SAAB 2000

Flew on a Swiss Saab 2000 once, and I felt very cramped and claustrophobic in it, compared to an ATR72. Pity, because I’d been trying for ages to add it to my “Type list.” I remember looking down that narrow tube-like cabin and wondering what it would be like to evacuate in an emergency.

I think the strategy was to offer the Saab 2000 to customers that needed to step up in capacity from small 340’s.

One of the problems that already has been pointed out is that for a couple of years ago fuel price was much lower than today. Thus making the lower operating costs of a turboprop vs. jet not that important. I would also guess that Embraer (which I think got subsidies from Brazilian state at that time?) sold E-135/145 for about the same price as Saab sold their 2000s. That killed the economical advantage of the turboprop quite effectively.

And as tenthije said, people wanted to fly jet since jet felt like the modern way to fly whereas turboprop reminded of a thing from the past.

Today it’s totally different. ATR et al are still on the market and can see a better forecast than Embraer due to fuel prices. What you got to bear in mind though is that ATR has most likely shown red numbers for the past 7-8 years. So even if they can make some money on todays market they still have a lot of money to earn before the debts are paid.

regards,
Cliff

There was a lot of competition in the market. There was the ATR, the (then brand new) F50, the dash 8 of various versions and both the ERJ and CRJ entered the market too. Against that competition the margins where small.

Also, while the Saab may have all the advantages of the RJ combined with the economics of the turboprop, it still looked like a prop. From a passengers point of view they where old fashioned. Passengers like jets more, and since a ERJ/CRJ was not much more expensive to buy airlines went for the jet. With hindsight it may have been smarter to get the saab as its economics are superior.

Also remember that the fuel price at the time was much lower then today.

Ok. But as I understand it the ATR-42 and Dash 8 are successes and still in production. What made the SAAB 2000 such a failure compared to those planes? There still seems to be a demand for such an a/c. Just looking at performance (speed, range etc) the SAAB 2000 seems to outclass the ATR/Dash. Was the pricetag also much higher or what was it?

“Also, while the Saab may have all the advantages of the RJ combined with the economics of the turboprop, it still looked like a prop.”

What does “RJ” means? Regional jet?

And why did the production of SAAB 340 end when the EMB-120 (and similar prop-a/c I suppose) are still being produced? There´s alot of costumers out there with the SAAB 340. What happens when they wants to get new similar planes, their only choice is to turn to Embraer or whoever who produces such planes.
Is their a chance that SAAB can reopen its productionlines for the 340/2000 if there´s a great demand on the market?

There was a lot of competition in the market. There was the ATR, the (then brand new) F50, the dash 8 of various versions and both the ERJ and CRJ entered the market too. Against that competition the margins where small.

Also, while the Saab may have all the advantages of the RJ combined with the economics of the turboprop, it still looked like a prop. From a passengers point of view they where old fashioned. Passengers like jets more, and since a ERJ/CRJ was not much more expensive to buy airlines went for the jet. With hindsight it may have been smarter to get the saab as its economics are superior.

Also remember that the fuel price at the time was much lower then today.