Leased F-27-500s Should Continue

Amaad Lone · Post by **Amaad Lone** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:43 am

PIA has available two F.27-500s, both aircraft much younger then the six F.27-200s PIA owned and operated.

Maybe PIA should try to retain the two F.27-500s until the ATR42s start arriving. These two leased planes will be better option then the C-130s, plus PIA already has the crew to operate them.

Maybe an advertisement explaining to the public that these fokkers are new version then the ones PIA owned, might retain some confidence in the public.

The two F.27-500s will be great routes to Gilgit, Chitral and Skardu, plus airports unable to handle the 737s.

With three turboprops flying, and the 737s taking over some of the routes, PIA should be able to handle the crisis with some ease.

Abbas Ali · Post by **Abbas Ali** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:02 am

I agree with Amaad, PIA should be allowed to operate the two F-27-500s.

One of them (AP-BHF) was already in service with PIA, is the second one also available to PIA or is it on lease to some other company?

ammad · Post by **ammad** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:25 am

The two F.27-500s will be great routes to Gilgit, Chitral and Skardu, plus airports unable to handle the 737s.

Skardu already have 737 - PK451 and 452 on it.

PALPA · Post by **PALPA** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:52 pm

Well dear member i do acknowledge your concern here but i would like to tell you that may be you are lacking info on this piece of junk AP-BHF.
I ve flown this aircraft its a flying coffin too.

I think you people should talk to some one who knows much better about this stuff.

Amaad Lone · Post by **Amaad Lone** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:31 pm

I ve flown this aircraft its a flying coffin too.

You have flown this aircraft as a pilot or flown in it as a passenger. Because I am sure the opinion of a pilot is more credible then a passenger.

I think you people should talk to some one who knows much better about this stuff.

Well there is no one here who know much better about this stuff, and the people who do know don't bother to contribute.

I am not about to join aviation school just for HOP forum.

PALPA · Post by **PALPA** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:40 am

Unluckily ive flown it as a pilot

AN · Post by AN » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:41 am

Ive flown her....and I can only agree...if the -200's are unsafe... then the -500's are equally unsafe.

Amaad Lone · Post by **Amaad Lone** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:58 am

I would have imagined that an F.27-500 built in 1982 would be in better shape then one built in 1964.

As for unsafe, I dont think the remaining F.27s are unsafe, just really unpopular with the traveling public. And to ground them should be a business decision.

I am sure the engineers of PIA have kept them airworthy, but the sentence on the fokkers has been passed before a trial.

Maybe a wet lease option of a few ATR42s or Fokker-50s should be considered until the remaining six ATR42s join PIA.

raihans · Post by **raihans** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:01 pm

The public opinion has been changed since the tragic incident and most of the passengers dont know the difference of -200s and -500s; they just know its a fokker aircraft and thats why most of the pax are avoiding to travel on PIA's F27s.

So keeping them on commercial flights will be a loss for airline with empty or almost empty flights.

PK777 · Post by **PK777** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 am

raihans wrote:The public opinion has been changed since the tragic incident and most of the passengers dont know the difference of -200s and -500s; they just know its a fokker aircraft and thats why most of the pax are avoiding to travel on PIA's F27s.

Thats true for the average person, so what will happen to the engineers that worked on the Fokker and the capitans that have been training on the Fokkers?

AirBlue · Post by **AirBlue** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:23 pm

Its not just about the flying ... who would want to fly when they see they are boarding another F27? I wouldnt