GLO "Pauses" Operations

FloridaLarry said:
Not quite. There are five airframe designs (in the Beech 1900-Saab 340 class) currently available new, all but one built far away, and all the latest tweak (various new technologies, glass cockpits) on a venerable design. None are speed demons. All have STOL capabilities, are high-wing twins and are primarily in use in 3rd world countries, in military variants, and dropping skydivers or for cargo. Most are boxy, lumpy and not very sleek. Several have history as regional airliners in the past, and/or elsewhere in the world. All but one (Viking Twotter) have retractable gear. No 50-seat jets, since plenty are or will be available soon in the used market.

LET L-410. Originally Czech, now built in former USSR. Twin turbo-prop, 19 pax, 1971 original design, more than a thousand built.

Dornier DO-228 NG. Germany, twin turbo, 19 pax, 1981 original design, around 300 built.

Antonov AN-28 / PZL Mielec M-28. Soviet design, now made in Poland. PZL is now owned by Sikorsky / Lockheed Martin. 19 PAX. Around 200 built. USAF uses them for Special Ops work.

CASA C-212. 1971 Spanish design, now built in Indonesia. 500 plus built, 26 pax. US Army & Air Force use it.

Viking Air DHC-6 Twin Otter. Viking builds the newest version of DeHavilland's classic design in Vancouver, Canada. More than 900 built. 19 Pax. Available with floats or skis, too. In use nearly everywhere. new and old.

Coming from Italy: Tecnam P-2012 Traveller. New design and sleekissima. High-wing, fixed gear, 9 PAX , Piston twin. Co-conspirator on the design is Cape Air, to replace their Cessna 402s. First flew a year ago, now in flight testing, expected to enter service in 2019. Cape Air has ordered a hundred.

Sources: Wikipedia, some manufacturers' websites.
Click to expand...
Yeah, how many of those are pressurized? And the Traveller, if it ever becomes more than vaporware, is in the caravan class.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
Lakeshore Express tried it doing PTK MDW PLN in the 340...only lasted a couple of years

GLO got the lakeshore planes and tried doing something similar in south...only lasted a couple of years.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty convinced you can't just launch into a market with a 34-seat airplane unless you have a large pile of cash to burn. A better tactic would be to start small with a Caravan and then scale up.

Bandit_Driver said:
Lakeshore is now trying to restart as Latitude Airlines with PC-12's out of Ohio...
Click to expand...

I'm also convinced that you can't make a PC-12 work as commuter operation unless it's heavily subsidized.
 
Kingairer said:
i bet they don't last longitude. #dadjoke
Click to expand...

Being a very good friend with the CEO, consultant/adviser, and shareholder I think it's disrespectful you're already counting them out.

As everyone knows how difficult it is to make a dollar in this industry the future is always uncertain especially for a startup. But I've never seen a drive, passion, or dedication like the CEO has. Hometown guy trying to create hometown jobs in a city that holds a special place in my heart. What's not to like?
 
hook_dupin said:
I...I'm also convinced that you can't make a PC-12 work as commuter operation unless it's heavily subsidized.
Click to expand...

The cost of new equipment rather than something rescued from the desert is often the difference between success and failure. You get shiny fresh paint and un-rumpled seats to go with the smiling faces of people flying something that's easier to believe in. Greater dispatch reliability helps.

Major Dupin's other recommendation is also right-on. The landscape is littered with failed start-up who believed in the 'Field of Dreams' school of airline management: If you fly it, they (PAX) will come. Along with various other poor managerial issues, the largest failure factor in start-ups is underestimating how quickly revenue will roll in, and therefore how much you'll need to subsidize the un-profitable period before you see black ink. True of virtually every kind of business venture.

Optimism and enthusiasm need to be backed up with cash.
 
Roger Roger said:
Yeah, how many of those are pressurized? And the Traveller, if it ever becomes more than vaporware, is in the caravan class.
Click to expand...

I don't think any are pressurized. For most of what they are called on to do - short stage-length flights out of smaller airports, you probably don't need pressurization, with it's increased costs in airframe strength balanced against gaining altitude for more efficient propulsion costs. We already have enough aircraft that reach cruising altitude only to immediately start back down.

Now that it's actually flying (a full year of testing, as of July), I expect that the Traveller is a 'Go.' Barring either a crash of the Italian economy, or of the first few aircraft, they're on track for success. There is a need for something to replace the Caravan, and the P-2012 is designed for that niche. Time will tell if their design decisions are the best ones. Bear in mind that Cape Air is probably the most successful operator of small PAX aircraft. They have avoided the Shiny Larger Aircraft problem - could there be a connection here?
 
FloridaLarry said:
Now that it's actually flying (a full year of testing, as of July), I expect that the Traveller is a 'Go.' Barring either a crash of the Italian economy, or of the first few aircraft, they're on track for success. There is a need for something to replace the Caravan, and the P-2012 is designed for that niche. Time will tell if their design decisions are the best ones. Bear in mind that Cape Air is probably the most successful operator of small PAX aircraft. They have avoided the Shiny Larger Aircraft problem - could there be a connection here?
Click to expand...
Why would you need to replace the Caravan? I hate flying them but they are a phenomenally successful aircraft in that niche. Don't get me wrong, I hope the Traveller is a success, as it and the DA62 are the only real hope for the future of the piston twin, but I think the turbine single genie has been out of the bottle for too long for it to work.
 
jhugz said:
Being a very good friend with the CEO, consultant/adviser, and shareholder I think it's disrespectful you're already counting them out.

As everyone knows how difficult it is to make a dollar in this industry the future is always uncertain especially for a startup. But I've never seen a drive, passion, or dedication like the CEO has. Hometown guy trying to create hometown jobs in a city that holds a special place in my heart. What's not to like?
Click to expand...

no_need_to_get_testy_by_ring0ffire.jpg
 
FloridaLarry said:
Bear in mind that Cape Air is probably the most successful operator of small PAX aircraft. They have avoided the Shiny Larger Aircraft problem - could there be a connection here?
Click to expand...

In the name of accuracy, Cape Air does have four Britten Norman Islanders and two ATRs...

141208_0029_edited-2.jpg


cape-air-united-express-micronesia-22013-route-map.jpg
 
FloridaLarry said:
The cost of new equipment rather than something rescued from the desert is often the difference between success and failure. You get shiny fresh paint and un-rumpled seats to go with the smiling faces of people flying something that's easier to believe in. Greater dispatch reliability helps.

Major Dupin's other recommendation is also right-on. The landscape is littered with failed start-up who believed in the 'Field of Dreams' school of airline management: If you fly it, they (PAX) will come. Along with various other poor managerial issues, the largest failure factor in start-ups is underestimating how quickly revenue will roll in, and therefore how much you'll need to subsidize the un-profitable period before you see black ink. True of virtually every kind of business venture.

Optimism and enthusiasm need to be backed up with cash.
Click to expand...

New does not equally dispatch reliability. Anyone remember the new e170/190. Aka the 180 for make a 180 and go back to the gate cause it's broke. Properly maintained equipment from the desert could be cheaper and more reliable.

IMO FAA needs to up the Amount of cash on hand and require x number of spare parts to be on hand for any new airline. This would allow them a better shot at weathering the lean times starting out as well as minimize down time for mx.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Skåning said:
In the name of accuracy, Cape Air does have four Britten Norman Islanders and two ATRs...
Click to expand...

Absolutely true (I believe there are 3 ATRs, though). I do not know the history of how Cape Air got to Micronesia in 2004, but it is the exception to the norm for the company.

The B-N Islanders were purchased for their STOL capabilities, to start service to certain islands with short runways. The C-402 fleet is about 80 aircraft.
 
Roger Roger said:
Why would you need to replace the Caravan? I hate flying them but they are a phenomenally successful aircraft in that niche. Don't get me wrong, I hope the Traveller is a success, as it and the DA62 are the only real hope for the future of the piston twin, but I think the turbine single genie has been out of the bottle for too long for it to work.
Click to expand...

You and I know that single-engine turbines are very reliable, but some members of the public still think you need a twin to tango safely. After 2,500 Caravans (and counting - still building 'em), Cessna is betting on the Denali to carry that niche into the future, and take some business away from Pilatus.

My bet is that they will exist in parallel. Tecnam is a small company - full production of the Traveller is forecast as 20-25 per year, and at that rate, Cape Air is buying five years' worth of production. Tecnam is working hard to develop additional customers.

I do wonder how long it will take for someone to hang turbines on the Traveler. Or make a reinforced fuselage for pressurization.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
New does not equally dispatch reliability. Anyone remember the new e170/190. Aka the 180 for make a 180 and go back to the gate cause it's broke. Properly maintained equipment from the desert could be cheaper and more reliable.

IMO FAA needs to up the Amount of cash on hand and require x number of spare parts to be on hand for any new airline. This would allow them a better shot at weathering the lean times starting out as well as minimize down time for mx.
Click to expand...

I should have said "after the shake-down period," Exhibit one for reliability of older A/C these days is Allegiant.

Both deeper pockets and more spares would increase reliability. But don't hold your breath in a Trump world with this de-regulation-minded Republican Congress.
 
gotWXdagain said:
Probably not very, for both. Make an RG version and you may have a bona-fide King Air compeditor/replacement.
Click to expand...
I'd wait and see how the thing does...I've not heard good things about the P2006. Plus remember for scheduled 135 the counterproductive ATP requirements for flying any twin are another nail in the coffin of the 9 seat twin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top