|
Can certainly say that every Alliance driver i know, loves the company and the lifestyle.
Good management, work, aircraft and crew |
Originally Posted by galdian
(Post 10351993)
Just wondering what you'd replace them with?
What's in ready international supply, older so depreciated and cheap(er) to buy but with proven reliability and fits the bottom line? Or is there another "niche" type in limited supplies but being run out by major airlines at a discount like the B717/F100 are/were?? 737-5? A319? JungleJet variants? Interesting exercise. |
One new A220 would probably cost as much as half the Alliance fleet :}
|
Originally Posted by Kulwin Park
(Post 10352500)
Airbus A220's would be an ideal replacement on some routes. By just buying a few to slow down the flyig hours on the 70's & 100's would give the Fokkers an extra life.
Originally Posted by airdualbleedfault
(Post 10352545)
One new A220 would probably cost as much as half the Alliance fleet :}
|
If it was my train-set I’d be looking closely at the MRJ Alliance have done well as a niche carrier and they seem to be able to capitalise on opportunities very well. They are, however, like a trucking company with a fleet of very old trucks that will be off the road shortly. The lease costs of new generation jets will be a shock. |
Alliance bought the entire Austrian F70/100 fleet some years ago.
They still have around 7 aircraft stored in Europe waiting to head south. They expect to stay with F70/100 until the end of the decade |
Google says a220 90 mil per unit. Alliance bought 22 F100s a few years back for 18 mil from memory.
Rumour has it VARA paid 16 for one. I reckon the Fokker will go another 20 years. The only things that would change this would be something like a spar life limit, rising fuel costs or spare parts company closing down. I think they’ll have the capital by then to handle the lease costs. |
Originally Posted by ghyde
(Post 10353116)
They expect to stay with F70/100 until the end of the decade |
spare parts company closing down. |
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 10353040)
I am not sure I would want to be the first in Australia to introduce a new type with the regulatory pain that would cause. The Embraer jets are known and proven, already operated in Australia with some experienced crews and engineers. The A220 would be interesting, the manufacturer would be very keen I am sure, lots of assistance.
|
In 10-20 years there is going to be an oversupply of 319/320s on the market from those carriers that rode the 2000-2010 expansion wave. 319s will be going for peanuts. Some are already being scrapped. |
I'm with you Wheels Down, as the A318 & 19 have/are being discarded by many airlines as they upgrade capacity and can be picked up for a song. The A318 not so much, as not as many were produced while most were scrapped for parts as they got more worth than an operating unit... but it would be ideal IF sourced. Same PCNs as the already approved A320 airstrips.
Other options are interesting too - the MRJ; SSJ and of course the EMB series but I'm abit suss' about those as an operator tried with those and is no more (Maybe it was the management of said Company :} ) What does concern me though, is the sad fact that Australian Aviation has come to this disgraceful point mentioned above, stymying any progress or efficiencies : I am not sure I would want to be the first in Australia to introduce a new type with the regulatory pain that would cause. |
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 10353040)
I am not sure I would want to be the first in Australia to introduce a new type with the regulatory pain that would cause. The Embraer jets are known and proven, already operated in Australia with some experienced crews and engineers. The A220 would be interesting, the manufacturer would be very keen I am sure, lots of assistance.
I would still guess that the A220 would be a little above their budget (IIRC you could nearly get two 73s - some sort of ‘deal’ - for the sticker price of the A220). Although as some have mentioned, the A319 might be a better option that fits with their current business model. As long as the other carriers are stymied with decision paralysis Alliance should continue to turn a profit. |
I reckon the Fokker will go another 20 years. The only things that would change this would be something like a spar life limit, rising fuel costs or spare parts company closing down. |
Originally Posted by 4EvahLearning
(Post 10353152)
Well, that isn't too far away - about 12 months by my estimate.
Parts are not an issue as they are regularly scrapping aircraft to recover parts. Also they purchased Austrians spare engines and spare parts supply. |
Originally Posted by industry insider
(Post 10353458)
i don’t think the mining companies will let the Fokker go beyond 30, some even 25, meaning that they will soon looking to modernise. |
Airbus are nice when they are new but are designed with a limited lifespan in mind and being relatively complicated, will get prohibitively expensive to maintain as they get older. Modern aircraft are like modern cars, disposable. A Toyota from the mid 2000s was well built and relatively simple, it could be easily fixed and kept on the road. A car built today is full of electronics and not designed to last more than about ten years when it is expected to be scrapped. A DC3 can be kept flying forever, and there are still plenty of 30 year old Boeing aircraft in the air. However these are much simpler designs which could easily be repaired and it was often high fuel prices which led to them being grounded. The business model of operating older aircraft and accepting higher maintenance and fuel costs but saving on capital costs because the airframe was a fraction of the price of a new one, might not be viable in 20-30 years time. Few things are built to last last these days, most things are now made to a price with little expectation of repair and once it goes wrong you are meant to buy another. |
Originally Posted by neville_nobody
(Post 10353794)
Mining companies fly in the cheapest option available every time. You could offer them a brand new A220 but if it is 1 cent more expensive to charter than 30 year old F100 they will fly in the F100. That is why Alliance have gone and bought so many aircraft. Noone is going to be able to compete with them in that market space as parts become more scarce. Competitors will be forced to look at other aircraft but won't be able to compete on price, partly in due to the low capital cost of the F100. People I've spoken to at the airline have said the A318 could be appealing, while E-Jet values are going down as more carriers replace them - albeit not yet to the same value as the Fokkers. Depending on how long the wet-lease stuff for Virgin and occasionally Qantas lasts for, there would be good reason to take in a second fleet type like the E-Jets, but the miners won't pay a cent more for a new type. A220, MRJ, SSJ will never make it into Alliance's fleet. |
Comfortable aeroplane
Speaking from a passenger's POV, I recon the Alliance Fokkers are ahead of the competition. They are more comfortable, with bigger seats, more leg room and a proper stand up loo. |
As long as the other carriers are stymied with decision paralysis Alliance should continue to turn a profit. They are more comfortable, with bigger seats, more leg room and a proper stand up loo. as the A318 & 19 have/are being discarded by many airlines as they upgrade capacity and can be picked up for a song. The 100 seat aircraft is what is needed and more importantly, what the clients will pay for. It suits shift change sizes. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:19. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.