CID wrote:To take a comment out of context and inject a blanket statement like that is not just stupid, it's short sighted. If you think that a piston powered DC-3 is a good airplane to utilize in ANY airline application anywhere in the world these days, I seriously question your sanity. Do you also suggest using Model Ts as taxis? How about typewriters to print letters? Sorry but when it comes to airline operations today, DC-3-stupid. L1011=stupid. C-46=stupid. And recently, HS748=stupid.But to make blanket statements that new = good, old = bad is just...stupid.
So continuing down this line of thought, anyone operating a piston Beaver these days is stupid because they haven't upgraded to a DHC2T or something else newer? How can a shiny new turbine engine possibly be the deciding factor on whether one airline vs another makes money. Is the DC3 a top choice? no. But when properly maintained and operated I see no reason why someone shouldn't be allowed to use them.tipsails wrote:An operator could easily set up shop in Yellowknife with a few 1900's and 1 or 2 BT67's and take over all of BJoe's flying. It would be a hard slog for the first few years I think it would be feasible
Buffalo hasn't been shut down because they use old aircraft, it's the way they operate them. Because we don't know specifics yet I'll use an example: an overloaded Dash-8 vs an overloaded DC3 vs an overloaded 1900 or whatever makes no difference, it deserves the same punishment from Transport.