Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

DJ Turboprops announced in Skywest tie up

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

DJ Turboprops announced in Skywest tie up

Old 23rd Feb 2011, 09:19
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,311
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
I wonder if they have worked out where they are going to park them during embarkation and disembarkation?
KRUSTY 34 is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 09:26
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bum-phuck, Idaho.
Posts: 44
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
At an airport I assume

I get your point though Krusty. Sydney is an obvoius cluster phuck and is only getting worse. DOM 6 then a rather long bus ride.
Global Xpress is online now  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 09:27
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quite easy Krusty.

SY
CB
ML
WG
AY
PMQ
CH
MIA
BN
EML
MK
RK
GLA
TV
CS

And anywhere else QLINK are making a killing.
Normasars is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 09:28
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Krusty, wouldnt it be just as it would for a 737/Ejet, just making sure the gates are available or possible share the REX stands in SYD,MEL,ADL?
KittyBlue is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 09:33
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh and I was right! Thankyou come again

Never doubt Skystar320
Skystar320 is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 09:35
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I suspect the ATR is going to make itself a right pain in the arse to Qlink and REX.

I predicted the Ejet would do the same years ago. How I was wrong. The only pain was felt by Virgin and the shareholder.

GAFA how many commands disappeared off the 170? Would be interesting to know.

Now the biggest question is in the XR court:

What is the package? Is it XR EBA or separate? F50 conditions or less or more?

You'd have to say the timing of the REX EBA is uncanny isn't KRUSTY? Very very good timing for you guys. Now all at once say "Thank you John"!

Well done Skystar. I reckon I'm wrong about 80% of the time!! Oh well keeps some entertained. Even the mods get a laugh out of me sometimes .
Mr. Hat is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 09:46
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hat, as for both could fly either e70/90 wouldnt have DJ based their command on E90's only? Naturally people are going to leave, would you think the total commands would have been lost?
KittyBlue is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 09:52
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry need to rephrase.

How many E170s are going and how many commands does that equal? Just out of interest. Horse has bolted, the milk has been spilt...

I imagine there is a surplus of Ejet captains given the departure of the 170s. It has to be absorbed somewhere so some senior EFFO will be waiting longer as a result..
Mr. Hat is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 10:22
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
hmmm nice media getting it wrong:

"was the 68-seat ATR-500 and ATR-600 turboprop aircraft"
Skystar320 is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 13:00
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: FL290
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
HTF did the DJ board approve the E170 to begin with?
1a sound asleep is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 15:37
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: .
Posts: 756
Received 29 Likes on 9 Posts
ATR is an interesting choice - be interesting to see if they go for the optional APUs or stick with the prop brake 'hotel' system.

Speed of the ATR certainly might be an issue in QLD on routes such as BNE-LRE thats for sure, enjoy your wider cabin because you'll be sitting in it longer ! Be interesting to see how they market against QFlink as well, with things like free grog on PM flights on QFlink, and the 'fastest' aircraft mantle that QFlink will be able to throw at them. You would have thought taking Q400s and trying to entice Qflink drivers over with more money to create a disturbance to QFlink by 'poaching' their pilots would have been an interesting ploy as well. Some of this still may go on - but would have been easier with ready trained and endorsed and somewhat unhappy Q400 guys sitting at QFlink.

Parking certainly will become interesting in BNE especially, QF spent a lot upgrading the regional apron, the old Ansett apron has been turned into 2 parking bays for E-Jets, certainly not a lot of room around the place, nor a 'regional' area anymore in the old gate 49 area, also an area where QF has spent a lot of money down at their end of the terminal.

1a - DJ really seemed to believe that passengers would flock to a 'jet' if it was being flown against a prop, sadly I think they failed to realise that most people have NO IDEA of the difference between a Q400 or a E-Jet, and they simply don't care if it results in them saving $2 on the fare. Even chockers the E-Jet wouldn't be making anything like the money a 3/4 full Q400 would be making - sadly DJ didn't learn from the Ansett disaster that was the Kendell CRJ-200s, both just not suitable for Australia, which the history books will now show.
puff is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 16:34
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Preferred the wider cabin and slower speed of the 42 (or 72), and the smoother landings of the trailing arm undercarriage, - to the 360 knot speed and three abreast tube of the Saab 2000 with its stiff oleos, on long Pacific routes over a dozen years ago. With the increased capability of the 72-600 s to deliver a smoother ride with better navigation and weather avoidance displays, the pax will get to love them. Just have the girls fuss over them a little more.
frigatebird is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 17:47
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alba sor
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
to deliver a smoother ride

You surely are having a laugh, they are noisy, crampted and slow... yeah a good choice right enough.... oh and they are french.... nuff said.

Mark my words, it will end in tears...
Meeb is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 18:54
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the ejets were based on three sets of crew per an aircraft. Two sets operating per a day.
KittyBlue is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 19:35
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,311
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
6 drivers per aircraft!

That's efficient Kitty'
KRUSTY 34 is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 19:52
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I bloodywell hope its got an APU! I mean seriously were in 2011.

You would have thought taking Q400s and trying to entice Qflink drivers over with more money to create a disturbance to QFlink by 'poaching' their pilots
Puff they can't base purchasing a type on stealing pilots. Nor can they base their recruitment practices on hurting the opposition. I agree its a great idea but there would be a lot more to consider I'm sure.

DJ really seemed to believe that passengers would flock to a 'jet' if it was being flown against a prop, sadly I think they failed to realise that most people have NO IDEA of the difference between a Q400 or a E-Jet,
Yep a Godfrey decision along with live to air, premium economy, 777's with small cargo doors, Navitaire and who know what else. Kudos for starting it and getting it up and running but at the 4 year mark it was time to go. I'm sure there were many within that were pulling their hair out at the time. Having said all that the 777's are getting closer to breaking even and might one day be the big earner for the group.

I think the public do prefer a jet thats pretty obvious. What is more obvious looking at the 170 ATR comparison is that the dollars just don't add up on those routes.

One has to ask: If the Ejets were never bought in the first place would Borghetti be seeking out the E190 or any type to be placed on the "thinner" 737 routes today? Somehow I don't think so. I think the E190s are still here because to remove them would be too hard at this point. I suspect the returning Captains mentioned a few posts ago realise this and are heading back to the 73 while they can.

Good luck to the XR guys and those wanting to fly the ATR.
Mr. Hat is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 20:25
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 42
Posts: 56
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
So, I guess the big question is how many of the XR ladies and gents will move to the east coast?

There really aren't that many ATR type rated pilots around one would have thought... with the exception of across the ditch in NZ or the green pants brigade

Does anyone in the know have pertinent information on recruiting timetables and total crew required.

Straight home and don't spare the horses
HomeJames is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 20:59
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,302
Received 44 Likes on 33 Posts
ATR's TVL based initially...
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 21:47
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,876
Received 453 Likes on 250 Posts
Preferred the wider cabin and slower speed of the 42 (or 72), and the smoother landings of the trailing arm undercarriage, - to the 360 knot speed and three abreast tube of the Saab 2000 with its stiff oleos, on long Pacific routes over a dozen years ago. With the increased capability of the 72-600 s to deliver a smoother ride with better navigation and weather avoidance displays, the pax will get to love them. Just have the girls fuss over them a little more.
The SAAB 2000 has a seat pitch of 32 inch compared to a maximum of 31 inch in the 68 seater ATR 72, the 72-74 seat version is 29 inch. Although the cabin is slightly narrower on the 2000 it is only 3 abreast so the actual seat width on the 2000 is 60cm compared to 52cm on the ATR. With more leg room and arm room and a cruise speed 90kts faster (360kt S2000 and 270kt ATR 72) I know which is more comfortable. Additionally the 2000 climbs to FL300 in no time, the ATR takes forever to achieve FL200, this alone without fancy computers will ensure most weather is avoided much like a jet.

I assume the pacific routes were with Air Marshal Island when they had the sole 2000?

With regard to vs Q400 the only real advantage is fuel burn and possibly a little quieter. The seat width difference is small, seat pitch is 31 inch on the QF Q400. Again the Q400 quickly gets to FL200 plus which gets you clear of most of the weather in Eastern Australia. It will be interesting to see if VB opt for the IFE or maybe a business type seat up front.
43Inches is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 22:08
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thought it was BNE.

The again then 330 started in MEL and ended up in SYD. Thats aviation for you.

6 crews per frame i think it is.

6 x 4 = 24 or 32 (8)
6 x 18 = 108 or 144 (8)

The SAAB 2000 is no longer in production. Seems some good machines are no longer produced:
F100
SAAB2000
EMB Brasilia

Most of the weather is at those levels. ATR/SAAB/Q400 none of them cruise at Braz levels!

Last edited by Mr. Hat; 24th Feb 2011 at 19:44.
Mr. Hat is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.