fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

What Plane Would Be Best For...

Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:07 pm

I was thinking about commuters. What aircraft would come to mind in the 9-15 pax range that could operate at very low cost on up to 300 miles segment. Speed is not necessarily an issue, piston acceptable as well.

I am trying to figure out what would be the absolute lowest operating cost.

Thanks,
 
nkops
Posts: 2155
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:09 am

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:13 pm

My guess would be a C402... not too many aircraft made in the 9-15 market
:evil:
 
YVRLTN
Posts: 2261
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:49 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:56 am

Piper PA31 Navajo, particularly a 350 Chieftan or a BN2 Islander (the pax may not like those so much as they are loud...) Along with the C402 they are at the bottom end of your capacity requirement though.

Others are Cessna 208, Beech 99 & King Air family and Pilatus PC12 - these are getting away from your 'cheap' requirment though

Next bracket seems to be 18-19 seats.
Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:09 am

As had been said, the 402 is probably a good airplane. Hard to find these days though. Perhaps the new Evektor EV-55 and the new Tecnam P2012 could work, depending on how they turn out.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:33 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 3):
Evektor EV-55

That looks promising. Any ideas on price and cetifications? I couldn't find anything on their site. Looks like a twin turboprop, pretty sure will be well north of a million which would make it too expensive.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:39 am

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 4):
That looks promising. Any ideas on price and cetifications? I couldn't find anything on their site. Looks like a twin turboprop, pretty sure will be well north of a million which would make it too expensive.

If I had to guess, I'd say the EV-55 will probably be between the Cessna 208 and PC-12 in price. So between 2 and 4 million. I'd imagine that the Tecnam 2012 will probably be at least 1.4 million or better, depending on how it ends up being configured.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:48 am

Ok, to come clean, I was thinking about what airplane could be used for in and out of MCO as a commuter to airports around Florida, Florida Keys, smaller islands in the Bahamas, etc. It would have to be cheap enough so people would not think twice about it, and be able to carry their luggage as well.

Cessna 402 would be a good optionin my opinion, but still looking.
 
Jonathanxxxx
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:48 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:52 am

How abou the Piaggio P-180 Avanti?   Ok but seriously can this plane be used for commercial service?

[Edited 2011-07-05 20:52:59]
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:54 am

Quoting jonathanxxxx (Reply 7):
How abou the Piaggio P-180 Avanti? Ok but seriously can this plane be used for commercial service?

Cool plane, not much for commercial service though.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Crew
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:16 pm

Beech 1900D! They're like tanks and IIRC have fairly low operating costs. ZK can turn those things in less than 10mins and since they're twin turbo, they're pretty quick and have excellent short field take-off performance. That would be my vote. Good luck finding one though...this things get snapped up quickly by Lakes or Gulfstream and now African carriers.
 
nkops
Posts: 2155
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:09 am

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:23 pm

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 9):
Beech 1900D! They're like tanks and IIRC have fairly low operating costs.

I like the 1900D, but I thought when the FAA changed the requirements on 19 pax planes, the operating costs went up significantly??
:evil:
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:43 pm

Quoting nkops (Reply 10):
Beech 1900D

I think you need a Part 121 for a Beech 1900 right? I believe if you stay at 9 pax you could stat part 135, am I correct? Although part 121 would be better, it also increases the costs quite a bit.
 
hatbutton
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:39 am

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:03 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 4):
That looks promising. Any ideas on price and cetifications? I couldn't find anything on their site. Looks like a twin turboprop, pretty sure will be well north of a million which would make it too expensive.

Price of the EV-55 has been indicated to be about $1.7-1.9 million.

The price for the P2012 has been indicated around $2.2 million.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:08 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 6):
Ok, to come clean, I was thinking about what airplane could be used for in and out of MCO as a commuter to airports around Florida, Florida Keys, smaller islands in the Bahamas, etc. It would have to be cheap enough so people would not think twice about it, and be able to carry their luggage as well

Drastically over served market. There are tons of people who do runs 135 in Florida and to he Bahamas. Honestly, that's the last place I'd try to make a buck in the 135 world.

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 9):
ZK can turn those things in less than 10mins and since they're twin turbo, they're pretty quick and have excellent short field take-off performance.

You mean twin turbine, correct?

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 11):
I think you need a Part 121 for a Beech 1900 right? I believe if you stay at 9 pax you could stat part 135, am I correct? Although part 121 would be better, it also increases the costs quite a bit.

AFAIK, yes, 19 seats is a 121 deal now. However, if one was to go down this route, I'm not sure a DO-228 wouldn't be a better buy, especially considering they are producing them again.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
Jonathanxxxx
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:48 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:09 pm

Is it just me or is thisnairline really starting to sound like Gulfstream  
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:31 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 13):
Drastically over served market. There are tons of people who do runs 135 in Florida and to he Bahamas. Honestly, that's the last place I'd try to make a buck in the 135 world.

Not really, there are a lot of airports that are not served. I am not saying MCO-NAS or MCO-EYW, I am saying like MCO-CTY, MCO-GNV, MCO-OCF, MCO-BIM, MCO-GGT, MCO-MTH, MCO-OCA (in cooperation with the resort)
 
nws2002
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:04 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:32 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 13):
Drastically over served market. There are tons of people who do runs 135 in Florida and to he Bahamas. Honestly, that's the last place I'd try to make a buck in the 135 world.

Not to mention all the illegal ops that don't have a 135 cert but still carry passengers or cargo for cash.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:53 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 15):

Not really, there are a lot of airports that are not served. I am not saying MCO-NAS or MCO-EYW, I am saying like MCO-CTY, MCO-GNV, MCO-OCF, MCO-BIM, MCO-GGT, MCO-MTH, MCO-OCA (in cooperation with the resort)

I'm saying, there is very little to no demand for those routes. If there was, someone would be flying them. If you could price them right, I'd bet GNV & OCF might work, but it would have to be less than $50 bucks or so one way. I just don't see the price getting that low.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
Jonathanxxxx
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:48 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:05 pm

I mean why the above cities are small and unserved from MCO, why not just try point to point Florida routes that have no carriers? For example: PBI-MCO, RSW-TPA, TLH-PBI, MCO-SRQ and ECP-TPA? what about those?
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:14 pm

Quoting jonathanxxxx (Reply 18):
I mean why the above cities are small and unserved from MCO, why not just try point to point Florida routes that have no carriers? For example: PBI-MCO, RSW-TPA, TLH-PBI, MCO-SRQ and ECP-TPA? what about those?

Because quite frankly, nobody wants to fly between those cities. Either they are so close together that driving makes sense or they don't have the traffic between cities. ECP & TLH might have enough support for a flight to south FL, and that's about it, as far as I can tell.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:10 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 17):
have to be less than $50 bucks or so one way

Exactly. You could find people if you can offer connecting flights from MCO. Problem with driving is that you have to leave your car here. If the ticket price is low enough, it could work.
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:11 am

Again this whole excercise is academical, there is not serious consideration of an airline. I am trying to figure out if there would be a plane that could make something like this feasable.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:20 am

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 21):
Again this whole excercise is academical, there is not serious consideration of an airline. I am trying to figure out if there would be a plane that could make something like this feasable.

Realistically, a 9-seat plane wouldn't work. To make it work, financially, you'd have to sell all 9 seats. Most 9 seat planes out there, with the seats full, won't be able to take the bags the people want to take with them. I think you'd have to jump up to a 19 seater. Dornier 228 or Twin Otter sized. Not a fast 19 seater, something that's cheap to buy and economical to run. Who cares if it's slow, the routes aren't more than 150 miles.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
2175301
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:38 am

Could you not avoid the 135 ops by removing a seat or two from the various nominal 19 seat plane.

15 seats would give lots of room for bags or perhaps a nice wide isle too...
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:44 am

Ok, so if we need to move to a 19 seater, for about the same price you could get a 30 seater (particularly Saab 340's or EMB-120's). World there be a good argument for them? Maybe not on the routes provided, but serving PBI and other airports like them.
 
xavier2511
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:58 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:53 am

I would say the Cessna 208 Grand Caravan, Airlines in Suriname say that the parts are cheap when compared to something like the Islander or Twin Otter and fuel consumption is low.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Crew
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:41 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 13):
You mean twin turbine, correct?

No. Twin turbo. They have Pratt & Whitney PW Canada PT6A-67D Turboprops.

Quoting nkops (Reply 10):
I like the 1900D, but I thought when the FAA changed the requirements on 19 pax planes, the operating costs went up significantly??

I'm not aware of what changes you're referring to. The costs are lower because they don't require a flight attendant. ZKs also don't have lavs, so less things to break/service. The engines are pretty efficient and provide some good thrust for heavy loads and to keep the speed up. Their short field performance is pretty awesome too.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 11):
I think you need a Part 121 for a Beech 1900 right? I believe if you stay at 9 pax you could stat part 135, am I correct? Although part 121 would be better, it also increases the costs quite a bit.

No, I think you could operate a 1900 under part 135. The only difference between a 19 and 9 seat aircraft is that a 9 seater doesn't require security screening. Larger than 19 requires an FA. If there are other limitations, I either don't know them or can't think of them right now. I'm a little rusty on my FARs.
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3551
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:55 am

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 12):
The price for the P2012 has been indicated around $2.2 million

Wow. CapeAir is paying that much for them?
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:22 am

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 26):

Turboprops are still turbines, and are logged as such. :P
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
BrouAviation
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:31 am

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:14 am

Quoting fpetrutiu (Thread starter):

I am trying to figure out what would be the absolute lowest operating cost.

The new Tecnam P2012 will be your plane, two 6-cyl Lycomings certified for running on MoGas. Which is nice, considering 100LL is currently hitting 17USD/gal here.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 2):

Piper PA31 Navajo, particularly a 350 Chieftan or a BN2 Islander (the pax may not like those so much as they are loud...) Along with the C402 they are at the bottom end of your capacity requirement though.

Too old, too noisy, too thirsty.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 2):
Others are Cessna 208, Beech 99 & King Air family and Pilatus PC12 - these are getting away from your 'cheap' requirment though

I'm pretty sure an efficiently operated C208 on Jet A1 may very well come in cheaper than a C402 these days, especially because those twins are heavily payload restricted, since they are allowed to only take what they can carry on one engine.
Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:26 pm

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 26):
No. Twin turbo. They have Pratt & Whitney PW Canada PT6A-67D Turboprops.

turboprops are indeed turbine engines. They work the same way except that they have a propeller attached to the shaft and are not ducted. These turbines are also used in tanks and some locomotives.

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 29):
Tecnam P2012

Have they released any specs as of yet? Range, fuel consumption, weights, etc?
 
hatbutton
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:39 am

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:13 pm

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 27):
Wow. CapeAir is paying that much for them?

Not if they order 60 of them. Either way though, the P2012 runs on MoGas and burns less than 30gph according to Tecnam. That is seriously significant fuel cost savings and they probably could finance all the aircraft and still come in costing less per hour than the 402.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 30):
Have they released any specs as of yet? Range, fuel consumption, weights, etc?
http://www.tecnam.fr/pdf/brochures/Brochure_P2012_1.pdf

http://www.tecnam.fr/pdf/brochures/Brochure_P2012_2.pdf

If all this pans out, then it will be a significantly powerful and well performing aircraft for an incredibly low cost.
 
ridgid727
Posts: 926
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:58 am

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:08 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 20):
Exactly. You could find people if you can offer connecting flights from MCO. Problem with driving is that you have to leave your car here. If the ticket price is low enough, it could work.

If you're looking for connecting traffic with interline agreements with other carriers or even code share, there is a cost involved with that, then of course getting yourself listed in other carriers res system-there is a cost to that as well. Suddenly that $50 fare has additional items added to it that acouunt for $30-$50 in and of themselves. Then as you know, if you have an interline agreement and and someone bumps a bag or it gets lost somewhere between point of beginning and final destination, your interline agreement will prorate the costs of passenger compensation and delivery fees.

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 26):
No, I think you could operate a 1900 under part 135. The only difference between a 19 and 9 seat aircraft is that a 9 seater doesn't require security screening. Larger than 19 requires an FA. If there are other limitations, I either don't know them or can't think of them right now. I'm a little rusty on my FARs.

At one time, Mcall Aviation-Salmon Air out in Idaho was bidding on EAS cities, and one of their bids was going to use a 1900C, but being a 135 operator they were told by the feds they would have to remove 5 of the 18 seats.
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:24 pm

Quoting ridgid727 (Reply 32):
If you're looking for connecting traffic with interline agreements with other carriers or even code share, there is a cost involved with that, then of course getting yourself listed in other carriers res system-there is a cost to that as well. Suddenly that $50 fare has additional items added to it that acouunt for $30-$50 in and of themselves. Then as you know, if you have an interline agreement and and someone bumps a bag or it gets lost somewhere between point of beginning and final destination, your interline agreement will prorate the costs of passenger compensation and delivery fees.

Interesting point. But if you are not the one selling tickets for the connecting flights, it is say DL for flights to airports they do not serve, you would incure fees? Isn't there a fixed cost base? So, say I would give the seat on flight x from A to B for $45. DL would just tack it on to their ticket (with some margin) and be done with it.
 
nws2002
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:04 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:29 pm

Quoting ridgid727 (Reply 32):
At one time, Mcall Aviation-Salmon Air out in Idaho was bidding on EAS cities, and one of their bids was going to use a 1900C, but being a 135 operator they were told by the feds they would have to remove 5 of the 18 seats.

+1, check out FAR Part 119. It pretty much eliminates scheduled 135 ops for more than 9 seats.
 
ridgid727
Posts: 926
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:58 am

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:40 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 33):
Interesting point. But if you are not the one selling tickets for the connecting flights, it is say DL for flights to airports they do not serve, you would incure fees? Isn't there a fixed cost base? So, say I would give the seat on flight x from A to B for $45. DL would just tack it on to their ticket (with some margin) and be done with it.

If you just sell a ticket from point A to point B without baggage and ticket interlining, then yes you can. The customer would have to claim their bags at your baggage area, and re-check them to the carrier that is to provide carriage beyond that city. But, if you are an operator that chooses to Interline it is not just a case of tacking on the fare, and having a baggage transfer in the connecting city. Additionally, if you choose to interline with most any major carrier and an agreement is worked out, your operation for baggage and passengers would fall under the same security and TSA proceedures as the carrier you are connecting to.

Interline agreements are not just baggage transfer and ticketing arrangements. They are very involved and legal pieces of contracts that require each carrier to be responsible for any number of things, from damages due to delayed flights, misconnect bags, injury to passengers and property, replacement of property, reaccomodation of passengers etc.
 
nkops
Posts: 2155
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:09 am

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:19 pm

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 26):
No, I think you could operate a 1900 under part 135.

Nope, has to be under 121 regs for a 19-seater... that was changed I believe in the late 90's or early 2000's.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 22):
Dornier 228

Didn't they just come out with the next generation of the 228's??
:evil:
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:55 pm

Ok so I did the math for the P2012 on a 1 hour flight with what we know so far:

30 gals/hr
used auto gas at 4.0 $/gal

Crew cost, maint, insurance, loan, marketing, airport fees, and profit ($100) included, the cost for the flight is $467. If the plane is full at 9 pax, the cost is $51.89/pax, if 7 pax $66.71 (one way).
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:58 pm

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 26):

No. Twin turbo. They have Pratt & Whitney PW Canada PT6A-67D Turboprops.

As has been pointed out, when one says twin turbo about an airplane, it is generally in regards to a piston engine. You'd confuse a lot of people by saying a 1900 is twin turbo.

Quoting nkops (Reply 36):
Didn't they just come out with the next generation of the 228's??

Yup. Seems like with the right operator here in the US, it might work well.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 37):
Crew cost, maint, insurance, loan, marketing, airport fees, and profit ($100) included, the cost for the flight is $467. If the plane is full at 9 pax, the cost is $51.89/pax, if 7 pax $66.71 (one way).

No way its going to be that cheap. You can barely run a 6 seat piston twin on 300 an hour these days. If you could make the trips work at say a 55-60% LF with an operating cost of 800-900/hr, you might have a business proposal that would work.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:30 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 38):
No way its going to be that cheap. You can barely run a 6 seat piston twin on 300 an hour these days. If you could make the trips work at say a 55-60% LF with an operating cost of 800-900/hr, you might have a business proposal that would work.

That's what it came out at, again using auto gas, and high cycles. The only guestimation is the insurance and airport fees.
 
2175301
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:41 am

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 37):
Ok so I did the math for the P2012 on a 1 hour flight with what we know so far:

30 gals/hr
used auto gas at 4.0 $/gal

Crew cost, maint, insurance, loan, marketing, airport fees, and profit ($100) included, the cost for the flight is $467. If the plane is full at 9 pax, the cost is $51.89/pax, if 7 pax $66.71 (one way).

That does seem low.

Could you break out and list your assumptions for each item. That way we can see if each item makes sense or not.

Personally, I suspect you are off on crew cost by a lot. Most people do not understand how much it really cost to have someone on staff from a $/hr perspective. It ranges from 130% to 250% of their base wages per working hour - and I suspect aircraft crew is a lot closer to the 250% than the 130%.

Have a great day,
 
hatbutton
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:39 am

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:10 am

I'll take a stab at it. Here is an attempt to break down the costs:

Assume you are single pilot ops and you fly the plane 2500 hours a year which is just under 7 hours per day. If you cap pilots at 75 hours per month you would need 3 pilots to fly the thing all year (the math comes out to 2.77 pilots). Say you pay pilots $30k per year (keep in mind Ameriflight, one of the biggest 135 operators only pays their first year Navajo pilots $28k per year).

Say you have 2 mechanics who you pay $30k per year as well. For your employees assume that you spend 25% of their salary in benefits like insurance and retirement contributions (At the airline I work for it averages out to 35%, but we are also a major airline and this is a puddle jumper, so you won't find the luxurious benefits packages at these types of places). You don't necessarily have to pay per diem or overnight hotel costs if you route the airplane properly. Even if you pay per diem (Ameriflight pays $35/day), you'll be flying the airplane for about 6.5 hours per day. So for one pilot that comes out to just over $5 per flight hour.

From some EAS dockets I've seen, Caravan operators cite insurance at about $65k per year per aircraft for fixed wheel. Let's assume that's what the P2012 is too.

Typical overhaul for those lycomings is about 2000 hrs. It's about $40k per engine to overhaul it from websites I found. Let's be safe and assume $50k per side (though they are brand new engines so it'll take a while to break them down). So at 2500 hours per year you will spend $125k per year overhauling them.

If you use Mogas at $4/gal it'll cost you $120/hr at 30 gallons per hour. Tecnam claims fuel burn will be under 30gph but I'll assume 30gph. Typical aircraft of this size like a Caravan you can assume about $35/hr for parts and $5/hr or so for propeller/starter overhaul. How about we up that to $50 just to be on the conservative side for parts and $10 for propeller/starter overhaul. It'll be a brand new airplane with a sturdy construction and few mechanical parts because of the fixed gear, so I can't imagine it needing tons of parts replacing except for maybe avionics and interior.

If you finance the aircraft right at $2.2m for 10 years at 8% you have monthly payments around $27k or $324k per year.

Since it's in Florida I think you can assume you won't be using any de-icing fluid any time. So no cost there.

How about we assume $2.50 per thousand pounds for landing fees. The max weight of this thing is about 7250lbs. So just assume 7*2.50 = $17.50 per landing. I'll just assume one hour legs so $17.50/hr.

Here is what you come up with per hour:

Insurance ($65k/2500): $26
Pilots ($90K/2500): $36
Mechanics ($60k/2500): $24
Pilot and Mechanic Benefits ($150k*25%/2500): $15
Pilot per diem: $5
Fuel: ($4*30): $120
Engine Overhaul ($125k/2500): $50
Parts: $35
Propeller: $10
Aircraft Finance Payments ($324k/2500): $129.60
Landing Fees: $17.50

This brings your hourly total to $468.10. No this doesn't include airport costs other than landing fees nor marketing costs or other employee costs. But we are trying to just come up with the costs of flying the airplane which is what most airlines use. Most airlines don't even include landing fees as part of their costs of operating the airplane. So there you have it. It does seem realistic that it could come in under $500/hr and I may have exaggerated some of the maintenance costs since they will be brand new planes. These aren't 25 year old Cessna 402s or Piper Chieftains.

The real savings are in the fuel costs with the MoGas which is so much cheaper than Jet-A or AvGas. You're talking nearly $100/hr in savings compared to a plane like the Caravan which burns almost 50gph and has to use Jet-A. I assumed $4/gallon for gas...but currently the national average is $3.58. In MIA right now the average is currently $3.50. So that brings the per hour for fuel down to $105 rather than the $120 assumption.

Anything you disagree with or that you think I'm missing?
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Crew
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:35 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 38):

Well then that's why I'm not a pilot...the 7710.65 tells me that a B190 is a 2/T for two turboprops. I do know that a turbine and turboprop is the same thing, I just say turboprop because that's what they tell me they're called. Since we only refer to aircraft by piston, turboprop, and jet, it's easier to shorten it to turbo because that would never mean a piston driven aircraft for us. I'll make sure not to be lazy on here next time, I guess.
 
BrouAviation
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:31 am

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:41 am

Not bad at all! And it immediately proves the point of Tecnam's newest product --> it really shows why that plane is going to work better and more efficient than all those ancient avgas-guzzling Chieftains, Navajo's and 402's.
Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
 
2175301
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:41 pm

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 41):

OK, good breakdown.

Now lets add that you need 4 pilots a year to cover training, sick time, and vacation.

Then add that if you are paying your pilots 30K, that you have to pay another 25% in various taxes (employers portion of SS, unemployment, etc) and minor benefits. Even if you don't have very generous benefit packages - its hard to get below 125% wages on employee cost.

How are you going to cover down time on the plane? If you have 2 to 4 planes you will need a spare plane to guarantee reasonable replacement abilities.

I don't have time to run the numbers today. But lets assume that their is enough business to fly 3 planes to different cities (but you own 4 planes). 12 pilots to cover 3 planes.

How many mechanics (there should be some savings here as I doubt you need 2 per plane - but remember mechanics need training, get sick, and have to take vacation too).

Then toss in some gate agent & ramper employee cost at several airports (could be part time or service contract), two full time administrative positions, 1 Manager position, and figure a barebones advertising budget of $50K per month, which follows spending a $1 million up front to get the word out.... (what is the financing cost on the $1 Million with a 5 year loan).

I think that will provide a better idea of more realistic costs.

Have a great day,
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:20 pm

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 44):
Now lets add that you need 4 pilots a year to cover training, sick time, and vacation.

You can pay hourly for the pilots. There are plenty out there with low hours willing to fly anything with wings and get minimum wage for the flown hours.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 44):
How are you going to cover down time on the plane? If you have 2 to 4 planes you will need a spare plane to guarantee reasonable replacement abilities.

If you can keep a 15 hour schedule, there should be avail hours, or charter a 402 for a flight.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 44):
How many mechanics (there should be some savings here as I doubt you need 2 per plane - but remember mechanics need training, get sick, and have to take vacation too).

No on-staff mechanics were planned. A contracted shop would be used and pay only for used time.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 44):
Then toss in some gate agent & ramper employee cost at several airports (could be part time or service contract), two full time administrative positions, 1 Manager position, and figure a barebones advertising budget of $50K per month, which follows spending a $1 million up front to get the word out.... (what is the financing cost on the $1 Million with a 5 year loan).

No need. The idea is that if you can put a good case and business plan together, financincg will be available through investments.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:38 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 45):
You can pay hourly for the pilots. There are plenty out there with low hours willing to fly anything with wings and get minimum wage for the flown hours.

Not under the regulations you're going to have to operate under. Even if you could pull off a single pilot waiver for this Tecnam, you're still going to have to have pilots with 1200+ hours. Not to mention the fact that the insurance company is probably going to want to see way more than that.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 45):
If you can keep a 15 hour schedule, there should be avail hours, or charter a 402 for a flight.

So what you've got hours available each day. You can't just hang a new engine in a few hours. You will need at least 2 planes to make an operation successful at all.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 45):
No on-staff mechanics were planned. A contracted shop would be used and pay only for used time.

Bad idea. You use a contractor, you go to the bottom of the line at some shops. Internal work comes before contract work. Can't afford that as a small charter operator.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:29 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 46):
Not under the regulations you're going to have to operate under. Even if you could pull off a single pilot waiver for this Tecnam, you're still going to have to have pilots with 1200+ hours. Not to mention the fact that the insurance company is probably going to want to see way more than that.

The PIC must have 1200+ hours, for the copilot, there is no minimum. If you you pay say 3 pilots $40,000/yr for the 1200hrs exp and the copilots at $10/hour, the cost per hour for the crew is about $25, say $35/hour. You shold be still OK.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 46):
So what you've got hours available each day. You can't just hang a new engine in a few hours. You will need at least 2 planes to make an operation successful at all.

Not worth to have 2 planes as of yet, however, there is access to some 402's and Panthers in 9 seat config if needed. The 15 hour days are designed to allow for late flights/maintenance of the aircraft.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 46):
Bad idea. You use a contractor, you go to the bottom of the line at some shops. Internal work comes before contract work. Can't afford that as a small charter operator.

Not sure if I uderstand you. Thinking about a shop at the airport to use. There would be no need for in-house mechanics, the operation is too small to support that in my opinion.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:34 am

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 47):
The PIC must have 1200+ hours, for the copilot, there is no minimum. If you you pay say 3 pilots $40,000/yr for the 1200hrs exp and the copilots at $10/hour, the cost per hour for the crew is about $25, say $35/hour. You shold be still OK.

Waste of money to have a copilot ride along. Get the single pilot 135 waiver and be done with it.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 47):
Not worth to have 2 planes as of yet, however, there is access to some 402's and Panthers in 9 seat config if needed. The 15 hour days are designed to allow for late flights/maintenance of the aircraft.

15 hour days are fine for basic maintenance, but what happens when unscheduled problems pop up. Or the plane breaks down at the outstation? A single plane operation isn't going to work with what you are proposing to do.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 47):
Not sure if I uderstand you. Thinking about a shop at the airport to use. There would be no need for in-house mechanics, the operation is too small to support that in my opinion.

I know what your saying. I'm saying, I've worked around shops like that. Quite a few have in-house maintenance that usually comes first. For instance, the operation I was familiar with, any of the based aircraft in the FBO came first, even before someone who brought their plane there to get fixed.

And to add to your costs, you don't have any of the administrative side built in. You want a 135 certificate, there are a couple of positions that have to be filled in order to operate. I'm basically saying, all in all, if you could get the hourly cost of everything to $800/hr, I'd be amazed. The more airplanes you've got, the more you can spread that administrative cost out.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: What Plane Would Be Best For...

Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:55 am

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 41):
Typical overhaul for those lycomings is about 2000 hrs. It's about $40k per engine to overhaul it from websites I found. Let's be safe and assume $50k per side (though they are brand new engines so it'll take a while to break them down). So at 2500 hours per year you will spend $125k per year overhauling them.

Could you specify the source? It seems a bit high for a piston pounder. A reworked engine costs is $30k directly from Lycoming. I can't imagine an overhaul be more than an overhauled engine.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: raedgar, Wraine and 10 guests