Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Skyway / ACA's old 328Jets

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Propsync said:
Because we lowered the bar for 32 seat jet payrates. Everyone else is suffering because of us.

Skyway IS the bar for 32 seat jet payrates, nobody else operates the plane and there was only one other carrier (ACA) that ever did. I'm pretty sure that the Skyway rates for the plane were pretty close to our concessionary rates for the plane at ACA. Who is suffering because of Skyway?

You would think with the low pilot rates for the planes and the low lease rates that Skyway would get more of them. I think that they have discovered what ACA and Delta already knew......the plane costs almost as much to operate as a 50 seater and has 36% less seats in it. The thing can't make money.

I can't tell from your post if it was meant to be a joke or not.
 
248to2.8 said:
They don't. The Dork jet is awesome. It's slow, great for building PIC jet time, it only requires 1 bitch in back, it is an all around great plane. When it first came out it had a lot of mx problems just like any new plane does. The mechs here at Skyway became very good at fixing it and once all the little ideosyncrasies were figured out, it worked great, here anyways. Not so great at ACA from what I hear. Personally I really like it.

Agreed, the plane as awsome. I think most of our (ACA's) problem the fact that we operated over 30 of them and not enough parts to go around. Our Mx guys were some of the best and worked hard to keep them them flying. I also believe they had issues with uppper management on support type stuff.

On short route segments it didn't matter if you were slow and structually limited to .66m or .78 (emb) or .85 (crj), you'd never get there anyway.
 
Last edited:
Yea we had problems with parts too for a while. Then we got a great deal on some engines from China. Problem is, they don't realize what flying low over the ocean does to fan blades, and prob never inspected them. We threw a couple of fan blades during takeoff on those engines.

The Pickle probably has more to say on this, just like he does on everything else he offers comments about but has no experience on. A little Mr. know it all me thinks. :)
 
Whatever

248to2.8 said:
Yea we had problems with parts too for a while. Then we got a great deal on some engines from China. Problem is, they don't realize what flying low over the ocean does to fan blades, and prob never inspected them. We threw a couple of fan blades during takeoff on those engines.

The Pickle probably has more to say on this, just like he does on everything else he offers comments about but has no experience on. A little Mr. know it all me thinks. :)
That booby dust has finally gone to your brain. I heard that you were the reason that the engines didnt last and they sent you to the Beech because it is almost impossible to destroy.... me thinks.

:)
 
It might be slow...but it will out climb anything except a fighter jet. It could have been a great plane if it had not gotten orphaned so early.

It just needed to be a 50 seater.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top