we're looking at have RB211-524B4I engines, which have about 10% better overall fuel burn. The figures we're using are provided by DL and are well under 8 tonnes per hour on a sector like LGW-YQX. PIK-YYZ is planned at 7828kg/hr average burn, for example.

Your biggest differential is on the finance costs. Assuming you have a new B767-300, you'll be paying around US$1.2 million per month for it regardless if it flies 1 hour or 350. We, on the other hand, would have an L1011-500 that at worst would cost US$3m capital (including the cost of D Check and cabin refurbishment) - equivalent to approximately $50k/month for a reasonably rapid pay-down. In the event of an economic downturn/recession, you'll appreciate that we can park our aircraft without too much difficulty - but the owner of a new B767-300 is going to find himself in deep financial water in very short order.

Add to that the CAA requirement for three months expenses (assuming nil income) in cash at startup, and you'll see why startups are better off with older, cheaper aircraft.

Sky 9 - The L1011s are cheap because the market generally acts like a herd of sheep. We've seen it with the Convairs; we've seen it with the DC10-40s; and we've seen it with RR powered B767s (and to a lesser extent the RR powered B747s). We also saw it in the early/mid 1980s with the value of B707s - they dropped down to nothing before people realised that they still provided good lift at minimal price. I'm convinced that the same is true of the L1011s - where else can you get 300+ seaters for (relatively) pennies ... and with Stage IV engines as well?

The build quality of the L1011 is immesurably superior to anything produced today, and the design life is such that the aircraft we're looking at will be capable of operating another twenty years before any extension is needed. Properly - and I stress, properly - maintained, they will give trouble free service for a very long time.

Where people have fallen down with the L1011 in the past is largely due to the fact that it is such a good aircraft. Its system redundancy means that many operators will continue operating the aircraft whilst the primary systems are out - rather than fixing the problem on its return to base, as it was designed for.

Evanelpus - yes. Happy? :D :D :D

DrSyn

20th Jul 2001, 05:06

I promised myself I wouldn't make another entry on this thread - This is it!

I am still not sure that I recall the DC-10 entering the forum until my suggestion about the "CF50C2". However, whether or not my quote related to a -22B or a -B4I, it still seems like a lot of juice (>50%) for a small increase in pax, assuming the catchment area can provide them all, of course.

No doubt there is a sound economic reason why you compare the "old" TriStar with a "new" 767, when the latter has second-hand variants available (but, not in such numbers, I grant you!). Buy big sell cheap has, however, worked successfully in other industries.

Two-pilot ops from UK to (eg) FLL, SFB/MCO and even YYC happen on a daily basis. LAX is indeed too far.

In my experience, it has been a whille since most charter pax knew how many engines were fitted :) - Try asking who they flew with on hols next time you're in the pub. Half won't be able to tell you! Bottom line at the travel shop is what sells most seats.

With several majors apparently preparing their shareholders for "less than optimum" news, perhaps Guv's got the right economic answer and fuel is not the problem, after all.

I look forward to quaffing a beer with you again and continue to wish you good luck!

Bally Heck

20th Jul 2001, 11:32

Hello Guv.

Good(ish) answer.

If you can get fuel for that price…good luck. Further research (off the internet) has revealed that the company I employ to own aircraft for me to fly obtain fuel for that sort of price. They do spend over £100,000,000 each year on fuel though, so have a certain amount of bargaining power. I suppose if you are operating a L1011 you will be in the same bargaining league :D

The cabin air issue won't go away will it. Quote from Boeing. “This high quantity of supply air results in a complete cabin air exchange about every two and one-half minutes, or about 25 air changes per hour”

Also I don't believe the L1011 is fitted with ozone filters. Quote from Boeing "If this concentration of ozone were introduced into the cabin (refers to atmospheric ozone plumes encountered in flight), passengers and crew could experience any of the following symptoms: some chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath, fatigue, headaches, nasal congestion, and eye irritation. These are typical symptoms of high ozone exposure.

As Dr Syn points out SFB and MCO are well within the range of a 767. LAX is admittedly close to the edge with a full load. Not for a 330 though.

You may be on the right track Guv. I just can't avoid the impression that your love of the L1011 is blinding you to it's faults and to the advantages of other types.

For example..."Where people have fallen down with the L1011 in the past is largely due to the fact that it is such a good aircraft"

Please....how would those people have fared if it had been a bad aircraft?

The Guvnor

20th Jul 2001, 12:27

DrSyn - quaffing beer is indeed a good idea - and I too look forward to the next time! :D :D

Bally Heck - I started my career with Laker; and before that most of my pax flights were on BCal's DC10s to West Africa. I was therefore a hardline DC10 supporter. However, as I learnt more about the L1011 in the late 80s due to a couple of deals I was involved with, I became very impressed with the aircraft (especially the -500s). I've also talked with numerous pilots, engineers and managers responsible for them; all of whom wax lyrical about it - more so than any other type.

I'm having problems with your cabin air figures. The L1011 does 100% air exchange every three minutes - yet Boeing aircraft, which only do a 50% air exchange, do a complete exchange every 2.5 minutes? Surely something wrong there ... I've referred this to my CFE for comment, along with the ozone filter question, which I don't know the answer to.

That said, I'd have thought that the symptoms described would be more likely to be the effects of recirculating the same air ... and breathing everyone elses coughs, sneezes and diseases! :D :D :D

As for your last point - if you want to know what a 'bad' aircraft is like, try asking anyone who operates a B767, B777, A330 etc ... according to Delta, the L1011s would merrily do multiple sectors before coming back for maintenance. Their newest aircraft, if they are lucky, can just manage a round trip. This, according to other operators of new aircraft that I've spoken to, is symptomatic of the 'new' generation of jets.

Bally Heck

21st Jul 2001, 03:36

Guv

Here's the cabin air link
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cabinair/ecs.pdf

You (or(Delta) do modern types a great diservice by casting aspersions on their reliablity. Or maybe Delta just don't treat em right.

My company operate 767s and it's little sister 24 hours per day and have few technical problems.

For the last few years they have carried tens of thousands of pilgrims to Mecca with 4, 8 and 12 hour sectors with a better dispatch rate than any other operator or type on this massive operation. (including Tristars)

This is in no small part due to the aircraft being maintained to the highest standards by some of the best engineers in the business.

And in no small part to it being a very reliable aeroplane.

I don't doubt that this applies to any commercial jetliner as if this was not the case, the manufacturer would soon find very few customers beating a path to their door.

The point is that a trijet has a high fuel consumption and fuel prices are very volatile. A middle east war could put you out of business overnight.

A "previously enjoyed" A310 would do the same job for not much more capital and a greatly reduce fuel burn. And if you get an old enough model, you could even have an engineer! :eek:

411A

21st Jul 2001, 05:09

I wonder, could one actually squeeze 400 pax in an A310, like you can in a standard body TriStar? Straps from the ceiling, like a subway coach, perhaps?

BTB

21st Jul 2001, 20:38

Hello Flinty and Hoppy. Miss flying with you flippin gingerbeers. 2 man, 2 engine, too bad! And hoppy, the answer is Bloemfontain.

SunSeaSandfly

22nd Jul 2001, 05:35

Bally
In turbulence, there is a difference! What one type will report as light chop, another will call moderate. Of the four jet types I have flown, the L-1011-500 is the hands down winner.Handling is great too.

Active controls (ACS) and direct lift control (DLC) make both cruise and approach turbulence much less uncomfortable.

The second best handling ( but not riding) aircraft I flew was also a Lockheed, the L-188.

Good on yer, skunkworks, when are you going to build a viable SST?

airbourne

22nd Jul 2001, 07:31

And this airline will start when? Just like a politician! Cant get a straight answer! WHEN??? GIVE US A DATE!!!

innuendo

23rd Jul 2001, 01:22

Airbourne, it might start when the Guv devotes some time to the enterprise rather than to posting on PPrune. 2271 posts in 25 months is 3 per day on average.

Celtic Emerald

23rd Jul 2001, 01:53

Are ya's are all a load of dirty divils so ya's are LOL ;)

Whay else is PPRuNe for if not for blowing alot of hot air :)

Airbourne are you offering your services to celebrate the opening of this phantom airline or whah?????? You may have quite a wait on your hands but we want some real headbanging music please.

Give us a break Guv :rolleyes:

Emerald

Big Kahuna Burger

23rd Jul 2001, 04:23

<<The MAIN reason large profitable airlines in the USA purchase new aircraft is that, under US tax rules and regulations, the depreciation period for new aircraft is over twice as long as used types.>>

411a
Yet more absolute dros, just for a change eh....
Never heard anything more stupid in my life.

411A

23rd Jul 2001, 05:27

BigKahunaBurger---
See you are from the UK and therefore most likely know nothing about US tax regulations.
So, some enlightenment will be provided, FOC.
If an airline purchases a new aircraft, it is assigned a depreciation schedule and over a period of years (for example 15) it is depreciated to a residual value. The entire depreciation is decuctable for tax purposes, directly reducing taxable income. Meanwhile, the airline benefits from the new equipment (less maintenance, lower fuel burn, generally lower operating costs).
Expensive new aircraft purchased equals large tax benefits.
At the end of the depreciation period, a new aircraft is purchased and the cycle repeats.
From a financial point of view, this is quite advantageous. This requires an airline with a rather good credit rating.
Leasing is even better (in some cases) allowing the airline to keep its fleet relatively young while at the same time benefiting from lower operating costs of new(er) equipment while retaining the benefits of deducting the full lease amount from taxable income. Large leasing companies such as International Lease-Finance and GE Capital make buckets of money in the process, a win-win situation.
I have kept this relatively simple so that even you might hope to understand.

The Guvnor

23rd Jul 2001, 12:40

Big Kahuna Burger - as you're obviously a CPA, we don't need to tell you about stuff such as the UCC or ASA, do we? :D :D :D

411A is quite correct (as usual). You can't just take an arbitrary term to use for depreciation - it's set out in the standard accounting code. A new aircraft can be depreciated over 15 - 20 years (depending on type; in general smaller aircraft have shorter depreciation terms); and in the case of older aircraft such as the L1011s we can depreciate the book acquisition cost over an agreed term (usually 3-5 years or the working life if less) plus any additional work carried out on the aircraft over its working life (ie a an annual C check counts as an operating expense as it lasts a year; whereas a D check would be depreciated over the five years or so it lasts for).

Don't forget, either, that the depreciation allowances are only really effective if you have profits to write them off against. This is why it's very rare for startups to buy new aircraft (jetBlue is about the only one I can think of except for EVA Air - and they used the Evergreen tax base). On the other hand, most of the big lessors are owned by major financial services companies such as ILFC (owned by AIG) and GECAS (owned by GE) which have huge amounts of cash surpluses and profits they need to offset.

Airbourne - when the time is right - we've got recessions/economic downturns on at the moment, which are bad news for any startups...

Innuendo / Celtic Emerald - I didn't start this thread ... I'm just responding to it. And at 3 posts a day, each taking around 5 minutes to do, I'm still left with 23h 45m per day. More than ample to do what I have to do! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

mutt

23rd Jul 2001, 13:16

I'm amazed that this topic has remained "civil", does this mean that we have finally gotten rid of Freeboot et al?

Mutt :)

Flap Sup

23rd Jul 2001, 19:33

C'mon guys.

Guv, you have my respects, whether your airline ever starts or not. The fact that you try is enough. The rest of this sorry bunch (yours truly included) sits around on our sorry butts, preaching what others should or should not do, only a few takes action.
We should support curage like that.

As impressed as I am with your work, just as amazed am I with your choice of AC. Do you think that you'll have enough pax to fill a charterconfigured -200 from PIK/GLA/EDI? Wouldnt a smaller AC fit the GLA area better (A310, B762/3 or L1011-500)??
rgds FS

The Guvnor

23rd Jul 2001, 20:08

Mutt - I know that Freeboot (in his Who?) guise is indeed around, but I suspect that he's sticking to the main forums ... the 'search' function or whatever he uses to keep track of what I post has obviously malfunctioned! :D :D :D

We're not going to be using charter configured aircraft - instead, we'll be doing the opposite with the fleet (mainly) consisting of L1011-500s with J at 60 inch pitch and Y at 36 inches; and providing a very upmarket service.

As I said earlier on this thread, the upmarket, quality approach worked well for Lauda Air which also operates from a country with a very small domestic market. There's no reason for us not to suppose that we can also attract pax (fed in by FR) from locations other than PIK.

Well, that's the theory, anyway!! :D ;) :p

Hunter58

23rd Jul 2001, 23:21

Well, theoretically you could, as the freighter variant runs with a max. payload of approx. 40t (at a 100 kgs per pax = 400 pax). but I doubt that they would find it comfortable being palletized!!! ;) .

Door limitation is 279, but then your Range goes down the drain. Also it is not very easy to find a 164-Version these days (referring to MTOW!!!) that wants to be sold.

Oh, and a slight correction: the A310 does only have 2-man cockpit. Some early versions of te A300s have 3 man required, but the A310 was built form scratch with 2 guys in the front office. Airbus later integrated the A310 cockpit into the A300-600.

Guv
I just hope you'll be able to make it work. As discussed before, I doubt that the TriStar will work, but we never want to forget that Air Atlantic (formerly Atlantique, much nicer name) operates a bunch of vey old aircraft wuite successfully.

My three-holer has no s-duct at the end!

Captain Airclues

24th Jul 2001, 02:00

Didn't Court Line operate the Tristar in 400 seat configuration?

Airclues

Bally Heck

24th Jul 2001, 02:02

SunSeaSandfly

Must beg to differ there old boy. Y'see it all depends whether ye come from east or west of 40W. If you come from west of 40W you will spend the entire trip across the oggin soliciting or responding to solicitations for "ride reports"

No but seriously folks, an aircrafts reaction to light to moderate turbulence is a function (I think) of wing loading, and not date of manufacture.

In severe turbulence it's more whether you can read the instruments or maintain your assigned level within 500ft.
:eek:

The Guvnor

24th Jul 2001, 12:30

Airclues - quite right: both Court Line and BA had double width aft doors which allwed them to carry approximately 50 pax more than the standard aircraft. Caledonian's aircraft - now sitting at GAMCO in AUH - are in a 393Y configuration.

Boss Raptor

24th Jul 2001, 15:24

Whilst discussion of the business plan is of course relevant as many people will no doubt echo the tendency in the industry particularly with regard to financing a start up tends to be the credibility and track record of the principal and or their associates and their acceptance within the banking industry as good risks...

Unfortunately the technical merits of the aircraft/business plan tends to be a secondary factor in my experience...

However good the business plan is if the individual has no, or worse still a poor track record then whether it is a Tristar or a Saturn rocket becomes very much academic...

The principal is the key...after all no one would want to work for or trust one who was a fraud, running from debt etc. etc or perhaps worse! :eek:

newswatcher

24th Jul 2001, 19:52

There is some good Tristar info on:

http://flytristar.tripod.com

and a "Court Line" summary on:

http://www.zoomoon.co.uk/courtline.html

:D :D

Celtic Emerald

25th Jul 2001, 11:09

Guv

I was wondering were you recruiting for your airline yet cause I’d like to apply for a position in your newly formed airline as chief galley rat. That way I can be ideally positioned to take a bite, chew or nibble out of the first pilot I take me fancy to. :) I have a slight tremble in both hands & I tend to spill hot drinks over people but I’m sure that can remain a little secret between us & a slight little oversight that can be overlooked :D

While were at it I think I’ll caste Captain Airclues, my favourite captain xxx (or should I say Lord Airclues he seems to have gained a peerage in the meantime) as chief training pilot/pilot.

Airbourne can be your chief marketing manager & head of inflight entertainment (no headbanging music please) & Mutt your chief ground manager (sorry mate not letting you near the controls yet)

Boss Raptor can be your chief of operations and being the suspicious divil that he is the chief of the treasury ;)

Flap Sup your chief adoring & naïve secretary.

There now quite a motley crew at your service, I can send you my CV if you want :)

Tristars, aren’t they the aircraft that used to be leased by EI from Caledonian, great aircraft they are. Flew from Dub to Shannon in one once, nearly had to be revived by O2 when we landed, thank Jasus & me lucky stars I wasn’t flying over the pond in it :eek: . Wasn’t there a case where it landed in the UK on route to Dublin just after being leased & they couldn’t get airbourne again. As I said great aircraft they are :rolleyes:

Always at your service

Emerald

[ 25 July 2001: Message edited by: Celtic Emerald ]

raitfaiter

25th Jul 2001, 14:35

Having just seen the Tristars in AUH I suggest that 'rotting' would be more apposite. Surely there can't be that much of a market from PIK anyway? (before you start on catchment areas guv, lets talk about the actual MARKET!) :D

raitfaiter

25th Jul 2001, 21:22

Won'tthe old L1011 require major avionics upgrading to fly in European airspace within a couple of years (ie GPS). Notwithstanding company proving RVSM skin waviness etc. And as for kapton wiring problems in old tristars.....don'teven go there...please :eek:

411A

25th Jul 2001, 22:38

Some TriStars are fitted with GPS units already, and the CADC and autoflight system requires no changes to comply with RVSM. Skin mapping is required of course, along with a pitot mast upgrade. Cost 'round about $40,000.

GlueBall

26th Jul 2001, 00:00

A flexible lease commensurate with financial performance, ie: Sustained loadfactor and sustained Scottish market share, of 2 new 767s would definitely be more dependable and viable than it would be to refurbish old TriStars.

The early generation RB 524s are maintenance intensive, especially sensitive to vibration. These 3 spool motors are not as dependable as the twin spool CF6s on the Diesel 10. I don't believe that those -524s can do more than 2000 hours on the wing.
But because these birds are so cheap to buy, it's possible to keep 2 spare ships in operational readiness at each side of the Atlantic.

The Guvnor

26th Jul 2001, 04:02

Stop Start - I was at GAMCO a few weeks back and the Caledonian L1011s are fine - the Blue Scandinavian one has been earmarked as a counter-terrorism training ship; and the Air Lanka aircraft are in the process of being broken up, having been bought by Air Transat a year ago for spares.

Kapton is not a problem in the L1011s, according to the documentation I have and the discussions I had with LMSC 10 days ago.

RVSM, TCAS II, 8.33 MHz spacing, FM Immunity etc forecast at under US$100k per aircraft including installation.

Glueball - the aircraft we're looking at are powered by the latest version RB211-524B4Is, which have much improved fuel burn; little vibration due to new blade technology; long TBOs and cool hot sections.

Fuel burn advantage over the CF6-50C2 is, as I have stated, some 15 - 20%. Try up to 13,000 hours on wing (Delta's figures).

We could buy and refurb all of the Delta L1011s for the cost of a single new B767 - plus we don't have the ETOPS certification and maintenance problems (which was what caused Excel to lease in their ex BY 767s from Air Atlanta). Route structure we're looking at requires minimum of six and preferrably seven aircraft - again, we can do it viably with cheap lift and probably couldn't make it work with expensive aircraft.

Operating principle is simple - I can run lots of L10s at 150 - 200 hours per month average utilisation including their higher fuel burn for less than a similar level of utilisation with lower fuel burns with new aircraft (eg 767s). 767 owners are looking for 300 - 350 hours per month guaranteed utilisation per aircraft.

You're right about the back-up aircraft, though! :D :D :D

[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]

411A

26th Jul 2001, 04:49

Even SV in the mid-eightys averaged 4800 hours on wing with the "old style" -524B02 in the sandy desert.

raitfaiter

27th Jul 2001, 20:44

Now I know you've got an MBA guv...(Master Bull**** Artist)...anyone who isn't worried about arc tracking in kapton wiring in old aircraft, (and they are very old aircraft)..needs help or better technical advice. :rolleyes:

The Guvnor

27th Jul 2001, 23:12

Stop Start - I suggest you do a search on Kapton - you'll find that I'm one of the most fervent advocates against the stuff! The reality of the matter is that there have been no instances of problems with it on the L1011. I've sat down with both LMSC and Delta and gone over this issue thoroughly - and I have to say I've been impressed by their prevention programme. (Unlike that on the DC10/MD11/747!!)

Now, this thread has been so far rather civilised ... do you mind terribly if we keep it that way, please? :D :eek: :rolleyes:

airbourne

1st Aug 2001, 23:17

Hmm Marketing Manager of an imaginary airline? Sounds good! When do I start?

In reality, Guv has being talking about this for how long??? long before I join pprune anyway. Isint it about time that we all got sense and stopped using valuable thread space talking about this 'project' ive been there and it cant take that long! Mind you it sounds like a good 'story'

The Guvnor

2nd Aug 2001, 01:04

Airbourne - before you have a snicker at my expense, how many airlines have you started up, exactly? This will be my third. Or three and a half, if you really want to nit-pick!

I've been working on this for exactly 19 months now. Southwest Airlines, probably the most consistently successful airline around, took nearly three years to get up and running; and Laker's Skytrain took almost four years.

Even Virgin Atlantic - including its previous guise as British Atlantic - took over three years!

If I was you, I'd take a leaf out of the barrister's book: never ask a question that you don't know the answer to! :D :D :D

airbourne

2nd Aug 2001, 05:22

Guv,

Personally I dont know why im replying to your comment, (must be the alcohol)

For someone who spends so much time 'setting up an airline' you probably spend just as much time here copying and pasteing material you find in the newspapers. But hey, thats your life! In the 20 months that Ive been a member of this board I and many other members of pprune have yet to see anything except talk... excuse me bullcrap coming out of your mouth. Shall we bring up the newspapers stories again or the stories from Delta, or the fact that no-one in PIK knows what your up to!!.... And they never heard of you in SNN either!!

As regards to my experience or knowledge within the business, I havnt set up any airlines and frankly Im not getting into it with you! Those who know me, know what Im talking about and I dont need to offer information.

So if I go down to PIK next weekend are you gonna be the one sitting on top of his lada with a flask of tea, box of ham sandwiches, binoculars and scanner in hand ready to start tugging off to the sight of an old L1011 coming in!!?? Get a life mate, you can continue to spread your ideas here but Im sure the majority know what your all about!

There is loads more I'd love to question you about and your work ethics and I havnt got the patience to list them all out!

The Guvnor

2nd Aug 2001, 10:35

Airbourne - if you'd ever set up any sort of a business, you'd know that the majority of the time you're sitting around twidding your thumbs waiting for other people's input without which you can't move forward to the next stage.

As for the newspaper stories ... there was (unsought) coverage in seven papers - including a couple of Irish ones. Only one of them was in any way negative (Sunday Mail) and that was proven to have originated from our old friend Freeboot/Who?.

The majority of times I post are outside normal working hours - for example, it's now 0730. As for my work ethic, I'm rather stunned at that :eek: :rolleyes: ... I generally work at least a 12 hour - and often 18 hour day. How much do you put in? :D

As for no-one knowing what I'm up to at either PIK or SNN (which is no longer on the cards, btw - and hasn't been for a year now) then you're obviously talking to the cleaner's assistant's deputy. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:.