AirNet update?

jhugz said:
I'm not arguing that a metro can do more weight/volume then a 1900, my arguement is its damn close, and the extra bit a 1900 can do doesn't justify the cost. Ive also never seen a 1900 fix a route that's blowing out. Instead of two metros, it's now a 1900 a metro which makes zero sense, yet again.
Click to expand...
A old 1900C doesn't cost very much more in initial capital expense and maintenance is more expensive on the Metro. (Garret overhauls cost a lot more as one example.) The Metro does use less gas though, but UPS pays for that.

You're right though, the amount of boxes (both in cube and in weight) that they both can carry is basically the same. You'd need an aircraft with significantly better cube to replace either a Metro or a 1900, like an Irish Concorde or something.
 
PT6s will go 8000 hours on the MORE program. Granted, you're basically going to buy a new engine after that though.
 
Mike H said:
And then the Regionals will have to replace the pilots hired away by the Majors by hiring freight pilots who have enough time to meet the ATP Rule and the vicious cycle continues...
Click to expand...

I think it'd be less of a pain to find the back door if us freight dogs stick together. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top