So Guv, What is happening about your proposed start up operation?

You have avoided the question like a true politician again and again. Is it ON or OFF?

Boeing's website says this about cabin air:

"All Boeing jetliners, from the earliest to the latest, have been designed to deliver approximately the same cubic volume of air per minute per passenger. The principal difference is that on newer aircraft, the air is a mixture of about 50 percent outside air and 50 percent filtered/recirculated air. Among the benefits of this design is an increased humidity level compared to the much dryer cabin environment in older jetliners"

In addition to Bally H's observations, I must add that the fuel figures quoted seem to be rather odd. Having flown 767s from the earliest -200s registered in Europe to the latest -300s, all models used versions and developments of the CF6-80 (other operators use RBs & PWs). The CF6-50 (which I assume you meant, Guv) was fitted to DC10s which are not involved here, and hence are not up for comparison.

Each development of the CF6-80 that I have flown has resulted in an increase in thrust and a reduction in specific fuel consumption.

As fuel has become the largest DOC in the past couple of years, the following may be of interest (with thanks to dispatch).

This morning, L1011-200 LGW-YQX - 360 pax - TET: 4:55 - FBO: 44 k Kg (97 k Lb) = 8950 Kg/hr, or 24.8 Kg/pax/hr. If flown by 767-300, same route, (328 pax), TET: 5:05 - FBO: 25.5 k Kg (56.1 k Lb) = 5020 Kg/hr, or 15.3 Kg/pax/hr..

Now, whichever model we're talking about, that puts the L1011 fuel/pax/hr hugely (60%+) above that of the 767. Even with the additional 32 pax, that's an awful lot of maintenance and spares before you draw even! Where the 20% "less" comes from, I simply cannot see. [Figures for the A330, anyone? - The 777 has yet to enter the IT Charter market, so is not really relevant]

As a fellow Gatbasher I nonetheless continue to wish you well in your endeavours, Guv.

Guv;

It seems to boil down to: If its so good, why in a free market is it so cheap?

It's the same as talk. As we all know, posting on this BB costs nothing. In the meantime we all eagerly wait and wait and wait for the airline (and Danny waits for the advertising revenue).
:rolleyes:

Bally Heck - the most important point in my last email (the fact that the capital cost of an L1011 is zip) you dismiss as irrelevant! :eek:

I'd like to see you do PIK-LAX with one crew (or SFB or FLL) in a 767 or A330 with a single crew ... :D

The figures, as it says on the site, are US 1998 DOT results, hence the low fuel prices. The current prices we're using for our projections are confidential, but I can say that the average figure for the route structure is under US$1/USG.

And as for the cabin air issue, 50% recycled air is still bad news; and I understand in the case of Airbuses it's 100%?

My point about Lauda Air was in reference to them being a small company operating in a small market, which you brought up. I'm fully aware they have never operated L1011s!!

Finally, the reason I compared the L1011 with the DC10 is that it is its closest peer - the B767s and A330s are considerably more modern.

DrSyn - if you check with dispatch, I suspect you'll find that your L1011-200 has RB211-524B02 engines (though with your fuel figures, it looks more like a -22B burn!). The aircraft we're looking at have RB211-524B4I engines, which have about 10% better overall fuel burn. The figures we're using are provided by DL and are well under 8 tonnes per hour on a sector like LGW-YQX. PIK-YYZ is planned at 7828kg/hr average burn, for example.

Your biggest differential is on the finance costs. Assuming you have a new B767-300, you'll be paying around US$1.2 million per month for it regardless if it flies 1 hour or 350. We, on the other hand, would have an L1011-500 that at worst would cost US$3m capital (including the cost of D Check and cabin refurbishment) - equivalent to approximately $50k/month for a reasonably rapid pay-down. In the event of an economic downturn/recession, you'll appreciate that we can park our aircraft without too much difficulty - but the owner of a new B767-300 is going to find himself in deep financial water in very short order.

Add to that the CAA requirement for three months expenses (assuming nil income) in cash at startup, and you'll see why startups are better off with older, cheaper aircraft.

Sky 9 - The L1011s are cheap because the market generally acts like a herd of sheep. We've seen it with the Convairs; we've seen it with the DC10-40s; and we've seen it with RR powered B767s (and to a lesser extent the RR powered B747s). We also saw it in the early/mid 1980s with the value of B707s - they dropped down to nothing before people realised that they still provided good lift at minimal price. I'm convinced that the same is true of the L1011s - where else can you get 300+ seaters for (relatively) pennies ... and with Stage IV engines as well?

The build quality of the L1011 is immesurably superior to anything produced today, and the design life is such that the aircraft we're looking at will be capable of operating another twenty years before any extension is needed. Properly - and I stress, properly - maintained, they will give trouble free service for a very long time.

Where people have fallen down with the L1011 in the past is largely due to the fact that it is such a good aircraft. Its system redundancy means that many operators will continue operating the aircraft whilst the primary systems are out - rather than fixing the problem on its return to base, as it was designed for.

Evanelpus - yes. Happy? :D :D :D

I promised myself I wouldn't make another entry on this thread - This is it!

I am still not sure that I recall the DC-10 entering the forum until my suggestion about the "CF50C2". However, whether or not my quote related to a -22B or a -B4I, it still seems like a lot of juice (>50%) for a small increase in pax, assuming the catchment area can provide them all, of course.

No doubt there is a sound economic reason why you compare the "old" TriStar with a "new" 767, when the latter has second-hand variants available (but, not in such numbers, I grant you!). Buy big sell cheap has, however, worked successfully in other industries.

Two-pilot ops from UK to (eg) FLL, SFB/MCO and even YYC happen on a daily basis. LAX is indeed too far.

In my experience, it has been a whille since most charter pax knew how many engines were fitted :) - Try asking who they flew with on hols next time you're in the pub. Half won't be able to tell you! Bottom line at the travel shop is what sells most seats.

With several majors apparently preparing their shareholders for "less than optimum" news, perhaps Guv's got the right economic answer and fuel is not the problem, after all.

I look forward to quaffing a beer with you again and continue to wish you good luck!

Hello Guv.

Good(ish) answer.

If you can get fuel for that price…good luck. Further research (off the internet) has revealed that the company I employ to own aircraft for me to fly obtain fuel for that sort of price. They do spend over £100,000,000 each year on fuel though, so have a certain amount of bargaining power. I suppose if you are operating a L1011 you will be in the same bargaining league :D

The cabin air issue won't go away will it. Quote from Boeing. “This high quantity of supply air results in a complete cabin air exchange about every two and one-half minutes, or about 25 air changes per hour”

Also I don't believe the L1011 is fitted with ozone filters. Quote from Boeing "If this concentration of ozone were introduced into the cabin (refers to atmospheric ozone plumes encountered in flight), passengers and crew could experience any of the following symptoms: some chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath, fatigue, headaches, nasal congestion, and eye irritation. These are typical symptoms of high ozone exposure.

As Dr Syn points out SFB and MCO are well within the range of a 767. LAX is admittedly close to the edge with a full load. Not for a 330 though.

You may be on the right track Guv. I just can't avoid the impression that your love of the L1011 is blinding you to it's faults and to the advantages of other types.

For example..."Where people have fallen down with the L1011 in the past is largely due to the fact that it is such a good aircraft"

Please....how would those people have fared if it had been a bad aircraft?

DrSyn - quaffing beer is indeed a good idea - and I too look forward to the next time! :D :D

Bally Heck - I started my career with Laker; and before that most of my pax flights were on BCal's DC10s to West Africa. I was therefore a hardline DC10 supporter. However, as I learnt more about the L1011 in the late 80s due to a couple of deals I was involved with, I became very impressed with the aircraft (especially the -500s). I've also talked with numerous pilots, engineers and managers responsible for them; all of whom wax lyrical about it - more so than any other type.

I'm having problems with your cabin air figures. The L1011 does 100% air exchange every three minutes - yet Boeing aircraft, which only do a 50% air exchange, do a complete exchange every 2.5 minutes? Surely something wrong there ... I've referred this to my CFE for comment, along with the ozone filter question, which I don't know the answer to.

That said, I'd have thought that the symptoms described would be more likely to be the effects of recirculating the same air ... and breathing everyone elses coughs, sneezes and diseases! :D :D :D

As for your last point - if you want to know what a 'bad' aircraft is like, try asking anyone who operates a B767, B777, A330 etc ... according to Delta, the L1011s would merrily do multiple sectors before coming back for maintenance. Their newest aircraft, if they are lucky, can just manage a round trip. This, according to other operators of new aircraft that I've spoken to, is symptomatic of the 'new' generation of jets.

Guv

Here's the cabin air link
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cabinair/ecs.pdf

You (or(Delta) do modern types a great diservice by casting aspersions on their reliablity. Or maybe Delta just don't treat em right.

My company operate 767s and it's little sister 24 hours per day and have few technical problems.

For the last few years they have carried tens of thousands of pilgrims to Mecca with 4, 8 and 12 hour sectors with a better dispatch rate than any other operator or type on this massive operation. (including Tristars)

This is in no small part due to the aircraft being maintained to the highest standards by some of the best engineers in the business.

And in no small part to it being a very reliable aeroplane.

I don't doubt that this applies to any commercial jetliner as if this was not the case, the manufacturer would soon find very few customers beating a path to their door.

The point is that a trijet has a high fuel consumption and fuel prices are very volatile. A middle east war could put you out of business overnight.

A "previously enjoyed" A310 would do the same job for not much more capital and a greatly reduce fuel burn. And if you get an old enough model, you could even have an engineer! :eek:

I wonder, could one actually squeeze 400 pax in an A310, like you can in a standard body TriStar? Straps from the ceiling, like a subway coach, perhaps?

Hello Flinty and Hoppy. Miss flying with you flippin gingerbeers. 2 man, 2 engine, too bad! And hoppy, the answer is Bloemfontain.

Bally
In turbulence, there is a difference! What one type will report as light chop, another will call moderate. Of the four jet types I have flown, the L-1011-500 is the hands down winner.Handling is great too.

Active controls (ACS) and direct lift control (DLC) make both cruise and approach turbulence much less uncomfortable.

The second best handling ( but not riding) aircraft I flew was also a Lockheed, the L-188.

Good on yer, skunkworks, when are you going to build a viable SST?

And this airline will start when? Just like a politician! Cant get a straight answer! WHEN??? GIVE US A DATE!!!

Airbourne, it might start when the Guv devotes some time to the enterprise rather than to posting on PPrune. 2271 posts in 25 months is 3 per day on average.

Are ya's are all a load of dirty divils so ya's are LOL ;)

Whay else is PPRuNe for if not for blowing alot of hot air :)

Airbourne are you offering your services to celebrate the opening of this phantom airline or whah?????? You may have quite a wait on your hands but we want some real headbanging music please.

Give us a break Guv :rolleyes:

Emerald

<<The MAIN reason large profitable airlines in the USA purchase new aircraft is that, under US tax rules and regulations, the depreciation period for new aircraft is over twice as long as used types.>>

411a
Yet more absolute dros, just for a change eh....
Never heard anything more stupid in my life.

BigKahunaBurger---
See you are from the UK and therefore most likely know nothing about US tax regulations.
So, some enlightenment will be provided, FOC.
If an airline purchases a new aircraft, it is assigned a depreciation schedule and over a period of years (for example 15) it is depreciated to a residual value. The entire depreciation is decuctable for tax purposes, directly reducing taxable income. Meanwhile, the airline benefits from the new equipment (less maintenance, lower fuel burn, generally lower operating costs).
Expensive new aircraft purchased equals large tax benefits.
At the end of the depreciation period, a new aircraft is purchased and the cycle repeats.
From a financial point of view, this is quite advantageous. This requires an airline with a rather good credit rating.
Leasing is even better (in some cases) allowing the airline to keep its fleet relatively young while at the same time benefiting from lower operating costs of new(er) equipment while retaining the benefits of deducting the full lease amount from taxable income. Large leasing companies such as International Lease-Finance and GE Capital make buckets of money in the process, a win-win situation.
I have kept this relatively simple so that even you might hope to understand.

Big Kahuna Burger - as you're obviously a CPA, we don't need to tell you about stuff such as the UCC or ASA, do we? :D :D :D

411A is quite correct (as usual). You can't just take an arbitrary term to use for depreciation - it's set out in the standard accounting code. A new aircraft can be depreciated over 15 - 20 years (depending on type; in general smaller aircraft have shorter depreciation terms); and in the case of older aircraft such as the L1011s we can depreciate the book acquisition cost over an agreed term (usually 3-5 years or the working life if less) plus any additional work carried out on the aircraft over its working life (ie a an annual C check counts as an operating expense as it lasts a year; whereas a D check would be depreciated over the five years or so it lasts for).

Don't forget, either, that the depreciation allowances are only really effective if you have profits to write them off against. This is why it's very rare for startups to buy new aircraft (jetBlue is about the only one I can think of except for EVA Air - and they used the Evergreen tax base). On the other hand, most of the big lessors are owned by major financial services companies such as ILFC (owned by AIG) and GECAS (owned by GE) which have huge amounts of cash surpluses and profits they need to offset.

Airbourne - when the time is right - we've got recessions/economic downturns on at the moment, which are bad news for any startups...

Innuendo / Celtic Emerald - I didn't start this thread ... I'm just responding to it. And at 3 posts a day, each taking around 5 minutes to do, I'm still left with 23h 45m per day. More than ample to do what I have to do! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm amazed that this topic has remained "civil", does this mean that we have finally gotten rid of Freeboot et al?

Mutt :)

C'mon guys.

Guv, you have my respects, whether your airline ever starts or not. The fact that you try is enough. The rest of this sorry bunch (yours truly included) sits around on our sorry butts, preaching what others should or should not do, only a few takes action.
We should support curage like that.

As impressed as I am with your work, just as amazed am I with your choice of AC. Do you think that you'll have enough pax to fill a charterconfigured -200 from PIK/GLA/EDI? Wouldnt a smaller AC fit the GLA area better (A310, B762/3 or L1011-500)??
rgds FS