aad665
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 1999 11:03 am

Pilatus PC-12:Right Aircraft?

Wed May 23, 2001 9:11 am

Hi,

I'm writting a business plan to start a new airline. I plan to flight in Eastern Canada only.

I'm looking for a very fuel efficient aircraft not bigger than 19 px. The leg should not be longer than 400-500nm. as exemple YQB-YYZ or YYZ-YOW-YQB.

Pilatus PC-12 looks very efficient. and it's not too risky ($$$) for a start-up.

What do you think?

Thank for your input, I really appreciate.

Luc
 
ILOVEA340
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 1999 9:49 am

RE: Pilatus PC-12:Right Aircraft?

Wed May 23, 2001 9:21 am

I would have to agree with you however from a passenger stand point itis not the most pleasent aircraft to fly in. Have you thought about metro II/III's?
 
aad665
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 1999 11:03 am

RE: Pilatus PC-12:Right Aircraft?

Wed May 23, 2001 10:44 am

Thank for your input,

I did. Metro II/III not enough fuel efficient...plus they have two engines. That means more operating expense.

Air Montreal tried, without success, to operate Metro II/III and they failed.

Luc
 
Max Q
Posts: 5644
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Pilatus PC-12:Right Aircraft?

Wed May 23, 2001 11:22 am

You might want to check on the legalities of operating a
single engine aircraft for hire.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
Jean Leloup
Posts: 1953
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 10:46 am

RE: Pilatus PC-12:Right Aircraft?

Wed May 23, 2001 11:24 am

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!

good luck
Next flight.... who knows.
 
777gk
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2000 3:04 am

RE: Pilatus PC-12:Right Aircraft?

Wed May 23, 2001 11:30 am

What about the Cessna Caravan? Those I believe are available with EFIS cockpits, and FedEx operates hundreds of them, so they must not be to hard to get your hands on.
 
desertjets
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

RE: Pilatus PC-12:Right Aircraft?

Wed May 23, 2001 12:04 pm

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
 
ILOVEA340
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 1999 9:49 am

RE: Pilatus PC-12:Right Aircraft?

Wed May 23, 2001 1:32 pm

what about a compair 10?
 
catpac
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2001 6:24 pm

RE: Pilatus PC-12:Right Aircraft?

Wed May 23, 2001 4:54 pm

ILOVEA340,
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

Have fun planning your own airline
Mike
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Pilatus PC-12:Right Aircraft?

Wed May 23, 2001 5:14 pm

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  Smile ) 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.
I wish I were flying
 
superdawg
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2000 1:45 am

RE: Pilatus PC-12:Right Aircraft?

Wed May 23, 2001 10:31 pm

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.

S'Dawg
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Pilatus PC-12:Right Aircraft?

Wed May 23, 2001 10:37 pm

There are a lot worse aircraft to pick up then the PC-12.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
AC183
Posts: 1496
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Pilatus PC-12:Right Aircraft?

Thu May 24, 2001 12:35 am

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.