Nahh, let them pick the best tool for the job.

In general, I don't like subsidized operations. However, for certain things, it has a place. Think of a nation where rural communities simply didn't get electricity because it wasn't as profitable as running power to dense urban areas. It doesn't sit well with me, but having a coherent national air transportation system is a sensible goal.

Just like not shutting down my home field in San Jose, even though the county commission would really like to shut it down and allow their real-estate developer campaign contributors to turn it into apartment complexes. The airport is an element in a thing much bigger than the county's short term desires.

But if you're going to offer government money or government cheeze, it should be done with as few strings as possible. Every new rulebook is a justification for another 100 bureaucrats to oversee the rules.

I agree, I have partners all over the world and have worked there as well. But I will pay a premium to purchase quality products made in the USA, whether it is machine tools, engravers, or test equipment. My wire stripping, cutting and heat shrink equipment is European as it is the best available.

How does a Baxler DC-3 compare to these airplanes? Its obviously bigger and a taildragger, so that is cooler right there. But in performance and cost?

Rgs

Patrick

We have a winner. The man knoweth of what he speaks.

Nahh, let them pick the best tool for the job.

In general, I don't like subsidized operations. However, for certain things, it has a place. Think of a nation where rural communities simply didn't get electricity because it wasn't as profitable as running power to dense urban areas. It doesn't sit well with me, but having a coherent national air transportation system is a sensible goal.

Just like not shutting down my home field in San Jose, even though the county commission would really like to shut it down and allow their real-estate developer campaign contributors to turn it into apartment complexes. The airport is an element in a thing much bigger than the county's short term desires.

But if you're going to offer government money or government cheeze, it should be done with as few strings as possible. Every new rulebook is a justification for another 100 bureaucrats to oversee the rules.

One last bit of thread drift...
Cape Air current fleet of 80+/- Cessna 402s.
8 pax Max. 80 * 8 = 640 pax, all seats full at all times.
Tecnam P2012 some sources 11 seats, some 9. Let’s call it 10.
Will need 64 Tecnam P2012 to completely replace the 402 fleet.

We can quibble about the replacement ratios, timing, whether it will happen on all routes, etc. Point is that Cape Air is about to enter a new world of substantial aircraft investment, unlike its current investment world of old 402s. The economic will be daunting.

List price $2.3mm. Ok Cape Air won’t pay list, but price will most certainly be north of $1.5mm. Let’s call it $1.8mm. That is north of $115 million. I realize that they have only signed up for 20 units do far. But even that is $36 million, assuming a price if 1.8 per copy. Point is that Cape Air capital expenditures and invested capital will rise exponentially. That capital needs to be paid for and the company needs to generate a return on capital. Look for EAS subsidies to rise on Cape Air routes. I would not be surprised if this has not already been agreed to in light of the upcoming spend.

Bill, don’t forget the tax savings CA will see. That’s going to be a pile of depreciation. I wonder what the loan terms look like?

However, it would not surprise me one bit if no American manufactures had any interest in building them what they needed.

You are certainly right on the depreciation tax shield. As long as you keep investing it works wonders, but when you stop or slow down the investment rate, you get clobbered.

You may be dead right on your lack of interest point.
Wonder what world wide demand us for piston twin, short-haul, commuter or cargo planes? Can’t be a huge market.

Thats all bull crap.
The turbines will have a lower fuel cost, higher TBO probably 8000 hrs with time & experience, less maintenance and better reliability.
1 turbine vs 2 piston pounder if they would run the Caravan.




We have a winner. The man knoweth of what he speaks.

Cape Air doesn’t pay normal 100ll rates

A flight BOS-PVM that spends 20 minutes taxiing and 30 minutes in the air at 6000 doesn’t have great fuel burn. Turbines are great for a lot of things but high cycle short hops isn’t one of them.

They aren't as bad at that role as many people think. The Kiwis are about the only people that I've ever heard of having real issues with cycling Pratts out quickly but they use their airplanes as shovels and make something like six to ten flights per hour. Of course shutting down at each end hurts, but you can also easily do the work of two pistons with one turbine.

What is the actual average trip length and the approximate number of trips per year for Cape Air? It sure does seem like a job for a Caravan on the surface.

As for the discounted 100LL, I imagine if they switched to Caravans, they could find a similar or better discount on Jet A. Charles does make a good point about ground idle time though, pistons excellent at that job.

I don't know about PT6's, but on Garrett's the cycle times for the turbine stages are about as many as the TBO. So if you do 10 starts a day every day, you'll have to send the engine off every 1.5 years to replace most fo the rotables. That's a pretty big cost, not to mention a big down time.

On a Pratt there is an abbreviated cycle count formula that gives a lot of credit if you don’t shut down. In our Ag applications we probably average one start per five flights with each flight lasting 45 minutes. The formula will put between 225 to 375 cycles in a typical year with 600 hours. Those cycles go against components rated for 20-30 thousand cycles.

If you had to shut down after each and every flight, you would get taxed one cycle per and stuff would cycle out between 10,000-15,000 hours assuming half hour flights. That also assumes that the caravan engines get the same cycle limits that my 34s and 41s get.

You have 10000+ hours for rotables like turbine blades? That's pretty impressive. I'll have to check what the times are on the newer turbine stages on the TPE's, but I think they're lower.

Blades don't have hard limits, just the wheels that they are attached to and the impellers. As a practical matter, we proactively replace our CT blades at around 5000 hours, but keep the wheels until they cycle out. PT blades usually stay until they get damaged.

On the wheels, there is no hour limit, just cycle count limits. Most of my engines were built with components good for 20,000 to 30,000 cycles. In our use pattern, that would equate to somewhere between 32,500 hours up to 75,000 hours. For someone like a short haul airline that shuts down after every flight and only flies 0.5 legs on average, their utilization would fall to 10,000-15,000 hours based on wheels rated from 20,000-30,000 cycles. The newer part number wheels are generally being rated higher and higher, so new engines may exceed these numbers.