AirNet update?

jhugz said:
They burn more fuel, cost a considerable amount more to acquire. IDK what your definition of good is but our company just bought a quality one a couple months ago. It has nothing to do with the metro being "my love child" it literally makes zero sense to operate. If a metro is blowing out on a route, so will a 1900.
Click to expand...

They bought one. Try procuring enough to make a fleet of airplanes. There just aren't that many out there.
It obviously makes >0 sense because several freight companies operate them and they fit a mission that UPS/FEDEX/DHL wants.
Maybe from a MX prospective PT-6s are easier to maintain then the garrets. I'm not sure on that though so I won't comment.
 
mikecweb said:
They bought one. Try procuring enough to make a fleet of airplanes. There just aren't that many out there.
It obviously makes >0 sense because several freight companies operate them and they fit a mission that UPS/FEDEX/DHL wants.
Maybe from a MX prospective PT-6s are easier to maintain then the garrets. I'm not sure on that though so I won't comment.
Click to expand...

A fleet of 1900s would be much more difficult to find then Metros. There are no -c models on the market. -d models are still very expensive to buy because of their use throughout the airline and corporate world.
 
jhugz said:
They burn more fuel, cost a considerable amount more to acquire. IDK what your definition of good is but our company just bought a quality one a couple months ago. It has nothing to do with the metro being "my love child" it literally makes zero sense to operate. If a metro is blowing out on a route, so will a 1900.
Click to expand...
It could have something to do with the metro being an oddly designed over engineered monstrosity built by a bunch of San Antonio crackheads, while the 1900 is built like an airplane by Wichita airplane builders. Might also help that you don't need to be Chuck Yeager to fly a 1900. Maintenance costs have got to be lower on a 1900 than the sewer pipe.
 
jhugz said:
They burn more fuel, cost a considerable amount more to acquire. IDK what your definition of good is but our company just bought a quality one a couple months ago.
Click to expand...

Your company found one, and how long did they have to look to find that one?

The Metro is a great plane, but ultimately the airframes start wearing out. Maintaining the airframes becomes too expensive to keep up. It happened to the DC-3, the twin beech, the lear 25s, the falcon 20s, and is now happening to the metro, the MU-2, and the BE-99. Eventually the 1900 will be in the same boat in 20 years.

The real question is what will happen then? I can see the CRJ taking over for the DA-20 (it wouldn't be as cheap, but it could do the job), but I don't see anything in production that can replace the 1900 in the turboprop market. Two caravans can take the load, but can't come close on speed.
 
Roger Roger said:
It could have something to do with the metro being an oddly designed over engineered monstrosity built by a bunch of San Antonio crackheads, while the 1900 is built like an airplane by Wichita airplane builders. Might also help that you don't need to be Chuck Yeager to fly a 1900. Maintenance costs have got to be lower on a 1900 than the sewer pipe.
Click to expand...
I don't know about all that. The Sewer tube has very redundant systems. I'm no Mr. Yeager, and I don't find it difficult to fly a metro. When you look at freight companies and the fact that 95% of them operate the 2 or 3; I think that says something for their speed / efficiency compared to other Tprops in it's class.
 
Mike H said:
With the ATP rule about to go into æffect next year, I see no way they can avoid hiring freight guys. Who else besides freight pilots are going to meet minimums? CFI's? Maybe, but not enough of them.
mikecweb said:
All the regional pilots hired within the past 10 years. If you get hired after them there's no real point.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

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...
 
USMCmech said:
Your company found one, and how long did they have to look to find that one?

The Metro is a great plane, but ultimately the airframes start wearing out. Maintaining the airframes becomes too expensive to keep up. It happened to the DC-3, the twin beech, the lear 25s, the falcon 20s, and is now happening to the metro, the MU-2, and the BE-99. Eventually the 1900 will be in the same boat in 20 years.

The real question is what will happen then? I can see the CRJ taking over for the DA-20 (it wouldn't be as cheap, but it could do the job), but I don't see anything in production that can replace the 1900 in the turboprop market. Two caravans can take the load, but can't come close on speed.
Click to expand...
The van can't compete well in the cold climates either. In the winter it takes more than 2 because of the reduced loads.
 
USMCmech said:
If there is any chance of ice, then the max takeoff weight is reduced by 750 lbs
Click to expand...

Whats your normal MTOW? Ours is 8750 down to 8500 in icing, but that's not a freighter config either.
 
jhugz said:
I still don't understand UPSs love fascination with the 1900. They cost a lot more then a metro to operate with very few upsides.
Click to expand...
Metros can't haul 5200-5800lbs of cargo, get into the flight levels with a load of ice and don't require a GPU. But UPS does have a hard on for the metro.

Last I heard we are looking to find more metros and bro's.
 
Most of our outstations don't have GPUs and we provide the ones in base, but we hardly require them. Our heavy metros can haul over 5k on the same route profile and burn a lot less fuel. 1900s will out climb the metro but once we getup there we leave you guys in the dust.
 
jhugz said:
Most of our outstations don't have GPUs and we provide the ones in base, but we hardly require them. Our heavy metros can haul over 5k on the same route profile and burn a lot less fuel. 1900s will out climb the metro but once we getup there we leave you guys in the dust.
Click to expand...
This is true however not on a consistent bases. Also when it comes to boxes a metro will bulk out first typically. The 1900 has more volume.

That said. All the mechanics I talk to hate working on the 1900 and don't mind the metro at all.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top