Bangkok-based Nok Air awaits new turboprops from Bombardier

[webfact]

Nok Air awaits new turboprops from Bombardier
Sasithorn Ongdee
The Nation

 

BANGKOK: -- Bangkok-based budget carrier Nok Air will before the end of the month take delivery of the first of eight Bombardier Q400 NextGen turboprops and in doing so become the first airline in the region to operate the Canadian-made aircraft.

The fast-growing carrier's second Q400 NextGen plane is scheduled to arrive a week after the first one, while the rest will be gradually delivered this year, said Ranond Mintarkhin, Nok Air's planning department vice president.

The jets are set to replace the ATR 72-500 turboprop aircraft that Nok Air uses on secondary routes with moderate demand.

Two of these are Bangkok-Mae Sot and Bangkok-Nan.

The Bangkok-Mae Sot route has a cabin factor of about 80 per cent.

"The Q400 NextGen will be capable of carrying more passengers than the ATR 72-500. This will help Nok Air fly with more frequency amid growing demand," Ranond said, adding that the Q400 NextGen is also slightly faster and more fuel-efficient.

The Q400 NextGen has 86 seats while the ATR 72-500 has 66 seats.

Ranond said the new plane was also expected to service Phetchabun, Phitsanulok, Buri Ram, Phrae and Roi Et.

"There will be espresso coffee brewers available in-flight," he said.

Although Nok Air ranked third behind Thai Airways International and Thai AirAsia with a 27.2-per-cent share of the domestic market last year, its 17.6-per-cent year-on-year growth was the highest.

THAI's market share was 29.3 per cent and Thai AirAsia's 27.8 per cent. Nok Air last week took delivery of a new Next Generation 737-800 with special livery painted by the aircraft's manufacturer, Seattle-based Boeing.

The livery marked the 10th anniversary of Nok Air taking possession of its first Next Generation 737-800.

It now has 16 of them.

The specially painted plane, which is owned by Ireland-based leasing company Avolon, features a traditional bird-themed livery with stars, streamers and the words "10th Anniversary".

It will be the first of six aircraft to have Wi-Fi.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/Nok-Air-awaits-new-turboprops-from-Bombardier-30238484.html

[thenation]2014-07-15[/thenation]

[David48]

 

Doubt that is Chiang Rai in the background though ...

 

 

[ezzra]

There will be espresso coffee brewers available in-flight....

I will only fly with them if it has a massage service on board and loving me long time

included in the ticket fee...

[kinmaew]

I dont like flying in small planes I dont feel safe would rather pay the extra and go in a larger plane like the ones AA use.

[fritzzz25]

I dont like flying in small planes I dont feel safe would rather pay the extra and go in a larger plane like the ones AA use.

 

I would fly in a turbprop sooner than a jet. When you advance the throttles in the turboprop, you get thrust. When you advance them in the jet, it takes a few moments to spool up to create that thrust. The Q400 is flying with 5000 HP on each wing, which is plenty to climb even with one engine out.

 

http://theflyingengineer.com/aircraft/proud-to-fly-a-turboprop-q400-vs-atr72/
 

[dddave]

I always choose NOK when I can over Air Asia.   Their website is much easier to navigate and use than AA's.  Far less BS about baggage and they don't try to screw you out of a few more Baht at every turn.

Also much better at check-in, again far less BS.  The gate agents and FA's are always pleasant.

I don't mind the turbo-props at all.  Domestic flights are never more than an hour and they are actually more comfortable than some of the A320's that AA crams every possible seat into.

 

My only complaint with them has been late departures...especially afternoon and evening flights when they get behind.  They are stretched a bit thin and one delay compounds along the day.  I hope the new aircraft help to alleviate that. 

[Tomtomtom69]

 

I dont like flying in small planes I dont feel safe would rather pay the extra and go in a larger plane like the ones AA use.

 

I would fly in a turbprop sooner than a jet. When you advance the throttles in the turboprop, you get thrust. When you advance them in the jet, it takes a few moments to spool up to create that thrust. The Q400 is flying with 5000 HP on each wing, which is plenty to climb even with one engine out.

 

http://theflyingengineer.com/aircraft/proud-to-fly-a-turboprop-q400-vs-atr72/
 

 

 

I don't think that's a good argument. Turboprop propellors are used on smaller, lighter aircraft that fly shorter distances. Typically turboprop aircraft have strict weight limits in terms of carry on and check-in baggage, both of which must be accurately weighed, whereas on larger jet aircraft, carry on baggage is simply estimated as are passenger weights. Turboprop aircraft are also more vulnerable to the effects of turbulence. They have no protective housing to protect their blades/vanes from bird strikes. And the list goes on.

 

I also much prefer jet aircraft and luckily one can avoid turboprops altogether if flying to anywhere that isn't considered nakorn nowhere. And this is generally true in other parts of the world too.

 

Anyway, I can't imagine ever needing to fly to Phitsanulok when I can drive there in not much more than 4.5 hours. Ditto for Mae Sot, which takes around 6.5. Because once you factor in the time it takes to get to the airport, in this case Don Muang (well over an hour from where I live), the fact you need to check-in around an hour before departure, waiting for the plane to take-off and then waiting for luggage at the other end, 3.5 hours will have elapsed. Then you still need local transport at your destination. In Phitsanulok you can rent a car, but combining the cost of renting a car and the plane ticket and it will be expensive. At Mae Sot airport you're out of luck because I don't think there are any car rental companies there at all. You might find a rental car somewhere in town, but you'll have to know where to look. Even if you don't own a car, I'd say renting in Bangkok and driving all the way up is the way to go, especially if you're traveling in a group of 2 or more persons.

 

For Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Phuket, Hat Yai and Krabi, it starts to make more sense to fly as distances are greater and there are some good deals on flights to those destinations, plus plenty of car rental at your destination.
 

[webfact]

Budget airlines acquiring planes ahead of ASEAN integration
By Digital Content



BANGKOK, July 15 -- Low-cost airlines are quickly acquiring planes and launching new routes ahead of the formation of the ASEAN Community.

Nok Air that was celebrating its 10th anniversary by accepting another lased aircraft, a Boeing 737-800 with 189 seats, in Seattle last week.

It became the 16th plane of Nok Air's fleet.

Next year the airline will acquire 15 more aircraft to replace old ones and support route expansion.

Rivals such as Thai AirAsia earlier received 39 Airbus A320 planes.

The airline plans to acquire a total of 60 planes within 2018.

Both low-cost airlines were acquiring new aircraft to maintain their competitiveness.

They were about to launch new local routes as well as those connecting to neighboring countries to serve passengers whose numbers are expected to grow thanks to the formation of the ASEAN Community next year. (MCOT online news)

[tna]2014-07-15[/tna]

[Maroon Watcher]

The ONLY way to Fly - Propper flying!

 

Many years ago I flew to the Isle of White (UK)

 

The cockpit just had a curtain (Like 1st class)

so occasionally you could even see the pilot at his work and the forward view

[TomThailand]

Propeller flying - definitely the way!

 

I spent 2012/13 working in the remote highlands of Papua New Guinea.   I was based in Goroka - a true frontier town built around an airstrip way up in mountain country.  Flew around on Air Niugini and Airlines PNG Dash 8-100s, Cessna Caravans, and the wonderful Pilatus Porter PC-6.   Some truly amazing and very skilled expat bush pilots.  Those birds can take on terrain and landing strips which no passenger jet could contemplate.  The more developed settlements and the capital (Port Moresby) had longer runways and could handle Air Niugini's two Bombardier Q400s.      Love 'em all!

[Jdiddy]

Quantas uses these in Australia, they are not bad, pretty quiet on the inside, quieter then the back half of a B717, they initially accelerate much harder during the takeoff run too, also better at gliding if both engines go out

 

Though i dont mind noise when it comes to jets, id rather sit at the back of a 747 during takeoff and landing then a boring a380

[T_Dog]

The ATR 42/72  aircraft ended up in tropical climates as there were several accidents due to icing from its critical wing design in colder climates.   The Q400 is leagues ahead of the ATR in safety and performance.   

[neverdie]

I dont like flying in small planes I dont feel safe would rather pay the extra and go in a larger plane like the ones AA use.

Yet the reality is somewhat different to your feeling.

While the Q400 is smaller and lighter than an aircraft like the Airbus A320, it will take off and land over a shorter distance (Thus making it somewhat safer in some aspects), its approach speed just prior to landing is slower and its reported to having a very good glide ratio as well. As previously mentioned here the current range of Q400 are very powerful for their size and yet still quite nimble, for a turbo prop it climbs like a b@stard, a very sleek machine indeed.

For a couple of years the Bombardier Q400 had a few issues with their landing gear but those issues were sorted out long ago. I think there has only been two fatal accidents involving a Q400, one was the Colgan air which crashed on approach to Buffalo airport in 2009 & the crash was blamed on pilot error perhaps as a result of fatigue. There had been a crash of a Q400 several years before that, where the sole occupants of the plane (pilots) were also killed, I cant remember what happened to them.

The Airbus A320 class of plane has had a lot more passengers perish in crashes, about 850 odd over the years its been flying. There have been a number of incidents where the Glass cockpits in the A320 plane have blacked out during flight (now that would be fun) and I think about 25 or more hull losses in total. Now of course theres many more A320, A319, A321's out there than there is Q400's.

Anyway, if the fans stop spinning and one wanted to dangle the dunlops and drop it somewhere other than at an airport, Id rather be at the controls of a Q400 than an A320, any day, even if it were just for the slower approach speeds, shorter stopping distance and smaller size.......heck, when it comes down to it, give me a Cessna 172 for that anyday over a wide bodied aircraft.

Plenty of small planes out there flying hundreds of thousands of hours, very safe, no doubt about that.

For me, when it comes to safety, I would rather examine the Pilot entry requirements to any particular airline and the airlines approach to training and safety, comes in a much higher order than the turbo pro/jet issue. just sayin ;)

[neverdie]

Quantas uses these in Australia, they are not bad, pretty quiet on the inside, quieter then the back half of a B717, they initially accelerate much harder during the takeoff run too, also better at gliding if both engines go out
 
Though i dont mind noise when it comes to jets, id rather sit at the back of a 747 during takeoff and landing then a boring a380

Theres something really special about those 71's when they take off, the sound of those engines is really enuf to give an old pilot some wood.

717's really rock and roll, thumbs up to Qantas for still pedalling these old gurls around, id book a flight just to take a ride.....if i could wind the window down and stick my head out as we took off, i would.

[harrry]

 

Doubt that is Chiang Rai in the background though ...

 

 

We have had a few cold spells but I am sure that is not here.  Wonder what kind of bird they will paint that one, Nose looks a bit hawkish.

[Captor]

 

 

I dont like flying in small planes I dont feel safe would rather pay the extra and go in a larger plane like the ones AA use.

 

I would fly in a turbprop sooner than a jet. When you advance the throttles in the turboprop, you get thrust. When you advance them in the jet, it takes a few moments to spool up to create that thrust. The Q400 is flying with 5000 HP on each wing, which is plenty to climb even with one engine out.

 

http://theflyingengineer.com/aircraft/proud-to-fly-a-turboprop-q400-vs-atr72/
 

 

 

I don't think that's a good argument. Turboprop propellors are used on smaller, lighter aircraft that fly shorter distances. Typically turboprop aircraft have strict weight limits in terms of carry on and check-in baggage, both of which must be accurately weighed, whereas on larger jet aircraft, carry on baggage is simply estimated as are passenger weights. Turboprop aircraft are also more vulnerable to the effects of turbulence. They have no protective housing to protect their blades/vanes from bird strikes. And the list goes on.

 

I also much prefer jet aircraft and luckily one can avoid turboprops altogether if flying to anywhere that isn't considered nakorn nowhere. And this is generally true in other parts of the world too.

 

Anyway, I can't imagine ever needing to fly to Phitsanulok when I can drive there in not much more than 4.5 hours. Ditto for Mae Sot, which takes around 6.5. Because once you factor in the time it takes to get to the airport, in this case Don Muang (well over an hour from where I live), the fact you need to check-in around an hour before departure, waiting for the plane to take-off and then waiting for luggage at the other end, 3.5 hours will have elapsed. Then you still need local transport at your destination. In Phitsanulok you can rent a car, but combining the cost of renting a car and the plane ticket and it will be expensive. At Mae Sot airport you're out of luck because I don't think there are any car rental companies there at all. You might find a rental car somewhere in town, but you'll have to know where to look. Even if you don't own a car, I'd say renting in Bangkok and driving all the way up is the way to go, especially if you're traveling in a group of 2 or more persons.

 

For Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Phuket, Hat Yai and Krabi, it starts to make more sense to fly as distances are greater and there are some good deals on flights to those destinations, plus plenty of car rental at your destination.
 

 

 

Protective housing?? I have never seen something like that on a jet. If there goes a bird into a jet engine it is finished! If there goes a bird into a turboprop not much will happen. I doupt the bird can pass the fast rotating propeller and actuall go into the jet!? Never heard about that happen. No, to be true I rather sit in a turboprop than in a pure jet without a propeller if it comes to bird collisons.

The propeller is actually protecting the jet intake.

 

About going by car instread... well I believe the roads in Thailand are the most dangerous places to be at! I prefer to travel in the air...
 

[harrry]

Propeller flying - definitely the way!

 

I spent 2012/13 working in the remote highlands of Papua New Guinea.   I was based in Goroka - a true frontier town built around an airstrip way up in mountain country.  Flew around on Air Niugini and Airlines PNG Dash 8-100s, Cessna Caravans, and the wonderful Pilatus Porter PC-6.   Some truly amazing and very skilled expat bush pilots.  Those birds can take on terrain and landing strips which no passenger jet could contemplate.  The more developed settlements and the capital (Port Moresby) had longer runways and could handle Air Niugini's two Bombardier Q400s.      Love 'em all!

Even better heading from Jackons to Pooendetta on the cable car they called Nomads...I still think they were a good aircraft despite the bashing they get. Only had a private licence so of course never flew one but scared  hell out of myself when I was told to land on the left runway at Jacksons in a Cessna and all hell broke loose....Never knew Marsden matting was that noisy.

Edited July 15, 2014 by harrry

[tso310]

Not surprised to see this on the Buriram route.  The right size and more economical for these sort of routes. 

Edited July 15, 2014 by tso310

[Qauvorka]

 

 

I dont like flying in small planes I dont feel safe would rather pay the extra and go in a larger plane like the ones AA use.

 
I would fly in a turbprop sooner than a jet. When you advance the throttles in the turboprop, you get thrust. When you advance them in the jet, it takes a few moments to spool up to create that thrust. The Q400 is flying with 5000 HP on each wing, which is plenty to climb even with one engine out.
 
http://theflyingengineer.com/aircraft/proud-to-fly-a-turboprop-q400-vs-atr72/
 
 

 
I don't think that's a good argument. Turboprop propellors are used on smaller, lighter aircraft that fly shorter distances. Typically turboprop aircraft have strict weight limits in terms of carry on and check-in baggage, both of which must be accurately weighed, whereas on larger jet aircraft, carry on baggage is simply estimated as are passenger weights. Turboprop aircraft are also more vulnerable to the effects of turbulence. They have no protective housing to protect their blades/vanes from bird strikes. And the list goes on.
 
I also much prefer jet aircraft and luckily one can avoid turboprops altogether if flying to anywhere that isn't considered nakorn nowhere. And this is generally true in other parts of the world too.
 
Anyway, I can't imagine ever needing to fly to Phitsanulok when I can drive there in not much more than 4.5 hours. Ditto for Mae Sot, which takes around 6.5. Because once you factor in the time it takes to get to the airport, in this case Don Muang (well over an hour from where I live), the fact you need to check-in around an hour before departure, waiting for the plane to take-off and then waiting for luggage at the other end, 3.5 hours will have elapsed. Then you still need local transport at your destination. In Phitsanulok you can rent a car, but combining the cost of renting a car and the plane ticket and it will be expensive. At Mae Sot airport you're out of luck because I don't think there are any car rental companies there at all. You might find a rental car somewhere in town, but you'll have to know where to look. Even if you don't own a car, I'd say renting in Bangkok and driving all the way up is the way to go, especially if you're traveling in a group of 2 or more persons.
 
For Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Phuket, Hat Yai and Krabi, it starts to make more sense to fly as distances are greater and there are some good deals on flights to those destinations, plus plenty of car rental at your destination.
 
 

 
Protective housing?? I have never seen something like that on a jet. If there goes a bird into a jet engine it is finished! If there goes a bird into a turboprop not much will happen. I doupt the bird can pass the fast rotating propeller and actuall go into the jet!? Never heard about that happen. No, to be true I rather sit in a turboprop than in a pure jet without a propeller if it comes to bird collisons.
The propeller is actually protecting the jet intake.
 
About going by car instread... well I believe the roads in Thailand are the most dangerous places to be at! I prefer to travel in the air...
 

[Qauvorka]

Sorry Captor not entirely true. I dealt with a bird strike on a dash 8 classic and the bird hit the prop and was sent through the lower intake which it destroyed internally taking out the debris door rear bulkhead and then the oil cooler admittedly slim chance of it happening but it can

[harrry]

Sorry Captor not entirely true. I dealt with a bird strike on a dash 8 classic and the bird hit the prop and was sent through the lower intake which it destroyed internally taking out the debris door rear bulkhead and then the oil cooler admittedly slim chance of it happening but it can

So what would have happened if it had entered a jet aircraft....the same but more so?

[Captor]

Sorry Captor not entirely true. I dealt with a bird strike on a dash 8 classic and the bird hit the prop and was sent through the lower intake which it destroyed internally taking out the debris door rear bulkhead and then the oil cooler admittedly slim chance of it happening but it can

Really? Well, I guess everything can happen. But, as you said by yourself, the risk is anyway much more less then a pure jet. I believe that if the same bird that you experienced would hit the engine in a pure jet, the whole bird would go inside. In your case the bird did pass the propeller first before it go into the jet intake. So maybe not the whole bird go inside but only a piece? Still better then if the whole bird goes inside. And another thing, IF it happen anyway, the turboprops are operating on lower altitude and in a lower speed. Those things are an advantage as well if loosing the power from one engine.

There is really no need to be afraid of this turboprops. They are reliable as a jet if not more.. The downside might be that they are louder in the cabin than a big jet. But that is as far I know the only downside.

 

[Captor]

 

Sorry Captor not entirely true. I dealt with a bird strike on a dash 8 classic and the bird hit the prop and was sent through the lower intake which it destroyed internally taking out the debris door rear bulkhead and then the oil cooler admittedly slim chance of it happening but it can

So what would have happened if it had entered a jet aircraft....the same but more so?

 

 

Correct!

[TomThailand]

Quantas uses these in Australia, they are not bad, pretty quiet on the inside, quieter then the back half of a B717, they initially accelerate much harder during the takeoff run too, also better at gliding if both engines go out

 

Though i dont mind noise when it comes to jets, id rather sit at the back of a 747 during takeoff and landing then a boring a380

 

Agree re: Q400s.  Great planes.  Saw these flying regularly between Port Moresby (POM) in PNG and Cairns in northern Queensland with Qantas Regional.

 

Not sure about the 747/A380 comparison. I was very unexpectedly upgraded to Business Class from riff-raff class on an A380 on my current trip from London to be in BKK with my lovely (Thai) wife earlier this month.  Now that wasn't boring!

[ginjag]

 

Quantas uses these in Australia, they are not bad, pretty quiet on the inside, quieter then the back half of a B717, they initially accelerate much harder during the takeoff run too, also better at gliding if both engines go out

 

Though i dont mind noise when it comes to jets, id rather sit at the back of a 747 during takeoff and landing then a boring a380

 

Agree re: Q400s.  Great planes.  Saw these flying regularly between Port Moresby (POM) in PNG and Cairns in northern Queensland with Qantas Regional.

 

Not sure about the 747/A380 comparison. I was very unexpectedly upgraded to Business Class from riff-raff class on an A380 on my current trip from London to be in BKK with my lovely (Thai) wife earlier this month.  Now that wasn't boring!

 

 

Well that's good news, I AM out of date.  I thought that the A380 was Frankfurt to BKK.   and 747-400 were on the LHR-BKK.

[Qauvorka]

Don't get me wrong lads I love dash 8's just pointing out bird strikes are a problem for all aircraft dash 8 lower cowls are designed to pass debris before entering a divergent duct to the compressor unlike some

[TomThailand]

 

 

Quantas uses these in Australia, they are not bad, pretty quiet on the inside, quieter then the back half of a B717, they initially accelerate much harder during the takeoff run too, also better at gliding if both engines go out

 

Though i dont mind noise when it comes to jets, id rather sit at the back of a 747 during takeoff and landing then a boring a380

 

Agree re: Q400s.  Great planes.  Saw these flying regularly between Port Moresby (POM) in PNG and Cairns in northern Queensland with Qantas Regional.

 

Not sure about the 747/A380 comparison. I was very unexpectedly upgraded to Business Class from riff-raff class on an A380 on my current trip from London to be in BKK with my lovely (Thai) wife earlier this month.  Now that wasn't boring!

 

 

Well that's good news, I AM out of date.  I thought that the A380 was Frankfurt to BKK.   and 747-400 were on the LHR-BKK.

 

 

Lots of carriers fly A380 from LHR and even LGW via hubs.  I have only used TG once from LHR - once was enough for me and that was a very long time ago...  Gulf state carriers don't take much longer than direct flights and offer a far superior service to TG - I do this return trip every other month between LHR and BKK so I've got to know what's good for me - plus mucho air miles :)... and free upgrades to business class .. way to go!
 

[neverdie]

 
Doubt that is Chiang Rai in the background though ...
 
 

We have had a few cold spells but I am sure that is not here.  Wonder what kind of bird they will paint that one, Nose looks a bit hawkish.

It's just beautiful naked, no need to clown it up with a nose and lips f f s.

[ginjag]

 

 

 

Quantas uses these in Australia, they are not bad, pretty quiet on the inside, quieter then the back half of a B717, they initially accelerate much harder during the takeoff run too, also better at gliding if both engines go out

 

Though i dont mind noise when it comes to jets, id rather sit at the back of a 747 during takeoff and landing then a boring a380

 

Agree re: Q400s.  Great planes.  Saw these flying regularly between Port Moresby (POM) in PNG and Cairns in northern Queensland with Qantas Regional.

 

Not sure about the 747/A380 comparison. I was very unexpectedly upgraded to Business Class from riff-raff class on an A380 on my current trip from London to be in BKK with my lovely (Thai) wife earlier this month.  Now that wasn't boring!

 

 

Well that's good news, I AM out of date.  I thought that the A380 was Frankfurt to BKK.   and 747-400 were on the LHR-BKK.

 

 

Lots of carriers fly A380 from LHR and even LGW via hubs.  I have only used TG once from LHR - once was enough for me and that was a very long time ago...  Gulf state carriers don't take much longer than direct flights and offer a far superior service to TG - I do this return trip every other month between LHR and BKK so I've got to know what's good for me - plus mucho air miles ... and free upgrades to business class .. way to go!
 

 

 

On your LHR-BKK  I understood it was with Thai.  and you flew A380.

 

Reading between the lines I am assuming that you flew Emirates-via Dubai or similar carrier to take the A380.

 

I use Emirates-Etihad-but as the prices have risen I have used EVA BKK-LHR direct. This next trip I booked Lufthansa   BKK -Frankfurt-LHR.  at 31000 bht return,  19000 baht cheaper than Thai---and 13,000 cheaper than Emirates.   good to shop around Until Thai gets their act together.

Edited July 15, 2014 by ginjag

[ParadiseLost]

I flew the Samui - Penang route with Firefly a few times on what I think were ATR turbojets. A fine craft and you experience the wind and pressure drops so much more. I loved it.

 

BTW: is the rumour true the planes are delayed as the pilots have too many stamps in their passports?

Edited July 15, 2014 by ParadiseLost