If a 35 seat airliner is as uneconomic as you claim maybe you could explain how the DHC6-400 which only seats 19 has a healthy order book.

There are many factors at play here, for example island flights are often subsidised for social and development reasons. Thin feeder routes are often subsidised by the airlines that they feed. Many destinations in remote and less developed areas can only be served by STOL aircraft, etc.

Cargo,

Please accept a minor correction, with respect!

The SF34 was offered in a number of flexible configurations. As a 34 seater it can accommodate up to 38 persons with the last 5 being infants in infant seat belts and of course subject to an individual State's operational regulations. Several SF34's were produced originally for the Japanese market with 36 full size passenger seats (12 seat rows with a forward (galley/toilet)) combination and these are now all in Australia. There was even a 'Combi' version produced for combining passengers with freight and this model too is in Australia.

The SB 2000 is even more flexible and was offered with 47 to 50 passenger seats and a full width "hot" aft galley and all of the original airframes were produced to this specification. Saab, however, offer a modification to the SB 2000 which replaces the aft galley with the forward (galley/toilet) which then provides for up to 58 passenger seats in the existing airframe.

On short haul flights (and 60 minutes in an SB2000,depending on variables of wind and temperature, etc., equates to between a 340 to 370 NM operating radius) the cabin could be quite tolerable for most passengers. Particularly so if Saab were to remanufacture with the new, slimline and more comfortable passenger seating which was showcased at their last two annual operators conferences.

Oracle,

Honestly those seats were not looking trustworthy at all to me, I don't believe they are robust enough. We've recently installed new super slim seats on a jet fleet and there is no comparison in how they constructed.

Spot on.

Revenue required per passenger per hour, at a realistic load factor, and taking into account direct and indirect operating costs (and profit) illustrates perfectly why the 19-50 seat market is now so unattractive to manufacturers (Saab included).

Much though I love the Twotter, classing it as an "airliner" is stretching things a bit - it has always been aimed at markets where its short-field performance is a bonus and/or its lack of pressurisation doesn't matter.

Indeed, but the passengers realise that short flights into difficult places are expensive. For the extreme example of a high seat/mile ticket cost take a look at Westray to Papa Westray.

If the punters are willing to pay you can make a profit.

Oracle, one of those full 36 seat variant SF340s is actually in the Loganair Fleet in Scotland. They have a mix of 33, 34 and 36 seat 340s. Nothing can do what those SAABs currently do, day in day out, in all weather, up to 35 kt crosswind. Nothing compares to the load they carry and frequency of operations in all weather for that type of business. The US operators may have relegated them to warmer climes, but the UK, Europe and Scandinavia certainly have not (and you don't see them falling out of the sky here). If you actually fly the aircraft the way SAAB specify in the AFM in icing conditions, then they are good, solid and safe machines. It's actually airspeed (or lack of) in icing conditions that kills, not ice. Respect for these flying conditions, crew training and adherance SOPs keep things safe. I'd take a SAAB 340 over a J41 any day. If they can come up with an affordable flight deck and cabin upgrade (and maybe even an engine intake anti-ice upgrade) they will still be hard to beat in 10 years time on this type of route network.

In the USA and southern europe there are good road and rail links almost everywhere so short haul airlines are under price pressure and it may be difficult to make smaller aircraft pay.

As soon as the geography gets in the way the alternatives become less credible or often non-existant. In these cases an airline can charge whatever it takes and the passengers will pay. Few pasengers will consider heaving their guts up for hours on a ferry in rough seas when there is an island hopping airline available unless they are seriously skint.
Even fewer will have the courage to face the roads in (for example) Nepal or the Andes.

Aircraft development
 

We'll be all flying props in the future it seems:
Prop Planes: The Future of Eco-Friendly Aviation?

However, SAAB seems to have a winning formula and looking at potential cost to come up with revamped design the non-recurring cost will certainly be smaller than that of a new design.

Non-recurring
Engineering
Tooling
Development Support
Flight Test

Recurring
Recurring Costs
Engineering
Tooling
Manufacturing
Material
Quality Assurance

Geek: I think this is precisely SAAB's strategy looking at where their current models are operating.

What Saab have done in the past doesn't necessarily have any bearing at all on their future strategy.

I'd be surprised if they are spending any time at all debating on whether to warm over a 1980s design.

Cash rich? Saab is bankrupt - at least the car division - and seems thank god to be bought by a investor interested in producing electric cars.

@grimmrad:

No they are not. Saab Automobile is a completely seperate company and only shares a name with Saab AB, which is the one who used to make civil aircraft but nowadays mostly does defense technology work including the Saab fighter jets.

Thats like saying, "Rolls-Royce is bankrupt--at least the car division..."

Geek - the number of places where people are rich enough to pay whatever it takes to fly rather than take a ferry is seriously limited

Even the Scilly Islands - hardly the 3rd world - has people using the damn ferry rather than pay the cost of flying - and that truly is awful an awful boat

The Scillies are a rather odd case because the ferry and the airline are operated by the same company. In general the ferry caters for more local traffic from Cornwall whereas the Twotters are aimed at the longer haul from Bristol, Exeter and London via Newquay. In season, however, it is almost impossible to get an air ticket unless you book months in advance so the ferry takes up the slack and passengers face a long road trip of, for example, 4 hours from Bristol to the ferry.

The Twotters make a good profit because they are full for most of the year.

This situation effectively limits the number of visitors to suit the limited accommodation on the islands.

Many of the airports in Hawaii are unable to support larger aircraft and currently are only serviced by Caravans. This makes service unreliable because in the US single engine aircraft essentially cannot fly IMC unless the visibility ad ceiling is such that they can break out of the clouds and be within gliding distance to shore. This poses a problem at a number of airports.

Additionally there is poor road infrastructure to and from the towns serviced so air travel is the only practical means of transportation. The loads don't warrant a Q400 or even an ATR-42 so a 19-seat aircraft like a DHC-6 is the only sensible option. Currently none service these airports due to their atrocious acquisition price. DHC-8 aircraft service a number of the rural communities but can barely pull a 50% load factor. Pricing must be kept low so the airlines operate a slow loss, only supplemented by tourist destinations where they can charge more during peak travel months.

This is a scene repeated all over the world, in Canada, Alaska, South America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. Just because a 19-seat or 30-seat airliner doesn't make sense from London to Frankfurt or Chicago to Cleveland doesn't mean there is no market for other models. The number of DHC-6, DHC-8-100 and BE-1900 aircraft in service speak to the need for many air carriers to produce a 30-40 seat airliner with equivalent operating costs.

Getting the best CASM isn't always the most practical assessment of an aircraft. If you can only fill 40% of your Q400 maybe it isn't the aircraft for that market.

Flying a 19 seat airplane in the US under part 121 rules tends not to be cost effective... Twin Otters, as much as I love them, don't qualify anyway.

"Pricing must be kept low"

exactly - which is why most of us don't think there is a serious market for a new build (or seriously updated ) SAAB

The price which can be charged for a flight depends on the alternative methods of getting to the same place.

If the flight is the only viable way to get there the price is irrelevant, there are plenty of places in the world where there is no viable alternative. OTOH in developed nations such as the USA there is almost always a good road or rail link which just takes more time. Here the extra cost of the flight needs to be justified against the cheaper but longer option and prices are under pressure.

Contrary to common belief life does exist outside of the USA. :)

Yeah I know they aren't Part 25 or Commuter category certified. there are waivers, in fact one operator (whose name escapes me at the moment, I apologize) is currently operating Twin Otters under Part 121. The Beech 1900D seems to be a good 19-seat airliner that's still in fairly heavy use even in the US. Great Lakes operates a fleet of 32 of them.

But generally I do agree the 19-seat is the bottom of the airliner world and thus difficult to make profitable. However if you can only sell 15 seats on a leg on average then a 19-seat option is certainly more cost effective than a 37-seat or 78-seat option.

My point was that how profitable an aircraft can be on a route is linked with how many seats can be expected to be sold on that route. Overarching comments like "there is no market for a 30-seat airliner" is flawed by the assumption that markets can yield growth beyond 20-30 passengers per leg. There are many markets worldwide that can't grow beyond that and still require air service.

Island

I don't think we nay-sayers disagree that there are routes which can only be reasonably flown by small aircraft - the problem is how many passengers can you get to pay the price needed for lease/purchase of an up-to-date aircraft

When you go around places like the S Pacific either the countries subsidise (very heavily) the service or they are v small aircraft or they are very old aircraft