I know this was discussed about a month ago.

Just curious if ATA express (aka: chicago air express, not sure of ICAO designator) is any closer to purchasing these from SAS. If so, what routes do you they will be put on?

Baw2198

I've heard some talk of a US customer picking up a few Saab 2000's. That's about all I know.

American Trans Air express said something about march being the target month for these possibly, just wanted to see if anybody had anymore info about this.

There was an unfounded statement that ATA Connection had put in orders for the SAAB2000. The person claiming that he knew it was a fact later turned out to be a fraud. As far as the word around the company is that no new aircraft should be expected for a couple of years or so. Also according to our flight ops department, SAAB has priced themselves right out of the game. Only time will tell and we will continue to lose money with the 340s due to the weight restrictions

Well, along with what I said above, I work at the only US approved Saab 2000 repair station........and we have heard some talk of a US customer looking at picking up some some, but that was early winter.

So no real truth to the S2k. OK.

What plans does ATA express have for a possible replacement of their SF34's. How bad of a weight restriction are we talking about?

Not sure about ATA and weight restrictions but XJ has some of the biggest weight restrictions of any airline operating the SAAB 340 of any airline. They generally have around 600-1000 more lb of fuel on the aircraff that is operated by there competiers for the same comparable routes.

It would be neat to see a U.S. carrier with a 2000, you usually only see it in Europe

However, why would any airline purchase new turboprops when jets are faster, more efficient, etc.? Most airlines are phasing out their fleet of props anyway.

However, why would any airline purchase new turboprops when jets are faster, more efficient, etc.? Most airlines are phasing out their fleet of props anyway.

RJ's are not more efficient than turboprops for short regional flying.

Only time will tell and we will continue to lose money with the 340s due to the weight restrictions

Why the weight restictions?

" ATA express"

Sorry to get picky here but it's kind of a pet peeve...lol Either ATA Connection or Chicago Express (C8).

"Why the weight restictions?"

Passenger weights were raised by 10 pounds and bag weights are up to 30 pouns for all bags now. This plane was designed to hold 34 pax and I think 65 bags before maxing out on zero fuel weight. Now that things have changed we can only put 31 adults on a flight thus reducing our revenue by 10%. Saab is working on getting the ZFW changed but the MTOW is gonna stay put at 29,000lbs which is really easy to go over.

We either need to run more 340s or get a bigger aircraft. I second what WMUPilot said about the 2000s, they priced themselves out of the game in the end.

Ryan

RJ's are not more efficient than turboprops for short regional flying.

This is true, for the most part, but if you are flying RJs to larger markets, the economies of scale can make it worth it. But basically, anything less than 300 miles, jets aren't that efficient.

Also, the acquisition cost of an RJ is significantly higher than a prop. For a low-cost operation like ATA, acquiring Saabs instead of Embraers or Canadairs seems to make sense.

Pen-Air had to dump the last row of seats on their SAAB 340's to provide some payload on their Alaska runs.

Pretty standard practice up here.

I frankly don't understand the statement that SAAB "priced themselves out of the game"? The only way that can make sense for C8 is if used aircraft were to be leased directly from SAAB since the SAAB2000 is no longer produced. Acquiring used S2K's on the open market would generally not involve SAAB at all.

Baw2198 said:
Just curious if ATA express (aka: chicago air express, not sure of ICAO designator) is any closer to purchasing these from SAS. If so, what routes do you they will be put on?


To my knowledge, SAS has never owned a SAAB 2000, and I don't think that any of it's subsidiaries have either.

A Saab 2000 in SAS colors:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Peter Liander

Right now ATA CONNECTION has no other aircraft to replace the SAABs. I recently talked with the head of operations for ATA and in his words. "Sometime in the future ATA may offer service to some of the busier ATA Connection cities (IE FNT, GRR, DAY). As I said though the weight problems are hurting. I've only worked it once with 34 passengers and 55 bags. Thank goodness for children not weighing as much. It also depends on the aircraft. I had the exact same situation as far as bags, passengers, and such and a different aircraft couldn't handle all the weight. I would love to see a Saab 2000 on our routes. That aircraft is way too powerful! From the rumors i've heard it can out climb a 757 to 17,000ft. It coming from some pilots who flew in her when Saab brought it to MDW to show it off. I also wouldn't mind seeing a Dash 8-200,300 in our fleet. Wishful thinking I guess but I can dream.

I think C8's fleet replacement is in the back burner with ATA retrofitting their planes with the business class and the B-767 purchase that is forthcoming. That is a lot of money to fork out during these times and although the Saab's are pretty weight restricted now they still are performing well.

WMU, a close friend of mine works over in Indy and overheard some comments from George about ATA Connection... from what my friend got out of the conversation, they looked at replacing the entire Saab fleet with Dash 8s, but the numbers didn't work for *NEW* aircraft... the engine reserves are a lot higher on the 8's and they're a bit more maintenance hogs (but you can load em 10k overweight and you won't notice).

Jets were immediately shot down as the CASM are higher than 737s.

Are your Saabs the A models or B Plus? I know at Mesaba we used to fly the B Plus's without a hitch from CMI to DTW with 30-34 pax and never left any bags behind (then again, 1/2 of our pax were college kids from UIUC).

-nate

Someone had mentioned the addition of 767's to ATA's fleet. What will this mean for the Chicago hub. Will ATA operate the 76's out of O'Hare or will we just not see them in Chicago?

At XJ we generally don't run into problems with overweight, except on poor weather days with a full load. Full load of pax + bags and extra diversion fuel will sometimes go over. Planning/Scheduling assigns B+'s to the long/full routes generally. The A models, the two that are left are usually assigned to lightly loaded flights. DTW-SCE has been weight restricted a few times when the weather is poor. SCE-DTW, none that I can recall. I know that DTW-MLI at 373 nm gets weight restricted occasionally on poor weather days also. Our longest Saab flight is DTW-ABE at 424 nm.

I know the A-models have a MTOW 1000 lbs less than the B's & B+'s, but those are pretty much just about gone from the XJ fleet. I hear there are still 2 flying, last I saw one was about two weeks ago.

People traveling out of GRR seem to like to pack heavy. Even when we limit to 2 checked and 1 carron we still have a problem with weight, eventhough we operate the B. Most of the time our planes carry 1735lbs of fuel for the trip to MDW. Again bad weather days hamper us even more due to the diversion fuel and extra for holding.

at least they aren't flying J32s anymore!

Cough Cough, XJ on average runs about 600lb to 1000lb more of fuel on the same run that Pinnacle/Express airlines 1 ran with the exact same airplane. On a 300 mile run running 3400lb of fuel for no reason is stupid, especially when you land with 2400lb and have to kick off 5 people on a daily basis. Pinnacle would run 2200lb to 2400lb with no alt on same route daily and with alt 3000 usually and XJ is pushing 4000lb sometimes using the same alt Pinnacle used to. Very sloppy way to run an airline, as to kick off people for no reason.

WMU, a close friend of mine works over in Indy and overheard some comments from George about ATA Connection... from what my friend got out of the conversation, they looked at replacing the entire Saab fleet with Dash 8s, but the numbers didn't work for *NEW* aircraft... the engine reserves are a lot higher on the 8's and they're a bit more maintenance hogs (but you can load em 10k overweight and you won't notice).

Jets were immediately shot down as the CASM are higher than 737s.

Are your Saabs the A models or B Plus? I know at Mesaba we used to fly the B Plus's without a hitch from CMI to DTW with 30-34 pax and never left any bags behind (then again, 1/2 of our pax were college kids from UIUC).

-nate

I believe that our models are B+, however i'm not exactly sure. I had mentioned to a pilot once about the possibly of getting Dash-8s, and he laughed at me. However USAirways Express is getting rid of all of their Dash-8s so we could prolly get them at a good rate. I also don't see us getting *NEW* aircraft, we just don't have the money to do it. Also the same with jets, we operate such short flights that it would not be economically feisable to run jets. It would be easier just to burn the money. We will get a new set of turboprops i'm almost certain. The time frame will be anybody's guess.

EMBQA: Strictly speaking that's Scandinavian Commuter, not SAS.

I know that's nitpicking, but that is why I said SAS never operated the 2000   SAS is rather complicated, given Commuter, Air Botnia, Spanair and Braathens.

How 'bout one of these monsters? Would be cool- 72 pax at 400+ mph!

View Large View Medium

Photo © Rolf Wallner

Of course it would, and that's a nice plane to fly in. I also landed in the jumpseat once  

However, finding a Dash-8 Q400 on the second hand market seems unlikely.

I'm pretty sure you guys have straight up B models

As far as I know only XJ and Eagle the B+'s, but some of the ones you got from Eagle could be B+'s.

You don't want USAirway's Express (Allegheny's) old Dash-8's, those are beat up pretty bad. They are rather high-time frames, and the Dash-8 (older models) are significantly slower than the Saab's. Although they don't have the weight restriction problems of the Saab. It would stupid to pick up those aircraft.

From what I know...ATA has a situation on their hands similar to this. If they get the Saab 2000s, the commonality sucks so much that they will get enough to replace the whole fleet. However, Saab is going to be the company they will be coming from and the rates they are asking for would keeping ATA from making any money with them. Now...with the differences between the SF3 and Saab 2k...they are still going to need a plane between 50 and 170 seats. This is where a 70 to 90 seat jet (or prop) will come into play. C8 will more than likely eventually have a 2 plane fleet.

So what to look for? Either a Saab 2000 and CRJ-700 combo, or something with Dash 8s and CRJs.

In the short term, look for the bigger cities to pick up some more frequency.

Mesaba has SAAB 340As, Bs and B+'s....
the B=s were all new from SAAB to Mesaba, any straight B's or A's came used...Mostly the A's from Express I now Pinnacle and I think they even had a few former Comair SAAB 340s as well.

If you think the weight restrictions are going to be bad with the small airlines wait until an A330 can only carry 150 passengers because they use true passenger weights....
My easiest solution to the carry-on problem is get rid of the over head bins and put back the simple hat racks.....
Maybe that would deter people from thinking they can carry everything on....
Also the airlines should stop trying to carry the entire population of Mayberry on their planes.
It would be nice to see Chicago Express buy a bigger plane but the bigger the plane is the more careful they have to be about actually filling it...
I also think that ATA and Chi Express need to coordinate schedules a lot better as some connections can be 2.5 to 3 hours in length and that is a BAD selling point as most of my clients at the travel agency would just as soon drive to Midway instead of sitting for 3 hours to fly from Moline to Midway to go to points beyond MDW.
Either ATA needs to make some of their departures out of mdw a bout 90 mins later or Chi Express needs to run their first flights about 90mins earlier....Most of the connection flights misconnect by a half hour to all the early morning departures.Someone had their head in their show when they worked schedules. Its liketwo separate airlines not paying attention to what the other is doing and the feed that ATA hopes to gain from Chicago Express just isn't there cause the Jets leave before the props get there....crikey.....Maybe some day someone at either airline will get a clue....
Props are not dead yet...Regional jets are not always the answer....
the average Joe schmooey would die if they actually knew that all a jet engine is , is a shrouded gyroscopic shaft with numerous little propellers attached to it....so being afraid of props is stupid!!!
Chicago Express needs to keep the SAABs as they area good size for their routes. Or maybe they could go a completely different way and get Dornier 328-100s...the Prop version,....there is a gaggle of them sitting over in Oklahoma City most ex-Air Wisconsin.....They may only carry 32 passengers but they are faster than the SAAB and faster block times mean more utilization....I believe that some are equipped with APUs so no need for the Ground power in some stations....
Okay, I've said enuff!!!

Cheers, Access-Air