Why do we fly the aircraft we do?

[locknut]

Hello all!
I have a question, not a dig but a genuine question relating to Skippers Aviation. I'm not sure whether I should post this in the Airline section as Skippers aren't really an airline, only half of one. Anyways (that wasn't the question...), I'm interested to know why Skippers operate the aircraft they do? I.e:

Metro vs. J32/1900D/Bandeirante
Dash 8 vs. Dornier/F27/Saab 340/ATR-42
Brasilia vs. something else
C441 vs. B200

I don't have any time on these types of aircraft so I'm sorry for asking the question if it is an obvious answer.

I'm after factual evidence which supports people’s argument and some interesting yarns would be good too. Hopefully I’ll entice some experienced pilots that have flown a range of aircraft in the same category...

[disco_air]

In deciding what a/c types an airline uses, I dont think what pilots think of them is entirely what its based on.

...Disco

[locknut]

I think that's pretty obvious...

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. Am looking for things like:
- short field take off performane
- ability to climb on one engine
- passenger comfort
- maintenace costs
- load carrying ability
- range etc

[Tiger 77]

I think there's only one aircraft that is superior in every one of those fields... the ol' DHC-5 Buffalo. I am also wondering why Skippers doesn't operate them but I guess it's their loss.

Cheers,

Tiger.

[Dry_Twotter]

tiger tiger tiger,

I agree the buffalo is a good aircraft, but why would you fly something like that when there are plenty of good twin otter 300's getting around. Twotters can get off in 1/2 the distance of a buffalo - i'll show you on flight sim.......

Its either that or the 209-900T

DT

[Tiger 77]

Originally Posted by Dry_Twotter

Twotters can get off in 1/2 the distance of a buffalo

That is NOT TRUE Mr Dry_twotter... As an experienced DHC-5 and DHC-6 captain I can tell you right now that the Buffalo gets off the ground in just over half the distance of the Twotter. The Buffalo is, and always will be, king of the skies.

As for the 209, not designed for STOL although its about the same size as the Twotter. Buffalo is about twice the size and would suit a regional airline.

Cheers,
Tiger.

[Continental-520]

Ha!

I can GUARANTEEyou that a C209, particularly the -900T can get off in 180m, add an extra 73m for every 100kg overloaded. Mmm.


520.

[Lodown]

- short field take off performance
- ability to climb on one engine
- passenger comfort
- maintenance costs
- load carrying ability
- range etc

Locknut, there's a number of other considerations and as with anything in aviation, the outcome is a compromise. You can put numbers to each category, but mostly in the end it comes down to a best guess.

Other considerations are:

- expected number of passengers and amount of freight
- availability of support and parts
- integration with current operations (eg. no good operating a turbine into areas where fuel is required and only Avgas is available)
- expected revenue per seat mile compared with costs per seat mile
- purchase cost and expected resale value
- pilot training requirements
- reliability
- performance (in general)

In the end, a company evaluates the market and will choose aircraft based on maximising profit, serving the market, ensuring long term survivability and outperforming present and expected future competition.

Grab a book on aviation operations and economics and you'll see that what pilots think about a particular aircraft doesn't factor heavily into the decision making.

[Led Zep]

Ok, to get back on topic.
The metros were buy five get one free. They are trucks with wings, nothing fancy, cheap to run and thus make huge money for the company. Just pray that wng ovht light doesn't start flashing on the annunciator panel at night in the middle of nowhere! Or ever.
The conquests used less fuel than the king airs skippers once had. Ironically they are now costing a huge amount to maintain. Still, they are stunning performers how is FL100 in 3 minutes with a decent load? network and maroomba also use the cessnas.
Brasilias are a dime a dozen in the 'states both skippers and network fly ex skywest braz a/c and why not when you can get em for pittance?
Dash 8 probably because they keep going when the braz are grounded due electrical gremlins and non egpws compliance! Suppose we shouldn't overlook their stol performance either, handy for crappy strips on a 45 degree day during a mine shutdown. As used by njs and maroomba.

I see it as the companies at perth picking the best aircraft for the fifo contracts they have. I'd be worried if my company had vastly different aircraft to my competitors and essentially doing the same thing. Unless I were making millions and they weren't.



Now back OFF topic:
I've got a 900T off the ground in less then 150m, and I was being a good employee so I made sure I took that 360kgs extra freight that my boss said the clients needed so urgently! All this was on a return flight to KNX at night with nill aerodrome lighting (no stby, no resp person and they were out of flares) a 60kt tailwind (no windsock light but that wouldn't have mattered because I had to re-skin the upper wing with something) and 17000ft density altitude. Serious.

[chimbu warrior]

I can answer one of your questions......

As to why Skippers don't operate the F27, unless you were getting the aircraft for free, the cost of fuel would put you in the poorhouse within days. The Dart engines aren't exactly cheap to maintain either!

[Brasilian Bird]

Aside from the stuff mentioned above (eg short field performance, cargo capacity etc)

I reckon thigs such as client preference, versatility (can use for FIFO stuff as well as corporate-style charters), what the competition are using - as stated Network are using the Braz as well (they have 6 now, an increase on the 1 or 2 they orginially had), as well as the 441's and Metros... Maroomba have the QRA Dash 8's, Kingairs etc... also things such as passenger comfort would come into it (who wouldn't prefer a Braz or Dash over a Metro - not many I can tell you!)... also I guess for aircraft that are ageing (such as the Conquests) maintenance would be a big issue... availability of parts, people qualified on the types etc... ability to train crew on more than 1 type...

Seems the tides are changing though and looks as though these guys know it... hence the increase in these operators preferring/using Brasilias and Dash 8's over the smaller types... seems to be a lot of a/c sharing between these three as well... NJS look as though they're leasing the odd a/c to Skippers, who in turn seem to be loaning Metros for Network or whoever... Looks like this is a pretty regular thing here.. but as said earlier I'm sure these guys have all done the math for what would suit the FIFO ops here best and those types are what they came up with.

I do wonder though how much longer the older stuff like the 441's will hold out in the market against the newer Brasilias etc... for instance the 441's getting around in plain blue and white the last week or two (which I suppose belong to Skippers - guess maybe they're getting rid of them finally?)

[west atc]

VH-LBA and VH-LBC flew out to Adelaide on Monday apparently sold. One ironic note for us that have been frustrated by the lack of GPSRNAV capability is that on their flight to Adelaide they were finally GPSRNAV approved.
Can anyone tell me why the every Skippers aircraft apart from the Conquests are GPSRNAV approved?
When VH-XMG first arrived in Perth it was approved, but as soon as Skippers started using it the approval had gone.

[locknut]

thanks so much for all the info guys/girlz it has been a great help!!