ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Except in Alaska, that fleet will be replaced by stuff that's cheaper to operate, honestly.
Great Lakes files 3rd Qtr SEC 10-Q report
- Thread starter FloridaLarry
- Start date
Except in Alaska, that fleet will be replaced by stuff that's cheaper to operate, honestly.
alaskadrifter
Landing gear operator
What else can do what the 1900s do? That also isn't just as old.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Not a lot out there, but two caravans will match the cargo you can move in 1 1900 even though they are about 100kts slower. So for a lot of the UPS stuff I could see a transition to clapped out caravans as the 1900 and Metro fleet wears out.
FloridaLarry
Well-Known Member
Pilatus has now made over 1,300 PC-12s, and has a New Generation version. The oldest ones are 14 years old. They'll be starting to be clapped-out possibilities before long.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Pilatus has now made over 1,300 PC-12s, and has a New Generation version. The oldest ones are 14 years old. They'll be starting to be clapped-out possibilities before long.
True that - having flown the PC12, the 1900 and the Caravan, I will say that the PC12 is the "best engineered" one of them all from a pilot's perspective, though the 1900 is the most fun to fly. That said, the cabin volume of a PC12 and the payload isn't there to beat the 1900 unless you buy two of them, and then the price is pretty high.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
In bulk volume this is true - however the Caravan cannot carry as much as a PC12/47 - that's for sure, the Series 9 birds, yeah, but the early Series 10 airplanes are money makers. Could carry way more in the PC12 than the Caravan in terms of weight - on average, at least 500lbs more unless you were on a very short (like 20 minutes away) flight.
alaskadrifter
Landing gear operator
How close can a King Air with pods come to a 1900c for cargo?
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Not close enough from what I gather, but no experience when them - the cabin volume would be significantly less - I know that.
z987k
Well-Known Member
King Air 350 with a pod?
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Did they ever make a 350 or even a 200 with a pilot door? Because the lack of that is a deal breaker for freight.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Probably can't get the interior volume, but maybe? I know the 350 is quite a bit shorter than the "hondo." Honestly, I suspect the future will be filled with Dash-8s, Saabs, and Brasilias in a cargo configuration when the C model 1900s start to get a little too long in the tooth. Someone might figure out how to make the D models pay for themselves as freighters - but I suspect the more likely scenario is that they'll just keep running 1900s around until there aren't any left.
It was love/hate for the pilot's door on the -350 I flew.
jwp_145
GhostRider in the Sky
THere's a demand for 1900's in Nepal. Mountainous routes into short runways.
FloridaLarry
Well-Known Member
In terms of passenger service, jwp is right, both directly and by type of example. It doesn't get much higher / thinner than Nepal! But they lose airframes regularly in A/c vs Rock tussles. Of course, that does create new demand for replacement elderly 1900-Ds.
. Same is true for hot & thin in Africa.Size-wise, most management types believe in growth and planning for growth. The same is true for airline management, with SJS thrown in for good measure. True many places, but the smaller airframes fit well in places where the service population just won't support much growth (Paying the fuel bill to fly around empty seats just doesn't help the bottom line). Think: lower half of EAS, Alaska, even Nepal and African boonies.
I'll defer to my freight friends on the two Caravans vs one Beech. Speed over the ground is less a factor than cost per pound per mile (or per package, if that's the way the reimbursement bounces). Also look at the seasonal and weekly load variations, and service commitment - does it have to be there tonight?
jwp_145
GhostRider in the Sky
Don't factor common sense into any statements about business in Nepal... they truly march to the beat of their own square drum.In terms of passenger service, jwp is right, both directly and by type of example. It doesn't get much higher / thinner than Nepal! But they lose airframes regularly in A/c vs Rock tussles. Of course, that does create new demand for replacement elderly 1900-Ds.
Size-wise, most management types believe in growth and planning for growth. The same is true for airline management, with SJS thrown in for good measure. True many places, but the smaller airframes fit well in places where the service population just won't support much growth (Paying the fuel bill to fly around empty seats just doesn't help the bottom line). Think: lower half of EAS, Alaska, even Nepal and African boonies.
I'll defer to my freight friends on the two Caravans vs one Beech. Speed over the ground is less a factor than cost per pound per mile (or per package, if that's the way the reimbursement bounces). Also look at the seasonal and weekly load variations, and service commitment - does it have to be there tonight?
To them growth isn't a larger airplane, it is another 1900D.
The 1900, the Dornier, the Twin Otter, the Pilatus... those are the hardcore mainstays of the Nepalese fleet doing the majority of the intra-country routes.
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
Not sure if it's a glitch: GLUX sunk to $0.05/share in overnight trading. I didn't see any obvious news to why. It's at the point where a few of us could buy a controlling stake in the airline. Crazy.
FloridaLarry
Well-Known Member
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
But don't. Share price reflects share value. Seems a bit over-priced to me.
Agree: can and should are two very different things. A few of us average joes can own an airline. We obviously should pass.
