SAAB's new turboprop

[CargoOne]

it seems most operators are very happy with SAAB 340/2000

This is very bold statement. What leads you to this idea? Are you a part of Saab operators community?

There are 400+ SF34s and 58 of the 63 SB 2000's flying every day world wide

Incorrect. I don't have 2000 data at hands but last year there was less than 300 SF340 in operation. To be exact last Saab bulletin quotes 239 in airline service, 62 in other operation, 111 stored and 44 decommissioned. Also note some units listed as in service could be in fact stored by airline.

[Heathrow Harry]

there are still DC-3's in service and you could make a good case for a replacement but.............................

[twochai]

Despite the prospect for life extension programmes to current airframes (including Saab) there may well be potential for an innovative manufacturer to offer a cost effective current technology aircraft to the existing market segment not serviced by ATR or Bombardier.

Sorry, but the window of economic viability on any sort of scale to support a 50 seater has passed, particularly one with 6,000 ESHP (thermodynamic) engines, has passed.

70 to 90 seats is the current point of entry for a turbo prop, 100-130 seats for a jet..

[evansb]

Well now, with that said, dust off the LET-610/Ayers 7000 and produce it with current available improvements. Also, take a look at the Xian MA700. Both had (have) potential in this slot, especially since they have all flown. The LET-610 and MA700 airliners are not drawing board divas. I presently reside in a small city where a 60-seat airliner is ideal.

[Heathrow Harry]

I'm sure there is a small market for 50 -60 seaters but its not attractive enough to have a mid size manufacturer develop or redevelop an aircraft for it

perhaps some low rate production by Russian/Chinese/Australian companies might fill the slot but its never going to be a very large market

[jackx123]

Some correction: there are less that 40 SF340 in operation since after the initial batch of 40 SAAB renamed the aircraft to SAAB 340A/B/Plus

It is fair to say "With no new 30-seaters in production, these aircraft are attracting steady interest around the globe from current Saab 340 operators, startups and regional airlines looking to expand their services".

And Cargo: From SAL's own December 2011 report there were 399 operational SAAB 340 and 58 SAAB 2000. Obviously conflicting numbers.

http://www.saabaircraftleasing.com/u...1229182814.pdf

Some interesting facts in this article:

Jet vs. Turboprop – a debate that dates from the early 1950s | AirInsight

[CargoOne]

jackx123

SF340 is official type designator for Saab 340, applicable to all produced Saabs 340. There is no conflict of information as it can only happen when conflicting data is coming from the similar weight sources. Your data coming from SAL which is nothing more than sales & marketing BS. My numbers are coming from Saab 340 Reliability Report published by Saab AB as TC holder for operators and it contains the actual data about every single S/N produced. I don't think this document is published in open sources.

This report presents an evaluation of the Saab 340 aircraft performance in operation.
The information presented is based upon monthly data as received from each reporting operator.
All the definitions and computations comply substantially with directives specified in the “World Airlines Technical Operations Glossary”.
Please note the following:
The “Aircraft History” section includes information, which has come to our attention as of the “Report Date”.
The components found in the “Component Reliability” section are an assortment of mainly “repairables” and a number of “consumables” of
interest. Efforts to improve this section are an on-going process.
Please, do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions, suggestions or other thoughts concerning this report.
The report is prepared and published by:
Saab AB
Support and Services
Aircraft Services Division

[Cyrano]

FWIW, Ascend database shows 280 Saab 340s (all models) in service and a further 119 in storage. That's a total of 399 which is probably SAL's "marketing" number.

Bear in mind that the potential replacement market for a (hypothetical) new-build turboprop in this size category is not just existing SF340 operators but also many existing operators of Dash 8-100/200s (325 in service), E120s (197 in service), Do328s (121 in service), J41s (70 in service),...

[CelticRambler]

Here we go again. The assembled "wisdom" says that anyone developing a new aircraft model should target the existing market and go head-to-head with the current vendors, yet all the well-founded examples indicate that there is a gaping hole in the 18-24-36 seat range.

The only reason there is no apparent demand for this size of aircraft is because operators have no choice other than a bunch of machines designed and built a couple of decades before the end of the last century when the technological and socio-economic landscape was very different.

Now that public funding for major road and rail projects is drying up, inter-regional air travel has every chance of recapturing the attention of today's travellers. I, for one, can't wait for a manufacturer to deliver something small, fast and efficient because there's a market I want to exploit.

[DaveReidUK]

Another reason for the apparent lack of demand for this size of aircraft could be that there isn't any.

[maybegunnadoo]

Food for thought

Heres some ideas.....What about a real leap and set it up for single pilot ops. The rules on Single pilot ops are very outdated particularly with modern systems. The only difference between a 10 seater hitting the ground and a 34 seater is the size of the hole! Also I believe Boeing have patented a autoland/anti-terrorist lockout system with control input from a ground based operation. Also the Global Hawk is 737 sized and flys from a desk...

All you need is the trained dog to do the biting.

[THE ORACLE]

Cyrano,

Thank you for putting forward some additional perspective with the possible numbers of other aircraft types (additional to saab) currently flying in the 29 to 50 seat market segment.

Gents, this is a lively and interesting conversation.

After the succcess of Saabs SF34, in all its variants, Saab had intended to introduce a "C" model, which would have retained the original airframe, with some minor modifications and incorporated 2,000 to 2,200 ESHP engines offering a cruise speed of 350KTAS+ at F350.

Before proceeeding, Saab with its usual prudence, surveyed the market and the feeback they received from 100 existing and potential operators (at that time) resulted in the SB 2000.

Saab, undoubtedly will complete a thorough analysis of the entire world market and not just the populous European and North American markets segments. Any decisions they make will be in the full knowledge that a lack of North American sales ultimately led to production stopping in 1996.

Saab was a casualty of a "perfect storm scenario" in 1996, with cheap jet fuel combined with a lengthy FAA certification delay (MECs converted to PECs) with the SB 2000, Bank of Brazil and Bank of Canada offering never to be repeated financing deals in support of their national 50 seat jet products (EMB and CRJ) and finally the Roselawn Indiana ATR crash which precipiated an inquiry that questioned turboprop safety in icing conditions.

These factors drove a market rationalisation, which ultimately stalled production with the remaining manufacturers (ATR and Bombardier) and their prodiction figures remained in the doldrums until financial imperatives post September 11 forced a return to service of mothballed, yet cost effective TP's.

Whatever decisions Saab make will be with the full knowledge of these prior events and circumstances and it will be interesting to learn their full views on what might succeed in the current environment.

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

Another reason for the apparent lack of demand for this size of aircraft could be that there isn't any.

There are about 1000 aircraft in the 29-37 seat category currently in operation.

Of course the operators of many of these depend on low capital costs (so may not be able or willing to buy a new aircraft), and some others may perhaps be able to upgauge to an ATR or other 50-seater, but with respect, I find it hard to accept the assertion that there is no demand for this aircraft size when so many remain in operation.

[jackx123]

and a TP has almost half DOC from a jet box. with fuel prices increasing TP's will be even more competitive.

[Torquelink]

Of course the operators of many of these depend on low capital costs (so may not be able or willing to buy a new aircraft), and some others may perhaps be able to upgauge to an ATR or other 50-seater, but with respect, I find it hard to accept the assertion that there is no demand for this aircraft size when so many remain in operation

I think that this is the key to the debate - and where Saab's analysts will be focusing their attention. All things being equal, there will be a demand for the replacement of 340s, 120s, 360s etc but price/funding will be critical. Most, although not all, markets for these aircraft are at the impoverished end of the spectrum so potential users will not be able to buy because they won't get the credit and therefore will need to lease. However, given that their operations are marginally profitable anyway while operating well written down older aircraft, they won't be able to pay much in the way of rental and still make the operation profitable - even allowing for the likely reduction in fuel burn and maintenance costs of a new aircraft. The level of rental which these carriers can afford to pay dictates the maximum value the manufacturer can realise for each unit - and it won't be much. When you add the fact that there is a minimum non-recurring cost threshhold associated with developing a brand-new twin-engined public transport passenger aircraft almost regardless of size, you can see that optimising it at less than 40 or even 50 seats is just loading the dice against you. Even if it were possible to restart 340 production today without incorporating any new bells or whistles, Saab would be unlikely generate lease rates and therefore values high enough to cover costs. And, of course, as this is pretty much a lease-only market which conventional lessors will be unlikely to touch, the manufacturer will, in effect, act as lessor just as Saab, Shorts, DHC did in the past - and that's no way to build a genuinely successful programme.

As mentioned in other posts, the only way the 340, 120, 360 replacement market is likely to be satisfied is for a competent design to emerge from a competent manufacturer in an emerging very low cost country where a competent aircraft could be built at a price which works for the manufacturer and at a rental which works for the market.

[jackx123]

Tork:

Please provide the P&L for your reasoning, if available. This is highly interesting stuff indeed.

Thanks.

[THE ORACLE]

Torque,

I think you have made the essential "link" in this discusssion thus far and nailed it!!

Prior to the press release confirming the "advanced design team study", Saab Aircraft Leasing were planning to retire from the leasing business and had advised the market accordingly.

Does this study initiative indicate S.A.L. may change their mind if production does re-commences in order to continue providing this essential element between the factory and many aircraft operators?

Saab had been doing some work with Hindustani Aviation and a few years back Saab also announced they had invested in some production capability in a former eastern bloc state (possibly Lithuania?). Either location would afford access to cheap labour for any future production initiative, with Saab controlling both the process and product quality to guarantee the result.

Perhaps a combination of the above elements and updated systems and powerplants might translate into a low risk business plan for an aircraft that will find favour within a limited market and be an acceptable commercal risk to the Saab Board!

As Saab AB seems to currently have a very healthy balance sheet with a surplus of funds to invest, an arrangement such as described, would provide the means to both conservatively manage a new production venture and mitigate some of the high end risks associated with such a capital intensive and speculative project.

To do otherwise would be folly and almost inevitably result in a situation such as Bombardier's aircraft production at the moment with several "open" and 'partially open' production lines and one developmental line ("C" Series), all of which are bleeding cash, while the business searches for new orders in what seems a crowded market. The very situation Saab was in for an extended period prior to closing production in 1996.

[stilton]

I thought the SF340 was a good aeroplane.


But whoever designed those Pilot seats should be made to sit in them for a 6 leg day.


They were painful beyond belief.

[Torquelink]

Oracle,

Now that is indeed an interesting perspective - I had always supposed that having to act as lessor for the aircraft that one had produced oneself was a problem and not an opportunity - it certainly was for the Shed at Shorts but that could be because the credits in general were so rubbish that the aircraft were constantly being repossessed. But if, as you suggest, you build a portfolio of good credits paying commercial rentals then the leasing vehicle becomes a profitable venture in its own right and maybe SAL has been/is that. After all, it is generally supposed that aircraft lessors are among the most profitable elements of the aviation industry. Thus for SAL to replenish their fleet by producing updated aircraft in a low-cost country and retain the customer support business etc could be an interesting opportunity.

You are so right that Saab do not want to follow the current rather sorry example of Bombardier. They seem to have taken their foot off the gas on all current programmes leading to rapidly diminishing backlogs and devoted all efforts to the C Series which is itself stuck between Embraer and the NEO/MAX - not a happy position to be in.

Jackxx

P&Ls are way above my pay grade. All I can say is having been intimately involved in a variety of regional and mainstream aircraft programmes the basic thrust of my argument is correct and borne out by experience. The regional / utility end of the market clearly needs new aircraft but supplying them on a genuinely commercial basis is likely to be a nightmare.

[CargoOne]

I agree with most of what Torquelink said.

33 seats (yeah you can fit as much as 36 into SF340 but this is much hardcore than 189 in 738) market is balancing on the edge of break-even. Basically to make a sort of low profit on SF340 you have to charge pax EUR 100 per hour flown at somewhat reasonably good load factor. And we talking about aircraft with market lease rate ranging from 20 to 30k USD. If you have a new machine at USD 12m cost, lease rate would be in 100-150k area and there is no way you can justify it with 33 seater at the current market except a very few niche routes.