PDA

View Full Version : OT: New Airline



polak5
09-21-2007, 12:12 PM
Hello all. Was watching the news the other day, and they were talking abut this new airline.
They use these really small jets that weight about as much as a SUV and can fit 4 to 6 passagers I believe.

Anyone know the name of this new airline??

BTW: I think they have the word day in the name, not sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

xTHRUDx
09-21-2007, 12:24 PM
you will see more of them. they are called VLJ's, or very light jets. it's the industries effort to go around the current hub-spoke system of the airlines. you'll be able to fly from smaller airports striaght to another smaller airport. think of it as traveling via taxi instead of bus.

polak5
09-21-2007, 01:00 PM
Ok found it, thx.
Just typed in Very Light Jet and Florida to google and Dayjet came up on one of the results.

Yea thats exactly what they were talking about "Airtaxi" of the sort. Seems convenient when you dont need a 300+ airliner for 8 people, or when you want to reach another airport which would not accommodate a big airliner.

thx again.
S!~

mortoma
09-23-2007, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
you will see more of them. they are called VLJ's, or very light jets. it's the industries effort to go around the current hub-spoke system of the airlines. you'll be able to fly from smaller airports striaght to another smaller airport. think of it as traveling via taxi instead of bus. I don't really think the intention of the aircraft industry is to make these jets for air taxi businesses, but more for the private owner/operator. And for smaller businesses/corporations that can't afford the big iron, so they can transport their CEOs/executives to meetings. Although an air taxi business utilizing these jets could work if one could turn a profit.

Thing is though, these newer light jets do not beat existing turbo-props in any category to a large degree. Not even in speed, altitude or range. So I personally think the VLJ ( Very Light Jet ) will be a big flop. I would rather buy a King Air or bigger turbo-prop than one of those micro jets. I'd get there almost as fast, at just as high or higher altitude over bad weather. And usually have longer range aircraft to boot.

Most VLJs so far only have a range in the 800 to 1200 nautical mile category. A turbo-prop can easily beat that. Also the speeds will be in the 300 knot category, not much faster than a King Air type, which can cruise about 260 or so. Given the longer range, I'd opt for a slightly slower aircraft.

mortoma
09-23-2007, 08:54 AM
I take some of that back!! I just visited the Ratheon aircraft company's web site and the top of the line King Air is cruising at 312 knots
at up to 35,000ft.!! This is as fast as most proposed VLJs and a lot higher, as most VLJs are going to be in the 25,000ft. ceiling range.
Also a King Air can carry a lot more weight, plus more seats for people. These are some reasons I think the VLJ market will be too small
and they will ultimately fail as a viable option for most people with enough purchase power to buy expensive aircraft.

erco415
09-28-2007, 05:55 AM
I think these VLJ's may well be the revolution we've been waiting for. True, they're not performance kings, except in the area of cost. Consider that a new Beech Baron costs nearly as much as a Eclipse. A friend of mine has been thinking about going VLJ, and he found that the cost per mile was actually lower in the Eclipse than in his Cessna 310. What this translates to is affordable jet charter. Dayjet says they can get you where you want to go (and back), on your schedule without all the airline hassle, for what it would cost to ride the airlines and a hotel stay. The VLJ's will put jet travel into the hands of nearly everyone in time, I think.

DrHerb
09-28-2007, 02:40 PM
Heres 2 "VLJ"'s preformance looks pretty good, my old job made components for the Pratt engines on both planes

Cessna Mustang (http://mustang.cessna.com/specifications.chtml)
and
Eclipse 500 (http://www.eclipseaviation.com/eclipse_500/performance/)

mortoma
09-28-2007, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by DrHerb:
Heres 2 "VLJ"'s preformance looks pretty good, my old job made components for the Pratt engines on both planes

Cessna Mustang (http://mustang.cessna.com/specifications.chtml)
and
Eclipse 500 (http://www.eclipseaviation.com/eclipse_500/performance/) Not bad and faster than turbo props but still very limited range in the 1100 nautical mile category. The King Airs can go up to 1700 nautical miles. In a VLJ, just to fly from here in Utah to visit friends and family back in Indiana I possibly would have to stop to
refuel if the winds were against me. Not a problem in a Turbo Prop, plus I could carry much more and more people.

BoCfuss
09-28-2007, 10:23 PM
I'm with Mortoma, I would much rather ride in or own a King Air. A very nice aircraft. The one thing you haven't mentioned yet is fuel cost. What costs more? I would think the jet fuel would be cheaper? I have no idea.

erco415
09-29-2007, 03:31 AM
Well, cost is the key thing here. This airplane or that airplane might have a bigger cabin, or more range, or more whatever. But can YOU afford to fly in it? King Airs are nice, but take your 1.3 million and you can have an Eclipse 500 or a B58 Baron. The C90 is three times as expensive. The thing that VLJ's promise is that it puts jet charter into the hands of people who can afford to pay the walk up ticket prices at the airlines. Sure, it will be more comfortable to ride a King Air, but can you afford the charter rate? So, what your choice really boils down to is would you rather ride in the Eclipse (leave when you want to, no hub hassles, etc) or would you rather sit in seat 34B on Behemoth Airways?

Sometimes Jet fuel is more expensive, sometimes 100LL is more expensive. It just depends on where you are. Both the King Air and the Eclipse burn JetA.

Philipscdrw
09-29-2007, 06:44 AM
Yeah, all turbine engines burn the same fuel, both jets and turboprops.

AirRanger
09-29-2007, 02:19 PM
I fly a Hawker 800XP in the Fractional Industry, and have lots of time in the King Air 200 and 350. They are great airplanes and have great short field performance. However, even thought it is certified for FL350 (35,000ft) most can not go above FL290 because of new RVSM (reduced visibility seperation minimums). It is a costly upgrade to ole airplanes, and the 200 is pretty doggie up there anyway. True airspeed really starts to bleed off above FL260, and forget about it if you have the ice vanes out. Also the VLJ are about 1/3 the cost of VLJs. Granted, the VLJ will have lots of other issues...they will be too slow to fly with the other jets in RVSM airspace and will be difficult for ATC to put them in the arrival/departure sequence for busy airports. And do you remember all the V-tailed Bonanza horror stories about low time Doctors,or who ever could afford one, that killed themselfs in it cause it was just too much machine for there experience level?? I think we'll see some of that to. Not to memtion it is certified single pilot airplane.
I'm interested to see how the VLJ will fit into the general aviation community. But in my opinion it does have a nich, and there are 100s of them on order.

mortoma
09-29-2007, 07:16 PM
It's Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum. You said visibility instead of vertical. I still think the short range is a big issue since you can fly a less expensive aircraft and get to a place 1,000 nautical miles away almost as fast. Fly a Piper Meridian the same distance and it will get there fairly fast for far cheaper.
Far less for fuel and far less for the airplane.
Fly a 1000 nautical miles in the Meridian and take an hour longer than a VLJ. Big deal one hour more and it's cheaper because you'll burn less fuel. I'd rather do the cheaper thing and take an hour longer because I'm doing 260 knots instead of 360 knots.

Sillius_Sodus
10-01-2007, 12:28 AM
Yeah, the King Air is a nice bird but a jet is a nicer ride. Quieter cabin, less vibration and let's face it, a jet is sexier than most turboprops. That said, some turboprops are sexy, like the Tucano, Bronco and Beech Starship.

Even the Turbo Beaver, Otter and Twin Otter on floats are sexy in a trailer park trash kind of way, right Buzzaw? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Sillius_Sodus