Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 5275
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:33 am

By now, the airlines which mainly operates to various smaller islands in Japan, have been using two Q200 aircraft in the fleet. As they were edging closer to 80000 cycles which is their design life, the airlines have decided to
- Introduce a younger Q200, which still about three more years life left in them, which they can use the time to prepare for a new alternative, to replace one of the older Q200
- Lease a Q400 from ANA, put the other Q200 into reserve so that it can improve operation reliability using the few cycle left in the airframe.

In the last month, after delayed by the coronavirus outbreak, it's now reported that the 22 years old Q200 from Horizon Air have officially been arrived and registered in Japan for the airlines.

It's said that the airlines plan to introduce ATR42-600 in the future, as the shortest runway the airlines operate into is 1200m-long at Iki airport and ATR42-600 can also operate into, they mentioned that the cost and time necessary for a small airlines like them to train everyone for the new aircraft type is difficult but they still plan to do it to maintain their routes.

Source on above information:
https://iki-guide.com/?p=5900
https://www.aviationwire.jp/archives/194783
https://flyteam.jp/news/article/128420

---------

Given they need to fly to 1200m airport, is ATR the only aircraft of choice remaining available for them? The new proposed propeller aircraft from Embraer probably wouldn't be ready by the time they need to replace it? What are other airlines around the world with similar circumstances doing for now?
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
A placeholder line
You are now at your youngest moment in your remaining life.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5366
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Mon Nov 09, 2020 9:55 am

c933103 wrote:
Given they need to fly to 1200m airport, is ATR the only aircraft of choice remaining available for them? The new proposed propeller aircraft from Embraer probably wouldn't be ready by the time they need to replace it? What are other airlines around the world with similar circumstances doing for now?


Yep, the 42-600STOL is the only game in town. It's either wait for that or source a secondhand ATR 42-500/600 or Dash 8-100/200. The new Embraer will be a much bigger aircraft at 80-100 seats and probably not much of a STOL aircraft, so not worth waiting for.

Most other airlines for whom the Q400 wasn't an option either refurbished their Dash 8s or took the big step and swapped over to new or second-hand ATR 42s.
 
AZa346
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:58 pm

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Mon Nov 09, 2020 9:58 am

Is there a life extension programme available for q200??
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5366
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:03 am

AZa346 wrote:
Is there a life extension programme available for q200??


From 80.000 to 120.000 cycles:

https://www.bombardier.com/en/media/new ... ercom.html

https://www.wideroetechnical.com/extended-service
 
texl1649
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Mon Nov 09, 2020 2:04 pm

One might expect a tiltrotor to be the future for this type of facility/traffic, long term. I realize the AW609 is only 9 passengers vs. 37 or so on the 200, but I doubt Viking or anyone else is going to target the STOL market in this size in the near/mid future.

The V-280, if/when it's ever certified, would seem like a possible good fit (14 troops probably would translate to around 20 pax).
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10805
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Mon Nov 09, 2020 2:24 pm

If their shortest runway is 1200m (1,199m I presume), then the ATR 72 and potentially Q400 would be potential alternatives - all depends on the surrounding terrain and whether the market could profitably accommodate the extra seats.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
Airontario
Posts: 720
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2001 12:04 am

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Mon Nov 09, 2020 3:19 pm

PlymSpotter wrote:
If their shortest runway is 1200m (1,199m I presume), then the ATR 72 and potentially Q400 would be potential alternatives - all depends on the surrounding terrain and whether the market could profitably accommodate the extra seats.


CYTZ (Toronto City Centre) handles Q400s on their 1200m runway, with special procedures in place. As you said, there are other factors out there that may make this impossible.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10805
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Mon Nov 09, 2020 4:00 pm

Airontario wrote:
PlymSpotter wrote:
If their shortest runway is 1200m (1,199m I presume), then the ATR 72 and potentially Q400 would be potential alternatives - all depends on the surrounding terrain and whether the market could profitably accommodate the extra seats.


CYTZ (Toronto City Centre) handles Q400s on their 1200m runway, with special procedures in place. As you said, there are other factors out there that may make this impossible.


A big one being RFFS cover.

The ATR 42 requires the same level of cover as the Q200, whilst the ATR 72 would require upgrading to a category higher. The Q400 would be two categories higher, although both the ATR 72 and the Q400 would require an additional RFFS vehicle.

This is on the assumption that Japan adheres to ICAO regs, which I'm sure they do.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 5275
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Mon Nov 09, 2020 4:10 pm

Airontario wrote:
PlymSpotter wrote:
If their shortest runway is 1200m (1,199m I presume), then the ATR 72 and potentially Q400 would be potential alternatives - all depends on the surrounding terrain and whether the market could profitably accommodate the extra seats.


CYTZ (Toronto City Centre) handles Q400s on their 1200m runway, with special procedures in place. As you said, there are other factors out there that may make this impossible.

http://ikishinpou.com/news/%E7%A9%BA%E6 ... %E8%A8%8E/
Local newspaper claim that while Q400 can actually use the Iki airport with 1200m runway, it will be payload restricted to 27 passengers.
And it say if Q400 is to use the airport with passenger capacity of 74 people plus using the max cargo capacity of 633kg, then the runway need to extend from 1200 to 1500m, and the width need to extend from 30 to 45m, and they will also need to have a second firefighting vehicle in place.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
A placeholder line
You are now at your youngest moment in your remaining life.
 
Andyq400
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 8:38 am

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:19 am

VSMUT wrote:
AZa346 wrote:
Is there a life extension programme available for q200??


From 80.000 to 120.000 cycles:

https://www.bombardier.com/en/media/new ... ercom.html

https://www.wideroetechnical.com/extended-service


Only Approved on 100 and 300. No customer has requested 200 Life Extension.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10805
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Wed Nov 11, 2020 9:31 pm

c933103 wrote:
Airontario wrote:
PlymSpotter wrote:
If their shortest runway is 1200m (1,199m I presume), then the ATR 72 and potentially Q400 would be potential alternatives - all depends on the surrounding terrain and whether the market could profitably accommodate the extra seats.


CYTZ (Toronto City Centre) handles Q400s on their 1200m runway, with special procedures in place. As you said, there are other factors out there that may make this impossible.

http://ikishinpou.com/news/%E7%A9%BA%E6 ... %E8%A8%8E/
Local newspaper claim that while Q400 can actually use the Iki airport with 1200m runway, it will be payload restricted to 27 passengers.
And it say if Q400 is to use the airport with passenger capacity of 74 people plus using the max cargo capacity of 633kg, then the runway need to extend from 1200 to 1500m, and the width need to extend from 30 to 45m, and they will also need to have a second firefighting vehicle in place.


Ouch, 27 pax is rough.

I'd never actually looked into IKI before. Just took a look on Google Earth and it seems quite a pretty little island with a small, quaint airport. Overall tarmac length is 1,319m and a width of about 38m - with 1,199m and 30m demarked. Unless there is a local regulation, I don't see why the runway width would need to be increased to 45m. There's nothing in ICAO regs which stipulate this and effective Code 2C runways are common.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
LimaFoxTango
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:33 pm

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Thu Nov 12, 2020 1:53 am

Andyq400 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
AZa346 wrote:
Is there a life extension programme available for q200??


From 80.000 to 120.000 cycles:

https://www.bombardier.com/en/media/new ... ercom.html

https://www.wideroetechnical.com/extended-service


Only Approved on 100 and 300. No customer has requested 200 Life Extension.


That's interesting considering a 200 is simply a 100 with 300 engines. There's no physical difference between a 100 and 200.
You are said to be a good pilot when your take-off's equal your landings.
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Thu Nov 12, 2020 2:28 am

How about to extend Iki airport runway by 500m so that larger and younger aircraft is slliwed
 
Andyq400
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 8:38 am

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Thu Nov 12, 2020 5:43 am

LimaFoxTango wrote:
Andyq400 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:


Only Approved on 100 and 300. No customer has requested 200 Life Extension.


That's interesting considering a 200 is simply a 100 with 300 engines. There's no physical difference between a 100 and 200.


If no customers are buying the SB then they wont invest the money into adding the 200 to it. 200 Nacelle frames are cycled out at 60,000 Cycles unlike a 100 which is done at 90,000. Due to more twist from Higher Torque PW123 Engines. I was the Bombardier FSR who Started AMX /ORC/ANK and ANA Wings 400 Entry into Service back in the day. Also supported them thru Nacelle Frame replacements at JTA in Naha.
 
Andyq400
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 8:38 am

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Thu Nov 12, 2020 5:51 am

PlymSpotter wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Airontario wrote:

CYTZ (Toronto City Centre) handles Q400s on their 1200m runway, with special procedures in place. As you said, there are other factors out there that may make this impossible.

http://ikishinpou.com/news/%E7%A9%BA%E6 ... %E8%A8%8E/
Local newspaper claim that while Q400 can actually use the Iki airport with 1200m runway, it will be payload restricted to 27 passengers.
And it say if Q400 is to use the airport with passenger capacity of 74 people plus using the max cargo capacity of 633kg, then the runway need to extend from 1200 to 1500m, and the width need to extend from 30 to 45m, and they will also need to have a second firefighting vehicle in place.


Ouch, 27 pax is rough.

I'd never actually looked into IKI before. Just took a look on Google Earth and it seems quite a pretty little island with a small, quaint airport. Overall tarmac length is 1,319m and a width of about 38m - with 1,199m and 30m demarked. Unless there is a local regulation, I don't see why the runway width would need to be increased to 45m. There's nothing in ICAO regs which stipulate this and effective Code 2C runways are common.


Iki has a Slope issue(-.74%) also which affects 400 going in there. The longer the runway the less the slope . 400 would need 1400 Meters + to be effective there. 1600 would be Best.
 
JeremyXWB
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:04 am

Re: ANA's ORC replaced a Q200 with another Q200.

Thu Nov 12, 2020 1:03 pm

Well, they always say that "the only replacement for a DC-3 is another DC-3" :duck:

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos