Air Nelsons Future
Confectionary Transfer Technician
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South Island
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard that all or jsut about all have got on, with 2 gorund courses being run, one in the near fuuture - I think a month or so & then one nearer the end of the year
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that it is between the DHC-8Q300, ATR 42, and Saab 340 B's?? Is this the case, any others being considered??
What about the Air Nelson boys... what are you all hoping for and why?? I mean sure you're still probably hoping for Saab 2000's but realistically if it is out of these types... what would be the 'pilot's' one??
What about the Air Nelson boys... what are you all hoping for and why?? I mean sure you're still probably hoping for Saab 2000's but realistically if it is out of these types... what would be the 'pilot's' one??
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh really, and perhaps you could enlighten us with your choice of 30-50 seat regional T/P?
I think most pilots would prefer the Dash? My money's changed from ATR to Saab 340B+ (after the long haul fleet anouncement).
I think most pilots would prefer the Dash? My money's changed from ATR to Saab 340B+ (after the long haul fleet anouncement).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Anywhere I want
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to change the topic bit....
Had a chat with a guy who knows a mate who had a chat with a senior person in AirNZ recently, who mentioned about 100 pilots to be hired in the next 18 months.
So who cares what they (Air Nelson) get. But it won't be a jet..
But whatever it is, it will stand you in good stead.
Get those CV's in....
Had a chat with a guy who knows a mate who had a chat with a senior person in AirNZ recently, who mentioned about 100 pilots to be hired in the next 18 months.
So who cares what they (Air Nelson) get. But it won't be a jet..
But whatever it is, it will stand you in good stead.
Get those CV's in....
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Auckland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who really cares ! As long as there is some fox hound in the back to close the door and feed the maggots...........(and warm your bed when the swampas are few and far between!)
If you are really fussed about the type perhaps you should be flying for an organisation who's aircraft don't have autopilots.....
If you are really fussed about the type perhaps you should be flying for an organisation who's aircraft don't have autopilots.....
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK then.
Dornier 328
SAAB 2000
Q400
... all of which are fast, efficient and cost-effective. Decent flight deck too, with VNAV, EGPWS, and so on.
No real reason to restrict the choice to turboprops - airlines around the world are ditching them in favour of jets - so:
Embraer 145
CRJ
Dornier 328Jet
... and so on.
The DHC-8Q300, ATR 42, and Saab 340 B's are all old technology, and not as efficient as the ones mentioned above.
I haven't flown a turboprop for years, but my pick of the bunch would be the Q400 from an efficiency standpoint, and the Do328 from a fun viewpoint.
Dornier 328
SAAB 2000
Q400
... all of which are fast, efficient and cost-effective. Decent flight deck too, with VNAV, EGPWS, and so on.
No real reason to restrict the choice to turboprops - airlines around the world are ditching them in favour of jets - so:
Embraer 145
CRJ
Dornier 328Jet
... and so on.
The DHC-8Q300, ATR 42, and Saab 340 B's are all old technology, and not as efficient as the ones mentioned above.
I haven't flown a turboprop for years, but my pick of the bunch would be the Q400 from an efficiency standpoint, and the Do328 from a fun viewpoint.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Anywhere I want
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The small regional airports and short sector lengths that Air Nelson does, doesn't lend itself to jet ops.
145 was looked at when it was just starting, too sticky on the ground.
CRJ, yeah, right!
D 328. Yup, good kit and short field perf., but again not economical with the short hops done, OK on the longer sectors of which there are about 3 or 4.
Bring on the 2000.
145 was looked at when it was just starting, too sticky on the ground.
CRJ, yeah, right!
D 328. Yup, good kit and short field perf., but again not economical with the short hops done, OK on the longer sectors of which there are about 3 or 4.
Bring on the 2000.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many Euro airlines are now using the 145 for short hops (40 mins or thereabouts), and find it economical. It isn't a ground gripper if you don't fill it up with gas - in any case, hard to see many airports that it would be likely to serve, where runway length is a problem.
Not sure why you think the 328 is les economical than the SAAB 2000 - it most definitely is not. Ask Crossair/Islandflug.
I see you completely failed to mention the Q400, which in terms of operating specifics, beats the old-school Q300/ATR/340 hands down. It has lower pax-per-seat-mile specifics than the 737.
Not sure why you think the 328 is les economical than the SAAB 2000 - it most definitely is not. Ask Crossair/Islandflug.
I see you completely failed to mention the Q400, which in terms of operating specifics, beats the old-school Q300/ATR/340 hands down. It has lower pax-per-seat-mile specifics than the 737.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
The Saab 2000 has been all but ruled out due to it's lack of efficiency - how the 328 compares to that is niether here nor there.
The reason CT7 probibly didn't mention the Q400 is the 70 seats inside - perhaps a good option for MC when they want to replace the ATR 72s, but not in the ball park for RLK.
As for jets - not really a concideration, any operational benifits are far outweighed by capital outlay/leasing cost.
I see not one of your sugestions for a 30-50 seat aircraft actually fits in that size range.
The Saab 2000 has been all but ruled out due to it's lack of efficiency - how the 328 compares to that is niether here nor there.
The reason CT7 probibly didn't mention the Q400 is the 70 seats inside - perhaps a good option for MC when they want to replace the ATR 72s, but not in the ball park for RLK.
As for jets - not really a concideration, any operational benifits are far outweighed by capital outlay/leasing cost.
I see not one of your sugestions for a 30-50 seat aircraft actually fits in that size range.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Anywhere I want
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason I didn't mention the Dash series is that I know next to nothing about them. Other than SAS had major (electronic) troubles with the -400 when they introduced them after the 2000 left.
Some of the airfields are 1300m in length.
My thoughts, the 340B or B+ due to $$$. Then re-look in 3-4 years.
The -42 would allow seamless training for two fleets (if MC could accept that!) and the various benefits that fleet (almost) commonality would allow.
Or heck, the combination (light touch paper and stand well clear!!) of the two companies.
Who knows. Just as long as they keep passing into Air NZ!!
Some of the airfields are 1300m in length.
My thoughts, the 340B or B+ due to $$$. Then re-look in 3-4 years.
The -42 would allow seamless training for two fleets (if MC could accept that!) and the various benefits that fleet (almost) commonality would allow.
Or heck, the combination (light touch paper and stand well clear!!) of the two companies.
Who knows. Just as long as they keep passing into Air NZ!!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok well let me enlighten you then.
The Q400 is actually cheaper to operate than the Q300 is - if you don't believe me, ask Bombardier! That is of course based on their lease rates and a comparable load factor. It is also quieter, much faster, and more fuel-efficient.
Why would you want to operate a 40 seater, when you can operate a 70 seater for similar dollars? How about freight, or the ability to stimulate growth on the route by using those extra seats for low-fare tickets? In other words, how about being a bit creative.
I was working for an airline with the Q400 in the UK, and after the initial problems SAS had (all long since sorted out), they were great. When I left, despatch reliability was 99.8%, and had been for some months. The Dash -200 and -300 fleet was being returned to Bombardier as rapidly as possible, because we found the Q400 was a far more economical proposition.
They regularly operate, full, out of London City (Docklands), and that is 1200 m long with a 5.5 degree glideslope, and a very testing departure profile.
The Do328 is at least as efficient as any of the aircraft being discussed as replacements, and is a hell of a lot faster, too. That is why it is so popular in Europe. It has, as the Q400 does, an active noise cancellation system in the cabin.
Both those aircraft will give you near-jet perfromance at a very low cost. The Q400, if I recall correctly, cruises at about M0.70. A 737 in economy cruise is doing about M0.72 (as is a 146 going flat out).
I'd rather fly any of the aircraft I mentioned, than doggy, noisy old 340s or ATR's.
The Q400 is actually cheaper to operate than the Q300 is - if you don't believe me, ask Bombardier! That is of course based on their lease rates and a comparable load factor. It is also quieter, much faster, and more fuel-efficient.
Why would you want to operate a 40 seater, when you can operate a 70 seater for similar dollars? How about freight, or the ability to stimulate growth on the route by using those extra seats for low-fare tickets? In other words, how about being a bit creative.
I was working for an airline with the Q400 in the UK, and after the initial problems SAS had (all long since sorted out), they were great. When I left, despatch reliability was 99.8%, and had been for some months. The Dash -200 and -300 fleet was being returned to Bombardier as rapidly as possible, because we found the Q400 was a far more economical proposition.
They regularly operate, full, out of London City (Docklands), and that is 1200 m long with a 5.5 degree glideslope, and a very testing departure profile.
The Do328 is at least as efficient as any of the aircraft being discussed as replacements, and is a hell of a lot faster, too. That is why it is so popular in Europe. It has, as the Q400 does, an active noise cancellation system in the cabin.
Both those aircraft will give you near-jet perfromance at a very low cost. The Q400, if I recall correctly, cruises at about M0.70. A 737 in economy cruise is doing about M0.72 (as is a 146 going flat out).
I'd rather fly any of the aircraft I mentioned, than doggy, noisy old 340s or ATR's.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Anywhere I want
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ta.
I'm sure the boys would like the -400, but they're not the ones with the $$$.
Plus with a 70 odd seater company already (MC with -72's) I can't see air Nsn getting them when they try to promote themselves at the 50 seat chaps.
Knowing the D8-100 and it's forerunners, I'm sure a postage stamp has ample room for them to operate..
Thanks for the heads-up.
Oh, Jet connect cruise at about m.77 and Air NZ at m.75 depending on allowances and things to do at home!
I'm sure the boys would like the -400, but they're not the ones with the $$$.
Plus with a 70 odd seater company already (MC with -72's) I can't see air Nsn getting them when they try to promote themselves at the 50 seat chaps.
Knowing the D8-100 and it's forerunners, I'm sure a postage stamp has ample room for them to operate..
Thanks for the heads-up.
Oh, Jet connect cruise at about m.77 and Air NZ at m.75 depending on allowances and things to do at home!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, well the LoCos in Europe are (or were) generally cruising slower to save fuel, and because it doesn't make a lot of difference on a typical 1-1.5 hour sector. Of course, if they were late... well... 