Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6767 posts, RR: 7 Posted (11 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9643 times:
Saw a King Air southeastbound this morning at FL230 (says Http://www4.passur.com/sjc.html) which it seems was a fractional-ownership from Santa Rosa to Santa Monica. (Passed Oakland at 0935 if you want to see it yourself.) Started me wondering: what's the appeal of the King Air compared to a CitationJet or other small jet? Are the jets that painfully cramped? Do they cost that much more? They'd wouldn't burn much more fuel, would they? If any? I'm assuming runway length isn't a big consideration.
You know the stigma of airline props-- but there's lots of King Airs out there. Why?
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9610 times:
King Airs were a lot more efficient than small jets for a long time. In addition, for many corporations, while you COULD get single pilot jet ops, you couldn't get insurance for them, whereas you could get insurance for a single pilot King Air.
Purchase price for a BE90 was also significantly less than for a jet. That translates into less insurance cost as well -- when you figure that just for hull insurance you spend about $50-60 thousand per million insured.
In short, for many companies, you have three areas of savings:
1) purchase price. Save about 2 million (even paid over years, this is a lot)
2) crew requirements. Only need one pilot on payroll. (save a good 40 grand a year)
3) hull insurance. Save possibly $120,000 per year.
For many companies, a 15-20 thousand dollar per month savings is worth it, especially as more and more turboprops are being fitted with Active Noise Cancellation systems (about $100,000 and 100 pounds weight)
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4190 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9477 times:
Almost all King Airs now are having to be piloted by two qualified crewmembers due to insurance. This is why I don't fly the 200 anymore.... my company knows I'm trying to move on to the airlines, so won't send me to school. The 90 is next to go two-pilot next year.
A king air is not that comfortable of an airplane on the inside..can't even come close to standing up....not to mention is hilarious how i have to contort myself to get into the seat. Steeeeep overrrrrr andddddd don't kick the condition levers annnnnnnd there we go....
Been inside a citation...comfort level is better, and besides..its a jet for crying out loud!
A king air is a blast to fly, but I'd only own one if i was the one flying it.... and still preferably would want a jet.
Dstc47 From Ireland, joined Sep 1999, 1460 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9405 times:
From a user point of view I have done several trips in an exec Be200 , as well as the usual corporate jets, Bae 125, GIII, GIV etc.
The King Air cabin is not particularly comfortable, access is difficult and it is relatively noisy in the cabin. Most other corporate passengers, generally uninterested in aviation, have a big thing about "propellors", equating them with "old", and this image is very hard to shake off. They are happier on an old Lear rather than a new Kingair.
Neither is the more limited ceiling of the Kingair an asset in adverse weather. Again here even the most cramped jet, such as the early Lears, seem to please users more.