I disagree your point of how the FK50 are flying to the limit.... just exactly how can you explain it?

I think I can answer that question for you Skystar, from a pilot operators perspective the F50 is a fantastic peice of equipment even by todays standard (IMHO) over a 200 nm sector it doesnt make a lot of difference over any jet. XR has historically been a sound operator, however it operates principally in an RPT market, which is a different ball game to the contract charter market.

The Market "wants" a jet, the governments "want" a jet and as impractical as that may seem, thats what they "want"

Virgin has answered the call with the E-Jet as impractical as we all saw it at the time, but years on here we are, the E-jet perfectly positioned for exactly that role.

XR on the other hand are not, the market sees the F50 as old 1950's technology, dinosaurs, which should have been retired years ago and whilst the Charter market will accept that the modern day core RPT market will not.

It's sad, but a fact of life and XR will most likely become a casualty of that fact.

Xeptu, greatly written. I understand the needs & wants especially how people complain they want a Jet. [mind you pax are first to complain then ticket prices go up from the price of fuel]

Though maybe just wrong words by joepatroni

"It does seem that XR are flying these F5O's to the limit. One does have to ask why they have not announced any plans for upgrading these aircraft. Perhaps they know they have only have a limited time left on the protected routes and very soon they will be opened up to other carriers. They seem to be riding on the crest of the boom wave and not really investing in the core WA rpt sector. "

The FK50 still has plenty of time left, and is a beautiful aircraft piSS over a Dash 8 or ATR42 anyday!

Wholeheartedly Agreed! but they wont piss all over a Q-400 or an E-jet and thats what the competition is proposing.

If the F50 was running at minimum 80% full it would beat a QF400 or Ejet wouldnt it?

beat it in "what" aspects?

In being financially sustainable, and profitable on this route

note the screening comes in if the operator runs a jet on a route and it is an RPT service, regardless of aircraft size. So Port Macquarie, Mildura, etc are all required to screen DJ's Embraers I believe...

Skystar320 would you be kind enough to let us know if you are rated on the FK50, DHC8 or ATR42.

sure - the answer is no neither....

If you look at documents that are readily available over the internet you may find that the FK50 is more suitable to these ops?


Though I do have a soft spot for the FK50 as a pax

FK 50 had it's day??
 

:oh:Just a point of interest, Cityhopper (read KLM) is still operating Fokker 50's out of Amsterdam to destinations all over Europe.Perhaps they are finding it difficult to find a replacement?:confused:

Yep, but they are replacing the F100 with EMB170/190's. :ok:

The F100 is been replaced world over by the EMB-170/190. But the F100 still serves WA well based on its payload uplift out of hot high ports (Newman, Argyle, Mount Keith etc). I am not sure whether the E-170/190 can lift these payloads out of these type of airstrips, maybe it can?

But at a unit cost of around $6 million or for a very good example maybe $8 million, this is considerably cheaper than one would expect to pay for a E-170/190. You would have to fill a large number of seats to make the E-170/190 make as much return as the F100 would.

Off topic just a bit, but can any E-170/190 driver confirm that the aeroplane only has one autopilot and it cant handle Engine out Inop conditions, ie: You have to disconnect the a/p when a engine fails. Secure the engine, and then the a/p can come back on once the engine is secured. Heard this the other day and found it hard to believe for such a modern aircraft.

Kim-ex.

The E-jet autopilot has no problems controling the aircraft either during or following an engine failure.

Have a look on their website on Commercial Jets, and go to a link something to do with updating your fleet or something, and look at all the differences with the F100 to the Embraer 170/ 175 and the Embraer 190/ 195

PM me if you need a link...

joepatroni, how are Skywest flying the F50's to the limit?

Skywest had Bombardier do a demo flight of the Q400 some time back. The reps at the time bragged about how you just had to advance the power levers to max and then press buttons to set power. The guys and girls from Skywest later mentioned to the Reps that the F50 has had that for years. So those of you who have never flown an F50 or stuck your head in one you should, just to see how far Fokker were ahead of the times.

:ok:

They were ahead of their time in 1988 but 20 years later that may not be the case. Certainly the Embraer's seem to be getting good press from those that fly on them. Would be interesting to know what the difference in seat cost is between the two. I thought Embraer designed those jets to take the regional business away from turboprops so you would think they are comparable, cost wise to run.

EMBRAER

All round comparisons to a few jets (F100, AVRO etc)


Also,

You would think so,,,, but no... not necessarily... the F50 can be more cost effective than the Embraer jets, however as mentioned earlier, the jets are more what people want... perhaps not as cost effective but its what the people want, looks wise, comfort, for pilots, A/C systems, maint. etc, so does that therefore make it better?

I have to say a strong yes.... however at the very same time... no

Xf70 & Xf100
 

Maybe they finally get going with the "new" Fokker jets.

Fokker Aircraft

hasnt these aircraft been in the production queue for many years and without success?