Troo, if you wanted the discussion to focus on the industrial aspect, why did you start the wind up by taking a crack at the performance of the 717?

I am curious, who you are directing all this spleen at? I hope it is not the Cobham crews them selves, it would be a shame to perpetuate the whole "divide and conquer" strategy you claim the 717 is a part of, by making it a Cobham v's qlink/mainline thing. May I suggest you write a strongly worded letter to AJ stating you disapproval instead?

And here was I thinking the flying was transferred because aged 734s were retired and replaced with 738s, which in turn are to be used on better yielding routes more suited to the 738's capabilities. This left a hole. What to service the routes covered by the retiring 734s in the face of Virgin's Jungle Jet expansion?

Fleet utilisation numbers...
 

A friend was recently bemoaning the current 737 fleet utilisation numbers: twenty years ago the fleet average was around 10 hours/day...and a lease cost around $323,000/month for a -400

Today our resident math genius has driiven the daily use down to circa 6 hours while paying slightly more per diem for a lease.

The idea that 738 hulls are being freed up for more profitable routes is true in theory, but does not appear to have a basis in fact.

As an aside, it does cost QF a lot less for an overnight crewed by cabin crew on 33K/year (717, as revealed by one of their crew): 1/3 the mainliine cost approximately.

Can someone here reveal what meal payments the 717 "enjoy"?

Capt Claret,

Are you suggesting there is some intelligence at Q to use appropriate planes on better yielding routes more suited to their capability? Surely you jest.

Quite a lot, considering it drinks around 2t per hour. With AVTUR at record prices, I'd reckon about $8000 a day! :eek:

curious
 

Hey Clarrie,


Just curious, did you have an answer to the question about the critical temp for each engine that reduces the RTOW below MTOW for 35 at Canberra? :confused:

Australopithecus
At 6 hrs per day, plus say 2hrs turnaround time,

Where exactly are the 737s sitting outside of 9-5.

moa999, I disagree with 6 hours for the 737, it is somewhere between 7:00 & 7:30 hours per day on the numbers I have seen. And still there looks like being a net increase of 7x 737 aircraft this year. Retirements of the 767 need to be considered, how this affects the average remains to be seen.
You have made an assumption that they are doing straight (0:35) turnarounds - that isn't the case, except in limited space apron / high frequency outports (KTA,PHE,BRM etc). They tend to do longer turns, particularly during the middle of the day. The net result is two departure peaks, early morning and late afternoon / early evening.

Net increase of 7?
They are retiring 3x -400's, so you are saying they are getting 10 new -800's?
I haven't seen that anywhere.

My understanding is that a new -800's keeps coming every month until end of ~Q3 14 (a little vague on exact number & timing), while the -400's will be gone by the end of Feb. (Basically a 1:1 exchange until now). Net 7 new -800 airframes, but am willing to be corrected.

Only 5 more B737-800s coming - delivered monthly from July to November 2014. I don't think that you can consider them as additional airframes as they are effectively replacing 255 seat B767's (there are not enough A332's being returned from JQ to replace the entire B767 fleet).

Sorry, slightly off topic but to address fuel offs "concerns", Network RPT route proving flight booked for mid Feb, my mail is they failed nothing but as per usual CASA have asked for quite a lot of re writes and amendments etc. I think going from GA with jets to RPT was a little more involved than they thought.
But 20 red tail A320s? Highly unlikely. A few green tail 320s not out of the question tho, and who knows, with Jetstar Hong Kongs continued great performance there could be a few spare in the group shortly

Capt Claret,

Are the RWY35 figures from the full length (only used if operationally required) or from intersection 'N', which is used 99% of the time?

The best I can do is give a comparison at ASP, 100' elevation less than CBR.

Bleeds off, nil wind, standard pressure.

RWY 12 A engines MTOW to ~ 29C, C Engines ~ 44C (A eng ~ 6 tonne less @ 44C)
RWY 30 A engines MTOW to ~ 27C, C engines ~ 43C

more grunt
 

The 21k gives an extra 5T, I assure you!

advantage of higher thrust
 

Clarrie,

Thanks for that. Although the departure gradients are substantially different, the figure do illustrate very nicely the advantage of the 21K engines over the 18.5K engines at ASP. :ok: :ok: :ok:

Andyn,

Welcome... :) ;)

Unfortunately for those folk who are not as familiar with the 717 performance, just promising an extra 5 tonnes doesn't mean a lot. Given that the uncontrolled variable is the OAT, the increase in critical temperature for MTOW tells most of us quite a lot about the advantages of dialling up increased thrust. :cool:

BPA,

You are quite right to highlight the typical N departure, but I think for this context the full length is relevant since that is your last option before restricting the load. :cool:

Stay Alive,

Quote: The best I can do is give a comparison at ASP, 100' elevation less than CBR.

Remember that one of the most (if not the most) limiting factor when determining RTOW is the obstruction weight limit which is a function of obstruction height and distance, temperature, airport elevation and wind, etc.
The obstruction height and distance from CB make it more weight limited than the Alice.

Obstacle not obstruction.

An obstruction prevents passage. An obstacle can be avoided.

So is CASA an obstruction to aviation, or an obstacle to it?

definitely the latter, very nearly the former

give it time