End of the the Shorts 360 in Australia (2004)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
End of the the Shorts 360 in Australia (2004)
Sunshine Express Airlines is about to start their fleet replacement programme. Apparently they would like to phase out the Shorts 360 and the Metro 3 by the end of 2004. Both the Shorts and the Metro have passed their used by dates and are becoming costly to maintain.
From what I hear they would like to have a 1 aircraft type fleet. Their options are;
1. Replace the Shorts 360 with a Dash 8 and keep the Metro fleet. Aeromil will supply the Dash 8 (SN.008).
2. Replace both the Shorts and the Metro with a 30+ seat aircraft (E120 or S340).
Option No 2 is the most likely.
In other news, Mac - air have plans to deploy a Saab 340 into NSW next winter. The aircraft will be used on the SYD-OOM route during the winter.
From what I hear they would like to have a 1 aircraft type fleet. Their options are;
1. Replace the Shorts 360 with a Dash 8 and keep the Metro fleet. Aeromil will supply the Dash 8 (SN.008).
2. Replace both the Shorts and the Metro with a 30+ seat aircraft (E120 or S340).
Option No 2 is the most likely.
In other news, Mac - air have plans to deploy a Saab 340 into NSW next winter. The aircraft will be used on the SYD-OOM route during the winter.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must say I am surprised to hear this as SE just bought one of the old Suinstate SH-360s (VH-SUM) and it is currently undergoing fitout and flight testing.
Apparently they will be flying it to Coffs Harbour as Sunstate will stop services to Coffs.
Don't forget your packed lunch (and afternoon tea, and dinner, and supper, and tomorrow's breakfast....)
Apparently they will be flying it to Coffs Harbour as Sunstate will stop services to Coffs.
Don't forget your packed lunch (and afternoon tea, and dinner, and supper, and tomorrow's breakfast....)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blastoid,
You are correct, they have just purchased one of Sunnies old Shorts (VH-SUR), however they will not operate both Shorts at the same time. They have also been operating the BNE-CFS route for a few months now.
You are correct, they have just purchased one of Sunnies old Shorts (VH-SUR), however they will not operate both Shorts at the same time. They have also been operating the BNE-CFS route for a few months now.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: downunder
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both the Shorts and the Metro 3 have had their day. Regional passengers expect and probably deserve better aircraft for their money. The Shorts has given 20 years of good service to regional QLD, but it's time for it to go.
Looking at the positive and negatives of the E120, S340 & Dash 8 from Sunshine Express's point, they are :
E120 Brasilia
Positives
Cheapest of the 3 to purchase. Current values range form $900,000 - $1.7m USD for aircraft built between 1986 - 1991.
Cheapest of the 3 to operate, with DOC's cost's of approx. $700 US/hr. The aircraft is excempt from ERC.
Money maker with only 12 pax.
APU installed.
Low Fuel Burn together with good speed.
Aeromil (the owners of Sunshine) have been dealing with Brasilias for 14 years and are the suppliers of spare parts for the aircraft.
It is the ideal aircraft to replace both the Shorts and the Metro.
Negatives
The smallest cabin out of the 3 and it only seats 30.
Needs about 1600m of runway at MTOW.
No simulator in Australia
Saab 340A
Positives
Current vales range from $1.4 - $2.2 m USD for aircraft built between 1985- 1988.
DOC's are around $800 US/hr
Seats up to 35 with a good sized cabin.
Low fuel burn, just a little more than than the E120.
Possible access to the simulator in MEL.
Requires about 1300-1400m of runway at MTOW.
Excempt from ERC.
Negatives
Parts can be expensive.
Does to to have a few electrical problems.
It is more expansive to purhase compared to the E120.
No APU.
Aircraft maybe to large to replace both the Shorts and the Metro.
It really is only a 30-33 seat aircraft. With 35 pax range is limited.
Dash 8-100
Positives
Large cabin with 36 seats. Passengers like the 2 + 2 seating.
It's seating capacity is the same as the Shorts.
Aeromil already own 1 Dash 8-100.
Great field performance.
Many are fitted with APU's
Possible access to simulator in SYD.
Negatives
The older -100's are getting old and tend to got U/S often.
Highest fuel burn and slowest speed out of the 3 aircraft.
May not have an APU.
It is the most expensive to purchase. Current values for early -100's are $1.5 - $2.4m USD.
DOC's around $900 US/hr.
Aircraft is to large to replace the Metro.
If it is Sunshine's plan to operate only 1 type then the Bras is the way to go. They could replace their 2 Shorts and 2 Metro's with 3 Brasilia's. With 1 type they would have reduced crew costs, (ie would require less Check Pilot's), allow better use of crews etc. Spare cost's would also be reduced.
Looking at the positive and negatives of the E120, S340 & Dash 8 from Sunshine Express's point, they are :
E120 Brasilia
Positives
Cheapest of the 3 to purchase. Current values range form $900,000 - $1.7m USD for aircraft built between 1986 - 1991.
Cheapest of the 3 to operate, with DOC's cost's of approx. $700 US/hr. The aircraft is excempt from ERC.
Money maker with only 12 pax.
APU installed.
Low Fuel Burn together with good speed.
Aeromil (the owners of Sunshine) have been dealing with Brasilias for 14 years and are the suppliers of spare parts for the aircraft.
It is the ideal aircraft to replace both the Shorts and the Metro.
Negatives
The smallest cabin out of the 3 and it only seats 30.
Needs about 1600m of runway at MTOW.
No simulator in Australia
Saab 340A
Positives
Current vales range from $1.4 - $2.2 m USD for aircraft built between 1985- 1988.
DOC's are around $800 US/hr
Seats up to 35 with a good sized cabin.
Low fuel burn, just a little more than than the E120.
Possible access to the simulator in MEL.
Requires about 1300-1400m of runway at MTOW.
Excempt from ERC.
Negatives
Parts can be expensive.
Does to to have a few electrical problems.
It is more expansive to purhase compared to the E120.
No APU.
Aircraft maybe to large to replace both the Shorts and the Metro.
It really is only a 30-33 seat aircraft. With 35 pax range is limited.
Dash 8-100
Positives
Large cabin with 36 seats. Passengers like the 2 + 2 seating.
It's seating capacity is the same as the Shorts.
Aeromil already own 1 Dash 8-100.
Great field performance.
Many are fitted with APU's
Possible access to simulator in SYD.
Negatives
The older -100's are getting old and tend to got U/S often.
Highest fuel burn and slowest speed out of the 3 aircraft.
May not have an APU.
It is the most expensive to purchase. Current values for early -100's are $1.5 - $2.4m USD.
DOC's around $900 US/hr.
Aircraft is to large to replace the Metro.
If it is Sunshine's plan to operate only 1 type then the Bras is the way to go. They could replace their 2 Shorts and 2 Metro's with 3 Brasilia's. With 1 type they would have reduced crew costs, (ie would require less Check Pilot's), allow better use of crews etc. Spare cost's would also be reduced.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alba sor
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOC's
Oz Junglejet, do you happen to know the DOC of the Shorts 360? In the UK it is around $900 US/hr, although this figure is on low utilisation as no aircraft here are used on pax ops anymore.
Just wondering the difference between here and downunder, and if you can give a monthly utilisation figure too, cheers.
Just wondering the difference between here and downunder, and if you can give a monthly utilisation figure too, cheers.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: downunder
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meeb, the DOC's of the Shorts 360 in OZ would be around $750 - $850 US/hour. A few years ago this figure would have been lower when Sunstate operated a fleet of 4 Shorts. The reason the DOC's are high on the Shorts is due to the purchase price of spares and it's very high fuel burn, which is equal to the Dash 8-100, but flying 50-60 knots slower.
bb, you are correct in saying the E120 does not compare with the Metro on the thin routes, but I think you will find the Metro III is starting to become limited on some of these thin routes ie leaving bags behind or the need to block seats. If the route doesn't support a "30 seater" then operate it has a 19 seat aircraft, block the other 11 seats. By doing this you will always get your 19 pax and their bags to their destination, you do not need a Flight Attendant plus the extra weight saved in not selling the other 11 seats could be used to carry extra fuel ie 11 pax at 84kg is an extra 924 kg of fuel, which is a tad over 2 hours fuel in an E120. Buying fuel at country ports is more expansive than city ports, plus the fuel agent at the country port may not be the one your company normally buys fuel from, which generally means the purchase price will be more expansive. ie your company has a deal with Mobil, but the country agent is BP. If you can carry round trip fuel from the city port there will be a big saving for the company, and this is something you can't do in the Metro III.
And like I said in a previous post, savings are also gained in spares ie only need to stock 1 aircraft type , Check and Training pilot numbers reduced ie generally with a small company you would have 2-3 Checkies per aircraft type, so at a guess Sunshine would have 4-6 checkies, this would reduce to 2-3 with 1 aircraft type and a big saving is gained in rostering. You only need to roster for 1 type and you only need reserve coverage for the 1 type not 2, which leads to a reduced number of pilots required.
Look at the LCC's such as Virgin Blue with only 1 aircraft type. Why did Eastern drop their Jetstreams, why did Sunstate drop the Short's and the Twin Otter's? Because it is more efficient to operrate only 1 aircraft type. I'm sure if Eastern and Sunstate were operating E120's or Saab 340's they would still be operating into many of the ports they have given up. The Dash 8, although a great aircraft is just to big for some routes, hense they have been taken over by smaller operators with smaller aircraft.
bb, you are correct in saying the E120 does not compare with the Metro on the thin routes, but I think you will find the Metro III is starting to become limited on some of these thin routes ie leaving bags behind or the need to block seats. If the route doesn't support a "30 seater" then operate it has a 19 seat aircraft, block the other 11 seats. By doing this you will always get your 19 pax and their bags to their destination, you do not need a Flight Attendant plus the extra weight saved in not selling the other 11 seats could be used to carry extra fuel ie 11 pax at 84kg is an extra 924 kg of fuel, which is a tad over 2 hours fuel in an E120. Buying fuel at country ports is more expansive than city ports, plus the fuel agent at the country port may not be the one your company normally buys fuel from, which generally means the purchase price will be more expansive. ie your company has a deal with Mobil, but the country agent is BP. If you can carry round trip fuel from the city port there will be a big saving for the company, and this is something you can't do in the Metro III.
And like I said in a previous post, savings are also gained in spares ie only need to stock 1 aircraft type , Check and Training pilot numbers reduced ie generally with a small company you would have 2-3 Checkies per aircraft type, so at a guess Sunshine would have 4-6 checkies, this would reduce to 2-3 with 1 aircraft type and a big saving is gained in rostering. You only need to roster for 1 type and you only need reserve coverage for the 1 type not 2, which leads to a reduced number of pilots required.
Look at the LCC's such as Virgin Blue with only 1 aircraft type. Why did Eastern drop their Jetstreams, why did Sunstate drop the Short's and the Twin Otter's? Because it is more efficient to operrate only 1 aircraft type. I'm sure if Eastern and Sunstate were operating E120's or Saab 340's they would still be operating into many of the ports they have given up. The Dash 8, although a great aircraft is just to big for some routes, hense they have been taken over by smaller operators with smaller aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OZ Junglejet, I still don't think it stacks up. I've put together a very, very basic look at it. This is generic and not based on SunEx particularly.
A fleet of 3 x Metro 3 flying 4500 hours a year (at approx $600 p.h.) DOC = $2.7m
A fleet of 3 x EMB 120 flying 3850 hours a year (at approx $900 p.h.) DOC = $3.4m
This is excluding crew, insurance, intro costs & leasing. A roughie on leasing would be an additional $15K per month per aircraft. An additional $45K per month. A further $540,000 p.a. over the Metro.
Most regional airlines are on a contract fuel price regardless of location. I don't think the other savings you indicate would offset too much.
Just on these figures this equates to $1.3m per annum. An additional $25K per week. The big question is: Are SunEx offloading more than $25K a week worth of business?
A fleet of 3 x Metro 3 flying 4500 hours a year (at approx $600 p.h.) DOC = $2.7m
A fleet of 3 x EMB 120 flying 3850 hours a year (at approx $900 p.h.) DOC = $3.4m
This is excluding crew, insurance, intro costs & leasing. A roughie on leasing would be an additional $15K per month per aircraft. An additional $45K per month. A further $540,000 p.a. over the Metro.
Most regional airlines are on a contract fuel price regardless of location. I don't think the other savings you indicate would offset too much.
Just on these figures this equates to $1.3m per annum. An additional $25K per week. The big question is: Are SunEx offloading more than $25K a week worth of business?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: downunder
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bb, your figures are good but you did not include the Shorts. You have used 3 Metro's, while Sunshine operate 2 Metro's and 1 Shorts.
So using the same 4500 flight hours per year and split 3 ways we get 1500 hours per aircraft, or 3000 hours in the Metro's and 1500 hours in the Shorts.
2 x Metro @ 3000 hrs/year (at $600 p.h.) DOC= $1.8m
1 X Shorts @ 1500 hrs/year (at $800 p.h) DOC = $1.2m
Total DOC for both types per year = $3.0m
Now 3 x E120 @ 3850 hrs/year (at $800 p.h) DOC =$3.08m
The extra lease cost would only be on 2 aircraft as the Shorts and the E120 lease cost are similar and would already be included in the companies current calculations. 2 x $15k extra per month would be $360,000 per/year.
The total per year extra over the current fleet (2 X Metro, 1 X Shorts) would be $444,000 per year, $36,667 per month, $9167 per week or $1310 per day. If the average 1 way airfare is $150 or $300 return you would only need an extra 4.4 (say 5) passengers per day. So if Sunshine are turning away 5 passengers per day then the E120 might be the way to go.
Once again this does not include the savings gained in less checkies. If the checkies get 10% more than a captain and lets say the base pay for a captain is $50000 the checkies pay would be $55000. If the company current has 1-3 checkies per aircraft type(2-6 in total), this number could be reduced to 2-3 in total and provide a saving of up to $15000 per year. It's not a huge saving, but it is a saving.
With regard to fuel, companies will only have a fixed cost on their fuel price if it is purchased from their primary supplier ie BP. If the out port is Mobil, they maybe able to negotiate a lower price than "joe public" buys it at, but it will still won't be at the same price they pay for it from their primary supplier. A small regional or large charter company may pay 40-60 cents/ ltr from their primary supplier, but it fuel is purchased from another supplier than this it could cost them 60 cents - $1.00 /ltr. Qantas regionals may have a fixed price at all their ports, but this is due to Qantas's purchasing power. Smaller companies don't have this luxury.
If the company had to purchase fuel at the out port everyday, and they only fly this route once per day with at total distance between A and B of 240nm or 480 nm return. Using block fuel burn only (no reserve's) the Metro burns apporx 700 lbs/hr or 391 lts/hr with a Tas 240 kts. On the flight from A - B would take 1 hour and the fuel cost (fuel price @ 40c /ltr) for this sector would be $156.40. On the return flight (also 1 hour) B-A (fuel price 60c /ltr) the fuel cost would be $234.60. Total cost for the return trip would be $391.00 If you operate an E120 on the same return flight using a burn of 900 lbs/hr or 502 lts/hr and a TAS of 260 kts. The return flight would take 1.9 hours and if the fuel is purchased at A (@ 40c /ltr) the total fuel cost for the return flight would be $381.52 or approx $10 less per trip than the Metro. If the same flight was done in the Shorts with a fuel burn/hr of 1100 lbs and a TAS of 190 kts the return flight would take 2.5 hours. With the Shorts carrying return fuel (@ 40c /ltr)the total fuel cost would be $614.52, which is $233 more per trip than the E120. So the total fuel costs per year on this route for each aircraft would be:
Metro: $142,715
E120: $139,255
Shorts: $224,300
So although the E120 and the Metro are similar there is a big difference is between the Shorts and the Metro.
So using the same 4500 flight hours per year and split 3 ways we get 1500 hours per aircraft, or 3000 hours in the Metro's and 1500 hours in the Shorts.
2 x Metro @ 3000 hrs/year (at $600 p.h.) DOC= $1.8m
1 X Shorts @ 1500 hrs/year (at $800 p.h) DOC = $1.2m
Total DOC for both types per year = $3.0m
Now 3 x E120 @ 3850 hrs/year (at $800 p.h) DOC =$3.08m
The extra lease cost would only be on 2 aircraft as the Shorts and the E120 lease cost are similar and would already be included in the companies current calculations. 2 x $15k extra per month would be $360,000 per/year.
The total per year extra over the current fleet (2 X Metro, 1 X Shorts) would be $444,000 per year, $36,667 per month, $9167 per week or $1310 per day. If the average 1 way airfare is $150 or $300 return you would only need an extra 4.4 (say 5) passengers per day. So if Sunshine are turning away 5 passengers per day then the E120 might be the way to go.
Once again this does not include the savings gained in less checkies. If the checkies get 10% more than a captain and lets say the base pay for a captain is $50000 the checkies pay would be $55000. If the company current has 1-3 checkies per aircraft type(2-6 in total), this number could be reduced to 2-3 in total and provide a saving of up to $15000 per year. It's not a huge saving, but it is a saving.
With regard to fuel, companies will only have a fixed cost on their fuel price if it is purchased from their primary supplier ie BP. If the out port is Mobil, they maybe able to negotiate a lower price than "joe public" buys it at, but it will still won't be at the same price they pay for it from their primary supplier. A small regional or large charter company may pay 40-60 cents/ ltr from their primary supplier, but it fuel is purchased from another supplier than this it could cost them 60 cents - $1.00 /ltr. Qantas regionals may have a fixed price at all their ports, but this is due to Qantas's purchasing power. Smaller companies don't have this luxury.
If the company had to purchase fuel at the out port everyday, and they only fly this route once per day with at total distance between A and B of 240nm or 480 nm return. Using block fuel burn only (no reserve's) the Metro burns apporx 700 lbs/hr or 391 lts/hr with a Tas 240 kts. On the flight from A - B would take 1 hour and the fuel cost (fuel price @ 40c /ltr) for this sector would be $156.40. On the return flight (also 1 hour) B-A (fuel price 60c /ltr) the fuel cost would be $234.60. Total cost for the return trip would be $391.00 If you operate an E120 on the same return flight using a burn of 900 lbs/hr or 502 lts/hr and a TAS of 260 kts. The return flight would take 1.9 hours and if the fuel is purchased at A (@ 40c /ltr) the total fuel cost for the return flight would be $381.52 or approx $10 less per trip than the Metro. If the same flight was done in the Shorts with a fuel burn/hr of 1100 lbs and a TAS of 190 kts the return flight would take 2.5 hours. With the Shorts carrying return fuel (@ 40c /ltr)the total fuel cost would be $614.52, which is $233 more per trip than the E120. So the total fuel costs per year on this route for each aircraft would be:
Metro: $142,715
E120: $139,255
Shorts: $224,300
So although the E120 and the Metro are similar there is a big difference is between the Shorts and the Metro.
Last edited by OZ Junglejet; 1st Dec 2003 at 09:09.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can debate all you like which aircraft is better, but the only aircraft this company will ever operate are aircraft owned by Aeromil. If Aeromil doesn't own it then they won't operate it. Another requirement is for the aircraft to be old, worn out and not required by any other company. Just look at the types they have operated. First there was the Bandit, then the Shorts 360 arrived and finally the Metro lll entered the picture. All three aircraft are perfect for any regional if the year was 1983 and not 2003.
