Page 96 – Key Publishing

mongu

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,426 through 1,440 (of 2,815 total)

← 1 2 3 … 95 96 97 … 186 187 188 →

Author

Posts
February 3, 2003 at 6:31 pm in reply to: Short-haul turboprops #676137

mongu
Participant

RE: Short-haul turboprops

Very good feedback wys, just the sort of contrast to my own reasoning which we needed.

February 2, 2003 at 10:24 pm in reply to: 717 #676302

mongu
Participant

RE: What About this?

Well the 717-200 would be too small to detract much from the 737-700, though posibly the 736 would be toast.

Also, I would imagine they would simply restart the MD-87 line, bolt some uprated RR BR715’s on it, sort out the flight deck to give 712 commonality and so forth. The tooling and jigs are probably lying around somewhere at Long Beach. Alternatively, they could just put a few more frames into the 712.

February 2, 2003 at 5:11 pm in reply to: 717 #676341

mongu
Participant

RE: What About this?

Yes, the 764 was a bit of a flop. But the point of that design was to bridge the gap between the 767-300 and the 777-200. Not really a mass market thing, really.

But the 717-300 would bridge the gap between 717-200 and 737-700, or even between a regional jet and 737-700. It would be a direct A318 competitor, like the 737-700 competes with the A319.

February 2, 2003 at 12:13 pm in reply to: Ultimate cross-wind landing attempt #676536

mongu
Participant

RE: Ultimate cross-wind landing attempt

Christ that was scary!

February 2, 2003 at 12:09 pm in reply to: 717 #676542

mongu
Participant

RE: What About this?

Boeing always make an aircraft for one customer though:

747 – Pan Am
767-400 – Delta, Continental

I’m sure there are a few more cases too.

February 1, 2003 at 10:15 pm in reply to: 717 #676772

mongu
Participant

RE: 717

I don’t agree fellas.

The 737-600 is a failure, so the practical starting point for 737 customers is the 737-700.

Therefore bringing out something which may harm 737-600 orders (as if!) is not a particularly bad idea.

The other advantage for operators, is that it would finally give them a reason to operate the 717-200; lack of fleet commonality has deterred a lot of potential 717 customers.

February 1, 2003 at 10:09 pm in reply to: Short-haul turboprops #676776

mongu
Participant

RE: Short-haul turboprops

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-02-03 AT 10:10 PM (GMT)]Interesting article Sam.

It is worth noting that lots of the aircraft up for selection are no longer in production – Saabs and Dornier certainly, not sure about the Y7. But I would be surprised if the Chinese Y7 could compete with the eventual winner.

Do you know if they ever took delivery of any aircraft?

I would also point out that the Avro RJ family have four turbofans, which must be a consideration for mountain operartions. The runway minima re:

RJ 70 – 3,650 ft
RJ 85 – 3,770 ft
RJ 100 – 4,265 ft

Ie, under normal conditions even the larger RJ100 is able to operate from the smallest 4,900ft runway the report mentions. This may be a factor in winning over customers!

I am not a pilot and my knowledge of flight ops is sketchy. But I know the airports in question are high altitude, which will extend these minima a bit. Presumably at least the RJ70 is OK, though.

February 1, 2003 at 8:27 pm in reply to: Short-haul turboprops #676798

mongu
Participant

RE: Short-haul turboprops

I don’t see how maintainance costs for the ATR could be much different than for any other type, esp. the Dash 8.

There are an almost infinite range of variables for any given airline to look at when they choose a fleet. The most revenue senstive is fuel consumption – maintainance costs are likely to be much of a muchness from year to year, as are pilot and flight attendant wages. The price of fuel, by contrast, is all over the place. It is therefore the riskiest factor in the mix. So better to choose a type which reduces exposure to this risk by requiring you to buy less fuel over the course of a year.

I am assuming that purchase price is competitive between the two types of course. Also, I am an accountant and I am looking purely at the costs of operating each type. I’m sure other stakeholders (engineers, pilots, planners) have their own points of view as well.

I’d personally go for a 1/3rd ATR 42 and 2/3rd ATR 72 mix.

February 1, 2003 at 6:10 pm in reply to: Short-haul turboprops #676834

mongu
Participant

RE: Short-haul turboprops

I pulled those figures from the data screen of a simulation called “Airline”. It is usually highly accurate so I have no doubt those figs are accurate. The site for the simulation is at http://www.airlinesimulation.com

Dash 8-100 (40 seats, 1.7 l/km)
Dash 8-200 (40 seats, 1.8 l/km)
Dash 8-300 (50 seats, 2.1 l/km)
Dash 8-400 (70 seats, 2.3 l/km)

ATR 42-300 (48 seats, 1.5 l/km)
ATR 42-500 (50 seats, 1.4 l/km)
ATR 72-200 (74 seats, 1.8 l/km)

CRJ100 (52 seats, 2.0 l/km)
CRJ200 (52 seats, 1.6 l/km)
CRJ700 (70 seats, 2.0 l/km)
CRJ900 (90 seats, 2.3 l/km)

RJ70 (70 seats, 3.9 l/km)
RJ85 (82 seats, 4.0 l/km)
RJ100 (97 seats, 4.3 l/km)

EMB 140 (44 seats, 1.6 l/km)

ATP (70 seats, 1.8 l/km)

Conclusion: ATR fleet!

February 1, 2003 at 5:57 pm in reply to: Pic of the day-"Ready or not- I'm commin to get ya! #676982

mongu
Participant

RE: Pic of the day-“Ready or not- I’m commin to get ya!

Who flies the IL-62 still?

Aeroflot only seem to fly Tu-134, Tu-154 and IL-86/96 aircraft as far as I can tell.

February 1, 2003 at 5:52 pm in reply to: Short-haul turboprops #676994

mongu
Participant

RE: Short-haul turboprops

Only by 2 o 4 seats, Andrew.

The ATR is more efficient though. Fuel consumption is 2.3 litres/km for the Dash 8-Q400.

The ATR 72-200 burns 1.8 litres/km although I presume the -500 will be better.

Actually the dreaded BAe ATP has nearly identical fuel efficiency as the ATR 72 and is a 70 seater.

February 1, 2003 at 5:43 pm in reply to: General Discussion #382051

mongu
Participant

RE: Shuttle lost (blows up?) on re-entry

My condolences.

February 1, 2003 at 5:43 pm in reply to: Shuttle lost (blows up?) on re-entry #1964387

mongu
Participant

RE: Shuttle lost (blows up?) on re-entry

My condolences.

February 1, 2003 at 2:47 pm in reply to: General Discussion #382167

mongu
Participant

RE: Ultimate holiday ?

Safari again, in the South Luangwa park in Zambia. Maybe I’d fly there 1st class this time!

February 1, 2003 at 2:47 pm in reply to: Ultimate holiday ? #1964449

mongu
Participant

RE: Ultimate holiday ?

Safari again, in the South Luangwa park in Zambia. Maybe I’d fly there 1st class this time!
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,426 through 1,440 (of 2,815 total)

← 1 2 3 … 95 96 97 … 186 187 188 →