Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Horizon And It's Opinion On The Q400 Vs The Cr7  
User currently offlineCumulonimbus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6482 times:


Hello Folks,

I was wondering how Horizon feels about the CRJ 700 and The Q400. Does the airline like one better than the other or does the airline Plan on ordering more of the metioned aircraft? I personally like the Q400 a lot better but how does Horizon feel about these two aircraft?

Mike

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCWUPilot From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6390 times:

In a presentation I saw by some of the higher-ups and a pilot, they seemed pretty excited about all three aircraft that they operate. I know that they recently or will soon order more crj's for their new partnership with frontier airlines. I like the 200s and 400s a lot and for an RJ, those 700s aren't bad either.


"The worst day of flying still beats the best day of real work."
User currently offlineS12PPL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6371 times:

From what I could tell, alot of pilots at QX HATE the Q400 for it's APU reliability issues. I've also been told by a QX training pilot "It's like flying a locamotive with wings...."

User currently offlineBronko From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 810 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6355 times:

A locomotive with wings? I was under the impression the Q400 was the 757 of turboprops, have a similiar "thrust" to weight ratio.

Anyone know where I look up performance numbers on a comparitive basis?



Jet City Aviation Photography
User currently offlineS12PPL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6333 times:

It may be, Brokno. But that's just one opinion of one QX training pilot. It's still an un-reliable plane, though. It's APU has got to be one of the worst designs out there. Even if the APU is working, QX has to plug the plane into a GPU because they die so often. I still remember pushing one Q400 out, and because the APU was working, the pilots had us disconnect the ground power so they could start during push. About 1/4 of the way out, I heard over the head set "*censored* APU!" When asked if we needed to stop and connect ground power they said "No, we got it." Then about 30 seconds later *censored censored* APU bleed!" So, the plane has it's problems, and we can hope that Bombardier is working them out. Now, I will say the first officer wasn't screaming, but he was pretty upset at the APU.

User currently offlineLineMechQX From United States of America, joined May 2004, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6279 times:

??? Locomotive on wings? never heard that terminology before. It does have a tremendous thrust to weight ratio. Though I'm not sure where to look to compare it to other aircraft. though this gives a general idea http://q400.com/q400/en/performance.jsp
Apu's have been proven to be very unreliable, one of the big reasons is its not designed as an "airworthy" component. Its only for use on ground and as soon as the FADEC receives its MGWOFW signal it dies. Its only benefit is bleed air for ECS operation with engines off. It doesn't allow for hydraulics, AC power, or deice system troubleshooting. The apu is easily and often deferred (MEL) for 120 days. A more trying issue with the Q400's has been its MLG, they are complex, and between it and PSEU problems, we've had a high rate of return to fields, and ferry flights for gear swings. (Though I still say that's better then the CRJ's problem of dumping fuel overboard mid flight, and spitting out turbine blades)
Horizon does have a place for all of our aircraft. The powers that be are constantly tweaking our route structure and schedule to put the aircraft to the best use.
We do have options to convert our remaining 10 crj orders into Q400's as we did last month with one of our Crj deliveries due next year. I don't think it would surprise anyone if they did this again in the future. We’re relying on the Q400 to help us meet growing capacity needs in high-density, short-haul routes like Seattle-Portland as well as in other routes where the Q400 costs less to operate than the CRJ-700. Anyhow that's all I have to say about that right now.

Late


User currently offlineUshermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2965 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6201 times:

Well, since I do not want to make this into too much of a grammar/spelling topic, I'll say that after flying on the old Dashs and the CRJ-700, I'd go for the Dash.
Maybe it's because I like turboprops in general, or because I didn't get to experience too much flying on the CRJ (Louisville to Cinci isn't that far).



Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently offlineFinnWings From Finland, joined Oct 2003, 640 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6148 times:

It's APU has got to be one of the worst designs out there. Even if the APU is working, QX has to plug the plane into a GPU because they die so often.

S12PPL, that is true indeed.... For the same reason it is also annoying aircraft for the ramp rats. The only aircraft where GPU has to be plugged all the time even it has an APU. There has been also quite a lot technical difficulties with Q400 in the winter conditions as well...

I think Q400 needs more attention by mechanics than other turboprops... Many airlines have stated that they have had a lot of technical difficulties with CRJ 700 as well and airlines have been annoyed, because Bombardier has been inefficient to fix most of the known bugs or they have done it too slowly... Overall, it seems that Bombardier has more reliability issues with their aircrafts than other manufacturers but otherwise CRJs and DHCs are excellent aircrafts and always pleasure to fly on them...

Best Regards,
FinnWings


User currently offlineDreamcraft From Antigua and Barbuda, joined Nov 2003, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5993 times:

I guess that is why Embraer has been winning more orders in recent times.

User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5960 times:

I think Q400 needs more attention by mechanics than other turboprops... Many airlines have stated that they have had a lot of technical difficulties with CRJ 700 as well and airlines have been annoyed, because Bombardier has been inefficient to fix most of the known bugs or they have done it too slowly... Overall, it seems that Bombardier has more reliability issues with their aircrafts than other manufacturers but otherwise CRJs and DHCs are excellent aircrafts and always pleasure to fly on them...

I would say the same is true of their other industrial products as well, such as trains, snowmobiles and personal watercraft. I have owned some of these products and warranty service is terrible and issues are fixed slowly. I know this is a bit of a reach from aerospace products, but just check out sites like seadoo sucks dot com. Personally I am thinking of dumping my Bombardier Seadoos for Boeings, err I mean Yamahas or Kawasakis.

I think corporate wide Bombardier needs to work on their reliability!



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineFullThrottle From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5965 times:

I was down at QX last week talking with the hiring personel and they said they were very happy with the aircraft they have. The Q400 is very cost efficient for the airline and about half ( i could be wrong) at working for Frontier express. With so many Q400 they are going to be flying them from SMF to PSP in the winter. Instead of the CRJ like last year.
Regaurding the APU issue, I am not very knowledgable about the systematic stuff but we were messing around in both the RJ and Q400 and they had the APU on for about 30 minutes. We flew a Q400 down from SEA - PDX and it was good flight. but on the way back the 200 we were suppose to come back on broke and they subsituted it with a CRJ. It was about 1/2 full and it climbed fantastically.
QX is adding another row to the CRJ to let everyone know. Take care.


User currently offlineSuperDash From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 574 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5944 times:

Full Throttle-
Horizon is adding 4 seats to the Q400 and taking it to 74 seats. Thankfully they are not doing that with the CRJ.

Being an MVP Gold (now) with Alaska Air, I do love the Q400. Everyone that works the flights loves the plane as well (I didn't talk to the rampers about it). I know that the Q400 has excellent economics which are much better than the CRJ on runs under 500 miles. At 74 seats and the length of flight, it makes sense to run them Palm Springs-Sacramento and any other shorter haul run. I think Horizon likes both planes. However, the last 3 CRJs have been converted to Q400s. But that likely has more to do with the mission those planes were to fly than a like for either type.


User currently offlineSupraZachAir From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Feb 2004, 634 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5699 times:

S12PPL & Flyboy80:
You two knuckle-heads were arguing about where Horizon can park their planes in EUG in another topic. Thats why Flyboy80 brings it up.  Big grin

Back on topic.

From a ramper's perspective:

I like the RJ better. With the exception of having to use the turboway to board/deplane, it's just slightly less of a pain to deal with. The foreward (carry-out) pit is much more easy access and load. No need to worry about plugging in ground power. And you can load the rear in one shot, i.e. no shelves. Everyone pretty much HATES the white tail (N539DS).
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jet City Aviation Photography




User currently offlineS12PPL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5637 times:

Yes....and I was told by an EUG employee that I was right, and he was wrong...so that's all I needed  Big thumbs up His airport friend may feed him info, but I highly doubt he was fed the info the airlines recieve. He isn't as important as he thinks he is Smile

And yes, the Q400 is a pain in the butt for rampers. The lav service pannel is practically on the ground, the front cargo door is a pain to access, and open/close. You have to pull the Ala 'Carte all the way around the airplane because of the GPU chord. You have to load the rear pit carefully because of the shelves, and keep a very careful count of how many bags are on what shelf....and I've all ready gone into the APU issues. This plane is a pain, and one of the worst ventures Bombardier has gone into in the last few years. If your going to make a regional turbo prop...spend some time making sure you as a company don't have to foot the bill every time your customers find a new problem with it mechanically YOU could have designed better. Bombardier, from what I've heard, has to have someone stationed at Horizon's maint. base at PDX to help sort out problems with the CRJ-700 and Q400..... If they still aren't stationed there, they were the first few years of this aircraft's operation with Horizon.

And, not all pilots like the Q400. I spoke with several Q400 pilots that were groaning because of the rumors they'd heard from QX HQ about the possibility of ordering more Q400's to phase out the Q200's when they're lease comes up...ouch.


User currently offlineAlexinwa From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5577 times:

Just my two cents here.......I'm wondering why almost everyday day I see 1 or 2 -400's sitting either at the cargo ramp or just north of the N gates at SEA during the middle of the day.

I would think that they would be in the air, not sitting on the ground??



You mad Bro???
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Wisconsin And It's Role With The New US posted Wed Sep 28 2005 20:43:48 by ATWZW170
My Opinion On The A380 And The 747 posted Sun Aug 8 2004 18:49:24 by KiwiNanday
First Choice And MyTravel Merger Back On The Cards posted Mon Nov 27 2006 13:23:44 by Gilesdavies
GE Partnership On The 77W - Why Did Boeing Do It? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 21:22:33 by AirbusA6
CO And The Q400 posted Wed Aug 23 2006 01:22:27 by QantasA380
Cfyz - YYZ Radio - Is It Still On The Net? posted Fri Jul 21 2006 19:36:25 by YOW
GE, The A350XWB And It's 773ER Investment posted Mon Jul 17 2006 22:38:46 by AirbusA6
Questions About The CRJ 900X And The Q400 Stretch posted Wed Feb 1 2006 12:38:11 by OyKIE
F9 And QX And The Q400 posted Fri Apr 22 2005 06:53:39 by DLKAPA
Flyjet And Stranded Passengers On The ACC-LGW Rout posted Wed Mar 23 2005 23:01:33 by Soups