No AOC for Skyairworld, delay for Solomon Airlines
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bigjet... nothing i have posted was really a big secret!! There were many others on this site stating what i did. If business secrecy was so water tight as you are trying to say... then site would be very boring!!! If you actually read Flash's comments i think you will find that i was not mentioned... you seem to be the one fixated with me and the down fall of Skyair.
Why is it such a bad thing that an airline get off the ground??? I would have thought it would be good for aviation on oz!!
I also think you a very good idea what will be aired... You wold have a much better than i as all i know is there is to be an insight into an air charter company currently running Airbus ops from SYD who are based in BNE.
Why is it such a bad thing that an airline get off the ground??? I would have thought it would be good for aviation on oz!!
I also think you a very good idea what will be aired... You wold have a much better than i as all i know is there is to be an insight into an air charter company currently running Airbus ops from SYD who are based in BNE.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo744
As I am a keen watcher of Aviation Documentaries and News Stories and you have opened the preferbial "Pandora's Box", please let us all know what this ABC new story is all about or is that "a really big secret"?
As I am a keen watcher of Aviation Documentaries and News Stories and you have opened the preferbial "Pandora's Box", please let us all know what this ABC new story is all about or is that "a really big secret"?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L1011,
Unfortunately what i have said above is all i know. I am sorry i cannot be of any more help but i am not going to start making things up. I am sure there is someone else who knows more than I in regards to this???????
Unfortunately what i have said above is all i know. I am sorry i cannot be of any more help but i am not going to start making things up. I am sure there is someone else who knows more than I in regards to this???????
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The right plane for the job
Is it not a simple matter of the having the right aircraft for the job?
It would appear the the "island hopping verses the trunk route" comment might have some validity.
It would appear the the "island hopping verses the trunk route" comment might have some validity.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking about delays, just came across this from avstats. The average delay for there flights is 138min with an on time performance of 11%www.flightstats.com/go/FlightRating/flightRatingByFlight.do?airline=IE&flightNumber=700
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: new zealand
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Came back from Honiara yesterday (on another carrier with plenty of room for 100+passengers and their bags) and was bemused to read in the Solomon Star (Friday 8th, p4) that Solomon Airlines acknowledges the Embraer is "is smaller in size and can carry fewer passengers and has smaller loading capacitiy". This is something the travelling public to/from Honiara have had to endure since the new aircrafts introduction, often manifesting itself in long delays and missing baggage that couldn't be carried. Mind you, according to the article, Solomon Airlines state the aircraft was "designed in this way so that people can travel light and more efficient." Arriving in Honiara without my bag, despite being careful as to how much I packed, does not assist me in being efficient in my business dealings when my (lighter) bag still doesn't come on the same flight.
A Solomon Airlines spokesman is quoted as saying one alternative ""was to cut down the number of passengers to allow all passengers to carry all their luggage especially the Brisbane Honiara route". Now that makes a lot of sense (ha, ha). Sure it achieves getting those on board there with their baggage, but at the expense of leaving others behind!!!!! This "76 seater" has never had anything like it on the Brisbane Honiara trips, more like 60 maximum, and now it could get worse if they make sure passengers and bags stay together.
You're right, Ozebloke, and this isn't the right aircraft for the job. Solomon Airlines got it right with the 737's (their own years back, the Air Vanuatu lease, the Qantas lease and even the Spaniards). They should have stuck with a proven thing.
I think Solomon Airlines will be rueing their decision to get this aircraft, especially considering the number of people I see transferring to the competition.
A Solomon Airlines spokesman is quoted as saying one alternative ""was to cut down the number of passengers to allow all passengers to carry all their luggage especially the Brisbane Honiara route". Now that makes a lot of sense (ha, ha). Sure it achieves getting those on board there with their baggage, but at the expense of leaving others behind!!!!! This "76 seater" has never had anything like it on the Brisbane Honiara trips, more like 60 maximum, and now it could get worse if they make sure passengers and bags stay together.
You're right, Ozebloke, and this isn't the right aircraft for the job. Solomon Airlines got it right with the 737's (their own years back, the Air Vanuatu lease, the Qantas lease and even the Spaniards). They should have stuck with a proven thing.
I think Solomon Airlines will be rueing their decision to get this aircraft, especially considering the number of people I see transferring to the competition.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Age:
The Our Airline service linking the Marshall Islands capital Majuro with Brisbane will be cancelled from July, chief executive Geoff Bowmaker said.
Maybe SAW's regional jet will be the only option.
The Our Airline service linking the Marshall Islands capital Majuro with Brisbane will be cancelled from July, chief executive Geoff Bowmaker said.
Maybe SAW's regional jet will be the only option.
I believe that ourairline will be cancelling the Nauru-Majuro sectors rather than the entire flight as the aircraft does Brisbane-Honiara-Nauru-Tarawa-Majuro.
It was a bit like using a/c like PA31s on Lord Howe and BAe146s/F28s on Norfolk, they might be 'able' to do it but they were not ideal for the route.
You'd think there would be a lot of 733s on the market for really cheap these days, lots of crews around able to fly it?
It was a bit like using a/c like PA31s on Lord Howe and BAe146s/F28s on Norfolk, they might be 'able' to do it but they were not ideal for the route.
You'd think there would be a lot of 733s on the market for really cheap these days, lots of crews around able to fly it?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: oz
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it very interesting to see various human traits demonstrated on this site about various subjects.
It must be obvious to all that people invent facts to prove their points or are so gullible they simply regurgitate so called facts given them by others with vested interests.
It would appear that ringbinder as a customer of the airline in good times and bad holds more credance than others and it is with this perspective that I tend the following.
Solomons have chosen the wrong aircraft for their Brisbane/Honiara sector as has been proven time and time again in recent weeks with massive delays,cancellations and lack of proper service. It is not unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination for a full fare paying passenger to expect that they can travel on a prebooked flight and that their baggage will travel with them.
So lets look at the actual facts given me by staff
ERJ 170 Dry Operating Weight 22067 kgs
Max Take Off Weight 37200 kgs
Zero Fuel Weight 29600 kgs
Therefore it can carry 15133 kgs of which 7600 kgs must be fuel resulting in best possible payload of 7533 kgs. Allowing 100kgs for pax plus baggage it can carry aprox 76 pax with 7600 kgs of fuel.
However with a published block time of 3hours 30 minutes and a diversion to Santo of 1hour 30 minutes it would require 5 hours of fuel +var res +fixed res+approach and landing. I don't know it's burn rate but lets be optimistic and say it averages 1600 kgs per hour . That gives us 8000 + 800 + 800 + 400. THis 10000 of fuel means 5133 kgs of useful payload or aprox 50 passengers.
It's not rocket science to see why people aren't able to travel and that as good as this aircraft may be it is the wrong choice for this operation.
I think someone insinuated in a previous thread that people with vested interests are putting themselves ahead of the interests of this airline and as time time goes by this appears to be becoming a stronger possibility.
.
It must be obvious to all that people invent facts to prove their points or are so gullible they simply regurgitate so called facts given them by others with vested interests.
It would appear that ringbinder as a customer of the airline in good times and bad holds more credance than others and it is with this perspective that I tend the following.
Solomons have chosen the wrong aircraft for their Brisbane/Honiara sector as has been proven time and time again in recent weeks with massive delays,cancellations and lack of proper service. It is not unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination for a full fare paying passenger to expect that they can travel on a prebooked flight and that their baggage will travel with them.
So lets look at the actual facts given me by staff
ERJ 170 Dry Operating Weight 22067 kgs
Max Take Off Weight 37200 kgs
Zero Fuel Weight 29600 kgs
Therefore it can carry 15133 kgs of which 7600 kgs must be fuel resulting in best possible payload of 7533 kgs. Allowing 100kgs for pax plus baggage it can carry aprox 76 pax with 7600 kgs of fuel.
However with a published block time of 3hours 30 minutes and a diversion to Santo of 1hour 30 minutes it would require 5 hours of fuel +var res +fixed res+approach and landing. I don't know it's burn rate but lets be optimistic and say it averages 1600 kgs per hour . That gives us 8000 + 800 + 800 + 400. THis 10000 of fuel means 5133 kgs of useful payload or aprox 50 passengers.
It's not rocket science to see why people aren't able to travel and that as good as this aircraft may be it is the wrong choice for this operation.
I think someone insinuated in a previous thread that people with vested interests are putting themselves ahead of the interests of this airline and as time time goes by this appears to be becoming a stronger possibility.
.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: honiara
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Moonlight, thanks for the great information.
What is Solomon Airlines going to do to fix this issue?
I am guessing they are losing money due to not being able to sell the 10 or so seats on each flight and they must have a fuel burn penalty carrying the additional fuel on every flight. Airlines are expensive to run at the best of times.
What is Solomon Airlines going to do to fix this issue?
I am guessing they are losing money due to not being able to sell the 10 or so seats on each flight and they must have a fuel burn penalty carrying the additional fuel on every flight. Airlines are expensive to run at the best of times.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thoughts on Flash’s questions:
Fuel burn penalty: Not really an issue as no matter what aircraft does the service the aircraft will have to carry it, btw the jungle jet is comparately lean anyway.
Loss of pax carriage: yep a , big issue, if you use Capt Moonlights figures the SAW aircraft loses 26 seats out of the 76 available. That is a 35% loss in revenue.
One would have thought that the contractor (Sol Air) would have crunched the numbers though.
Maybe no-one else wanted the contract and it was just left to the SAW jungle jet to do the best it could do.
Have to agree with the previous posters who said the 733 was a pretty good aircraft for that service.
Fuel burn penalty: Not really an issue as no matter what aircraft does the service the aircraft will have to carry it, btw the jungle jet is comparately lean anyway.
Loss of pax carriage: yep a , big issue, if you use Capt Moonlights figures the SAW aircraft loses 26 seats out of the 76 available. That is a 35% loss in revenue.
One would have thought that the contractor (Sol Air) would have crunched the numbers though.
Maybe no-one else wanted the contract and it was just left to the SAW jungle jet to do the best it could do.
Have to agree with the previous posters who said the 733 was a pretty good aircraft for that service.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cairns
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one small problem with Capt Moonlights Equations.
Realistically cant get much more than 9100 kgs of fuel into that E170 fuel tank.
Save an extra 900kgs for carriage of Pax and bags.
Therefore 5133 + 900 equal 6033, equal aprox 60 pax using your reasoning.
Make the figures show what you will
Realistically cant get much more than 9100 kgs of fuel into that E170 fuel tank.
Save an extra 900kgs for carriage of Pax and bags.
Therefore 5133 + 900 equal 6033, equal aprox 60 pax using your reasoning.
Make the figures show what you will
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: oz
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Solwata if the aircraft can only carry 9100 kgs of fuel then you are right it could carry another 9 pax however not on the BNE/HIR route as they need 10,000 kgs to be legal . If your fuel figures are correct then how are they legally operating this flight when the nearest alternate is aprox 600nms away. Even if it is possible with LRC then the margins must be tight in an unforgiving enviroment and .60 seats available out of 76 seats aint real flash and forget about freight or excess bagage.
I stand by my statement wrong airplane for this route. If your fuel figures are correct then I think I would be looking to the 737 operators with both plenty of fuel and load capacity as I can't tread water for long if a ditching was nesscessary.
You say you can make the numbers show what they will but the science of fuel burn is a finite calculation.
I stand by my statement wrong airplane for this route. If your fuel figures are correct then I think I would be looking to the 737 operators with both plenty of fuel and load capacity as I can't tread water for long if a ditching was nesscessary.
You say you can make the numbers show what they will but the science of fuel burn is a finite calculation.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cairns
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi capt moonlight.
Sorry, not meaning to take the wind from your sails, just saying, that if you are going to use precise math to make an argument work, you should be consistent with the application of your equations. No point being precise about one set of figures, and approximate on the remainder, i was impressed with your knowledge of the empty weight. But working out fuel planning based on a published bock time kinda defeats your basis on precision. Any chance you could find the actual distance of the journey from the maps.
Hence the term making the figures work. Being scientific, you would apply precision for all of your equations, not just partial. As you imply, it is too easy to get other people believing the figures one can present.
The zero fuel weight for that aircraft would also be 30140 kgs, plus a modification to raise the MTOW is also available, but wasnt implemented on that aircraft during the time it was with its previous owner.
Regards to my fuel figures, personally unable to push more than 9160 kgs into the tanks on a -2 c day. Albeit only via pressure refueling, no fuel nozzles in this part of the world, so unable to ever try out the over wing refueling method.
Irony though, is the fact that the previous owner of the ejet, has upgraded to 737s
Sorry, not meaning to take the wind from your sails, just saying, that if you are going to use precise math to make an argument work, you should be consistent with the application of your equations. No point being precise about one set of figures, and approximate on the remainder, i was impressed with your knowledge of the empty weight. But working out fuel planning based on a published bock time kinda defeats your basis on precision. Any chance you could find the actual distance of the journey from the maps.
Hence the term making the figures work. Being scientific, you would apply precision for all of your equations, not just partial. As you imply, it is too easy to get other people believing the figures one can present.
The zero fuel weight for that aircraft would also be 30140 kgs, plus a modification to raise the MTOW is also available, but wasnt implemented on that aircraft during the time it was with its previous owner.
Regards to my fuel figures, personally unable to push more than 9160 kgs into the tanks on a -2 c day. Albeit only via pressure refueling, no fuel nozzles in this part of the world, so unable to ever try out the over wing refueling method.
Irony though, is the fact that the previous owner of the ejet, has upgraded to 737s
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B733 replacment being sought by Solomons
Word from a lesing compnay mate of mine in the US is that Solomon Airlines are in the market attempting to source a B733 to replace the E170.
Its a tough market to find aircrfat so they may have problems getting one quickly.
Its a tough market to find aircrfat so they may have problems getting one quickly.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: oz
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wallabyblue if your right then someone in that airline needs their arse kicked for not doing their homework and wasting megabucks or maybe they knew all along but the incentives were too great.
If the nations of the pacific could swallow their pride and get together they could probably justify a fleet of 3 B737s creating a viable network for all. Can't see unsustainable national pride letting it happen though.
solwata no problem but I think you will find figures used (including times )reasonably accurate. Even if you run the figures through GC mapper you come up with simular figures.I still don't see how they can carry the fuel reqd if you are correct. I can guarantee the ZFW is 29600 and not 30140 as I have seen it on their paperwork along with the other quoted figures. From what you say it appears even the previous owner saw the benefit of the B737I'm sure the E170 is a great a/c for shorter sectors with closer alternates but not for this route.
If the nations of the pacific could swallow their pride and get together they could probably justify a fleet of 3 B737s creating a viable network for all. Can't see unsustainable national pride letting it happen though.
solwata no problem but I think you will find figures used (including times )reasonably accurate. Even if you run the figures through GC mapper you come up with simular figures.I still don't see how they can carry the fuel reqd if you are correct. I can guarantee the ZFW is 29600 and not 30140 as I have seen it on their paperwork along with the other quoted figures. From what you say it appears even the previous owner saw the benefit of the B737I'm sure the E170 is a great a/c for shorter sectors with closer alternates but not for this route.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Moonlight for the figures, possibly explains the "operational reasons" my associates were given for being bumped off the Solomon's flight to another carrier a few weeks ago. This Embraer is certainly shaping up to be a bit of a dud for this specific operation.
If Wallabyblue's info is correct then at least the airline has recognised that the 737 is the best aircraft for the job. What they now need to realise is that they shouldn't try and go it alone. The former Air Nauru struggles on in a new format and name (Our Airline) and logic would suggest that they join forces with Solomons and combine resources. Wouldn't this bring immediate benefits to both, some additional funds to the former and an immediately successful (and profitable) operation to the latter? An earlier post states that the Our Airline is cutting back on services to some destinations so their aircraft must have a degree of availability coming up. Apparently Solomons used them on a regulary basis before (as Air Nauru) and was satisifed, so why not now - unless it's the island pride thingy Moonlight mentions? Pride, in whatever form, often comes at a huge cost.
If Wallabyblue's info is correct then at least the airline has recognised that the 737 is the best aircraft for the job. What they now need to realise is that they shouldn't try and go it alone. The former Air Nauru struggles on in a new format and name (Our Airline) and logic would suggest that they join forces with Solomons and combine resources. Wouldn't this bring immediate benefits to both, some additional funds to the former and an immediately successful (and profitable) operation to the latter? An earlier post states that the Our Airline is cutting back on services to some destinations so their aircraft must have a degree of availability coming up. Apparently Solomons used them on a regulary basis before (as Air Nauru) and was satisifed, so why not now - unless it's the island pride thingy Moonlight mentions? Pride, in whatever form, often comes at a huge cost.