Ok let me make another brillaint contribution to this wonderful forum.
Heres some data I found.
Fokker 50
Speed=520kph
Range=2055km
Fuel per KM=1.8
Max Seating 58
Flight deck crew=2
Cabin crew=2
Fron that data I estimate that if the aircraft is operating with a full load it costs each passenger $0.31 per KM travelled which is not too good when you look at the likes of the 738 and A320 which cost about $0.26 per KM but there is a huge difference in the year introduced
ATR 42
Speed=515kph
Range 2810KM
Fuel per KM 1.4
Max seating=50
Flight deck crew=2
Cabin crew=1
From that I estimate the ATR 42 costs a passenger $0.28 per KM slighty cheaper than the Fokker 50.Over a distance of say 300KM to break even a airline operating the Fokker 50 would have to charge $9.30 airline operating the ATR42 would have to charge $8.4us the ATR requires one less member of cabin crew.There alot of information there but over all the ATR has longer range require less cabin crew and is cheaper to operate per KM.What has this got to do with the fall of Fokker well the more ecomical ATR 42 was launched 1 year before the Fokker 50 so ATR had a good aircraft avialable before the Fokker 50.
To operate other turboprops at a distance of 300KM the costs come out as follows per passenger for the airline to break even.
Embraer120=$24
DO-228=$9.30
DHC-8-300=$9.80
So as you can see the Fokker 50 didnt perfrom better than its competiors launched around the same time it was close to a few of them but alot of the time the rest were more economical.
Sign In
