AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Poll

What is the best short-range turbo-prop on the market?

Antonov An-140
7 (7%)
ATR 42-500
6 (6%)
ATR 72-500
22 (22%)
Dash 8-Q400
36 (36%)
Saab 2000
24 (24%)
BAe ATP
5 (5%)

Total Members Voted: 88

Author Topic: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!  (Read 2210 times)

Offline Andriy

  • Members
  • Posts: 226
market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« on: July 29, 2014, 03:11:15 PM »
Considering total costs of ownership (lease, fuel, maintenance) as well as all technical characteristics, what do you think is all-in-all best turbo-prop aircraft for regional operations? Please justify your choice in a separate posting on Forum.
(please access from "Forum" page to be able to see the poll)
« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 03:31:40 PM by Andriy »

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2014, 03:47:01 PM »
On a fuel burn per seat per nm basis, the BAe ATP is the most fuel efficient aircraft in the game and would be my vote.

Offline Andriy

  • Members
  • Posts: 226
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2014, 04:21:42 PM »
Lemon,

most fuel-effcient - maybe, but does it make a best plane? Its $25mm per piece, vs $9.9mm for AN-140 - this gives a difference of $50k per week on leasing costs. There is no way that fuel efficiency of BAe ATP is going to offset this - unless fuel is at $3000.

Weekly fuel costs for turboprop flying 4-5 times a day will not be more than $10-15k at current prices. "most popular" ATRs, ATPs, Dash's, etc have 15-25% better efficiency vs An-140 - but at current prices this is <$5k in absolute costs - while their lease is $30-50k higher vs An-140, so Antonov is a net-net winner since due to its very low price. Fuel costs would need to be 7-10 higher vs current for everyone else just break even with Antonov...

An-140 is a clear winner from my PoV, its just that literally no one knows about this plane...

Offline bdnascar3

  • Members
  • Posts: 213
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2014, 05:50:45 PM »
I like the saab mainly for the speed. I can use it on routes to compete against 737/MD-80's. And I find that putting a turbo prop on a route greater than 800nm is not always profitable.

Offline Andriy

  • Members
  • Posts: 226
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2014, 06:04:08 PM »
bdnascar3,
no arguments with speed of Saab, its a fast one - but would be interesting if you had any "math" how the speed converts into extra $?
Does this really allow you to squeeze an extra flight a day vs other planes? Also if operate shorter routes - like 200-400 miles, the benefit is probably quite limited given anyway short flying time... Thus I wonder if it pays off at the end? My whole point is that many people look at just one factor - fuel, speed, etc - when at the end of the day what matters is the money that the aircarft delivers...

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2014, 06:05:55 PM »
If you fly the ATP with 16 more seats (standard config over An-140) at $150/seat 4.5 routes (9 flights) per day that is $151,200/week in additional revenue over what the An-140 can produce, which will more than cover a $30-50k/week increase in leasing costs.

If you are going to make direct comparisons, you need to make sure you're not comparing apples and oranges.  The An-140 burns 36% more fuel to carry 24% less pax than the ATP on a per seat basis.  The An-140's maintenance costs are also 59% higher on a per seat basis, which doesn't include the higher commonality costs that most Russian aircraft incur.  Additionally you are paying airport fees based on MTOW.  The ATP costs 6.6% more to land than the An-140 but has 31% more seats.

So when you're comparing apple to apples, the ATP is far superior to the An-140.  The other aircraft you mentioned, have their competitive advantages (speed) such as the Saab 2000 and Dash-8, but unless you are in a situation where aircraft count matters (i.e. a base limited to 100 aircraft) then your almost always going to have a better bottom line flying the ATP over a faster bird.

Offline tcrlaf

  • Members
  • Posts: 336
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2014, 06:41:24 PM »
Given speed, turn-around time, range, and cost, the best turbo in the game is the EMB-120.

On short runs, you can squeeze as many as seven or eight turns a day out of them, and run the ER's out to 800+ miles without much of a penalty.

They can be WILDLY profitable, when owned.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2014, 07:23:38 PM »
I don't believe in the concept of props. *shakes head*

Offline Andriy

  • Members
  • Posts: 226
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2014, 08:50:14 PM »
If you fly the ATP with 16 more seats (standard config over An-140) at $150/seat 4.5 routes (9 flights) per day that is $151,200/week in additional revenue over what the An-140 can produce, which will more than cover a $30-50k/week increase in leasing costs.

Very compelling argument - however how much of it is a "wishful thinking", especially if we keep in mind that we talk about regional airlines, not running turbo prop on CDG-LHR.
1) # of routes
- 250nm routes takes 4h40min to complete for BAe ATP. Thus you can only make 4 routes during normal hours (5-24), anything else would be either during the night (with very low pax) or impossible as many small airports have curfew.
- 350nm routes takes 6h - thus limiting you to just 3 "normal" routes
- lets take an average mid-size airport - something that you know - like Dayton, Ohio:) There are less than 10 destinations around 250nm with any decent traffic, everything else has 15-20pax - so one will have to fly longer routes and it would not be possible to make 4-4.5 routes per day
2) ability to fill the plane
- ATP seats 68 - but will you have demand to fill them?
- again, we are not talking about flying LHR to AMS, but flying from Dayton, Bucharest, Odessa, Stuttgart, etc Lots, if not majority of those routes are thin, 20-30-40 pax - so having extra capacity is a fairly theoretical benefit.
- within 500miles radius of Dayton, there is less than 15 destinations with 70+ pax traffic. Everything else is 30-40 and below, some of it also has competitions. And this is US with heavy air traffic, other parts of the world would have even less pax
Thus having those extra seats on a short route turbo-prop is a very theoretical advantage, could be applicable to just few destinations - where most likely you will have competition from larger jets

Point 1 + Point 2 = that 150k extra revenue of BAe ATP is never going to materialize in the conditions of regional airlines operating from small-mid size airports. The reality would be that ATP will be a large and expensive turbo-prop flying half empty.
As for maintenance - An-140 is more expensive, but difference (A+B+C checks) would be <3k per week, easily offset by... - right, lower leasing costs!:)

PS: and don't forget that Antonov is not a russian plane:)

Offline Andriy

  • Members
  • Posts: 226
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2014, 08:57:38 PM »
I don't believe in the concept of props. *shakes head*
:laugh: I wonder if you believe in a concept of passenger car... probably not, why having VW Golf when you can buy a 100 seater bus? ;D

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2014, 09:35:18 PM »
Yes, but the question was not the appropriateness of an aircraft on a specific route.  I agree that extra seats are useless if you can't fill them, but the same can be said about half of the aircraft in your poll--the Dash-8 has 68 seats.

I would never run ATP out of Dayton so that is a bad example (I'm flying 19 seaters in GW3 out of Dayton).  Plus you mentioned airports having a curfew, being limited to 3/4 routes/day etc--the flight speed of the ATP and An-140 is essentially the same (266 knots versus 240 knots) so the An-140 is subject to the exact same limitations.  Flying at night does not mean very low pax--I routinely schedule aircraft departing at 2-3 in the morning with 90%+ load factors and even then you can avoid most of the off hours if you are working the timezones correctly. Dayton is a terrible example for a regional airline because there isn't a regional airline out of Dayton IRL and therefore AWS doesn't show the demand for it.  I'm essentially running air taxi out Dayton with airplanes that don't even have lavatories--even the An140 isn't a viable aircraft out of Dayton.

If you are adding arbitrary conditions to the question as to what the best prop is (i.e. having most routes being 20-40pax) then the ATR is the best aircraft because of the variants available using a single fleet type, but again that wasn't the question.  Even then if you are basing what is "best" on an airport exclusively serving 20-40 pax/day routes then the An-140 would be a terrible choice and the EMB-120 (as mentioned by another player) would be the "best" aircraft or even the Saab 340B.

Not sure what the point of this thread is other than to promote the An-140 for some reason...

Offline Andriy

  • Members
  • Posts: 226
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2014, 09:53:40 PM »
a) I am having fun - the forums are boring these days and nothing seems to be stirring up the people...  :)
b) IMHO, lots of people just go for a "default" choice - so this is just an attempt to have a fresh look
c) If you look back at original question, it was about 'overall" evaluation - not to judge a specific parameter, but to give an opinion on what could be most effective plane for regional airlines
d) Not talking about specific plane for specific route, etc - but rather trying to evaluate a plane in the context of most-likely setup for a regional airline: in majority of cases this would be flying thin routes of 200-500nm
e) Saab 340 and EMB-120...? - they are more expensive than An-140 to lease and seat 30% less pax...

PS: I am getting paid by Antonov, finishing this message and go to pick my brand new maserati, all from Antonov money! ;D

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2014, 10:13:48 PM »
:laugh: I wonder if you believe in a concept of passenger car... probably not, why having VW Golf when you can buy a 100 seater bus? ;D

I don't see a problem with flying 727-200Adv for 2400nm to transport 39 pax and therefor 100% of the route's demand in the early 80s. Pfff. ;D

Online Crazybernie

  • Members
  • Posts: 834
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2014, 10:19:13 PM »
I like the Q400 because with those planes you can economically service even longer distance low demand routes.

But like curse said if you own the planes and have an efficient fleet you can service 40 pax demand routes with pretty large planes.

I am doing something likes this in GW3.

Offline Kanucub

  • Members
  • Posts: 16
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2014, 07:36:17 AM »
Hmm i went with the Xian Ma60s and I love them.. 60 seaters ... reasonable fuel 650/hr... speed is fine when you consider the range you want to run turbo's ( generally under 600nm) ... and when you add the low low price .. kinda hard to be beat ( i lucked out no one ordered them this game and I ended up getting 40 aircraft for 10million each   ( on average i am making 350 000 a week profit per plane )..  when you compare to the ATP and ATR and Q400 prices.. i am sorry it is by far the best deal.... they pay for themselves in one year of operation

Offline Kadachiman

  • Members
  • Posts: 914
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2014, 08:21:34 AM »
what do you think The AN-140 is all-in-all best turbo-prop aircraft for regional operations
Fixed the above line of your post to read what you are really trying to say in this thread  ;D

IMO - Given the choices you gave us all the ATR wins hands down as it has many variants in its fleet types which is actually one of the more important considerations in this game given the massive 4th fleet penalty

However 'the best turbo props' really depends on your game strategy so there really is no single 'best turbo-prop'

Example -
If you use the Q400 as your SH it gives you a great range of up to 1500 Nm to cover relatively thin pax routes profitably, which gives you the option to use a plane that has up to 3000 Nm and 150-200 seats as your MH plane (e.g. B737-800) and then have your LH / ULH as the 3rd fleet

So the best plane depends on your own game situation

An-140 - Advantages
- I will leave that up to you  :)

An-140 - disadvantages
- higher maint cost being consistent with Russian (Ukranian) metal in this game
- minimal resale-ability if purchased (and to purchase vs. lease could be a game critical decision on thin routes)
- etc
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 08:49:46 AM by Kadachiman »

Offline Andriy

  • Members
  • Posts: 226
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2014, 08:49:03 AM »
Kadachiman,
I love to see how everyone attacks for me stirring up an idea that some unkown plane could be better than their favorite "X"... nothings more strong in this world than a power of stereotype ;D
As for your arguments - you might be right or wrong, as anyone else. I will just point out 3 things:
1) "depends on the game strategy, etc". I clearly mentioned in the question that I am talking about a typical regional airlines. Thus your comments about three type fleet strategy with ULH type, etc if probably irrelevant in this case. Also most of people who run smaller regional airlines in the game dont have money to own planes, at least at this stage - so again point on resellability if theoretically right, but practically irrelevant (from my PoV)
2) "Disadvanatges" - already mentioned, maintenance costs are higher - but once you start moving from overal statements to facts, you will figure out that on annualized level weekly maint. costs are just 2-3k higher for An-140 - which is fully offset by its low lease
3) I think many people are somehow so stuck with certain specs that they forget that the point is not about fuel economy, maintenance, etc - but about how it all works all together. and if you lose $10 on maintenance and win $100 on lease - why would you bother about maintenance?:)
But thanks for commenting anyway - the more argument, the closer we are to truth! ;D

Offline pndsc

  • Members
  • Posts: 145
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2014, 10:46:39 AM »
Actually, I have to say that I'm annoyed you are bringing so much attention to the An-140 because in some circumstances, yes, its fantastic. I have previously run a very nice operation based solely on An-140s and it really, really fun for all the reasons you have previously said: its dirt cheap (whether bought or leased) and those low costs easily make up over other types low fuel/maintenance costs.

Its just that then you are limited to 52 seats in the most cramped Y seating, and I think its about 40 with standard y seating. If you have routes that have a large demand, you will very quickly find that you simply run out of slots (or they become really expensive!) and you then realise that actually, you should have chosen a turboprop with some extra capacity instead.

They're great for smaller size operations, but if you're trying to run a turboprop airline from a large base then they lose out to aircraft with better capacity.

Offline Kadachiman

  • Members
  • Posts: 914
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #18 on: July 30, 2014, 11:24:47 AM »
Nobody is 'attacking' you at all

It is just being pointed out that you are running a poll to 'determine' the best prop for Regional Operations, yet you have already made your decision and any valid points that others may bring up for anything other than your chosen An-140 are deemed to be 'inaccurate and not in-line' with your original request

I have nothing against the An-140 and have used it previously to great effect, however I have also used Q400, NAMC500, Dash8, F27, Xian, to name but a few, to great effect as well....dependant on my base and strategy at the time

However choosing anything apart from what is considered as 'mainstream' whether it is props, MH jets, LH jets, etc has the same two problems that you must take into consideration -
1. Sufficient supply of New and Used stock, of both sufficient numbers and delivery time-frames - slowness in either or both can kill your airline
2. Resale-ability if you want to buy your aircraft to maximise profits, otherwise a 20+ year old aircraft of any type can become a burden on the finances to keep and maintain

Therefore their are a lot more factors to consider when you ask people to compare and judge on the 'Total Cost of Ownership' of a plane as your posts currently appear to refer to only the initial purchase and < 8 years maintenance costs to 'justify' your position on the An-140
Reality is that if you chose the An-140 then you will have to D check it at least once and more likely twice due to 'lack of supply' of replacement units, unlike for example an F27 where you can ditch one that is due for a D check and grab another from the used market that has 5 years until a D check....etc...etc

Can you and will you make money on a Regional airline using An-140's only - Yes
But you can also do that with a fleet of only Q400, or F27 or BAe ATP, ATR, etc etc

But plane choice is only one factor of running a successful airline and most people do not fail at this game due to 'incorrect' plane choice but due to a whole host of other reasons - you just have to look at how many airlines go B/K yet they operate a total fleet of 737-300's only...so it is unlikley that it was incorrect plane choice that sent them to the wall
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 11:35:18 AM by Kadachiman »

knutm1980

  • Former member
Re: market survey for turbo-props. Please vote!
« Reply #19 on: July 30, 2014, 07:55:07 PM »
Perhaps too small to be considered, but I've got a fleet of EMB120's for my domestic market in Ethiopia. They're giving me about 250k income a week and they're only flying about 11.7 hrs a day.

I've opened two bases with only EMB 120's as well, though I guess anywhere with an actual demand, they'd be pretty useless except for getting up frequency.

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.