Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4858993/

Topic: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: scutfarcus
Posted 2010-07-05 15:18:27 and read 13919 times.

I really like the Q400, much roomier than the RJs. It's marketed as being much more efficient and much cheaper than comparable RJs. So why isn't it more popular in the US? Is it simply the passenger psychology of prop planes? Are there other reason an airline would choose an RJ given the Q400 option?

Thanks!

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: bahadir
Posted 2010-07-05 15:42:47 and read 13840 times.

Much roomier than RJs? I hope you were not referring to CRJs  

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2010-07-05 15:44:57 and read 13832 times.

The Q400 has relative high ownership cost, and has had a fair bit of teething issues at operators. (go ask Lynx most recently).

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: thefuture
Posted 2010-07-05 16:13:52 and read 13755 times.

Qantaslink now has a large fleet of dask 8's inc ~ 21 Q400's.

Flew one the other day.

In their inflight magazine, it said their Q400 range was 2522kms (1362nm) with 70 pax @ 200lb MCR, ISA, SL (whatever those letters mean)

With that sort of range, wouldn't it be a good aircraft for longer thinner routes, that couldn't justify a jet, with much higher operating costs ?

What is currently the longest Q400 route ?

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: SuperDash
Posted 2010-07-05 16:30:38 and read 13669 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
The Q400 has relative high ownership cost, and has had a fair bit of teething issues at operators. (go ask Lynx most recently).



They actually are much cheaper to own than a CRJ-700 or E-170. Their trip costs are very similar to the 50 regional jets. Basically they are about 30% less costly to operate on a 500 mile run than their 70 seat jet counterparts. They are an amazing plane on routes 500 miles or less. They are a good plane on 500-750 miles. However, as LAXintl mentioned, they do not have as strong of a reliability as the jets. So an airline does need to compensate with a higher spare to flying line ratio. Even with that, the costs are far superior to the CRJ-700/E-170.

Why don't more airlines have them? I think most carriers are able to have a stable of 70 seat jets and the marketing folks like jets over props - even though I will tell you there really isn't any discernible book away from large props. Continental was forced into the plane because their scope clause allows only 50 seaters and below on the jet side and the Q400 is a good slot buster at Newark. AA Eagle also operates a large turboprop. Not sure what they will do with the ATRs in the future. I wouldn't be surprised to see a resurgence of the Q400 in the future as 50 seat jets come out of the schedule. But even airlines like Delta are posturing that they will be all jet - which has a nice marketing buzz, but will make the finance department shake their head.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: 9252fly
Posted 2010-07-05 16:45:19 and read 13608 times.

As an interesting side note,Jazz will be using their new Q400's to replace some of their CRJ 200's which will be returned to the lessors rather than their relic DH1 and the less so DH3. In respect to longest stage length,thought I saw a thread where ET was planning a 3.5 hour stage length from ADD to Mombasa.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2010-07-05 16:48:35 and read 13588 times.

Quoting SuperDash (Reply 4):
They actually are much cheaper to own than a CRJ-700 or E-170.

I'm not comparing them to jets, but its prop peers.
New ATR-72 can be had for ~20-30% less, which means lower ownership cost, has a bit lower DOC, and higher reliability.

With the exception of speed, I'd stock up on an ATR fleet anyday, which is probably a reason the type enjoys a record order backlog.

[Edited 2010-07-05 17:01:14]

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: thefuture
Posted 2010-07-05 16:49:50 and read 13585 times.

QF LINK DO BNE & SYD/LHD which is over water & notice they reduce checked baggage to only 14kgs (maybe it's not a Q400 - might be a dash 300)

Why would they have to restrict baggage so more ? Due to carrying lift rafts ?

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: AirNovaBAe146
Posted 2010-07-05 18:34:29 and read 13330 times.

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 5):
In respect to longest stage length,thought I saw a thread where ET was planning a 3.5 hour stage length from ADD to Mombasa.

In 2007 and 2008, SAX flew JNB - FBM, which is ~880 nm. It was blocked at 3hrs and usually took up every bit of that!

IMHO, 2.5hr + stage lengths on the Q400 are excessive, UNLESS it is a unique city pair that would not otherwise get service. However when you push it to 3+ hrs, you delve into the situation where you're often having to take extra fuel, which is going to reduce your payload (pax and cargo).

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):

With the exception of speed, I'd stock up on an ATR fleet anyday, which is probably a reason the type enjoys a record order backlog.

The ATR is clearly a prop - you could make the argument that the Q400 is a jet in a prop's body. It is quiet, fuel efficient, and FAST. You could not place ATR 42s or 72s s on many of of the worldwide routes the Q400 does, without significant time penalty. With the Q400, you can almost forget you are flying on a prop, whereas with a noisy ATR, its kind of hard....

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: FlyASAGuy2005
Posted 2010-07-05 18:54:29 and read 13243 times.

Quoting bahadir (Reply 1):
Much roomier than RJs? I hope you were not referring to CRJs
Quoting AirNovaBAe146 (Reply 8):
You could not place ATR 42s or 72s s on many of of the worldwide routes the Q400 does, without significant time penalty. With the Q400, you can almost forget you are flying on a prop, whereas with a noisy ATR, its kind of hard....

Trip times on the Q400 is pretty much on par with a CR2 at lower altitudes where the generally stay under 400kts.

The ATR is VERY sssllllooooooooooooowwwwwww. You're haulin ass if you get her above 285 on a good day.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: FRNT787
Posted 2010-07-05 18:57:06 and read 13241 times.

Quoting SuperDash (Reply 4):
even though I will tell you there really isn't any discernible book away from large props.

Republic Airways claims there was a significant loss of passengers at DEN flying the Q400. That was part of the reason that they are removing them, and replacing them with Embraers.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: comorin
Posted 2010-07-05 18:57:59 and read 13241 times.

Quoting AirNovaBAe146 (Reply 8):
The ATR is clearly a prop - you could make the argument that the Q400 is a jet in a prop's body. It is quiet, fuel efficient, and FAST. You could not place ATR 42s or 72s s on many of of the worldwide routes the Q400 does, without significant time penalty. With the Q400, you can almost forget you are flying on a prop, whereas with a noisy ATR, its kind of hard....

I am a pax and I detest turboprops! I have flown on AC Dash 8's and AA ATRs and swear that I once had the fillings in my teeth fall off! On the other hand, I love the AC Bombardier (Global Express?) - it's so slick and like a private jet.

To answer the OP, economics favors the turboprops, but if your competitor is fielding a jet, folks are going to take the jet, IMO.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: 9252fly
Posted 2010-07-05 19:16:27 and read 13174 times.

Quoting FRNT787 (Reply 10):
Republic Airways claims there was a significant loss of passengers at DEN flying the Q400.

There must be more to the story than that. I can't imagine when F9 chose the DH4 they failed to do their research.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: FRNT787
Posted 2010-07-05 19:37:53 and read 13118 times.

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 12):
There must be more to the story than that. I can't imagine when F9 chose the DH4 they failed to do their research.

Like I said, that is part of it. Long story short, when Republic bought Frontier, having a small fleet of Q400s became unnecessary. Because Republic operates the largest E-Jet fleet in the world, having 11 Q400s were no longer efficient. The Q400 became more expensive to own and operate than a comparable number of E-Jets. As such, they were dropped in favor of the E-Jets. But, Turbo-Prop avoidance was a major problem in DEN. The Q400s were competing against WN 737s and Skywest CRJs. The passengers made their choice, it was not the Q400.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: DeltaB757TUS
Posted 2010-07-05 21:43:29 and read 12913 times.

IMO the reason the Q400 has not sold very well in the states is that when the majority of the flying public hear the term prop or even turbo prop they automatically think back to the 1950's and back from there to when the only planes in the air where propeller aircraft. So in turn they automatically think the planes is slow noisy and will get tossed around in turbulence. Which if we even think about it a jet flying at 40,000 ft., will get tossed about by turbulence. So in conclusion people want jets because they are faster and save time no matter the length of the flight.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: BMIFlyer
Posted 2010-07-05 22:36:26 and read 12806 times.

Quoting DeltaB757TUS (Reply 14):
IMO the reason the Q400 has not sold very well in the states is that when the majority of the flying public hear the term prop or even turbo prop they automatically think back to the 1950's and back from there to when the only planes in the air where propeller aircraft. So in turn they automatically think the planes is slow noisy and will get tossed around in turbulence. Which if we even think about it a jet flying at 40,000 ft., will get tossed about by turbulence. So in conclusion people want jets because they are faster and save time no matter the length of the flight.

But yet the CO Q400's seem to be popular, no? (Barring the BUF crash)

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: flypba
Posted 2010-07-05 22:52:28 and read 12758 times.

Horizon doesn't have any problems with their Q400s or putting passengers in them

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: ZuluAlpha
Posted 2010-07-05 23:00:32 and read 12730 times.

Quoting thefuture (Reply 7):
QF LINK DO BNE & SYD/LHD which is over water & notice they reduce checked baggage to only 14kgs (maybe it's not a Q400 - might be a dash 300)

Why would they have to restrict baggage so more ? Due to carrying lift rafts ?

My understanding it is still a DH1 or DH2. The reason for the reduced baggage is a couple of reasons. If they arrive and have to do an air turn back, so they have enough fuel for the return flight (flying time is 1hr 50min). Also the runway is just under 3300ft (1000m) so it is a little short as well to cater for a DH3 or a DH4.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: ZuluAlpha
Posted 2010-07-05 23:02:14 and read 12721 times.

Quoting flypba (Reply 16):
Horizon doesn't have any problems with their Q400s or putting passengers in them

Aren't they buying more ?

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: Flyingfox27
Posted 2010-07-06 00:34:47 and read 12322 times.

I think Flybe have quite a big fleet of them too, they are really nice to fly but its a shame they have reduced the flights to MAN but i could fly somewhere else for a change i suppose hehe.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: us330
Posted 2010-07-06 00:39:12 and read 12297 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
I'd stock up on an ATR fleet anyday, which is probably a reason the type enjoys a record order backlog.

I haven't flown on the Q400 yet, but I have flown on the CRJ-200/700, ERJ 145, and the ATR-72 (both the 200 and the 500).

Of those four types of aircraft, the best aircraft, IMO, in terms of cabin roominess and feeling like you are on a jet (in terms of cabin experience) was the ATR72-500--and I say this even having had to sit right by the prop on an hour flight. The 72-500's cabin felt like an EJet (although the overhead bins could be bigger), whereas the other three aircraft felt somewhat confined and cramped.

The aircraft might be slower than its competitors,but it is very much worth considering on certain stage lengths, when speed wouldn't be as much of an issue

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: dashman
Posted 2010-07-06 00:52:38 and read 12222 times.

'

Quote:
I am a pax and I detest turboprops! I have flown on AC Dash 8's and AA ATRs

'
Probably not a fair comparison at 365kts and much quieter when the ANVS system is working properly

Quote:
The Q400 has relative high ownership cost, and has had a fair bit of teething issues at operators

After 10 years many of the teething issues remain and Bombardier is slow, can't or won't adequately address some of those issues. When the 400 is running properly it is an awesome aircraft for legs 2 hours or less. Unfortunately it is not consistently reliable and being reliable is where the CRJ seems to shine.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: B777LRF
Posted 2010-07-06 01:02:20 and read 12156 times.

It is, in my opinion, a piece of aeronautical floatsam. An unholy combination of noise, vibrations and cramped conditions coupled with a tendency to break at every given oppertunity is what it is. I detest it with a vengence, and will not set foot onboard one unless by life depends upon it.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: r2rho
Posted 2010-07-06 01:05:47 and read 12151 times.

Quoting scutfarcus (Thread starter):
I really like the Q400, much roomier than the RJs. It's marketed as being much more efficient and much cheaper than comparable RJs. So why isn't it more popular in the US? Is it simply the passenger psychology of prop planes? Are there other reason an airline would choose an RJ given the Q400 option?

A combination of factors, but mainly the RJ madness/cheap fuel of the 90's, complemented by a passenger perception created by the airlines and based on a now outdated idea of turboprops. In consequence, the US legacies are now trapped with hundreds of inefficient 50-seat RJ's...

Oil prices are not going to go down, so I see good chances for the Q400 in the future. Even better if BBD launches the proposed stretch.

Quoting AirNovaBAe146 (Reply 8):
The ATR is clearly a prop - you could make the argument that the Q400 is a jet in a prop's body. It is quiet, fuel efficient, and FAST. You could not place ATR 42s or 72s s on many of of the worldwide routes the Q400 does, without significant time penalty. With the Q400, you can almost forget you are flying on a prop, whereas with a noisy ATR, its kind of hard....

Noisy ATR? I guess this should be no surprise since the ATR's flying in North America are all old models and I don't know of any -500 customers in the region, so you'd have to go abroad to ride one of those. Once you do, it should dramatically change your impression of the aircraft.

As for speed, ATR's are indeed slower but on shorter routes this can be insignificant. Routes in the US are typically longer so the Q400's speed may be useful, but in other regions with shorter routes, the ATR can be the better option. As LAXintl points out it has lower DOC and acquisition costs, and it has better cargo capacity too. So in the end the choice between one or the other depends on each airline's route structure.

Quoting AirNovaBAe146 (Reply 8):
IMHO, 2.5hr + stage lengths on the Q400 are excessive, UNLESS it is a unique city pair that would not otherwise get service.

For certain small communities in the US still served by RJ's, in the future they will probably have to choose between turboprop or no air service at all.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: mbe0002
Posted 2010-07-06 01:10:12 and read 12122 times.

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 5):
In respect to longest stage length,thought I saw a thread where ET was planning a 3.5 hour stage length from ADD to Mombasa.

ET also flies ADD-DAR, daytime flight with 737 takes 2:40-3:00 hrs. and red-eye with Dash8 3:30 hrs. (according to the ET-Website) . As the seat pitch and the 2-2 seating of the Dash8 is usually quite comfortable I would prefer to go by "prop". Btw. do they have installed ovens to serve hot food?

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: aireuropeuk733
Posted 2010-07-06 05:54:22 and read 11200 times.

Quoting Flyingfox27 (Reply 19):

I believe that Flybe have the largest fleet of Q400s in the world (?)

I have flown on them numerous times SOU-NCL/MAN/GLA and have to say they make a nice change to the babybusses and 737s.

AE733

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: BMIFlyer
Posted 2010-07-06 07:22:07 and read 10655 times.

Quoting aireuropeuk733 (Reply 25):
I believe that Flybe have the largest fleet of Q400s in the world (?)

I think they have 55 - 60 of the type, although I can't be sure. The rest are Embraer 195's (14)

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2010-07-06 08:17:01 and read 10496 times.

I've yet to fly on a Q400 but have done dozens of flights on AC/Jazz -100 and 300's. They are buzzy beasts on takeoff but quite tolerable in cruise. I have no hesitations about flying on one again even if my life didn't depend on it.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: THEBATMAN
Posted 2010-07-06 08:54:05 and read 10199 times.

I believe that turboprops don't catch on here in the U.S. for the same reason diesel cars don't - it's all in their heads. "turboprops are loud and slow"...."diesel cars are stinky and dirty and won't start in the winter"... a real shame if you ask me. The Q400 is super efficient on shorter routes, and those passengers that I know who have flown on them have really enjoyed it. But again, the regionals here believe that if you go with a turboprop, passengers will continue to look for carriers that have jets.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: AviationAddict
Posted 2010-07-06 09:22:56 and read 9967 times.

Quoting DeltaB757TUS (Reply 14):
So in conclusion people want jets because they are faster and save time no matter the length of the flight.

I don't agree with that. For short hops (say 200 NM or less) the jets aren't always able to open it up due to traffic/routing/altitude restrictions so they end up traveling at the same speeds as the turbos. As I've mentioned in previous posts I have flown on Colgan Q400s between BOS/MHT and EWR and everytime the Q's got me home faster than the ERJs or B735s. This is mainly because the turbos generally fly a more or less direct route where the jets end up getting vectored all over the place.

I love the Q's, I wish more airlines flew them here in the states. But, as many people have suggested, the general public usually equates props with "old" and jets with "modern" (look at the studies Continental did with the 737s with no winglets vs. those with winglets) so the airlines shy away from them, despite the potential economic benefits.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: thegreatRDU
Posted 2010-07-06 09:34:53 and read 9877 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
New ATR-72 can be had for ~20-30% less, which means lower ownership cost, has a bit lower DOC, and higher reliability.

With the exception of speed, I'd stock up on an ATR fleet anyday, which is probably a reason the type enjoys a record order backlog.

The ATR is noisier, night and day slower, only has boarding through the rear door, and balance issues...

I love the Q400

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: FlyASAGuy2005
Posted 2010-07-06 09:42:32 and read 9825 times.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 22):
It is, in my opinion, a piece of aeronautical floatsam. An unholy combination of noise, vibrations and cramped conditions coupled with a tendency to break at every given oppertunity is what it is. I detest it with a vengence, and will not set foot onboard one unless by life depends upon it.
Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 29):
This is mainly because the turbos generally fly a more or less direct route where the jets end up getting vectored all over the place.

True. Where the jets fly standard SIDs; ASA's ATRs were given immediate turns upon T/O to get them out of the way. My recent EWR-ORF on Colgan's Q400 was pretty quick IMO. Trip time was about the same as the CR2s flying to NYC from Norfolk on DL or US Air.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: cschleic
Posted 2010-07-06 10:07:03 and read 9637 times.

Quoting flypba (Reply 16):
Horizon doesn't have any problems with their Q400s or putting passengers in them

Generally true. But, as a passenger, there's a limit to the length of time I'd want to spend in one, particularly if the competition flies larger jets. Horizon flies them up to about 750 miles non-stop, but also lists one-stops in their schedule that are longer.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: spud757
Posted 2010-07-06 11:30:15 and read 9110 times.

I love the Q400 - flown Flybe ex-MAN a number of times on domestic routes to BHD, IOM and BOH. Much nicer to fly on than the E145 which feels tiny. The Q400 is a comfortable ride and takes off like a rocket. Not noticed it being any noiser than a jet in flight. Only downside I'd say is the toilet - tiny. Anyone heavier than 70kg will find it a tight squeeze. but in short... love this aircraft

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: willd
Posted 2010-07-06 15:10:29 and read 7658 times.

I too have been flying on the BE Q400's since about 2005 and must say they are a fantastic plane and well suited to the BE network. The ride is comfortable, modern interior and do give a rather sprightly take off experience.

IIRC I did read a recent trip report on here that said BE uses the Q400 on charter services from IOM-PMI and IOM-AGP, surely that must be a fair old trek if correct.

Quoting BMIFlyer (Reply 26):
I think they have 55 - 60 of the type, although I can't be sure. The rest are Embraer 195's (14)

They currently have 58 with a further 8 to be delivered at some point in the future.

Quoting aireuropeuk733 (Reply 25):
I believe that Flybe have the largest fleet of Q400s in the world (?)

Yes they are the world's largest operator of the Q400.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: 9252fly
Posted 2010-07-06 15:55:29 and read 7485 times.

Quoting willd (Reply 34):

Yes they are the world's largest operator of the Q400.

As the world's largest operator,what would regular BE customers have to say about the reliability of the fleet? QX was an early adopter of the type and seem to have had dispatch issues with the early units. Not too sure about SK,let's leave out the landing gear issue.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: scutfarcus
Posted 2010-07-06 16:48:10 and read 7397 times.

Fascinating, thanks for all the replies. I probably should have been asking about props in general, but the Q400 was on my mind having just gotten off a Horizon flight. Now that I've looked at some cross-sectionals I see it's actulaly not any more roomy than many of the Jets.

However, it's that passenger psychology thing that really gets me interested. I reckon many passengers have no idea they're on a prop if they board from a bridge and sit in front, and certainly not at the time of booking. Horizon seems to be doing a big push in their magazine and ads at the airport promoting the Q400 as efficient, comfy, and 'green', so I wonder if it'll start to have an effect!

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: WROORD
Posted 2010-07-06 17:46:02 and read 7329 times.

Quoting scutfarcus (Thread starter):
I really like the Q400, much roomier than the RJs. It's marketed as being much more efficient and much cheaper than comparable RJs. So why isn't it more popular in the US? Is it simply the passenger psychology of prop planes? Are there other reason an airline would choose an RJ given the Q400 option?

I think that Q400 is not widely used in US, but quite popular elsewhere. Porter and Jazz in Canada, SAS, Augsburg Airways flying for LH, Air Baltic in Europe to name a few customers.

I think airlines do not like them becuase pax do not like them, besides RJ can go further and at higher altitudes.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 9):
The ATR is VERY sssllllooooooooooooowwwwwww. You're haulin ass if you get her above 285 on a good day.

ATR is coming up with 72-600, which is supposed to be in direct competition to Q400.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: 413X3
Posted 2010-07-06 17:56:21 and read 7299 times.

people have no idea what airplane they are flying, and if they see Q400 do you think anyone would have a clue? They just want cheap tickets. That's it.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: queb
Posted 2010-07-06 18:16:57 and read 7272 times.

Quoting WROORD (Reply 37):
ATR is coming up with 72-600, which is supposed to be in direct competition to Q400.

You're right but the Q400 max cruise speed is 360 knots at 25,000 feet (276 knots at 17,000 feet for the ATR 72-600) and has a range of 1362 nautical miles (907 for the ATR 72-600). In addition, the Q400 has a cabin slightly longer than the ATR 72, which can add one or two seat rows.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: FRNT787
Posted 2010-07-06 18:17:46 and read 7266 times.

Quoting 413X3 (Reply 38):
people have no idea what airplane they are flying, and if they see Q400 do you think anyone would have a clue? They just want cheap tickets. That's it.

According to Republic Airways, that was simply not true.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: 413X3
Posted 2010-07-06 19:03:25 and read 7185 times.

Quoting FRNT787 (Reply 40):
According to Republic Airways, that was simply not true.

Any published reports? Or are we just supposed to take their word for it? Going by the history of that company, I'm sure it has more to do with them probably having to pay the pilots more than other airplanes

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: thegreatRDU
Posted 2010-07-06 19:10:10 and read 7161 times.

Quoting FRNT787 (Reply 40):
Quoting 413X3 (Reply 38):
people have no idea what airplane they are flying, and if they see Q400 do you think anyone would have a clue? They just want cheap tickets. That's it.

According to Republic Airways, that was simply not true.

It is true price is the ultimate loyalty factor

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: jetboy319
Posted 2010-07-07 02:02:50 and read 6934 times.

Quoting 413X3 (Reply 41):

The general public does not have access to any internal mechanical/reliability reports and as such, are simply led to believe what they are told. As one could argue that the Q400 is reliable, green and efficient based upon what they read, one could also argue that the general public isn't getting the full story. A previous poster stated that Horizon hasn't had any issues with the Q400. No airline can claim that any plane in their fleet has "no issues.' Horizon certainly has had and will continue to have issues with their Q400s as does Porter, Colgan, Lynx (until they ceased to operate) and every other operator of the type. Same thing can be said for every other airline operating any aircraft model in operation today. Planes will break regardless of the type of aircraft and who operates them. No airline is immune and if they were they wouldn't need line maintenance. That said, public perception would be very interesting to trend should mechanical/reliability reports be made public.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: ETinCaribe
Posted 2010-07-07 10:56:09 and read 6705 times.

Quoting thefuture (Reply 3):
MCR, ISA, SL (whatever those letters mean)

BTW, anyone knows what these mean, esp. ISA, which I have seen in another thread.

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 5):
In respect to longest stage length,thought I saw a thread where ET was planning a 3.5 hour stage length from ADD to Mombasa.

Correct, ADD-DAR (Addis Abeba to Dar Es Salaam) and other regional routes. According to Great Circle Mapper, distance b/w those city pair is 1080 miles.

Quoting comorin (Reply 11):
I am a pax and I detest turboprops! I have flown on AC Dash 8's and AA ATRs

So do I but have never flown the Q400. Only fly ATR72s MIA-NAS and I must say it is not very confortable (granted, these are old ATRs)

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2010-07-07 11:04:19 and read 6692 times.

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 12):
I can't imagine when F9 chose the DH4 they failed to do their research.

F9 did their research wayyyyy before RAH ever took over. Keep in mind that RAH is now the new owners of F9.

Quoting FRNT787 (Reply 10):
Republic Airways claims there was a significant loss of passengers at DEN flying the Q400.

I'm still waiting for BB to come up with some "Turboprop Avoidance Factor" evidence as proof. I have yet to see that and still waiting for it. L3 getting rid of their Q's - in my opinion - is a mistake.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: pnwtraveler
Posted 2010-07-07 11:31:13 and read 6639 times.

Does the Q have the higher beltline of windows similar to the CRJ700/900/1000? I would think that perhaps that adds to the perception that the fuselage is more spacious compared to the early CRJ family. Perhaps it is the length that gives the perception as well. Many say it is more spacious despite being the same cross section.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: nitepilot79
Posted 2010-07-07 12:29:04 and read 6532 times.

[quote=FlyASAGuy2005,reply=9]
The ATR is VERY sssllllooooooooooooowwwwwww. You're haulin ass if you get her above 285 on a good day.[/quote

Am I right to assume the ATRs are a bit underpowered?

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2010-07-07 12:39:42 and read 6504 times.

Quoting ETinCaribe (Reply 44):
Quoting thefuture (Reply 3):
MCR, ISA, SL (whatever those letters mean)


BTW, anyone knows what these mean, esp. ISA, which I have seen in another thread.

SL - sea level
ISA - International Standard Atmosphere
http://www.answers.com/topic/standard-atmosphere-1

Not sure what MCR means.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: LimaFoxTango
Posted 2010-07-07 14:12:29 and read 6397 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 48):
Not sure what MCR means.

Maximum CRuise power setting.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: Arrow
Posted 2010-07-07 15:14:01 and read 6346 times.

Quoting nitepilot79 (Reply 47):
Am I right to assume the ATRs are a bit underpowered?

I doubt that. They perform the way they were designed to perform, and from the sound of it they do it very well. The Q400 was designed to go a lot faster, and the price for that is lower fuel efficiency than the ATR. Everything is a compromise -- you can 't go very fast and sip jet fuel simultaneously.

I'm guessing that up to 300 km, the ATR is the best buy; between 300-500, it's a sawoff, and above 500 km to 1000 km the Q400's speed is worth the extra gas. That's just an uneducated opinion.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: EXTspotter
Posted 2010-07-07 15:38:12 and read 6307 times.

I use BE's Q400s reasonably often and reliability hasn't been an issue for me. I often am looking at the exeter airport website and even mech delays or cancellations on BE's Q400s are very low - I look at the site most days and I haven't seen a delay for maybe 3 months.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: FRNT787
Posted 2010-07-07 20:51:30 and read 6139 times.

Quoting 413X3 (Reply 41):
Any published reports? Or are we just supposed to take their word for it? Going by the history of that company, I'm sure it has more to do with them probably having to pay the pilots more than other airplanes

Nobody publishes that kind of data. I have seen a very strait-forward CEO at RAH since watching this acquisition. From the beginning, he said he didnt like turboprops, yet the decision was not made until 6 months later. They seem to have done their research.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 45):
I'm still waiting for BB to come up with some "Turboprop Avoidance Factor" evidence as proof. I have yet to see that and still waiting for it. L3 getting rid of their Q's - in my opinion - is a mistake.

I can believe the avoidance factor exists. Plus, with all the costs involved with Lynx, versus the large E Jet fleet, the Q400s cost more for Republic. Lynx was operating flights it was never intended to fly, and many routes it was intended to fly, were remarkably unprofitable. Thus, they are out of here.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: bjorn14
Posted 2010-07-08 02:04:48 and read 5949 times.

Quoting WROORD (Reply 37):
ATR is coming up with 72-600, which is supposed to be in direct competition to Q400.

I wish they would have picked the PW150 engine instead of the PW127M at least they could compete with the spead factor of the Q400.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2010-07-08 11:30:18 and read 5698 times.

Quoting FRNT787 (Reply 52):
I can believe the avoidance factor exists. Plus, with all the costs involved with Lynx, versus the large E Jet fleet, the Q400s cost more for Republic.

Costs are one thing, I can understand that. But the "Avoidance Factor". Are folks REALLY avoiding turboprops? I'd think not. I mean, C'mon.... Look at what Horizon does with their Q's. Those folks are not avoiding the turboprops there.

Quoting FRNT787 (Reply 52):
Lynx was operating flights it was never intended to fly, and many routes it was intended to fly, were remarkably unprofitable. Thus, they are out of here.

I'd like to agree with you, but I cannot. Look at QX: They are flying the Q from SEA to BZN. That is a long, long flight on a Q400 and it is working for them pretty well.

Why is it working for QX if , in theory, it isn't for L3? That is what I don't understand. I am beginning to think that the "Turboprop Avoidance Factor" is nothing but hot air and a load a BS.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: FRNT787
Posted 2010-07-08 11:39:20 and read 5687 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 54):
I can understand that. But the "Avoidance Factor". Are folks REALLY avoiding turboprops? I'd think not. I mean, C'mon.... Look at what Horizon does with their Q's. Those folks are not avoiding the turboprops there.

Well, Lynx has had low load factors from the beginning. So either Frontier is terrible at marketing only their Lynx routes (despite being able to market their own mainline routes), or those passengers are flying United CRJs and Southwest 737s (both jets). Given similar pricing, I dont know anyone who would fly on the Q400 instead of a CRJ or 737. They just are not popular here, and I know many, many people who avoid them like the plague.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 54):
I'd like to agree with you, but I cannot. Look at QX: They are flying the Q from SEA to BZN. That is a long, long flight on a Q400 and it is working for them pretty well

What I meant is that the Lynx Q400s are not flying routes they were originally bought for. The are flying routes Republic was originally intended to fly. I have flown the Q400 numerous times from PRC-FLG-LAX. All-in-all about 2 hours. I would not want to be on one any longer.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: joecanuck
Posted 2010-07-08 11:40:12 and read 5688 times.

In Canada, turbo props have been a fact of life, seemingly forever. While I'm sure it happens, I don't know of anybody who avoided a flight because it was a prop.

Price is the most important deciding criteria.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2010-07-08 11:53:42 and read 5651 times.

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 56):
In Canada, turbo props have been a fact of life, seemingly forever.

AC (then TCA) was the first airline in North America to operate turbine-powered equipment when they put their first turboprop Viscounts in service in April 1955.

Today, there are many routes in the more remote parts of Canada where your only option is staying home if you don't like flying turboprops. It's often the only means of transportation.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2010-07-08 12:32:07 and read 5581 times.

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 56):
In Canada, turbo props have been a fact of life, seemingly forever. While I'm sure it happens, I don't know of anybody who avoided a flight because it was a prop.

Fond memories of YWG-YQR-YYC-YLW-YVR on an Air BC DH1 many years ago. Esp. the strong X-wind landing in YLW ! Rockin' and rollin'. I also once did YWG-YEG-YVR on a Viscount, plus several YWG-YQR-YYC-YVR on the mighty Vanguard.

Ah, nostalgia...

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: scutfarcus
Posted 2010-07-08 14:54:35 and read 5476 times.

So.... based on this convo, my alter-ego wrote a little blog post on the subject:

http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/07/...w-passenger-psychology-wastes-fuel

Bear in mind, this it NOT aimed at an aviation audience, but I'm curious what folks think (and if I'm utterly wrong - please be nice!)

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2010-07-08 16:08:57 and read 5405 times.

Quoting scutfarcus (Reply 59):
So.... based on this convo, my alter-ego wrote a little blog post on the subject:

http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/07/...w-passenger-psychology-wastes-fuel

Bear in mind, this it NOT aimed at an aviation audience, but I'm curious what folks think (and if I'm utterly wrong - please be nice!)

Nick -

I think a well-written piece that captures the essence of this thread - it's about the perception that jets are somehow 'better' (faster, safer, more comfortable, whatever). But the perception lies with the great majority of the unwashed who have no real interest in aviation other than as a transport commodity. The airlines do pay attention to that, but I think, particularly in Horizon's case, the emphasis on the 'greeenness' of the Q400 is actually starting to win. I guess it helps that they serve a large market in Oregon ...

I'm adding you to my RR list.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2010-07-08 16:14:48 and read 5402 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 60):
it's about the perception that jets are somehow 'better' (faster, safer, more comfortable, whatever).

With that in mind, people don't realize that the Q400 is actually a jet with props. It has a turbine engine.

Topic: RE: Q400 Questions - Why Is It Not More Common?
Username: SuperDash
Posted 2010-07-08 16:31:51 and read 5379 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 54):
Costs are one thing, I can understand that. But the "Avoidance Factor". Are folks REALLY avoiding turboprops? I'd think not. I mean, C'mon.... Look at what Horizon does with their Q's. Those folks are not avoiding the turboprops there.



I agree. Bombardier did a survey for Horizon back in the day and aircraft type was fifth on the list of preferences for buying a ticket. Price and schedules were the top picks. Even frequent flyer program was ahead of equipment type. I think people on this board believe the myth that there is prop avoidance. But in truth, most people dont know what kind of plane they are on and they certainly couldn't tell you the difference between a 757 or Q400.

And while I will say that in all my years with Horizon, I am sure there were people that avoid props, but there were plenty of others to fill the seats of those that avoided it. Therefore, flying the Q400 up against a Southwest 737 was never a problem


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/