Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Turboprops For A LCC  
User currently offlineLOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 1177 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9526 times:

Spantax posed an excellent question in another thread about why in Europe we don't have an LCC or ULCC running props on popular routes at lower prices than the majors. His original post is below:

Quoting spantax:

ATR-72-600 = 23 Million = 74 PAX
CRJ-700NG = 37 Million = 75 PAX
Difference = 14 Million

And 14 Millions is a lot-lot of money! Then, on sectors up to 800 km (and there are a lot of them, at least in Europe) the difference in flight duration is what? 20? maximum 30? minutes? And the question, why there are no more carriers using turboprops instead of regional jets? The price, as we see, is a clear factor, but fuel and maintenance also. And, on the other part of the equation, experience has showed (think Ryanair, the most conspicuous case) that people are willing to give up a little/some/... comfort in exchange of saving money. Pure turboprop operators with low fares should be blockbusters (at least in Europe), but the reality is that this is not happening. What I am missing here?


I thought it was an interesting enough question to post a new thread with his original post.
Any thoughts?

72 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLGWflyer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 2348 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9534 times:

Well there is Flybe who have a fleet of 49 Dash-8's, I suppose they do do more regional UK routes with them but still.


3 words... I Love Aviation!!!
User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1278 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9517 times:

Quoting LGWflyer (Reply 1):
Well there is Flybe who have a fleet of 49 Dash-8's, I suppose they do do more regional UK routes with them but still.

And also Air Berlin


User currently offlineGiancavia From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9380 times:

Quoting LOWS (Thread starter):


Spantax posed an excellent question in another thread about why in Europe we don't have an LCC or ULCC running props on popular routes at lower prices than the majors. His original post is below:

Limited Range?


User currently offlineLOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 1177 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9353 times:

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 3):
Limited Range?

On routes that are ca. 800km per the OP.


User currently offlinetraveler_7 From Estonia, joined May 2000, 540 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9207 times:

When using LCC one usually have to pay for the checked luggage at the same time nearly all LCC allow more or less reasonable weight and size for carry on. Usually overhead luggage compartment in turboprops relatively small compared to those in jet aircraft popular among LCCs. Actually it would be nice to see some 70- seat turboprop with larger cabin and consequently more space for carry on.

Another point: 30 min late one way means that round trip will take one hour more. This means that to serve same number of airports you need more time, read more aircraft leads rising crew salary costs, most probably more fees as well. One may clime that turboprop operating costs may be much lower, ok at this point one need to seat and do the math on the basis of more precise information.


User currently offlinePezySPU From Croatia, joined Dec 2011, 283 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9153 times:

Quoting LOWS (Reply 4):
Quoting Giancavia (Reply 3):
Limited Range?

On routes that are ca. 800km per the OP.


I think this is the reason. Most LCCs still apply fleet commonality policy, they operate only one aircraft type. Turboprops are economical, but only on short range. This means that an airline can't assign them to a lot of routes, or in other words, can't order enough of turboprops to make operating two types justifiable.


User currently offlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 323 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9042 times:

Quoting PezySPU (Reply 6):
This means that an airline can't assign them to a lot of routes, or in other words, can't order enough of turboprops to make operating two types justifiable

Ok, but let's assume we are talking about a one-type (turboprop) airline, which simplifies still more the operations. BTW, I've checked this, as example of my point:

Copenhague CPH/Stockolm ARN (550 km)
Flybe = 90-95 minutes - Q400 - 42 kg CO2 (as far as I can read the data)
SAS = 70-80 minutes - 737 - 61 kg CO2

You see the point? Even from the point of view of greenery/public relations, turboprops should have an advantage.

Regards,



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlinetraveler_7 From Estonia, joined May 2000, 540 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9009 times:

Quoting spantax (Reply 7):
You see the point? Even from the point of view of greenery/public relations, turboprops should have an advantage.

Well ecological factor is definitely a good point. But what a bout operating costs and more important profit? Which flight will generate more money?

Regards,


User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6303 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8943 times:

Not just in Europe, but there are places in the world where IMHO a Turboprop LCC operation would make sense....like the DFW-HOU-SAT triangle with basically hourly flights.

Or maybe out of LatAmerican hub like PTY or LIM



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2742 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8905 times:

I think current props are simply too small for a decent LCC operation. I'd like to know what the CASM difference between a Q400 and a 738 or A319 is. Despite the better fuel efficiency of props, the larger size of the jets may make up for it and result in similar costs per seat in the end. If 100 seat (or even larger props) were available, I could imagine a LCC operation with them, but we'll have to wait a few years for that.

User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3620 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8820 times:

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 9):
a Turboprop LCC operation would make sense....like the DFW-HOU-SAT triangle with basically hourly flights.

Texans have become addicted to their 737s on these routes. The price would have to be compelling to make that move.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2899 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8671 times:

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 9):
Not just in Europe, but there are places in the world where IMHO a Turboprop LCC operation would make sense....like the DFW-HOU-SAT triangle with basically hourly flights.

Or the inter-island flights in Hawai'i. ATR-72s are all that one gets within the Canary Islands, and they work very well.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5477 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8636 times:

Westjet has decided it needs turboprops to exploit markets too small for the 737's. It can then use the 737's to expand operations into the US.

They also plan of using them for supplementing current markets during off peak hours.

They'll either go with the Q400 or ATR.



What the...?
User currently offlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 323 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8516 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 10):
If 100 seat (or even larger props) were available, I could imagine a LCC operation with them, but we'll have to wait a few years for that.

That would help, of course. IIRC Bombardier was considering the Q400X, a 90 PAX version. Does somebody knows the status of the project?

And adding to the list of advantages of turboprops: short take-off and landing capacities and, I presume, noise.

But the problem is CASM, as you say. I've been checking this but couldn't find reliable data. It would be very enlightening to compare CRJ-700 and ATR-72-600 or Q400 in this respect.



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26714 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8421 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 11):
Texans have become addicted to their 737s on these routes.

Those routes need HSR before turboprops.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 12):
Or the inter-island flights in Hawai'i.

The DC-9 and now the 717 are really perfect for those markets. Unfortunately, neither is built anymore.

Quoting spantax (Reply 14):
It would be very enlightening to compare CRJ-700 and ATR-72-600 or Q400 in this respect.

The props murder the CR7.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2899 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8196 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
The DC-9 and now the 717 are really perfect for those markets. Unfortunately, neither is built anymore.

Why is the 717 better than the AT7 for those 30-minute flights between, say, HNL and LIH?



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8175 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 16):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
The DC-9 and now the 717 are really perfect for those markets. Unfortunately, neither is built anymore.

Why is the 717 better than the AT7 for those 30-minute flights between, say, HNL and LIH?

More seats to sell, meaning more revenue. To operate the same capacity in such high-frequency markets you'd need more turboprops and more crews, meaning higher operating costs. Fuel isn't a major issue on such shorthaul routes.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2899 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8155 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
To operate the same capacity in such high-frequency markets you'd need more turboprops and more crews, meaning higher operating costs.

Why? Acquisition cost per seat is much lower for an AT7 than for an Embraer 195, say (a possible replacement for the 717).

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
Fuel isn't a major issue on such shorthaul routes.

Actually, it is. If your statements were true, there would be no business case whatsoever for turboprops (because, clearly, long routes is not their strength...), which is clearly not true.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinePezySPU From Croatia, joined Dec 2011, 283 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8126 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
Westjet has decided it needs turboprops to exploit markets too small for the 737's. It can then use the 737's to expand operations into the US.

They also plan of using them for supplementing current markets during off peak hours.

They'll either go with the Q400 or ATR.

Correct, but this is WS finding a niche where only turboprop can be profitable, not replacing jet.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8096 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 18):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
Fuel isn't a major issue on such shorthaul routes.

Actually, it is. If your statements were true, there would be no business case whatsoever for turboprops (because, clearly, long routes is not their strength...), which is clearly not true.

Very few turboprop routes are as short as the Hawaii inter-island routes, and almost none operate at such high frequency. HNL-OGG and HNL-LIH are only 87 and 88 nm, respectively.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2899 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7950 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
Very few turboprop routes are as short as the Hawaii inter-island routes,

There are two companies providing inter-island flights in the Canary Islands, Binter and Islas. The both operate only AT7s.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
HNL-OGG and HNL-LIH are only 87 and 88 nm, respectively.

TFN-LPA is 60 nm, TFN-SPC is 75 nm.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offline9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7903 times:

If Bombardier could build a turbo-prop version of the CS110,then it would be interesting to compare the economics of that variant against the P&W GTF jet model. My guess is that the turbo-prop version would have a superior efficiency up to 500nm unless they could figure out how to make it fly faster than today's propeller driven aircraft.

User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3620 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7835 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
The DC-9 and now the 717 are really perfect for those markets. Unfortunately, neither is built
anymore.

I'd say the E190 is even better for these routes.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
The props murder the CR7.

I've heard the E175 and Q400 are about dead even in terms of operational economics.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently onlineL1011 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1681 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7829 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think a turboprop the size of the Electra or Viscount would be very popular. They would be MUCH more comfortable than current turboprops and have ample room for carry-on luggage.

Bob Bradley



Fly Eastern's Golden Falcon DC-7B
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 25, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8228 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 21):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
Very few turboprop routes are as short as the Hawaii inter-island routes,

There are two companies providing inter-island flights in the Canary Islands, Binter and Islas. The both operate only AT7s.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
HNL-OGG and HNL-LIH are only 87 and 88 nm, respectively.

TFN-LPA is 60 nm, TFN-SPC is 75 nm.

Frequency on those routes appear to be around 16 to 18 flights a day. HA alone on HNL-OGG has close to 30 daily 717s (plus another 10 or so Go! CRJs, operated by Mesa Airlines). To meet that demand with ATRs or Q400s would require many more aircraft and crews. Those additional costs would almost certainly exceed whatever the additional fuel cost may be for the current 717s on such short sectors. HA 717s have 123 seats (8 F and 115 Y).


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 26, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8262 times:

I still wish ATR would have the balls to build a 130-150 seat turboprop with two GE38 engines instead of tinkering with their 90-seater plans...


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2899 posts, RR: 2
Reply 27, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8332 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25):
To meet that demand with ATRs or Q400s would require many more aircraft and crews. Those additional costs would almost certainly exceed whatever the additional fuel cost may be for the current 717s on such short sectors. HA 717s have 123 seats (8 F and 115 Y).

I doubt it. Not only the AT7s consume much less fuel, but their price (per seat) is much lower.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinePohakuloa From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 423 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8355 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
Quoting UALWN (Reply 18):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
Fuel isn't a major issue on such shorthaul routes.

Actually, it is. If your statements were true, there would be no business case whatsoever for turboprops (because, clearly, long routes is not their strength...), which is clearly not true.

Very few turboprop routes are as short as the Hawaii inter-island routes, and almost none operate at such high frequency. HNL-OGG and HNL-LIH are only 87 and 88 nm, respectively.

Many of these 717 flights also climb and descend to FL110 - 210 (listening to clearance and ATC around here) all in a matter of 20 to 35 minutes wheels up to touchdown. Add to that the high cycle/day per aircraft and I dont think the Ejets would measure up (though I dont know for sure, will admit otherwise if I am wrong). That's a lot of fuel used to climb and descend with little to no cruise time. Hawaii passengers are very fond of jet aircraft service and are tentative when it comes to props.

Although the prop service via WP and other grand caravan operators are available, perhaps there is something in economics of the props as ticket prices still are around the same cost regardless of airline choice. Either that or prices are marked way up to remain competitive while turning a profit.

In Europe, perhaps it is far different though as I haven't yet the ability to travel there.



Fast cars and 'Jet A' - such a sweet smell!
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2899 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8315 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25):
plus another 10 or so Go! CRJs, operated by Mesa Airlines

Current list prices (per another thread):
ATR-72-600 = 23 Million = 74 PAX
CRJ-700NG = 37 Million = 75 PAX
Why does Go! operate CRJs instead of AT7s??



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5477 posts, RR: 30
Reply 30, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8072 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 29):

Current list prices (per another thread):
ATR-72-600 = 23 Million = 74 PAX
CRJ-700NG = 37 Million = 75 PAX
Why does Go! operate CRJs instead of AT7s??

I think this may give a better idea about what airlines are actually paying;

---------------------------------------------------------

www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/ge..._aviation/read.main/5229355#menu27

Quote:
Back by popular request, here is an update on industry aircraft valuations and market lease rates.

Below are estimated current market value (in USD) based on oldest to newest airframes, along with sample monthly lease rates in (USD,000) based on oldest to newest airframes for many common models.


A319 – $11.8-31.1M, $125-265,000
A320 – $5.0 - 39.3M, $70-320,000
A321 – $19.3 - 43.4M, $195-365,000
A330-200 – $43.0 - 83.4M, $440-775,000
A340-300 – $20.0 -59.7M, $275-580,000
B737-300 – $2.5 – 6.5M, $105-145,000
B737-700 - $15.3 - 31.2M, $160-280,000
B737-800 - $19.7 - 40.7M, $235-350,000
B737-900ER - $32.9 - 44.4M, $310-375,000
B747-400 – $18.0 – 59.3M, $350-670,000
B757-200 – $6.5 – 20.6M, $120-225,000
B767-300ER – $9.5 – 58.9M, $205-520,000
B777-200ER – $42.0 – 107.8M, $560-995,000
B777-300ER – $86.0 – 147.0M, $860-1,285,000
MD-11 - $10 – 12.5M , $150-190,000
MD-82 - $1.0 - 2.9M, $25-60,000
CRJ200 – $2.8 - 7.1M, $40-80,000
CRJ700 – $10.0 – 21.2M, $110-220,000
CRJ900 - $13.8 – 23.6M, $150-245,000
Q400 – $8.5 – 18.8M, $130-210,000
ERJ145 – $4.8 – 8.7M, $60-90,000
EMB170 – $14 – 23.3M, $150-230,000
EMB190 – $19.5 – 29.0M, $210-260,000
ATR-72 – $5.6 – 18.5M, $70-180,000

Information is derived from transactions and valuation and is current as of June 2011



What the...?
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 31, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8023 times:

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 3):
Limited Range?

And even less practical range. Over a certain distance, jets really begin to widen the gap.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
Those routes need HSR before turboprops.

Buy a 737 for mid 8 figures or a railroad for billions? Not too hard of a decision.

Quoting Pohakuloa (Reply 28):
That's a lot of fuel used to climb and descend with little to no cruise time.

A parabolic profile is actually the most efficient way to complete a flight.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinejetsetter629 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 460 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7977 times:

There is SpiceJet in India which is a true LCC operating Q400s to smaller Indian cities along side 738s

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 33, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7791 times:

Quoting jetsetter629 (Reply 32):
There is SpiceJet in India which is a true LCC operating Q400s to smaller Indian cities along side 738s

One reason may be the following:
http://theflyingengineer.com/aircraf...-to-fly-a-turboprop-q400-vs-atr72/

Quote:
The biggest boon to regional turboprop aircraft operators in India is that their turbine fuel is under the declared goods category, attracting a sales tax of only 4% as compared to 28% for other aircraft weighing above 40,000kgs. Topping that is the exemption from landing charges for aircraft with less than 80 seats. Since both aircraft fall into these categories, the economics of a turboprop start making immediate sense.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5906 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7548 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 23):
I've heard the E175 and Q400 are about dead even in terms of operational economics.

Well apparently Virgin Blue/Australia didn't think so, especially on short flights such as SYD-CBR (147mi) where they have replaced the E70 with AT7s



Something which people have missed: crew costs per seat are higher on smaller aircraft. Therefore they are automatically less attractive to LCCs.

As a REALLY crude example lets just say that the following positions earn these amounts:

Captain $75,000
First Officer $50,000
CSD: $20,000
Flight Attendant: $15,000

737-800: 1 C, 1 FO, 1 CSD & 3 FA = $190,000 (/180 = $1055 per seat)

AT7: 1 C, 1 FO, 1 CSD & 1 FA = $160,000 (/70 = $2285 per seat)



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 35, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7518 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
As a REALLY crude example lets just say that the following positions earn these amounts:

What airline in the world pays ATR pilots and 737 pilots the same? That's a big part of why regionals have become huge in the US: crews are so much cheaper. Granted low cost carriers are never going to have as big a difference between crews as legacies outsourcing flying will, but the difference isn't going to be as great as you show.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3620 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5998 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
Well apparently Virgin Blue/Australia didn't think so, especially on short flights such as SYD-CBR (147mi) where they have replaced the E70 with AT7s

They are replacing E70s not E75s which can give you typically up to 20 more seats than an ATR or Q400.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineraffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1718 posts, RR: 4
Reply 37, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5973 times:

Air Baltic also operate Dash 8s . I saw one at DME last night being de iced.


Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently offlineViper911 From Russia, joined Oct 2005, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5718 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 27):
I doubt it. Not only the AT7s consume much less fuel, but their price (per seat) is much lower.

Exactly how much less fuel the AT7s consume than the 717s?


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5705 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
A parabolic profile is actually the most efficient way to complete a flight.

LOL, do they use the elastic band or air cannon method for this?

Fred


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2899 posts, RR: 2
Reply 40, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5661 times:

Quoting Viper911 (Reply 38):
Exactly how much less fuel the AT7s consume than the 717s?

I've looked around on the PPRUNE and found about 2100 kg/h for a 717 vs. 700 kg/h for an AT7. But, honestly, I don't know if these numbers are reliable.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6
Reply 41, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5614 times:

I while back I suggested a revival of an aircraft the size and range of the L-188 Electra, or Vickers Vanguard. Vanguard is the better for cappacity, Electra better for range. It need not be literally an NG Electra or Vanguard as some in TechOps thought when my thread was transfered there. I know, Vickers and Lockheed are long out of the civil airliner business. But, same idea. Short-medium range, ~110 passengers +/-15, good short field performance, probably do it on 2 engines, maybe ducted props to minimize noise. Revive the late 50s and retake the jets. In a good way. Don't know of ATR or Q400 is capable of expanding that large, probably needs a wider fuselage. EADS CASA 295 might be a candidate.

-Rampart


User currently offlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 323 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5535 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 41):
while back I suggested a revival of an aircraft the size and range of the L-188 Electra, or Vickers Vanguard. Vanguard is the better for cappacity, Electra better for range. It need not be literally an NG Electra or Vanguard as some in TechOps thought when my thread was transfered there. I know, Vickers and Lockheed are long out of the civil airliner business. But, same idea. Short-medium range, ~110 passengers /-15, good short field performance, probably do it on 2 engines, maybe ducted props to minimize noise. Revive the late 50s and retake the jets. In a good way. Don't know of ATR or Q400 is capable of expanding that large, probably needs a wider fuselage. EADS CASA 295 might be a candidate.


Dear Rampart, this idea is really exciting!! Let me summarize my view of the situation:

Bombardier Q400. Could stretch to 90? PAX. There was an idea of Q400X or something like that. Plus: established AC, speed, cabin noise. Minus: price.

ATR. There was an ATR-82 project IIRC = 82 PAX? Plus: established AC, price, good STOL performance. Minus: speed, cabin noise? But a big margin of improvement in order to catch Q400 speed-wise. Maybe, could offer "fast" and "slow" (i.e. normal) versions?

Embraer. Not a player yet. But a good record of taking advantage of yet-to-fulfil niches (ERJ 170/90).

EADS/CASA. Good platform (C295), although more military oriented. But the smaller brother or the family (C235) well established in some places (Indonesia) as civil AC. BIG minus: C295 cannibalising ATR (i.e. EADS) products.

Ilyushin. Interesting IL-114 as platform (albeit smaller: 64 PAX), not in production anymore. Plus: price, robustness. Minus: finance, maintenance worldwide, image in West.

Antonov. An-140 (very small as platform: 52 PAX) but, obviously, an outstanding "savoir faire". Plus: tradition, brand? (I don't know...), price, robustness. Minus: finance?, maintenance worldwide.

Others: China: no idea, but probably they will try sooner or later. Japan? Indonesia?

(By the way, I remember adds in 'Interavia' in the 80's for an Hercules derivative, L-400, a twin for passengers. Crazy, isn't it?)

Regards



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1856 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5449 times:

Quoting Viper911 (Reply 38):
Exactly how much less fuel the AT7s consume than the 717s?
Quoting UALWN (Reply 40):
I've looked around on the PPRUNE and found about 2100 kg/h for a 717 vs. 700 kg/h for an AT7. But, honestly, I don't know if these numbers are reliable.

I´m not sure about the B717 but the ATR is 600-700Kgs per hour.... it depends on the weight of the plane.... Actually it´s excellent.... for routes of 1 hour nobody can beat that....


ATR is developing a version for 90 pax... So who know... maybe in the future we can see some routes going again to turboprops... specially with the fuel going up and up....


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3620 posts, RR: 2
Reply 44, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5401 times:

Quoting migair54 (Reply 43):
the ATR is 600-700Kgs per hour.... it depends on the weight of the plane.... Actually it´s excellent....

So I can assume the fuel burn for the ATR42-600 will be even less since it has the same PW127M engine as the 72 does.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1856 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5350 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 44):
So I can assume the fuel burn for the ATR42-600 will be even less since it has the same PW127M engine as the 72 does.

Not less but I think it will uplift more weight (payload) because of the new composite materials.... and I think it will be a little bit faster... close to the 42-500.... also more expensive.....


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6
Reply 46, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5242 times:

Quoting spantax (Reply 42):
(By the way, I remember adds in 'Interavia' in the 80's for an Hercules derivative, L-400, a twin for passengers. Crazy, isn't it?)

That I would like to see if you or anyone has an image of it! I was able to find reference to it in FlightGlobal, but no pictures.

THanks for your summary of potential aircraft. Regarding China's manufacturers, the MA-600 (similar to an An-24 or F-27) is possible for expansion, but currently has a really limited range. MA-700 may be that expansion, anyone know more about it? It has some interesting departures from the original design, including a T-tail; looks less like an Antonov. http://www.cannews.com.cn/2011/1201/163820.html

-Rampart


User currently offlineJQflightie From Australia, joined Mar 2009, 1001 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4937 times:

Wings Air in Indonesia is LCC and has a fleet of just ATR's, they are owned by Lion Air, and also have just placed a big order for more ATR's.


Next Trip: PER-DPS-KUL-BKK-HKT-CNX-BKK-SIN-PER
User currently offlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 323 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4560 times:

In this week The Economist, there is an article about turboprops which comes in handy. Here is an excerpt. As you can read they summarize more or less all we have said so far. Very interesting the data about China and India. Also that "synchronisation of propellers", which I was unware. Regards


IN THE early 2000s Embraer stopped making its EMB-120 Brasília and went over entirely to producing jets.
ATR had a record year last year, winning firm orders for 157 planes and options for a further 79. It is ramping up its output to meet the demand: in 2005, the turboprop’s darkest hour and in 2014 it wants to turn out 85.
ATR’s big order from Kingfisher seems to have gone pear-shaped in recent weeks as the Indian airline’s financial troubles have worsened. But this week the planemaker signed a big deal with Wings Air of Indonesia, which will eventually have a fleet of 60 ATR turboprops.
Bombardier of Canada also has a new, high-tech turboprop, the Q400. It struggled to win orders last year but has high hopes that 2012 will be much better. The Teal Group, an aviation consultancy, forecasts a market of around $2 billion a year for turboprops from now into the 2020 though still a fraction of the market for jets.
As in most industries these days, it is important to ask: what about the Chinese? The answer, as usual, is that they are determined to get in the game. Xi’an Aircraft, a subsidiary of AVIC, the Chinese state aerospace giant, had a big presence at the Dubai air show in November, showing off its new MA600 turboprop, a 50-seat upgrade of its MA60 plane.
In December a bunch of orders from African airlines brought combined orders for the MA60 and MA600 to over 200. Shuyu Zhai, an executive at Xi’an Aircraft, says its parent company has set it the target of overtaking its European and Canadian rivals to become the world’s number-one turboprop-maker by 2020. An Indian government agency is also working on a “national” turboprop.
The reason for the turboprop revival is simple: the oil price. Filippo Bagnato, ATR’s boss, explains that the turnaround began when crude rose above $35 a barrel in the years following the Iraq war. Planes powered by jets are faster, but for flights of less than around 500 nautical miles, the shorter time spent in the air is insignificant compared with the fuel savings to be made by flying a slower turboprop.
There’s just one problem: “turbo aversion”, as a Bombardier spokesman describes it. Passengers, especially those who have flown in the earlier generations of turboprops, regard them as noisy, uncomfortable, and less safe than jets. As Xi’an Aircraft’s Mr Zhai notes, this aversion varies considerably by region: in South America, for instance, it is hardly a problem.
As for the question of noise and discomfort, the turboprop-makers have put a lot of effort into improving the quality of their planes’ cabins, and in particular in reducing noise and vibration. Bombardier uses noise-cancellation technology, whereas ATR uses insulation, and fancy electronics to synchronise the propellers. To try to persuade travellers to think again about their turbo aversion, Bombardier is advertising their green credentials.
Makers of big jet engines, such as CFM, are also beginning to take an interest in developing fuel-efficient open-rotor engines. Airlines, under pressure to cut their emissions, could be persuaded to equip their planes with such engines if it spares them some of the cost of buying emissions permits.



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11689 posts, RR: 60
Reply 49, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4516 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 23):
I've heard the E175 and Q400 are about dead even in terms of operational economics.

Well apparently Virgin Blue/Australia didn't think so, especially on short flights such as SYD-CBR (147mi) where they have replaced the E70 with AT7s

The ATR 72 and the Q400 are different beasts though with significantly different economics, there really is no comparison in this respect. For very short routes in that seat range either prop is going to be more efficient than an ERJ 170/175, but the efficiency tipping point for the small E-jets against the Q400 is impressively low.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8971 posts, RR: 39
Reply 50, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4282 times:

Routes less than 800km that don't need much capacity = small market.

For those that still make sense, many are better off simply by misusing larger aircraft. Sure it doesn't look great, but when taking everything else into account, it's still the best option.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinebeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 601 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4048 times:

Existing LCCs in the US and Canada would need to be able to serve varying stage lengths. A few days ago I was on the first segment of a WN flight that went ONT-PHX-AUS-PVD, The stage lengths were 282nm, 758nm, and 1445nm. In KM that is 522, 1403, and 2675 km. Other LCCs also have varying trip ranges.

A carrier could use a Turboprop to bounce around a small area of the East, Midwest, South, or West. We used to have this a lot with Ozark, North Central, Frontier, and Southern, but eventually the customers want to go to Orlando or Las Vegas, or if you are Frontier (old or new), you have longer stage lengths from Denver.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlineshed360 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3840 times:

In my dreams bring back the DH Herald!   Talking of old uns... What about a updated stretched Fokker 50/60? I'ts got more chance in the market than a new F70/100.


Slow,fat, and ugly but I love 'em - Long live the Shed!
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6
Reply 53, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3779 times:

Quoting shed360 (Reply 52):
Talking of old uns... What about a updated stretched Fokker 50/60?

This appears to be what Xian is doing with the MA-60 (which was based on the older Y7, in turn based on the An-24), and improved MA-600 and MA-700. The MA-700 looks to be a bit different, enough that it doesn't have much An-24 left in it at all, though Antonov are said to be consulting partners. I imagine that's what Fokker (or successors) would need to do, essentially a clean sheet design deriving from the momentum of previous designs. Unlike Xi'an, they have no continuity in production that would make the transition. Of course, that isn't stopping (yet) the F-70NG.

The F-60, from what I gather, was only a 1.6m stretch of the F-50, and sold very few. Is that essentially 2 rows of seats, an extra 8 passengers (for up to 64 total)? The MA-600 is 60 seats, the MA-700 would be up to 80 seats. My thought on a viable next generation turboprop for LCCs, a 21st Century Electra or Vanguard, would be significantly bigger:

Quoting rampart (Reply 41):
Short-medium range, ~110 passengers +/-15

-Rampart


User currently offlineflyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 712 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

Quoting LGWflyer (Reply 1):
Well there is Flybe who have a fleet of 49 Dash-8's

Flybe Nordic also operates a sizable fleet of AT7s out of HEL.


User currently offlineshed360 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3726 times:

Hi Rampart
Who would buy the MA-700 in the 'west'?
All I was getting at is the F60plus type aircraft would be based on a sound platform for playing with.
I find it funny that we only have just the ATR72 & Q400 in this market.
Someone needs to be brave and start an new wide body design twin.
A sort of twin prop Avro RJ100 would look nice!



Slow,fat, and ugly but I love 'em - Long live the Shed!
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6
Reply 56, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3699 times:

Quoting shed360 (Reply 55):
Who would buy the MA-700 in the 'west'?
All I was getting at is the F60plus type aircraft would be based on a sound platform for playing with.
I find it funny that we only have just the ATR72 & Q400 in this market.
Someone needs to be brave and start an new wide body design twin.
A sort of twin prop Avro RJ100 would look nice!

I agree with you entirely. Xi'an is optimistic and all, selling well recently in Africa, but at least for now won't get much if any traction in "the west". Yes, the F60 would be a sound platform, but probably not enough for the size of aircraft I'm envisioning. That's a long stretch to get into the 90+ range. MA-700 (which now that I look at it again looks a lot more like an ATR72 than an Antonov) is still 4-abreast, seating 80. I like your brave twin-prop widebody idea better. Electra, Viscount, and Vanguard were all 5-abreast, though I don't have a good idea of whether this "vintage" seating arrangement would translate to 6- abreast in the modern sense. Avro RJs (and BAe 146) were comfortable 5-abreast but uncomfortable 6-abreast.


User currently offlineshed360 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

Just had to have a play with some pics- Avro RJ with props! Ok the engines/props could be meater but it looks ok.


I can dream!

[Edited 2012-02-22 02:49:42]


Slow,fat, and ugly but I love 'em - Long live the Shed!
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2742 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3493 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25):
To meet that demand with ATRs or Q400s would require many more aircraft and crews.

...which brings us back to the issue: available props are too small, and hence restricted to short routes with less demand. If larger TP's existed, maybe things would be different. I can think of a lot of high-demand 500nm routes in the EU where speed-wise a TP can make sense but where you would need a ridiculous amount of a/c to meed capacity demand.

Quoting A342 (Reply 26):
I still wish ATR would have the balls to build a 130-150 seat turboprop with two GE38 engines instead of tinkering with their 90-seater plans...

what, and kill the A319 on short-haul intra-EU flights? EADS won't allow that...

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
Something which people have missed: crew costs per seat are higher on smaller aircraft. Therefore they are automatically less attractive to LCCs.

Indeed, and although your example is very rough, crew costs should push up CASM in smaller a/c despite the higher fuel efficiency of props. Which is why I was wondering how the CASM of an A319 compares to an ATR or Q400. This would likely also show that larger props would be needed for CASM to be attractive to LCCs, though not necessarily as large as their jet equivalents due to the props higher fuel efficiency.


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 901 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3431 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 58):
which brings us back to the issue: available props are too small, and hence restricted to short routes with less demand. If larger TP's existed, maybe things would be different. I can think of a lot of high-demand 500nm routes in the EU where speed-wise a TP can make sense but where you would need a ridiculous amount of a/c to meed capacity demand.

That is very true, however, I can think of certain places where withing the 500nm there would be a lot of opportunity for a TP carrier (with ATR72 and 42's) to operate point-to-point, not in the hub-spoke system. These areas that come to mind would be smaller airport in Europe (ex. Carpatair), the North-east US (the area between Boston, NY, PHL, Washington, to Detoit), south-east China (around Hong Kong), Japan, and other high population concentration areas.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4405 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3097 times:

One point I see is aircraft size. The successful LCC operate aircraft with 150-189 seats. Low ticket prices multiplied with 189 pax still is a lot of money.

The OP compares the ATR72 with the CRJ7. No LCC operates regional jets - a CRJ makes an VHCC ( very high cost carrier). So while for the trip I make most, HHN-STN, with 335 miles definitely doable with an ATR with maybe 15 minutes more, the question is what is better 3x189=567 seats on 738 or 8x72=576seats on ATR72, and there I doubt the ATR to be able to compete.

A different situation would be with a 99 seater or a 149 seater turboprop.


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 901 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 3010 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 60):
the question is what is better 3x189=567 seats on 738 or 8x72=576seats on ATR72, and there I doubt the ATR to be able to compete.

Depends on the population it serves... In the US, we are all about frequency, not size... Hence no A380's with US carriers. It is about convenience as much as cost when it comes down to it.


User currently offlineLGWflyer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 2348 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 3007 times:

Quoting flyingAY (Reply 54):
Flybe Nordic also operates a sizable fleet of AT7s out of HEL.

Interesting, how many do they have in the fleet?



3 words... I Love Aviation!!!
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11689 posts, RR: 60
Reply 63, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 3010 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 60):
The OP compares the ATR72 with the CRJ7. No LCC operates regional jets

I have to disagree with that. FlyBe, JetBlue and Azul spring to mind with large fleets, FlyBe and Azul both also having 70 seat props in their fleet.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4405 posts, RR: 2
Reply 64, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2969 times:

Both I count as regional airlines, not really as LCC - but that is a matter of definition in the end. I checked the price at Flybe, it is about 5 times higher than with real LCC (and more than twice as Lufthansa).

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11689 posts, RR: 60
Reply 65, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2949 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 64):
Both I count as regional airlines, not really as LCC - but that is a matter of definition in the end. I checked the price at Flybe, it is about 5 times higher than with real LCC (and more than twice as Lufthansa).

It's a common misconception that the term Low Cost Carrier reflects the pricing structure. It doesn't, LCC refers to the operational model and cost structure, all three carriers consider themselves to be LCCs.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 323 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2658 times:

Very interesting article in Flightglobal about new turboprop engines

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...l-strikes-up-for-90-seater-368727/

For instance: "ATR is still the most bullish of the airframers about the prospects for a 90-seater. A clean-sheet successor to the ATR 42/72 family is now planned to make its debut in 2017, or two years later than the airframer originally proposed"

Regards,



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 67, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 58):
what, and kill the A319 on short-haul intra-EU flights? EADS won't allow that...

It would also kill the 737-7MAX and, more importantly, the C-Series. IMO A320 and A321 orders will (or already do) constitute the majority of NEO sales anyway, and production is sold out for several years with Airbus thinking hard about how they could increase the production rate again. So I believe that EADS doesn't have much to lose in this regard.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineaviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2353 times:

Speed need not be an issue... bring back the Tu-114 !   


707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3620 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2276 times:

I see that Royal Air Maroc Express is putting a 6-seat J class in their new ATR42-600s. Unfortunately, the delivery will be delayed to Fall2012.

[Edited 2012-02-28 14:14:58]

[Edited 2012-02-28 14:24:05]

[Edited 2012-02-28 14:25:12]


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2314 posts, RR: 1
Reply 70, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 67):
It would also kill the 737-7MAX and, more importantly, the C-Series. IMO A320 and A321 orders will (or already do) constitute the majority of NEO sales anyway, and production is sold out for several years with Airbus thinking hard about how they could increase the production rate again. So I believe that EADS doesn't have much to lose in this regard.

EADS may not care, but Airbus certainly would. In addition to the A319, a 130-150 seat turboprop would also probably hurt the A320 as well (operators would be willing to give up a few seats for vastly better operating costs), and the A321 would be slightly less attractive as it will no longer be part of as strong of a family.

EADS also only has a 50% stake in ATR, versus wholly owning Airbus.


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2742 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1879 times:

Quoting spantax (Reply 66):
Very interesting article in Flightglobal about new turboprop engines

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...8727/
Quoting Polot (Reply 70):
EADS also only has a 50% stake in ATR, versus wholly owning Airbus.

I believe that one of the reasons holding back ATR from developing a larger a/c, apart from non-availability of engines of course, is that EADS - contrary to Alenia - has no interest in further developing ATR and just wants to milk the cow. IMO ATR development would be more aggressive if Alenia bought out the EADS stake.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 60):
So while for the trip I make most, HHN-STN, with 335 miles definitely doable with an ATR with maybe 15 minutes more, the question is what is better 3x189=567 seats on 738 or 8x72=576seats on ATR72, and there I doubt the ATR to be able to compete.

A different situation would be with a 99 seater or a 149 seater turboprop.

Very nice comparison that shows that a/c size is the blocking point. Despite the much lower per-aircraft operating costs of the ATR, you are paying a lot more pilots, flight attendants and mechanics to offer the same amount of seats. I am sure that in the end the numbers work out favorably for the 738.


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6
Reply 72, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1790 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 71):
Very nice comparison that shows that a/c size is the blocking point. Despite the much lower per-aircraft operating costs of the ATR, you are paying a lot more pilots, flight attendants and mechanics to offer the same amount of seats. I am sure that in the end the numbers work out favorably for the 738.

This is why I and others are advocating a much larger turboprop aircraft in the 100-150 pax range. If fuel prices remain elevated, a new generation large turboprop may be a necessity rather than a speculation.

-Rampart


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Beirut- Opportunity For LCC posted Sun Nov 8 2009 10:38:40 by Ammunition
Air Berlin Sues Airport Lübeck For LCC Subsidies posted Tue Jun 24 2008 02:44:18 by NicoEDDF
Feasability Of E-170/190 For LCC Startup? posted Sat Feb 16 2008 11:49:08 by CitrusCritter
Any Suggestions For LCC Into Prague posted Sun Jan 28 2007 07:23:46 by Carfield
Modular Design Approach For LCC posted Mon Aug 28 2006 20:20:05 by Eatmybologna
A380 For A LCC? posted Fri Jul 7 2006 15:53:50 by Scouseflyer
757 For LCC? posted Thu Mar 2 2006 13:23:42 by Curious
The Answer For LCC Vs Legacy Carriers? posted Sun Feb 5 2006 16:13:33 by Mirrodie
Larger Planes For LCC's? posted Fri Nov 25 2005 06:49:35 by Thaigold
GOL's New Project For A LCC In Mexico posted Tue Sep 20 2005 04:16:16 by TACAA320