Let's all kick the cr@p of the Metro thread
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: melbourne
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
m23
from a customer service point of view the m23 was a workhorse during my 5 yr stint at KD during the 1990's. cant remember how many times we sent a m23 to BWT instead of a U/S sf3. also working at an outport I never left a bag or cargo behind even with 19 pax in the middle of summer with deduced payload. from MEL-MGB i still prefer the m23 over the j31 even though the cabin is slightly larger on the j31. the seat pitch on the m23 is good, i am 6ft and have no worries during my 10yrs as a staff pax. a couple of probs with the m23 are the p.a. system which is diffucult to hear and the aircon.... a bit slow.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have flown the Metro (2500 hrs), the B1900 (2000 hrs), the 340 (1000 hrs) and the ATR42 (300). Although most of my turboprop time was on the Metro, i have to say it was the best. It did the job time after time, and even though at times it was a bitch to start, once going..... it was a joy to fly.
Now when flying an aircraft that is fly by wire, I still enjoy it..... but I enjoy it more when the guy/girl next to you has flown the mighty Metro, because it (like PNG), is a topic that one can reminisce about on a 14hr trip. This particular type has the habit of reminding us what it was like to fly a real aeroplane. One that was built like a brick and (especially in icing) flew like one.
Now when flying an aircraft that is fly by wire, I still enjoy it..... but I enjoy it more when the guy/girl next to you has flown the mighty Metro, because it (like PNG), is a topic that one can reminisce about on a 14hr trip. This particular type has the habit of reminding us what it was like to fly a real aeroplane. One that was built like a brick and (especially in icing) flew like one.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The metro is the most popular 19 seater - why?
Lower fuel burn (2/3rds of the B1900D), lower price, versatility (very quick to turn it into an excellent freighter) and reasonable speed. Last time I looked most commutter CEO's were not complete idiots and they bought nearly 1100 of them.
I flew Metro 3 / 23's for 5 years, and Twatters, Bandits, Saabs etc before moving onto jets. And have heard many Metro jokes but must admit the old pencil is still a force in the market, while the J31, Bandit are all but gone and Saab is fading fast.
No they are not perfect, a bit noisey (for a 19 seater but same as a jokestream) and the engines require mechanics with a few clues. But quite simply they are a success and as another poster said - the 23 will be around for a long time yet...
J31's are all but in the scrap yard (About the price of a nice Chieftain)and were never comparable (slow, a pain to load, inadequate boot space, etc) and the J32 still has those probs but is a couple of knots faster than the 31 (ie still gets licked by metros). Pommie crap! The only 19 seater that ever beat it was the B1900D but at such a high price (both purchase and operating) that many operators don't consider them an option.
Quite simply the SA227 (especially 3H & 23) has: range, payload, versatility, lower costs and reasonable speed.
"Nightwatch" I agree, I also now fly FBW jets and when I look back I must admit the Metro could be a handful, but very satisfying once you got it nailed (and not everyone could). Rather like an old sportscar. I will always have respect for experienced Metro CPT's, especially for those flying them into short fields or icing condx.
Sales figures might indicate something...
Lower fuel burn (2/3rds of the B1900D), lower price, versatility (very quick to turn it into an excellent freighter) and reasonable speed. Last time I looked most commutter CEO's were not complete idiots and they bought nearly 1100 of them.
I flew Metro 3 / 23's for 5 years, and Twatters, Bandits, Saabs etc before moving onto jets. And have heard many Metro jokes but must admit the old pencil is still a force in the market, while the J31, Bandit are all but gone and Saab is fading fast.
No they are not perfect, a bit noisey (for a 19 seater but same as a jokestream) and the engines require mechanics with a few clues. But quite simply they are a success and as another poster said - the 23 will be around for a long time yet...
J31's are all but in the scrap yard (About the price of a nice Chieftain)and were never comparable (slow, a pain to load, inadequate boot space, etc) and the J32 still has those probs but is a couple of knots faster than the 31 (ie still gets licked by metros). Pommie crap! The only 19 seater that ever beat it was the B1900D but at such a high price (both purchase and operating) that many operators don't consider them an option.
Quite simply the SA227 (especially 3H & 23) has: range, payload, versatility, lower costs and reasonable speed.
"Nightwatch" I agree, I also now fly FBW jets and when I look back I must admit the Metro could be a handful, but very satisfying once you got it nailed (and not everyone could). Rather like an old sportscar. I will always have respect for experienced Metro CPT's, especially for those flying them into short fields or icing condx.
Sales figures might indicate something...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ONLY reason that the Metro is popular is that it is CHEAP.
The J31/32 is far from gone, look beyond the boundaries of Australia. Whilst you are doing that, stop to consider why there are virtually no Metros in Europe.
It's easy to go fast if you build your aircraft light and with a small frontal area. That is why lots of Metros really are scrapped when they reach the end of a relatively short career - they are lightly built and don't last the distance (ISTR that most if not all of Air Nelsons Metros were cut up when they replaced them).
You also sacrifice pax comfort by making the fuselage so small. You can stand up in a J31/32.
Sales figures only tell you that airlines in OZ and the US buy aircraft based solely on cost. Other airlines buy on the basis of quality and comfort, because over a one hour sector, the difference in speed is pretty much meaningless.
You can keep 'em... uncomfortable and fragile. No thanks. At least the Brits build their aircraft to last (which is why you won't find many J31/32s in scrapyards, keeping all the Metros company).
It is also interesting that Fairchild were seriously considering doing a Metro with a "stand-up" cabin, but discovered that as soon as you do that, you lose all the advantages and end up with an aircraft less capable than the J31 or B1900. They stopped building all Metros instead.
And finally, well-designed aircraft (in this class) are not hard to fly. If they are, then a design failure has occured. The Metro is aerodynamically wanting. It really needs a bunch of extra surfaces on it, like the 1900. Needing an AoA indicator in an aircraft of this class is ridiculous.
The J31/32 is far from gone, look beyond the boundaries of Australia. Whilst you are doing that, stop to consider why there are virtually no Metros in Europe.
It's easy to go fast if you build your aircraft light and with a small frontal area. That is why lots of Metros really are scrapped when they reach the end of a relatively short career - they are lightly built and don't last the distance (ISTR that most if not all of Air Nelsons Metros were cut up when they replaced them).
You also sacrifice pax comfort by making the fuselage so small. You can stand up in a J31/32.
Sales figures only tell you that airlines in OZ and the US buy aircraft based solely on cost. Other airlines buy on the basis of quality and comfort, because over a one hour sector, the difference in speed is pretty much meaningless.
You can keep 'em... uncomfortable and fragile. No thanks. At least the Brits build their aircraft to last (which is why you won't find many J31/32s in scrapyards, keeping all the Metros company).
It is also interesting that Fairchild were seriously considering doing a Metro with a "stand-up" cabin, but discovered that as soon as you do that, you lose all the advantages and end up with an aircraft less capable than the J31 or B1900. They stopped building all Metros instead.
And finally, well-designed aircraft (in this class) are not hard to fly. If they are, then a design failure has occured. The Metro is aerodynamically wanting. It really needs a bunch of extra surfaces on it, like the 1900. Needing an AoA indicator in an aircraft of this class is ridiculous.
Last edited by MOR; 6th Sep 2005 at 06:21.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melboune
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
We are talking about Australia, Australian conditions and Australian markets.
Thats why no consideration is given to Eastern Block equipment.....cause it does not work here.
As for your comment, that "because over a one hour sector, the difference in speed is pretty much meaningless" clearly demonstrates your business knowledge is lets say a little thin.
On sectors over an hour, Speed is everything.......operator and passenger.
Air Nelson did not cut up all their Metro's. I do know that for a fact.
The only Metro's in the scrap yards are Metro II's. Again, I do know that for a fact. Not too many Metro III or '23's in boneyards....well not that I can find.
J31/32 might have a use in parts of the aviation world. But mate, it is a bit like a macintosh and bowler hat, not much good down 'ere where it don't rain much and it is more than 15.5 degrees on a summers day.
And no, Fairchild did not can the Metro because it could not justify a stand up cabin. For the full explaination of the cessation of Metro 23 production (and B1900D and J32 and.......) we can refer to the Gospel according to Gaunty.......
We are talking about Australia, Australian conditions and Australian markets.
Thats why no consideration is given to Eastern Block equipment.....cause it does not work here.
As for your comment, that "because over a one hour sector, the difference in speed is pretty much meaningless" clearly demonstrates your business knowledge is lets say a little thin.
On sectors over an hour, Speed is everything.......operator and passenger.
Air Nelson did not cut up all their Metro's. I do know that for a fact.
The only Metro's in the scrap yards are Metro II's. Again, I do know that for a fact. Not too many Metro III or '23's in boneyards....well not that I can find.
J31/32 might have a use in parts of the aviation world. But mate, it is a bit like a macintosh and bowler hat, not much good down 'ere where it don't rain much and it is more than 15.5 degrees on a summers day.
And no, Fairchild did not can the Metro because it could not justify a stand up cabin. For the full explaination of the cessation of Metro 23 production (and B1900D and J32 and.......) we can refer to the Gospel according to Gaunty.......
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes well there is a difference between sectors of an hour, and sectors over an hour. What do you think the difference is over an hour? With the Metro II or III there is little difference. With the 23 there is a 30 knot difference, so over an hour that is 30 nm, at cruise speed that takes about 8 mins. Add traffic into the equation and the difference in sector times could favour either aircraft. One thing is for sure, if the Metro takes off behind the J32, it will never get past it if they are both going to the same destination - not enough time to get the required separation, even using different levels.
If you think that the aforementioned 8 minutes makes any commercial difference, it is your business knowledge that is somewhat lacking. The ability to stand up in the cabin without being bent over, and the provision of a toilet and a galley, are far more commercially attractive than a few minutes off the flight time, particularly when that time advantage may very well be nullified by terminal area congestion.
BAe did design a variant on the J32 for hot climates, it used water meth to enhance takeoff performance and is still used in parts of Africa. In recent years, BAe have offered the EP package which further improves hot and high performance.
Anyway, it is clearly your favourite plane, so just carry on with your defence of the very cramped little commuter. Whatever floats your boat.
If you think that the aforementioned 8 minutes makes any commercial difference, it is your business knowledge that is somewhat lacking. The ability to stand up in the cabin without being bent over, and the provision of a toilet and a galley, are far more commercially attractive than a few minutes off the flight time, particularly when that time advantage may very well be nullified by terminal area congestion.
BAe did design a variant on the J32 for hot climates, it used water meth to enhance takeoff performance and is still used in parts of Africa. In recent years, BAe have offered the EP package which further improves hot and high performance.
Anyway, it is clearly your favourite plane, so just carry on with your defence of the very cramped little commuter. Whatever floats your boat.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
MOR..good man!!!..at least 23 didnt take a pop at the 146..or it could've been pistols at dawn!
Seriously though..they dont call them fright tubes for nothing now do they...and to be honest I cant remember the last time a J31/32 broke up in flight (lost a good mate in the Air Post crash)
Anyway..what would I know..(dont answer that)
Seriously though..they dont call them fright tubes for nothing now do they...and to be honest I cant remember the last time a J31/32 broke up in flight (lost a good mate in the Air Post crash)
Anyway..what would I know..(dont answer that)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haughtney old bean...!!
Maybe you know about fumes incidents in 757's... was having a fun time with that in R&N until it all got "moderated" out of existence.
The main problem with the Metro is that it was designed by Ed Swearingen purely for speed. He was prepared to live with all sorts of design compromises in the quest for that goal. His approach was similar to that of John Thorpe, who designed the Fletcher ag planes. He took the view that an aircraft design should start out just strong enough to keep the rain out, and that strength should then be added to the areas that fail during testing. You end up with a structure that is just strong enough to do the job.
The Brits, on the other hand, don't tend to build their aircraft to a "life" (or to a price, which is what it really is). That is why very few (modern) British aircraft have ever been lost to structural failure, which is relatively common in some US designs.
Anyway... pointless argument. We know better, right...???
Maybe you know about fumes incidents in 757's... was having a fun time with that in R&N until it all got "moderated" out of existence.
The main problem with the Metro is that it was designed by Ed Swearingen purely for speed. He was prepared to live with all sorts of design compromises in the quest for that goal. His approach was similar to that of John Thorpe, who designed the Fletcher ag planes. He took the view that an aircraft design should start out just strong enough to keep the rain out, and that strength should then be added to the areas that fail during testing. You end up with a structure that is just strong enough to do the job.
The Brits, on the other hand, don't tend to build their aircraft to a "life" (or to a price, which is what it really is). That is why very few (modern) British aircraft have ever been lost to structural failure, which is relatively common in some US designs.
Anyway... pointless argument. We know better, right...???
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look it all comes down to the facts....
There are 68 Metros in Oz (II's, III's and 23's), 8 1900's (C and D) and last of all the wost selling of the lot (word wide) the J31/32..... brace yourself because it's a huge number...... 6!!!
The numbers speak for themselves....
There are 68 Metros in Oz (II's, III's and 23's), 8 1900's (C and D) and last of all the wost selling of the lot (word wide) the J31/32..... brace yourself because it's a huge number...... 6!!!
The numbers speak for themselves....
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Night Watch" I agree. It goes beyond mere figures...
Not much problem to sell / lease a good used Metro 3H / 23 but BAE tries all sorts of deals to shift J31/32's. There are reasons for that... (IMHO perhaps its that they are operationally ****e and were rejected by the market.). The B1900D is a great 19 seater except for one BIG thing - too expensive to be profitable in most scenarios and last time I looked aviation was a business...
Some poster claimed the Metro was "lightly built". Strange given the J32 and Metro 23 have very similar EW and MTOW and the high hours they reach in service in a variety of environments. Besides having flown various 19 seaters (inc Metro) for many years I know LAMES who worked on both Jokestreams and Metros, they felt the J31/32 was crap. A hangar Queen and difficult to work on. Hardly surprising - ever worked on a Mini, Maxi, Landrover? (Should have downed tools after the Spitfire?) Same poster claims in 1 hour a Metro won't catch a J31/32 - bollocks! I did so many times in NZ. Its not just CRZ speed where a Jokestream gets wasted by a Metro. As for his "23 knots" difference between a 3 and 23 - again rubbish (having been both a M23 and 3 CPT for years). But then this same guy told me in a post I didn't get an NZ to OZ ATPL without exams! (could have fooled me!).
Reminds me of those who defended the DH Dragon Rapide against the dominance of the DC3 years ago out of nothing more than anachronistic UK loyalty. What a joke!
Not much problem to sell / lease a good used Metro 3H / 23 but BAE tries all sorts of deals to shift J31/32's. There are reasons for that... (IMHO perhaps its that they are operationally ****e and were rejected by the market.). The B1900D is a great 19 seater except for one BIG thing - too expensive to be profitable in most scenarios and last time I looked aviation was a business...
Some poster claimed the Metro was "lightly built". Strange given the J32 and Metro 23 have very similar EW and MTOW and the high hours they reach in service in a variety of environments. Besides having flown various 19 seaters (inc Metro) for many years I know LAMES who worked on both Jokestreams and Metros, they felt the J31/32 was crap. A hangar Queen and difficult to work on. Hardly surprising - ever worked on a Mini, Maxi, Landrover? (Should have downed tools after the Spitfire?) Same poster claims in 1 hour a Metro won't catch a J31/32 - bollocks! I did so many times in NZ. Its not just CRZ speed where a Jokestream gets wasted by a Metro. As for his "23 knots" difference between a 3 and 23 - again rubbish (having been both a M23 and 3 CPT for years). But then this same guy told me in a post I didn't get an NZ to OZ ATPL without exams! (could have fooled me!).
Reminds me of those who defended the DH Dragon Rapide against the dominance of the DC3 years ago out of nothing more than anachronistic UK loyalty. What a joke!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melboune
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry MOR, but a few points need consideration.
Eight minutes (on your numbers) per sector does not make a difference???? What the?
Consider that 8 minutes per sector is around 15%. So arguably one type is 15% more or less efficient than the other.
Considering the margins regionals must operate within, 15% is somewhat relevant.
Eight minutes per one hour sector. Or 30 nm per one hour sector (again on your math). Average regional 19 seat turboprop operates some 1500 hours per annum. That could be 1500 one hour sectors (again on your math). Based on 8 minutes per sector, that’s a DOC saving of 12,000 minutes (200 hours), or 45,000 nm. Of course that’s the utopian regional model, but factor that by 50% and then factor its resultant by a 70% efficiency and you still have a 70 hour annual saving.
Of course the argument must follow that the B1900 (and maybe the 31/32....then only maybe) would load and yield higher for RPT operations because of its customer comforts, which is indeed true.
But in regional airlines where cash is king, yields and loads in 19 seat regional RPT markets are on the slide, downward pressure on value perceptions from low "fair" trunk carriers, the numbers on the Metro stack up on a risk profile that makes the B1900/J32 look a sick puppy.
The 19 seat survivors are using Metro equipment, and managing RPT/charter income with inversely respective revenue. Examples include Skippers, Air North, M@cAir, Transair, Brindabella and now even Rex (metro contract/RPT mix to regional NSW), among others. Those that struggle to achieve 19 seat viability are focused solely on RPT ops, as a direct result of the vagaries of RPT revenue management.
The Poms have NEVER, read NEVER manufactured a tear away commercial success aircraft. Technologically clever in some cases maybe, but commercially viable, most definitely not. Just because they have a Royal Warrant, does not translate to international quality and applicability. Bring on the republic!
Mr. Ed might not look pretty to some, and may make a racket, but the Metro can make a quid where the J31/32, B1900 C/D, EMB110, have all failed to achieve.
Eight minutes (on your numbers) per sector does not make a difference???? What the?
Consider that 8 minutes per sector is around 15%. So arguably one type is 15% more or less efficient than the other.
Considering the margins regionals must operate within, 15% is somewhat relevant.
Eight minutes per one hour sector. Or 30 nm per one hour sector (again on your math). Average regional 19 seat turboprop operates some 1500 hours per annum. That could be 1500 one hour sectors (again on your math). Based on 8 minutes per sector, that’s a DOC saving of 12,000 minutes (200 hours), or 45,000 nm. Of course that’s the utopian regional model, but factor that by 50% and then factor its resultant by a 70% efficiency and you still have a 70 hour annual saving.
Of course the argument must follow that the B1900 (and maybe the 31/32....then only maybe) would load and yield higher for RPT operations because of its customer comforts, which is indeed true.
But in regional airlines where cash is king, yields and loads in 19 seat regional RPT markets are on the slide, downward pressure on value perceptions from low "fair" trunk carriers, the numbers on the Metro stack up on a risk profile that makes the B1900/J32 look a sick puppy.
The 19 seat survivors are using Metro equipment, and managing RPT/charter income with inversely respective revenue. Examples include Skippers, Air North, M@cAir, Transair, Brindabella and now even Rex (metro contract/RPT mix to regional NSW), among others. Those that struggle to achieve 19 seat viability are focused solely on RPT ops, as a direct result of the vagaries of RPT revenue management.
The Poms have NEVER, read NEVER manufactured a tear away commercial success aircraft. Technologically clever in some cases maybe, but commercially viable, most definitely not. Just because they have a Royal Warrant, does not translate to international quality and applicability. Bring on the republic!
Mr. Ed might not look pretty to some, and may make a racket, but the Metro can make a quid where the J31/32, B1900 C/D, EMB110, have all failed to achieve.
Last edited by 23 Metros In a Row; 7th Sep 2005 at 00:14.
Next time any of you blokes are on the DOM 3 apron at Sydney, have a look at the Big Sky Express Metro 3 (bucket of sh1t) parked next to Airlink's 1900D and tell me what the punters would rather get on!
If you can make it more attractive for the punters, hence get more bums on seat every sector, the higher operating costs will look after themself.
TL
If you can make it more attractive for the punters, hence get more bums on seat every sector, the higher operating costs will look after themself.
TL
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aha! Finally, somebody who gets it! Well done, Transition Layer
23 Metros
Why do you think it is that Fairchild no longer make the Metro? Simple - because nobody wants it any more!
If it was the cure-all that you are suggesting, the regionals would be lining up to buy them, but they aren't.
As far as your analysis of cost savings go, I can tell you that 70 hours is neither here nor there when viewed as part of the big picture. The only cost implication is the hourly maintenance rate (if you are on power by the hour), and that can easily be offset be using the greater pax appeal of the J32 to adjust prices by the tiny percentage necessary to bridge the gap.
If "yields and loads are on the slide", one way to fix the problem is to offer a better product. You can't do that with the Metro, but you can with a J32. Of course, it is likely that the reason that yields and loads are on the slide in the first place is the uncomfortable nature of the aircraft being used.
The only reasons that the 19 seat survivors are using Metros is that 1) they are cheap as chips and 2) commonality rules in small fleets.
The Brits never built a successful commercial aircraft? Leaving aside for a minute the simplistic nature of that statement - let's look at the list of Aussie aircraft that have been successful shall we...
23 Metros
Why do you think it is that Fairchild no longer make the Metro? Simple - because nobody wants it any more!
If it was the cure-all that you are suggesting, the regionals would be lining up to buy them, but they aren't.
As far as your analysis of cost savings go, I can tell you that 70 hours is neither here nor there when viewed as part of the big picture. The only cost implication is the hourly maintenance rate (if you are on power by the hour), and that can easily be offset be using the greater pax appeal of the J32 to adjust prices by the tiny percentage necessary to bridge the gap.
If "yields and loads are on the slide", one way to fix the problem is to offer a better product. You can't do that with the Metro, but you can with a J32. Of course, it is likely that the reason that yields and loads are on the slide in the first place is the uncomfortable nature of the aircraft being used.
The only reasons that the 19 seat survivors are using Metros is that 1) they are cheap as chips and 2) commonality rules in small fleets.
The Brits never built a successful commercial aircraft? Leaving aside for a minute the simplistic nature of that statement - let's look at the list of Aussie aircraft that have been successful shall we...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J32s are expensive, slow, unreliable, bad lifters (they really are 16 seaters) and have never got the job done in Oz.
Unreliable? How do you work that one out? Engines are the same as the Metro, avionics are substantially the same as the Metro, most hydraulic components are from the same factory as the Metro, as are most of the electrical bits. What, exactly, is unreliable on a J32?
I just checked my logbook, after 2300 hours on a J32, only tech twice. Once was a birdstrike, the other a broken HP fuel line. The same HP fuel line that you will find on a Metro.
So, basically, when it comes to reliability you are talking out of a hole in your nether regions. Overall fleet reliability is well over 99%.
Bad lifters? Not if you use the one designed for the job (with water meth and the EP mods).
Slow? Only significantly slower than the 23, and as we have seen, that makes little practical difference.
They only made 380 odd (must have been frustrating to them that the world didn't think as much of them as you do).
The J32 ultimately failed for two reasons. The first is the same reason that the Trident was never a competitor for the 727, the 1-11 was never a competitor for the DC9, and so on - political interference on behalf of the national carrier. The aircraft themselves were more than a match for their American counterparts, and would have been competitive had they been built with the correct number of seats.
The second is the same reason that we never got the RJX, and Concorde was grounded; interference from Airbus. They didn't want any turboprops other than the ATR in the turboprop regional sector. BAe had a choice; buld half the Airbus, or build Jetstreams. It wasn't even a close decision. I was at Prestwick the day the cessation of production was announced... nobody could believe it.
Mate, please tell me you are taking the piss! Even an Ansett bean counter could pull apart that one!
I used to fly a J32 for Sabena (yes, the Belgians). We essentially established a route on the basis of a niche market and a very high quality service. We always carried at least one cabin crew (sometimes two), and offered a standard Sabena hot meal service, which was particularly lavish - china plates and cups and so on. Our service was profitable to the end, despite Sabena's overall failure.
But no Oz operator could ever be that imaginative, so I guess you will all remain stuck with the San Antonio Sewer Pipe.
Lucky old you.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MoR and Co your arguments have been consistently blown out of the water.
Evidence speaks volumes and no matter how hard you try and twist your perceptions on the Jetstream the Metro still comes out far in front as fast, economical and reliable.
If the Jetstream really did have an advantage over the Metro there would be 68 of them in Australia too.
It would be interesting to compare the many more millions of hours operation that Metros have flown in this country (and continue to do) compared to the Jetstream over the last 15 years. Then you will have an idea of the reliability a machine has.
The older 19 seat regional commuter turboprop may be crying out for a suitable replacement at this point in time, but history will always show that the Metro was the regional workhorse of the 90s and will probably be around in various roles for quite some time yet.
Evidence speaks volumes and no matter how hard you try and twist your perceptions on the Jetstream the Metro still comes out far in front as fast, economical and reliable.
If the Jetstream really did have an advantage over the Metro there would be 68 of them in Australia too.
It would be interesting to compare the many more millions of hours operation that Metros have flown in this country (and continue to do) compared to the Jetstream over the last 15 years. Then you will have an idea of the reliability a machine has.
The older 19 seat regional commuter turboprop may be crying out for a suitable replacement at this point in time, but history will always show that the Metro was the regional workhorse of the 90s and will probably be around in various roles for quite some time yet.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the point about using a J31 for a premium service... Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the operators running Metros on regional routes do fly in/fky out and mining/rural area type flying, don't they?
Stands to reason that what they want is getting their employees from A - B to do their 6 weeks on, 2 off (or whatever their rotation is), not pampering them with cabin crew and china cups! As if a mining company is going to pay that for x thousand amount of workers bar their top honchos going out to site for the occasional look-see.....
Tech twice in 2000+ hours?? Must have been a fluke Most Boeings go tech more than twice in that many hours...
Okay. Leaving now... I know when I'm out-experted by you lot. (V interesting thread, by the way)
Stands to reason that what they want is getting their employees from A - B to do their 6 weeks on, 2 off (or whatever their rotation is), not pampering them with cabin crew and china cups! As if a mining company is going to pay that for x thousand amount of workers bar their top honchos going out to site for the occasional look-see.....
Tech twice in 2000+ hours?? Must have been a fluke
Most Boeings go tech more than twice in that many hours...Okay. Leaving now... I know when I'm out-experted by you lot. (V interesting thread, by the way)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR could you perhaps read more carefully, I quoted a J31 (not J32) as being about the same price as a nice Chieftain and that is fairly accurate. Look at the trade-a-plane, ASO.com or call BAE OZ. Considering the size and systems differences thats saying something about marketability. (But then it came from the same place as the Austin Maxi and Reliant Robin - he he he).
In your adopted Kiwi homeland OP's owners started off with J31's because they were CHEAPER than Metros (Who when they grew started operating Metro's). An Air Nsn CPT I spoke to who switched camps for a promotion later vouched for it - by comparison Jokestream's are gutless, slow and a pig to load! I must thank BAE though as they were a good source of fun for us reeling them in and passing them even on short sectors (BTW in M3's not M23's). Their CLB and CRZ performance was truly dismal by comparison. Perhaps someone is basing their Metro speeds out of a woefully inaccurate book and has little idea of what they actually do.
As for your "cheap" being the only reason for Metro sales; eh what? When the M23 was still being made its book price was almost as much as a B1900D. And Metro 3's have been worth more than a J31 for many years, and M23's more than J32's; cheap? NOT! Jetstreams were and still cost less to buy (Or adopt; like an incontinent, blind old dog perhaps? He he he) than the competition,(when they can find a buyer). FOR GOOD REASON!
Most 19 seat drivers are big enough to admit the B1900D is the creme of the crop (I'll admit that as an ex Metro TRE/ GI) but the industry success story was the Metro 3 /23. The J31/32 never made it and were dumped by most of the few significant operators who got lumbered with them. And yes thats it - most of us aren't claiming the Metro is the best at anything - just that your Jokestream was just that, and a failure by comparison. I'll even admit to an ATR pilot that the Saab 340 wouldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, and I loved em when I first got on type. (Its called facing reality)
Give it rest - next you'll be telling us the Comet or Bristol Brabazon were successes too!
God defend the Queen (& BAE?) - coz no one down under will!
Ibex I agree - I have finished with this thread. It is pointless arguing against BS. Later dude!
In your adopted Kiwi homeland OP's owners started off with J31's because they were CHEAPER than Metros (Who when they grew started operating Metro's). An Air Nsn CPT I spoke to who switched camps for a promotion later vouched for it - by comparison Jokestream's are gutless, slow and a pig to load! I must thank BAE though as they were a good source of fun for us reeling them in and passing them even on short sectors (BTW in M3's not M23's). Their CLB and CRZ performance was truly dismal by comparison. Perhaps someone is basing their Metro speeds out of a woefully inaccurate book and has little idea of what they actually do.
As for your "cheap" being the only reason for Metro sales; eh what? When the M23 was still being made its book price was almost as much as a B1900D. And Metro 3's have been worth more than a J31 for many years, and M23's more than J32's; cheap? NOT! Jetstreams were and still cost less to buy (Or adopt; like an incontinent, blind old dog perhaps? He he he) than the competition,(when they can find a buyer). FOR GOOD REASON!
Most 19 seat drivers are big enough to admit the B1900D is the creme of the crop (I'll admit that as an ex Metro TRE/ GI) but the industry success story was the Metro 3 /23. The J31/32 never made it and were dumped by most of the few significant operators who got lumbered with them. And yes thats it - most of us aren't claiming the Metro is the best at anything - just that your Jokestream was just that, and a failure by comparison. I'll even admit to an ATR pilot that the Saab 340 wouldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, and I loved em when I first got on type. (Its called facing reality)
Give it rest - next you'll be telling us the Comet or Bristol Brabazon were successes too!
God defend the Queen (& BAE?) - coz no one down under will!
Ibex I agree - I have finished with this thread. It is pointless arguing against BS. Later dude!
Last edited by El Oso; 7th Sep 2005 at 11:06.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In your new homeland Origin Pacific's owners, who knew the Metro well from running Air Nsn, (Poor kiwis - but then according to MOR they are retarded), started off with J31's as they were CHEAPER to buy than Metros - FACT.
One of the original aims of OP was to offer a high quality alternative airline service in NZ. I know that because the then-MD told me so. They knew that the J31 was the best choice because a) the alternative Metro is not a comfortable aircraft, and b) it came with a family of regional turboprops - hence the eventual implemetation of the J41. A deal was done with BAe that involved both types.
Anyway, it is a pointless argument. You just carry on believing the Metro is the best thing since sliced bread. I'll continue my ambition of never setting foot on one of the horrible little things. Give me an aircraft that is actually built to airline standards, is aerodynamically benign, and that you can stand up in. A J32, in other words. I really don't care if the flight takes an extra few minutes, I'll be comfortable - and besides, I like flying.
God defend the Queen (& BAE?) - coz no one down under will!
I have never had any experience in operating Metros so I cannot comment on their economics. As a passenger they are not the most attractive, having the unfortunate experience of using them to regional destinations.
What the issue I can comment on though is, what the passenger wants. I have extensive knowledge of regional Australia through both family connections and business and I am very confident in expressing what they want.
1 Affordable airfares (cheap???)
2 Cheaper still Airfares
3 safety perception ( a problem with low cost)
4 creature comforts.
put a cabin class up against a metro at the same price then they will go with it. Charge a little more and they will drive.
Sydney - parkes $90 1 way, ok. $150 50% will drive, $225 and 90% will drive. There is not a lot of disposable income in many regional areas.
What the issue I can comment on though is, what the passenger wants. I have extensive knowledge of regional Australia through both family connections and business and I am very confident in expressing what they want.
1 Affordable airfares (cheap???)
2 Cheaper still Airfares
3 safety perception ( a problem with low cost)
4 creature comforts.
put a cabin class up against a metro at the same price then they will go with it. Charge a little more and they will drive.
Sydney - parkes $90 1 way, ok. $150 50% will drive, $225 and 90% will drive. There is not a lot of disposable income in many regional areas.