Air NZ may fly jets in regions
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alangirvan....mate...nobody argues your point,yours are valid.....the problem with your argument is that Skywest has the abiliity to expand with a customer base far larger than kiwi......they, if they choose could expand markets into Canada,Mexico....like other have done....Horizon did,Mesa did etc....these customer bases are huge........New Zealand,is not
.....I dont disagree with the premis that these jets do a great job.....I argue their viabilty in a limited market......compared with other A/C (TURBOPROPS) that would suit the market ........
you know what mate....for xmas ,I,m going to buy you your own bloody RJ!!!! HOWZAT......PB
NB.....that would be skywest in the US.....not OZ..(just to clarify)
.....I dont disagree with the premis that these jets do a great job.....I argue their viabilty in a limited market......compared with other A/C (TURBOPROPS) that would suit the market ........
you know what mate....for xmas ,I,m going to buy you your own bloody RJ!!!! HOWZAT......PB
NB.....that would be skywest in the US.....not OZ..(just to clarify)
Last edited by pakeha-boy; 7th Dec 2007 at 13:14.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pakeha-Boy - I am not arguing your points - either. If you want to buy me an RJ for Christmas, it will probably sit in the carpark of my Gourment Pizza Restaurant (that one is also dream territory.) I do know the difference between SkyWest in Utah and Skywest in WA.
"Southwest is a major winner if oil prices go up, due to it being almost the only airline with fuel hedging in place. Southwest has 70% of its fuel purchases hedged in 2008, 55% in 2009, and even 25% already hedged for far out 2010. The more that oil prices go up, the greater Southwest's competitive advantage over its competitors becomes. Southwest should be (and almost certainly secretly is) hoping for massive increases in fuel costs." Quote from a US Travel newsletter, sent to me tonight.
Anyway, discussing how Horizon and Southwest might compete against each other in the US is getting a bit off topic discussing what AirNZ might start using in the next year or so. For what is worth I have had good contact with Bombardier/DeHavillandCanada over the years, and I think the Q400/Q400X has a lot to offer NZ. Some of the current Q300 routes will grow into Q400 routes, and some of the Mount Cook flights - Christchurch to Hamilton, Christchurch to Tauranga are sectors where the Q400 will cover the distance a bit more quickly than the ATRs. Once the Q400s are here, AirNZ will probably try them to test reaction. They will supplement not replace all jet services. Since I live in Dunedin, I pay attention to what happens to this city. If two daily jets between DUD and AKL became three Q400X daily flights, despite the extra frequency, Dunedin local politicians would describe it as a kick in the guts (just as the Deputy Mayor did today regarding Transit funding of a motorway in Dunedin.) If AirNZ keeps the two jets, and tries a midday flight between DUD and AKL with a Q400, and perhaps nicer food than we get on a jet, (Food to the quality of food served on a Qantaslink service in Australia.) people might enjoy that. If Dunedin continues to have jets at peak time on DUD -WLG and perhaps two Q400s during the day the city would not feel as though it is getting second class service.
My prediction is that Q400s will be here sooner rather than later. But AirNZ will have to watch how things go in Australia. I do not know if AirNZ and Virgin Blue exchange performance data on aircraft types, but if E-190s go well in Australian conditions, how can AirNZ ignore that?
"Southwest is a major winner if oil prices go up, due to it being almost the only airline with fuel hedging in place. Southwest has 70% of its fuel purchases hedged in 2008, 55% in 2009, and even 25% already hedged for far out 2010. The more that oil prices go up, the greater Southwest's competitive advantage over its competitors becomes. Southwest should be (and almost certainly secretly is) hoping for massive increases in fuel costs." Quote from a US Travel newsletter, sent to me tonight.
Anyway, discussing how Horizon and Southwest might compete against each other in the US is getting a bit off topic discussing what AirNZ might start using in the next year or so. For what is worth I have had good contact with Bombardier/DeHavillandCanada over the years, and I think the Q400/Q400X has a lot to offer NZ. Some of the current Q300 routes will grow into Q400 routes, and some of the Mount Cook flights - Christchurch to Hamilton, Christchurch to Tauranga are sectors where the Q400 will cover the distance a bit more quickly than the ATRs. Once the Q400s are here, AirNZ will probably try them to test reaction. They will supplement not replace all jet services. Since I live in Dunedin, I pay attention to what happens to this city. If two daily jets between DUD and AKL became three Q400X daily flights, despite the extra frequency, Dunedin local politicians would describe it as a kick in the guts (just as the Deputy Mayor did today regarding Transit funding of a motorway in Dunedin.) If AirNZ keeps the two jets, and tries a midday flight between DUD and AKL with a Q400, and perhaps nicer food than we get on a jet, (Food to the quality of food served on a Qantaslink service in Australia.) people might enjoy that. If Dunedin continues to have jets at peak time on DUD -WLG and perhaps two Q400s during the day the city would not feel as though it is getting second class service.
My prediction is that Q400s will be here sooner rather than later. But AirNZ will have to watch how things go in Australia. I do not know if AirNZ and Virgin Blue exchange performance data on aircraft types, but if E-190s go well in Australian conditions, how can AirNZ ignore that?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mate...would agree with that assessment...a combo of sorts would certainly work and to cater it to "travelling times" is nothing but good mgt.....having the 190,s is on the cards....****e we ran the 146,s for years.....a huge mistake in the end(mainly because of expense)remoak will argue that one.......but I flew on them many times and even in the jumpseat....they were a comfortable piece of euipment...most people I talked too enjoyed them
.....bottom line......regional service in kiwi must fall in line with "what is expected"....we are capable of running these operations to high standards,...we have the customer base,the infrastructure etc.....but we also need to "pick-the-right" A/C...and hopefully a mgt team that wont faark its employees....
I commute on the 400s a couple of times a month...they are comfortable and fast on the short haul....talk to the pilots/F/A,s....bugger all complaints.....
Dunedin ay...arrested several times at the drinking tourneys........doctors,medical students cant chug piss worht a ****e when it comes to the lincoln wallys.....all the best mate..PB
.....bottom line......regional service in kiwi must fall in line with "what is expected"....we are capable of running these operations to high standards,...we have the customer base,the infrastructure etc.....but we also need to "pick-the-right" A/C...and hopefully a mgt team that wont faark its employees....
I commute on the 400s a couple of times a month...they are comfortable and fast on the short haul....talk to the pilots/F/A,s....bugger all complaints.....
Dunedin ay...arrested several times at the drinking tourneys........doctors,medical students cant chug piss worht a ****e when it comes to the lincoln wallys.....all the best mate..PB
Originally Posted by pakeha-boy
doctors,medical students cant chug piss worht a ****e when it comes to the lincoln wallys
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: auckland
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mixed equipment the answer?
You are travelling on business, so you are not as cost sensitive as discretionary leisure travellers. You are out of IVC at 6.40am, destined for a day long meeting in WLG. One operator has a jet out of IVC, one has a turbo-prop. The turbo prop is $20 less, perhaps. Pac Blue could easily discount to buy market share. Does it matter to Mr Businessman? I think not.
On the other hand, a leisure traveller away for a few days, will not have any jet v. propellor sensitivity, would prefer a lower fare, and would probably take the turbo-prop.
Two markets are represented - maybe the Air NZ approach should be to mix the fleet - regional jets at critical business travel times, turbo-props at othertimes. The best of both worlds, and a block to the Pac Blue regional E-jet threat.
On the other hand, a leisure traveller away for a few days, will not have any jet v. propellor sensitivity, would prefer a lower fare, and would probably take the turbo-prop.
Two markets are represented - maybe the Air NZ approach should be to mix the fleet - regional jets at critical business travel times, turbo-props at othertimes. The best of both worlds, and a block to the Pac Blue regional E-jet threat.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: All over the show like a madwomans crap
Posts: 494
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TPs
First, NZScion, get a sense of humour mate, it never killed anyone. If you read PB's posts, hes a bloke with a blokes, pig hunting sense of humour, which you obviously dont share. Dont clog up the airwaves with your high and mighty ok?
As for the RJs, PB is right again, I used to fly the CRJ200/700 and while they are nice and comfortable, the economics on short sectors dont add up. We had a bunch of them, and our boss was gagging to get 737s and/or A320s as they had much better seat mile costs than the RJ. We operated the RJs on longer sectors, around 1 to 1.5 hours, than you would get in NZ, and those costs dont get better with shorter sectors. As an example, when I flew the Saab340 we used to burn around 600KGs say, to Napier, 45mins or so. An RJ would be maybe 5mins faster, but would burn around 1000kgs. These figures are from a fading memory, but pretty close. If you look at purely fuel costs, then its around another 600NZD to operate that flight. Its a captive market to a degree, in that they fly ANZ, or no one, so the type doesn't figure in the customers purchasing. Added to the pure fuel costs would be aircraft aquisiton, crew training and recurrency, maintenance and training, and whatever else I cant think of.
I personally think the Q400 is a very good option for the ATR. Add in commonality in parts and maintanance, training etc with the Q300, its hard to go past. I could forsee a time when Eagle operated the 30seat version Q200, it would be capable of WR and other short runways, Air Nelson the current 50seater and Chook the Q400. Imagine the savings as I would think, (stand to be corrected) they would be a common type, in at least you could use the same sim, perhaps apart from the Q400. The incidences in SAS aside, which from reading the accident reports are not a fault of the Q400 itself, more maintanance issues and part issues, I think the Q400 is almost ideally suited for the NZ market. I remember a chart that had the SAAB2000 range/time circles against a jet for NZ on the trunk routes, and they were almost identical at those distances around NZ. Of course, I dont make the financial decisions either, or we'd all be rich!
Nosey
As for the RJs, PB is right again, I used to fly the CRJ200/700 and while they are nice and comfortable, the economics on short sectors dont add up. We had a bunch of them, and our boss was gagging to get 737s and/or A320s as they had much better seat mile costs than the RJ. We operated the RJs on longer sectors, around 1 to 1.5 hours, than you would get in NZ, and those costs dont get better with shorter sectors. As an example, when I flew the Saab340 we used to burn around 600KGs say, to Napier, 45mins or so. An RJ would be maybe 5mins faster, but would burn around 1000kgs. These figures are from a fading memory, but pretty close. If you look at purely fuel costs, then its around another 600NZD to operate that flight. Its a captive market to a degree, in that they fly ANZ, or no one, so the type doesn't figure in the customers purchasing. Added to the pure fuel costs would be aircraft aquisiton, crew training and recurrency, maintenance and training, and whatever else I cant think of.
I personally think the Q400 is a very good option for the ATR. Add in commonality in parts and maintanance, training etc with the Q300, its hard to go past. I could forsee a time when Eagle operated the 30seat version Q200, it would be capable of WR and other short runways, Air Nelson the current 50seater and Chook the Q400. Imagine the savings as I would think, (stand to be corrected) they would be a common type, in at least you could use the same sim, perhaps apart from the Q400. The incidences in SAS aside, which from reading the accident reports are not a fault of the Q400 itself, more maintanance issues and part issues, I think the Q400 is almost ideally suited for the NZ market. I remember a chart that had the SAAB2000 range/time circles against a jet for NZ on the trunk routes, and they were almost identical at those distances around NZ. Of course, I dont make the financial decisions either, or we'd all be rich!
Nosey
First of all, I have nothing against people having a good time. I take issue with people who need to get trolleyed to have a good time. PB's comments tend to imply that he belongs in the latter group.
Secondy, I have nothing to do with Ardmore, and probably would never go there, even if you paid me...
Secondy, I have nothing to do with Ardmore, and probably would never go there, even if you paid me...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not just RJs. People used to say that F-28s were just as expensive to run as 737-200s, with a lot less seats. F-28 80-85 seats, 737-200 112-121 seats in AirNZ single class configuration. Some people think that 100 seats is the minimum number of seats for a jet, so surely the CRJ-1000 which has not flown yet, will have to be a big improvement over 50 seater and 70 seater jets. The E-190 would be the minimum size you could justify operating from Embraer. I know Virgin have just got four E-170s for Australia, but that is a very small part of their order for E-jets, most will be E-190s.
We are talking about Regional, where an airline buys one plane to provide service to a smaller city. But, as I discussed, Virgin dump a 737 in Coffs Harbor, NSW in the middle of the day. It uses a plane during a quiet time on the main routes. If Pacific Blue decided to provide one daily flight between Napier and Auckland at 2pm and they offered lead in prices of $39, how would you go providing four daily Q400 flights with a lead in price of $79? PB may be more conservative in 2008 than they were in 2001/2002 in Australia, but an airline cannot expect that other airlines will work in a conventional way.
We are talking about Regional, where an airline buys one plane to provide service to a smaller city. But, as I discussed, Virgin dump a 737 in Coffs Harbor, NSW in the middle of the day. It uses a plane during a quiet time on the main routes. If Pacific Blue decided to provide one daily flight between Napier and Auckland at 2pm and they offered lead in prices of $39, how would you go providing four daily Q400 flights with a lead in price of $79? PB may be more conservative in 2008 than they were in 2001/2002 in Australia, but an airline cannot expect that other airlines will work in a conventional way.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alangirvan...mate,you make a valid point...my only answer to that would be...airlines and personal are all structered very differently...when it comes to marketing,you will see on occasion, off the wall ideas and attempts to gain ground or a monopoly in certain areas.......many airlines have done well others,dust in the wind
dont know what to tell you....pandora,s box,crystal ball...your choice...one thing is for sure...for those of us that fly this equipment and take the time to analyze the way in which they are operated.......our suggestions here and to mgt should and will never be ignored...that is the nature of the beast.......the stuff Ifly......and the way I fly it, is common knowledge,it is all recorded and known......we have to know our faults to correct them.....
The F-28,s(1000 and 4000,s )are a very expensive piece of equipment to operate,Iflew them for several years(Horizon)....they served a purpose and are now piss cans......the question of 400,s v,s Rj,s I believe (and this is obvious)will ultimatley come down to their $$$$..seat cost per mile....I see no other way around it...there is enough data/info around on each of these A/C.....that a couple of nights down at the northcoate(the trough)would resolve all issues......mate my choice...400,s
cloud mate...a tui if you please...
....no offence taken,the young fella has the right to speak his mind,I dont begrudge him....when your 21 you will....(bugger it,ILL bite my tounge)....
dont know what to tell you....pandora,s box,crystal ball...your choice...one thing is for sure...for those of us that fly this equipment and take the time to analyze the way in which they are operated.......our suggestions here and to mgt should and will never be ignored...that is the nature of the beast.......the stuff Ifly......and the way I fly it, is common knowledge,it is all recorded and known......we have to know our faults to correct them.....
The F-28,s(1000 and 4000,s )are a very expensive piece of equipment to operate,Iflew them for several years(Horizon)....they served a purpose and are now piss cans......the question of 400,s v,s Rj,s I believe (and this is obvious)will ultimatley come down to their $$$$..seat cost per mile....I see no other way around it...there is enough data/info around on each of these A/C.....that a couple of nights down at the northcoate(the trough)would resolve all issues......mate my choice...400,s
cloud mate...a tui if you please...
....no offence taken,the young fella has the right to speak his mind,I dont begrudge him....when your 21 you will....(bugger it,ILL bite my tounge)....
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Daghdaghistan
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alan, as said before.. you bring some good valid points to the table..
That would be an interesting arguement, one flight in the day vs several smaller ones throughout the day..
I think in that case.. it maybe a convenience factor, can I connect from Napier to my flight to Los Angeles with minimum time in Auckland, hopefully avoiding a overnight.
This is where the Q400 I think may cut the jet off. I could pay $39 to get to Napier, in the middle of the day, however if I'm a business man, I want to get there in the morning, do my business and get out of Napier in the late afternoon, avoiding a overnight.
So with that example..
Q400 flight
0900 AKL-NPE / $79
1730 NPE-AKL / $79
Total $158
B737 or What ever it turns out to be
1230 AKL-NPE / $39
Hotel - $130-$160
Per Diem / Meal allowance $100
1230 next day NPE-AKL /$39
Total $321
I know which one my friendly bean counter is going to make me take!
So the jet, once a day doesn't work for the business man/woman. And how much depth is there in the leisure holiday market for that route? Kiwis like to drive with the family on holiday.... most of the time...
I think VB chose Coffs Harbour because it is a leisure destination, people on holiday don't really care what time they get to their destination. The middle of the day works really well, late breakfast, sleep in, get to my destination in Coffs, check in, few beers, etc... and as you said, they had a free aircraft. The numbers worked, as there is 9 million in Sydney, offer good depth into that market.
That idea maywell work on the AKL-ZQN-AKL route, make ZQN a attractive domestic destination.
That would be an interesting arguement, one flight in the day vs several smaller ones throughout the day..
I think in that case.. it maybe a convenience factor, can I connect from Napier to my flight to Los Angeles with minimum time in Auckland, hopefully avoiding a overnight.
This is where the Q400 I think may cut the jet off. I could pay $39 to get to Napier, in the middle of the day, however if I'm a business man, I want to get there in the morning, do my business and get out of Napier in the late afternoon, avoiding a overnight.
So with that example..
Q400 flight
0900 AKL-NPE / $79
1730 NPE-AKL / $79
Total $158
B737 or What ever it turns out to be
1230 AKL-NPE / $39
Hotel - $130-$160
Per Diem / Meal allowance $100
1230 next day NPE-AKL /$39
Total $321
I know which one my friendly bean counter is going to make me take!
So the jet, once a day doesn't work for the business man/woman. And how much depth is there in the leisure holiday market for that route? Kiwis like to drive with the family on holiday.... most of the time...
I think VB chose Coffs Harbour because it is a leisure destination, people on holiday don't really care what time they get to their destination. The middle of the day works really well, late breakfast, sleep in, get to my destination in Coffs, check in, few beers, etc... and as you said, they had a free aircraft. The numbers worked, as there is 9 million in Sydney, offer good depth into that market.
That idea maywell work on the AKL-ZQN-AKL route, make ZQN a attractive domestic destination.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: new zealand
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air NZ are increasing the 733 nz649 -nz650 late evening Dunedin-Auckland direct services to 6 days a week adding Monday and Tuesday from February.I think a direct Auckland -Dunedin 733 service is planned for early Sunday afternoon in 2008 making 3 direct Auckland -Dunedin services on a Sunday.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of facts on a rumour network....
It is standard practice to make a shortlist of aircraft for fleet replacement and then send out requests for information to manufacturers.
Talking to a manufacturer is also standard practice not a signal they are ready to sign.
They may have a favourite in mind, but when the price is nailed down, this may change the outcome.
This happened with the Q300 which trumped the ATR on price.
The same process was followed with the 747 replacement. The options were A380, 747-800, 787,(more of them) 777.
Obviously some of these options were not going to ever get off the ground.
Once a decision is made it goes to the board for approval. Nothing gets signed spur of the moment while meeting with a manufacturer. That was the Ansett way.....
When the decision is made the replacement will be utilised as best as it can on routes suitable for it operated by Mt Cook.
This has nothing to do with the 737 replacement. That will likely be the next generation 737 / 320 somewhere around 2015.
Try putting a Q400 on the main trunk and you need another 50% flights just to provide the same capacity.
You get longer sector times, problems with lack of gates and no airbridges.
Not likely
It is standard practice to make a shortlist of aircraft for fleet replacement and then send out requests for information to manufacturers.
Talking to a manufacturer is also standard practice not a signal they are ready to sign.
They may have a favourite in mind, but when the price is nailed down, this may change the outcome.
This happened with the Q300 which trumped the ATR on price.
The same process was followed with the 747 replacement. The options were A380, 747-800, 787,(more of them) 777.
Obviously some of these options were not going to ever get off the ground.
Once a decision is made it goes to the board for approval. Nothing gets signed spur of the moment while meeting with a manufacturer. That was the Ansett way.....
When the decision is made the replacement will be utilised as best as it can on routes suitable for it operated by Mt Cook.
This has nothing to do with the 737 replacement. That will likely be the next generation 737 / 320 somewhere around 2015.
Try putting a Q400 on the main trunk and you need another 50% flights just to provide the same capacity.
You get longer sector times, problems with lack of gates and no airbridges.
Not likely
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.flightglobal.com/staticpages/schedules.html
The link above is the one I use when I wonder how many airlines operate on any particular route in the world. I think Flightglobal has it for people who have nothing better to do than wonder about these things.
A quick look at the Sydney to Coffs harbor example shows that now 2007 there are several Qantas flights using Q300s, and Virgin now has twice daily with 737-700s. I would guess this will become an E-190 city for Virgin when they build up their fleet.
So, it was not Qantas who suffered, it was Rex, the airline who operated Saab340s. In NZ, a small regional operator could not compete against the size of AirNZ in the market, or Virgin, just seeing how they go. If Origin Pacific was still around and flying Auckland Nelson against the AirNZ frequency, and PB seeing how they go, they would have the difficulties, whatever their existing problems were, just as Rex needed a lot of sorting out.
If you are a business traveller, then the AirNZ service will make sense. People who take the middle of the day flight, will forget about the cost of a hotel in the big smoke city. If you are travelling for a medical appointment you have to go at the time that makes best use of your time.
If there is a jet selling $39 fares, it may take people off the roads or make them think about a trip that they would not have planned.
Qantas has done a very good job of surviving against the cheap airlines who undercut it. Even leisure travellers choose Qantas for domestic trips, just because it is Qantas. (One of the ads for Holden in Australia, was "we bought it because it was a Holden.") People will still use AirNZ for that reason.
On the other hand, if Tiger enters the NZ market, and some consumer affairs issues are sorted out, if they offer people in Dunedin $10 lead in fares to Auckland you can expect the phone network in Dunedin to melt down in 15 minutes.
The link above is the one I use when I wonder how many airlines operate on any particular route in the world. I think Flightglobal has it for people who have nothing better to do than wonder about these things.
A quick look at the Sydney to Coffs harbor example shows that now 2007 there are several Qantas flights using Q300s, and Virgin now has twice daily with 737-700s. I would guess this will become an E-190 city for Virgin when they build up their fleet.
So, it was not Qantas who suffered, it was Rex, the airline who operated Saab340s. In NZ, a small regional operator could not compete against the size of AirNZ in the market, or Virgin, just seeing how they go. If Origin Pacific was still around and flying Auckland Nelson against the AirNZ frequency, and PB seeing how they go, they would have the difficulties, whatever their existing problems were, just as Rex needed a lot of sorting out.
If you are a business traveller, then the AirNZ service will make sense. People who take the middle of the day flight, will forget about the cost of a hotel in the big smoke city. If you are travelling for a medical appointment you have to go at the time that makes best use of your time.
If there is a jet selling $39 fares, it may take people off the roads or make them think about a trip that they would not have planned.
Qantas has done a very good job of surviving against the cheap airlines who undercut it. Even leisure travellers choose Qantas for domestic trips, just because it is Qantas. (One of the ads for Holden in Australia, was "we bought it because it was a Holden.") People will still use AirNZ for that reason.
On the other hand, if Tiger enters the NZ market, and some consumer affairs issues are sorted out, if they offer people in Dunedin $10 lead in fares to Auckland you can expect the phone network in Dunedin to melt down in 15 minutes.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.airliners.net/discussions....main/3741644/
This is a link to a thread that shows why Continental have chosen the Q400 to replace the E-145 out of Newark.
This is a link to a thread that shows why Continental have chosen the Q400 to replace the E-145 out of Newark.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iceblock
Back before the Q300 was decided on, as I understand it, a domestic fleet evaluation took place which included the 737 and down. What then transpired was that they replaced a 32 seater with a 50 seater. So what they now require is a 90 to 100 seater to replace the ATR.
Now at the moment the Q400X is only a paper aeroplane and the only option for a 90 seater is a jet, but to make that work efficiently it may need to do some 737 routes and this would maybe affect 737 fleet. Whether this will affect the fleet replacement of the 737 who knows, but I think certainly that pac blue entering the regional market (I think it's going to happen) has changed the way of thinking with the domestic fleet mix.
Then they have covered their butt with pac blue and can still use the Q300 for possible cheap turbo-prop operator.
This has nothing to do with the 737 replacement. That will likely be the next generation 737 / 320 somewhere around 2015.
Now at the moment the Q400X is only a paper aeroplane and the only option for a 90 seater is a jet, but to make that work efficiently it may need to do some 737 routes and this would maybe affect 737 fleet. Whether this will affect the fleet replacement of the 737 who knows, but I think certainly that pac blue entering the regional market (I think it's going to happen) has changed the way of thinking with the domestic fleet mix.
Then they have covered their butt with pac blue and can still use the Q300 for possible cheap turbo-prop operator.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An E-jet order (especially a E190) has the added advantage of opening up additional trans-tasman opportunities. Canberra-AKL/WLG and Hobart-CHC/WLG spring to mind. CHC-ADL too, if it has the legs.
Even the 717 would have been a good jet for NZ and able to service the regions but assume it would have been a bit too big! This would be better if QF was to expand to Dunners etc
Anyone know which is cheaper to operate?
Q400
717
CRJ
E-Jet
Anyone know which is cheaper to operate?
Q400
717
CRJ
E-Jet
Regional Turboprop Resurgence Continues; Jet Demand Shifts Upward
(Newtown, Conn., December 10, 2007) -- In its latest study on "The Market for Regional Transport Aircraft," Forecast International projects that 3,800 regional aircraft will be produced from 2007 through 2016, including 2,539 regional jets and 1,261 regional turboprops. The new study estimates the overall value of this production at $99.7 billion, as measured in constant 2007 U.S. dollars.
While regional jets remain the dominant products in the market, regional turboprop airliners are continuing to experience a remarkable resurgence in demand. Accounting for the revival of market interest in turboprops is a combination of factors, including continuing growth in air traffic, rising fuel prices, and a need on the part of regional airlines to cut costs and reduce fares in the face of low-fare carrier competition.
ATR and Bombardier are the two leading manufacturers of regional turboprops, and have been busily ramping up production rates to meet the robust demand for their products. According to Forecast International senior aerospace analyst Raymond Jaworowski, "ATR and Bombardier stayed in the regional turboprop business while many of their competitors were dropping out, and they are now reaping the rewards of their perseverance."
Looking to further take advantage of the robust market demand, ATR recently launched enhanced -600 versions of its 50-seat ATR 42 and 70-seat ATR 72 turboprops and has begun considering development of a 90-seat model. Bombardier, meanwhile, has been mulling the possible launch of a 90-seat version of its 70-seat Q400 turboprop.
As for jet-powered aircraft, regional jet demand has been shifting ever upward to larger-capacity aircraft. The market for 50-seat regional jets is but a slim shadow of what it was in the late 1990s, and demand is currently concentrated on 70-seat and especially 90-seat aircraft. However, scope clauses in airline pilot contracts remain an artificial constraint on sales of 90-125 seat regional jets, and an easing of this situation is needed before the market can reach its full potential.
Bombardier and Embraer currently dominate the regional jet market. With a product line stretching to 122 seats, Embraer is the better-positioned of the two to take advantage of the trend toward larger aircraft. Bombardier's current regional jet line tops out at 100 seats, though the firm is contemplating launch of a 110-130 seat aircraft family called the CSeries. Meanwhile, new regional jet models such as the AVIC I ARJ21, the Sukhoi Superjet 100, and the Mitsubishi Regional Jet models are in development, and will challenge the Embraer and Bombardier products for sales.
The Forecast International study projects that, during the 2007-2016 time period, Embraer will produce 1,268 regional jets, a market share of 33.4 percent. Bombardier is projected to build 1,067 regional aircraft (jets and turboprops combined), a share of 28.1 percent. ATR is forecast to build 395 regional turboprops for a 10.4 percent market share. No other company is predicted to have a unit production share exceeding 10 percent. The value of Embraer production during the forecast period is $40.7 billion, for a 40.8 percent market share. Bombardier is projected to build $33.1 billion worth of regional aircraft, for a 33.2 percent share. The value of forecast ATR production is estimated at $7.0 billion, a seven percent share.
Source : Forecast International Inc.
While regional jets remain the dominant products in the market, regional turboprop airliners are continuing to experience a remarkable resurgence in demand. Accounting for the revival of market interest in turboprops is a combination of factors, including continuing growth in air traffic, rising fuel prices, and a need on the part of regional airlines to cut costs and reduce fares in the face of low-fare carrier competition.
ATR and Bombardier are the two leading manufacturers of regional turboprops, and have been busily ramping up production rates to meet the robust demand for their products. According to Forecast International senior aerospace analyst Raymond Jaworowski, "ATR and Bombardier stayed in the regional turboprop business while many of their competitors were dropping out, and they are now reaping the rewards of their perseverance."
Looking to further take advantage of the robust market demand, ATR recently launched enhanced -600 versions of its 50-seat ATR 42 and 70-seat ATR 72 turboprops and has begun considering development of a 90-seat model. Bombardier, meanwhile, has been mulling the possible launch of a 90-seat version of its 70-seat Q400 turboprop.
As for jet-powered aircraft, regional jet demand has been shifting ever upward to larger-capacity aircraft. The market for 50-seat regional jets is but a slim shadow of what it was in the late 1990s, and demand is currently concentrated on 70-seat and especially 90-seat aircraft. However, scope clauses in airline pilot contracts remain an artificial constraint on sales of 90-125 seat regional jets, and an easing of this situation is needed before the market can reach its full potential.
Bombardier and Embraer currently dominate the regional jet market. With a product line stretching to 122 seats, Embraer is the better-positioned of the two to take advantage of the trend toward larger aircraft. Bombardier's current regional jet line tops out at 100 seats, though the firm is contemplating launch of a 110-130 seat aircraft family called the CSeries. Meanwhile, new regional jet models such as the AVIC I ARJ21, the Sukhoi Superjet 100, and the Mitsubishi Regional Jet models are in development, and will challenge the Embraer and Bombardier products for sales.
The Forecast International study projects that, during the 2007-2016 time period, Embraer will produce 1,268 regional jets, a market share of 33.4 percent. Bombardier is projected to build 1,067 regional aircraft (jets and turboprops combined), a share of 28.1 percent. ATR is forecast to build 395 regional turboprops for a 10.4 percent market share. No other company is predicted to have a unit production share exceeding 10 percent. The value of Embraer production during the forecast period is $40.7 billion, for a 40.8 percent market share. Bombardier is projected to build $33.1 billion worth of regional aircraft, for a 33.2 percent share. The value of forecast ATR production is estimated at $7.0 billion, a seven percent share.
Source : Forecast International Inc.