Jean leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2547 times:
Luc, I think the PC-12 looks great. It seems like a great aircraft. The 1 prop does not seem to give a really good image, but I'm sure you can't beat it for efficiency. I hope it happens for you and tell us if you get started! I'd love to fly on your airline, if i could afford it!
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7879 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2532 times:
The PC-12 is a really great aircraft, I think it fits about 10 or 12 in a high density seating arrangement. But there may be legalities flying it for a scheduled airline... if you were running an air taxi service I'd say no problem... I just wonder if it is certified for the CAAs equivilant of FAR 121.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
Catpac From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2525 times:
you seem like a funny guy, in your first post in this forum you say the almost new PC-12 is not as comfortable as a 30 year old flying cigar called metro III,....I would say that there is no way a Metro could compare to the PC-12 in terms of passenger comfort and I am sure many other aspects as well.
AAd65, as for your airline, my best suggestion would the King-air 350, its a twin turbo, so no problem in flying scheduled passenger operation (from FAA viewpoint) and it is a good performance aircraft all round,....things like MLW is the same as the MTOW, certified up to 17 pax...etc
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2527 times:
PC12 has a major advantage: excellent shortfield performance (plus lower operating cost, as it is single engined).
If regulations are not an issue (as seems to be the case, others in the area obviously also operate it in similar settings) and you like her (I sure do like the looks and specs, don't have a license so don't ask about handling ) it becomes a matter of price and availability of both aircraft and staff (pilots, mechanics mostly).
Given the small size, what do you envision your planned feeders using? An operation with PC12s is likely to be a feeder itself, as the aircraft can go almost anywhere.
Superdawg From Canada, joined Jan 2000, 347 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2513 times:
The PC-12 is very popular here in Western Canada. SmartAir, PeaceAir, Northern Sky and Montair are all using the PC-12 for scheduled operations in Alberta and BC. I think it is very popular on the Calgary to Edmonton Municipal route as the Muni has the 10 passenger restriction.
AC183 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 1532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2508 times:
The PC-12 seems to be quite popular in Canada for small airlines. In addition to those mentioned by S'dawg, they're also operated in as charter, scheduled, and private aircraft by Bearskin, Wasaya, RJM, Chartright, Kelner, Pascan, Thunder Air, North American Charters, Ontario Government, Nova Steel, the RCMP, Keewatin Air, Expressair, and Nakina. I also believe there's other carriers planning on using them.
The PC-12 has several advantages. I heard (can someone confirm???) that at 9 seats it only needs one pilot, not 2. And being under 20 seats it doesn't need flight attendants. As a single-engined aircraft, it's cheap to operate. It has a high degree of flexibility because it can get into lots of airports. And although I've never flown one, I understand it has reasonable comfort levels.
The principle disadvantages of the PC-12 are that it doesn't match the appeal of jets, and it's also a fair amount of money to purchase (new aircraft have that tendency).
Personally I like the idea of using PC-12's. Compared to larger aircraft, they're lower risk. But be careful of competitors flying larger aircraft in the event they start up YQB. Flying niche market routes, however, that may not be a problem. I don't think you'd be working with connecting traffic to other carriers, so you could also use convenient alternative airports, such as Toronto Island or possibly even other alternatives to Pearson. There's also Ottawa-Rockcliffe, and Montreal-St.Hubert. I don't think it's wise to fly entirely to secondary airports, but by using some of them it might help reduce landing fees.