• Home
  • Aircraft
    • Proud to fly a Turboprop: Q400 vs ATR72
    • Spicejet unveils the Q400s
  • FlightDeck & Systems
    • Airbus A320 Experience
    • Boeing’s MAX, Southwest’s 737
    • Cockpit Design: EPR v/s N1 indication
    • Evolution
    • Winglets and Sharklets
  • Training
    • A320 FFS LOFT Session
    • IGRUA
    • Aerospace Engineering in India: the Gaps
    • NFTI: Rising to the Top, and how
  • Out Of the Blue
    • Captain Dad and kid First Officer
    • GPS to the rescue!
    • Iran Air 743: Landing Without Nose Gear
    • LOT 767 Gear Up Landing
    • Love is in “the air”
    • Cathay’s Young Cabin Crew!
  • In Photos
    • Aero India 2011
    • Aero India 2009
  • Projects
    • General Aviation Flight Simulator
    • Airbus Tech
      • About PAT
      • AIRCON/PRESSURIZATION/VENTILATION
      • COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
      • ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
      • FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
      • FUEL SYSTEMS
      • HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS
    • Making a Lynx Micro Headset Charger on the Go!
  • People
    • Radka Máchová
  • About

The Flying Engineer

~ Technically and Operationally Commercial Aviation

The Flying Engineer

Tag Archives: 72

“The airline business is all about ego”

19 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by theflyingengineer in General Aviation Interest

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

72, Aditya, Air, Airbus, ATR, Boeing, Ghosh, Indonesia, Kirana, Lion, Rusdi, Wings

lion321Says Rusdi Kirana, CEO of Lion Air, which has been, off late, making headline for all the “right” reasons.

RusdiSurprisingly, for a man who has absolutely no emotional attachment to the airline industry, all his orders are worthy of an ego boost. Surprising for a man who started off as a typewriter salesman, and has ended up as the CEO of the family owned business of the fastest growing airline in the world fueled by a dubious source of funding. Indonesia is ranked 118 by Transparency International. The ranking runs from least corrupt at No. 1 to most corrupt at No. 176.

In the February of 2012, the Indonesian airline placed an order for 27 ATR 72-600 aircraft, which, when all delivered in 2015, will make Lion Air’s subsidiary, Wings Air, the largest ATR operator.

In the same month of the same year, Lion Air placed the then largest firm order in aviation history, for 230 Boeing aircraft: 29 Boeing 737-900ERs, and 201 737Max, with options for 150 more 737MAXs.

Said Rusdi, in 2006, to Flightglobal, “Everyone knows that the passenger doesn’t really care about aircraft. I hear other airline people say they will go from old aircraft to new aircraft because their passenger likes it. But the passenger is already flying with you so who cares? Unless you are like Singapore Airlines where it is part of your image you should only change your aircraft if the cost is better. Here in Indonesia it is all about the ticket price.”

But Yesterday, (March 18th, 2013), Lion Air ordered for a total of 234 A320 Family aircraft, comprising 109 A320neo, 65 A321neo and 60 A320ceo: one of the biggest orders from that region.

Surely, the orders are business driven. The carrier is banned from flying into the US and EU skies over safety fears. Now, Airbus and Boeing “safety experts” are running in and out of the airline auditing its safety and helping improve its rating.

Lion air has quite a few thin feathers on its cap. The first Boeing 737-900ER, and the and last ATR 72-500, were delivered to Lion Air. Lion Air is expected to be the launch customer for the 737-9 MAX.

Lion Air, with its subsidiary Wings Air, presently has a fleet of 125 airplanes, which comprise a mix of 737 Classics, 737NGs, 747-400s, MD-82s, MD-83, ATR 72s, and Dash 8-300s. This is impressive, considering the airline started operations in 1999. This combined fleet size is 17 aircraft more than the combined fleet strength of the Indonesian national flag carrier, Garuda Indonesia, and its low cost subsidiary, Citilink Indonesia.

This is surprising growth, and surprising business moves, coming from an apparently public shy, boyish charm businessman who said almost 6 years ago, on why he started an airline: “I did it because I was hungry”. Surprising that in a business with hairline margins, high costs, and stiff competition, that was the first business of choice for a starving man.

Instead, he went on to say, “I didn’t have money. If I had money at that time I would never have done an airline. Only stupid people who have money do airlines. If I had money I would buy plantations or do mining or property or restaurants.”

So we have a shy CEO who was hungry, made about US$10 a month, and decided, of all businesses, to start an airline, and has managed to grow it to the largest by fleet in the country, with money magically appearing from absolutely nowhere.

If Aditya Ghosh considers Southwest beyond Godly status, Lion air is Supernatural.

CLICK HERE to hear Aditya.

The Hare and the Tortoise.

18 Monday Mar 2013

Posted by theflyingengineer in Manufacturer, Operations

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

72, ATR, Citilink, Economics, Q400, Seats, Spicejet

QvsALast Year, ATR produced 60 ATR 72 aircraft. Bombardier had produced 36 Q400s. 2012 saw ATR selling 115 aircraft (74 firm orders and 41 options), while Bombardier witnessed a sales of 81 aircraft (50 firm orders and 31 option aircraft).

This year, ATR is projected to produce 80 aircraft, almost all being the ATR 72-600. This will widen the gap between deliveries of the ATR 72 and the Q400, in 2013. A sign that the slower of the two turboprops, the ATR 72, is actually racing ahead of the Q400.

Maybe it’s the operating economics of the ATR 72. Or the average regional route lengths suited to its typical missions. Or the large number of operators in a region. Or the access to proximate training facilities. Or the rise of the developing nations while the developed saturate.

The aviation market in Asia, especially South-East Asia, is booming, in contrast to slowdowns and downsizing in Europe and the United States. In the February of 2013, ATR won an order for upto 36 ATR 72-600s, from Malaysia Airlines (MAS). Prior to that order, MAS had ruled out the ATR 72-600 series, on the grounds that there was no -600 simulator in the area. Says ATR’s CEO Filippo Bagnato, “In the last five years, Asia-Pacific has accounted for 50% of sales; so it is quite an important market for us”. So important is the market that ATR, in December, set up a ATR 72-600 training centre at Singapore, just because one customer demanded it.

What resulted in the ATR epidemic in Asia, particularly South East Asia?

The rise of the South East, Average regional route lengths, superior operating economics, Aggressive Sales, local availability of ATR type-specific qualified pilots and engineers, Luck #1, and Luck #2.

The Rise of the South East.

Says Neil Dave, Consulting Analyst, Aerospace & Defense, Frost & Sullivan Asia Pacific, “Many ASEAN countries currently lack comprehensive and well developed ground transport infrastructure and countries in these regions are divided by vast seas, therefore there is a demand for a well-knit, flexible air-transport system,” said Dave.

“Also, with the increasing popularity of air-travel as mode of transport, there is a rise in demand for low cost travel among countries in the ASEAN region which are not connected,” Dave continued.

Quoting a CAPA report, “The continued strength of the economies in ASEAN, led by booming Indonesia, and the continued rapid rise of the region’s middle class should ensure another big year of traffic growth for Southeast Asian carriers – particularly LCCs and, to a lesser extent, full-service carriers.”

Lucky with Route Lengths:

The ATR 72 is typically packed with 68 -72 passengers. Air Dolomiti in Europe flies its -72s with 66 seats, while Jet Airways (South Asia) has 68 seats, and this number can easily rise to 70-72 seats for South East Asian operators, thanks to the average height of the average male in the respective countries (Germany: 5′ 10″, India: 5′ 5″, Indonesia: 5′ 2.2″), which allow for a lower seat pitch.

The typical baggage weight limits for ATR flights in the SE-Asian region are 10kg for cabin and 15 kg for check in, totalling 25kg. With the average assumed body weight of 70kg per passenger, this total weight per passenger, including baggage, is 95kg.

With 95kg/passenger and 72 passengers, the payload goes upto 6840kg. Considering headwinds of upto 80kts at the cruise levels of the ATR, the useful range of the ATR 72-600 can be very safely assumed to be 500 NM. (ATR Literature claims 825NM for the -600 “option” [23,000kg MTOW] under the following conditions: ISA – No wind – JAR Fuel Reserves – Typical European Airline OEW)

MAP_500nm

500NM circles, centred at Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, and Bangalore, cover the whole of India.*

A 500NM circle, centred at Manila, covers almost the whole of the Philippines.*

A 500NM circle, centred at Bangkok, covers the whole of Thailand.*

500NM circles, centred at Kuala Lumpur and Kuching, covers all airports in Malaysia.*

500NM circles centred at Jakarta, Surabaya, Makassar, Ambon and Jambi cover most of Indonesia.*

The regional routes are tailor made for the ATR 72-600. Luck #1.

*Does not consider terrain and elevated airports beyond the performance limits of the ATR 72.

Operating Economics

The ATR 72 is less expensive to buy (by list price, though the heavy market demand for the type may make Bombardier offer the Q400 for lesser), less expensive to operate (the Q400 consumes almost 30% more fuel than the ATR 72-600), and due to its simpler design and systems, has a very high dispatch reliability.

The lower operating costs results in a lower breakeven load, of around 35 passengers, which is about 6 to 10 passengers lesser than the Q400.

Aggressive Sales

ATR and Airbus share the same parent company: EADS. The not-spoken-of fact is that if you buy an ATR aircraft, you get a good deal on Airbus airplanes. And vice-versa. On top of this, ATR’s sales team is comprised of an aggressive one, that can help with support from European export credit agencies. Further, ATR goes out of the way to secure a customer.

Bombardier is milder. “The aircraft sells for itself” is the attitude of key sales personnel. Plus, Bombardier has two nearly competing aircraft under its brand: the Q400, and the CRJ700. Both are in the 70 seat category, and have similar range. Bombardier, and the customer, are easily confused.

Bombardier, unlike EADS, does not, as yet, offer a comprehensive product line. The yet to fly C-Series will be Bombardier’s first single aisle mainline solution, which will well complement the Q400. But Bombardier still lacks the entire product line and capacity that would be needed for domestic operations: products the size of the A321 and A320.

Local availability of manpower and training facility.

There are only 5 operators of the Q400, in 4 countries of Asia. ANA and JAC in Japan, Air Niugini in Papua New Guinea, PAL Express in the Philippines, and Spicejet in India. There is no abundance of Asian Q400 pilots and engineers.

Although South and South-East Asia is teeming with ATR type pilots and engineers, the demand for the type is so high that there is a shortage of such qualified crew. This is where luck#2 plays a role.

ATR has one ATR 72-600 training centre at Singapore, which will help significantly reduce the costs of training and sim-checks.

Luck#2

There are ATR-type-rated pilots in Europe who could come to SE countries such as Indonesia. Lufthansa’s ATR operation Air Dolomiti, for example, will be downsizing, which will make ATR pilots available. They will need jobs, and they are in good demand.

The curious case of Citilink Indonesia:

Citilink, the low cost carrier of the national flag carrier, Garuda Indonesia, had considered the Bombardier Q400 for its turboprop fleet. It was believed that the Q400 would be chosen, to differentiate from the competition: Wings Air’s ATR 72 fleet.

Arif Wibowo, the CEO of Citilink, said that there were three key considerations to selecting the aircraft type: economic, such the purchase price; financing; and aircraft performance. In the request for proposals, Citilink required bidders to present a plan to provide pilots, and ATR had agreed to this.

Incidentally, after Citilink announced in the December of 2012 that had decided to order ATR 72-600s, it placed a firm order with Airbus for 25 A320neo, in the January of 2013.

The Head or the Heart?

Just because two or more aircraft are in the same class, it doesn’t mean that they’ll perform to the same standard. An airline’s requirement stems from route demand, and this demand defines the desired capacity, and range; Everything else that define the aircraft then play an important role in deciding the best.

In an airframe market, filled with competition, which results in options, the airline is caught between choosing a product that stands out from the other players, and choosing a product that makes the most economical sense. More often than not, what ego-driven airlines look for, is a differentiator, while truly customer focused airlines that are keen on operational viability, look for, is a suitable performer.

Citilink is a low cost carrier; and no 70-80 seat airplane beats the operating economics of the ATR 72-600. The Q400 has a greater performance (greater range, faster climbs, higher cruise speeds), and promising potential (upto 8 more seats on the same flight), but a potential remains a potential until tapped. Forego the 8 seats and you break even with lesser passengers. Look at the typical routes in South East Asia and they are all suited for an ATR 72, as typified by Wings Air, which is set to becomes the largest operator of the ATR 72. Watch the ever increasing fuel prices and you’ll want a less thirsty aircraft.

The Q400 promises more revenue potential, with more seats and an extra flight. But it has to fly more passengers to break even, and more passengers to make the same amount of profit that operating the ATR 72-600 will make. Not many regional sectors bring in 100% loads to tap that potential.

True that the Q400 flies faster, but there must be customers willing to pay for that speed. In a booming aviation environment that is low-cost driven, where the markets are yet to mature and loads are yet to pick up, economics is paramount.

In short, in most of Asia, a low cost carrier can only beat the ATR 72-600 with an ATR 72-600. For everywhere else, like in North America, you have the Q400.

ATR 72-500 and -600 Cross Fleet Utilization approved by DGCA

15 Friday Mar 2013

Posted by theflyingengineer in Manufacturer, Operations, Technical

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

500, 600, 72, Airways, ATR, Crew, Cross, Fleet, Jet, Singapore, Utilization

The Dividing Line: The clean and well presented -600 cockpit (left) and the cluttered -500 cockpit (right). Undoubtedly late, but worth the wait.

With respect to type rating designation for the ATR 42/72 series, DGCA finally recognizes the same type rating (single license endorsement) for the existing ATR 42/72 variants and ATR-600 variants as “ATR42/72”. This means that the flight crew on Jet Airways’ ATR 72-500 can now fly either the -600 variant or the -500 variant on a single day, but not both the types on the same day.

This allows Jet Airways to better utilise its turboprop flight crew, which until recently was affected by DGCA’s then non recognition of the common type rating for the two types.

With only 2 ATR 72-600 in its fleet, and more expected to be inducted, this recognition is welcomed as Jet Airways slowly phases out the -500 in favour of the -600. Further, Jet Airways will realise training cost savings from the newly opened ATR Training Centre at Singapore, which houses one ATR 72-600 FFS (Full Flight Simulator).

The common rating is allowed with a differences training. EASA recommends a differences training of 5 days, which includes and covers 28 hours of classroom instruction, web based training, and practice on the Virtual Hardware Platform Trainer (VHPT),  and 4 hours per crew on a Full Flight Training device (FFT), such as a FFS.

The differences training between the two aircraft focus on:

  1. Engine malfunctions during take-off;
  2. Use of avionics in normal and abnormal / emergency operations, including FMA annunciations, caution and warning messages on the Engine & Warning Display (EWD), and associated human factors issues;
  3. Use of Flight Management System (FMS);
  4. Use of Electronic Checklist (ECL);
  5. Ice detection and management systems and displays (including APM); and
  6. Crew Resource Management (CRM) with regard to the new functionalities.
Training Schedule

Training Schedule

Jet Airways (I) leases two Kingfisher’s ATR 72-500s

05 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by theflyingengineer in General Aviation Interest

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

500, 72, Airways, ATR, Jet, Kingfisher, Veiling

9W_ATR

Photo Courtesy: ATR Aircraft

Jet Airways (I) Pvt Ltd has reportedly leased two Kingfisher ATR 72-500s, bearing DGCA registrations VT-KAG (MSN 743) and VT-KAH (MSN 746), both manufactured in the year 2007. These two aircraft are leased from Veling, a company engaged principally in aircraft leasing and sales, based at Port Louis, Mauritius.

Jet Airways has managed to lease these planes at a very attractive rate, thanks to the inability of the lessors repossess and fly out Kingfisher aircraft.

The aircraft are being painted in the Jet Airways’ livery; re-registration of the aircraft is uncertain.

Of the 15 Kingfisher ATR 72-500s  registered with the DGCA, only three seem to be leased from traceable and established lessors.

How an ATR is made: Assembly line

18 Friday Jan 2013

Posted by theflyingengineer in General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

1000th, 42, 72, Assembly, ATR, Line, made

Be it a -72 or a -42, the journey of the aircraft and its parts, in its “gestation period” is very interesting. With demand for the ATR 72 rising sharply, due to its apparent great market value, availability of rated crew, and its operating economics, it is interesting how the assembly line is well coordinated, despite the inherent complexities involved with an assembly process spread over many countries. This is now being optimised by ATR to target 72 airplanes a year, to meet the rising demand for the world’s most popular turboprop. Click on the image below to enjoy the full size image, with readable text.

This image was published by ATR, when celebrating the delivery of its 1000th aircraft, in the May of 2012.

This image was published by ATR, when celebrating the delivery of its 1000th aircraft, in the May of 2012.

The ATR 72-600: an Introduction

11 Friday Jan 2013

Posted by theflyingengineer in General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer, Technical

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

600, 72, 72-500, 72-600, Airways, ATR, EASA, India, JCX, JCY, Jet, NAS, New. Cockpit, Suite, VT

ATR 72 Banner

VT-JCX (click for photo) and VT-JCY are now visible on the DGCA’s aircraft register; These are the two, and presently only ATR 72-600s in India, flying for Jet Airways, and deployed on the Mumbai-Diu-Porbandar and Mumbai-Udaipur sectors.

EASA_logoInterestingly, both airplanes reflect on the register as “ATR 72-212A”, which is no different from the type designation of the ATR 72-500. While it is confusing for someone looking up the registry to know if it refers to the ATR 72-500 or the ATR 72-600, a simple look at the All Up Weight, year of manufacture and evidently the manufacturer serial number will sort out your confusion; The ATR 72-600s have an AUW of 23,000kgs, while the ATR 72-500s had a maximum of 22,800 (in the Jet Airways Fleet).  But why the same name?

According to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA):

ATR 72-212A “600 version” is the designation to identify ATR 72-212A aircraft  models  having received the New  Avionic Suite (NAS) modification, also  named as “Glass Cockpit”, which represents the incorporation of ATR  Significant Major Change no 5948 and a batch of associated ATR (major &  minor) modifications. ATR 72-212A “600 version” aircraft are not considered as new aircraft model  or variant. “ATR 72-600″ is the commercial designation of the ATR 72-212A aircraft  model fitted with NAS modification. This designation must not be used on ATR  certified / approved documentation, and only mention of ‘Mod 5948′, ‘ATR 72- 212A with Mod 5948′, “ATR 72-212A fitted with NAS‟ or “ATR 72-212A -600 version” must be indicated.

F-WWEYF-WWEY, manufacturer serial number (MSN) 098, is a 24 year old ATR 72, made in the same year as the first flight of the ATR 72. That very ATR was, in the May of 2009, converted to a ATR 72-600, highlighting the minimal visible differences and changes that the 72 has undergone since its first flight.

The biggest change in the ATR 72 is the new avionic suite, which transforms the Honeywell and Collins cluttered deck to a clean, well laid out modern glass cockpit with avionics from Thales. Borrowing philosophy and deriving certain functionality from the Airbus A380, the cockpit is new. Very new.

The Dividing Line: The clean and well presented -600 cockpit (left) and the cluttered -500 cockpit (right). Undoubtedly late, but worth the wait.

The Dividing Line: The clean and well presented -600 cockpit (left) and the cluttered -500 cockpit (right). Undoubtedly late, but worth the wait.

So new that a very senior commander with the airline, says that “An ATR 72-500 can directly hand fly the -600 easily, for nothing changes with respect to the handling. But he will not be using the avionics to the best of its automation capabilities and functions that significantly ease crew workload, and boost situation awareness”.

Honestly, when I sat with the cockpit layout diagram of the ATR, I was lost, despite being very familiar with the -500. Where you once knew knobs, switches and controls to be: may not be there at all!

With CRTs and electro-mechanical gauges replaced by 5 LCD screens of 6” x 8”, the number of parts has been cut down by 30%, offering a 30kg weight saving and maintenance cost savings of around 15%. For an aircraft that has jumped 200 kgs in its AUW in comparison to the -500 fleet at Jet Airways, 30 kgs is a significant amount.

Primary Flight Display

Primary Flight Display

Let’s try to understand the gains. The older ATR cockpit has, for primary flight instruments, an electro mechanical airspeed indicator with bugs that need to be manually set, a CRT based EADI (Electronic Attitude and Direction Indicator), that would only show you, in addition, if you were flying faster or slower than the manually set speed on the airspeed indicator. The altimeter is electromechanical, with a knob to set the pressure. Newer vertical speed indicators are small, LCD screen based, that also doubles up as a traffic alert collision and avoidance system (TCAS) display, with a small map showing proximate traffic, and the range of these proximate traffic set by a range button. All this, and significantly more functions, are now packed into the primary flight display, which is just one 10” display. There are no moving parts. There is no bulky equipment associated with a Cathode Ray Tube. There is reduced electromagnetic interference, and reduced cooling requirements. If you need a simple comparison, think of the difference between a 34” LCD screen and an old TV. The LCD screen is clearer, crisper, bigger, with richer colours, thinner, significantly much lighter, and when you place your hand near the back, you hardly feel any heat. And if you are to bring your portable radio near the LCD screen, you’ll hardly hear any interference, if not nothing at all.

MFDThe ATR 72’s NAS cockpit is way beyond this. Besides eliminating old technology, and boosting reliability, the NAS introduces much greater functionality that serves one significant purpose: reduced crew workload and increased situation awareness. The ATR crew today is better equipped to answer the questions of “When”, “Where”, “Why”, “What” and “Who” much quicker, with possibly greater accuracy than ever before, without moving the head and hands too much in the cockpit.

Organized, simplified, reliable and enhanced: this is the new ATR that will make your flight in the skies safer. Join me as we discover how, as we embark on a journey that describes, in significant and sufficient detail what this new airplane offers, in contrast to the other 42 ATR aircraft registered in India.

atr21304atr72600royalairmaroccockpitgeneralview

The Flying Engineer’s tweets

  • SVEEP 2013: "Sveeping" people to the polls! wp.me/pRsSu-nX 6 days ago
  • A beautiful flight at Bijapur: Post the crazy winds, and long wait! wp.me/pRsSu-nQ 1 month ago
  • Flying over the Office of the Deputy Comissioner, Karwar wp.me/pRsSu-nF 1 month ago
  • Making a Lynx Micro Headset Charger on the Go! wp.me/pRsSu-nC 1 month ago
  • Air Asia: Hiring Indian Captains and First Officers wp.me/pRsSu-nd 1 month ago
  • Powered Para Gliding! wp.me/pRsSu-n0 1 month ago
  • Radio Etiquette wp.me/pRsSu-mX 1 month ago
  • Peeling away ten Thousand dots, for British Airways' first A380! wp.me/pRsSu-mS 1 month ago
  • Flying just 200ft over the heart of Bangalore! wp.me/pRsSu-mG 1 month ago
  • A330 Production Ramps up, but Patrick Piedrafita isn't quite right. wp.me/pRsSu-mv 1 month ago
Follow @TheFlyingEnggnr

Blog archives of The Flying Engineer

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 8,474 other followers

Recent Posts!

  • SVEEP 2013: “Sveeping” people to the polls!
  • A beautiful flight at Bijapur: Post the crazy winds, and long wait!
  • Flying over the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar
  • Making a Lynx Micro Headset Charger on the Go!
  • Air Asia: Hiring Indian Captains and First Officers
  • Powered Para Gliding!
  • Radio Etiquette
  • Peeling away ten Thousand dots, for British Airways’ first A380!
  • Flying just 200ft over the heart of Bangalore!
  • A330 Production Ramps up, but Patrick Piedrafita isn’t quite right.

Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Chateau by Ignacio Ricci.