Cumulonimbus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3991 times:
Talking to some Flight attendants on both Airlines, I have Heard That ASA will likely Buy the Q-400 to replace the Crj-200. I asked her why they may do this and she stated that, Management believes that it would be much more cost effective due to oil prices. Normally I would just brush this off but I have heard this once before. CO express on the other hand has been looking for Turboprop AC and Also the EMB-170. I remember reading an article that stated this before, I believe it was Forbes. Has anybody heard anything about this? If so I am Curious if these rumors are true.
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8821 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3935 times:
For ASA, I would expect a possible Q400 order, to replace ATRs on the shorter routes. A Q300 order would be more likely to replace CR2s, since they both hold 50 seats...still, I think ASA would keep their current CR2s, as a lot of their routes have stage lengths long enough to warrent CRJ service.
Drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4962 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3932 times:
I doubt COEx will get turboprops under the Expressjet banner--if anything they would only use turboprops from contracted partners ala Colgan and Gulfstream. I've heard the rumour about ERJ-170s, but what does their pilots contract say about that?
Cory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3845 times:
I would strongly doubt that CO Express would buy turboprops - at least not under the ExpressJet/COEx name. CO Connection, maybe, but one of COEx's major marketing points is that they are an all-jet airline.
Highliner2 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 694 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3789 times:
I would love to see the ATR back in COEx colors, but I agree, it won't be under expressjet. However, Colgan apears to be cozying up with CO a little more, they're taking over SkyWest's routes out of IAH.
DAL767400ER From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, RR: 48 Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3778 times:
That ASA Dash-8 rumor has been around for quite some time. ASA is currently getting rid of their leased AT7s, so they will be left with 12 own planes. And they have quite a few routes from ATL like CHA, MCN, GTR or MGM where a big prop has more advantages than a small RJ, plus the speed advantage of the RJ is not of importance due to the short flight length.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5542 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3723 times:
Considering the break even load factor on the Dash8-400 is something like 54%, I don't see why Continental mainline hasn't parked their 737s for Dash 8s!!!
Really though, the DH8 makes lots of economical sense. And personally, I'd rather fly the wider 2-2 seating than the 1-2 NARROWbody. I don't mind a prop. Especially if it means lower fuel burn.
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3777 posts, RR: 30 Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3634 times:
...I have Heard That ASA will likely Buy the Q-400 to replace the Crj-200. I asked her why they may do this and she stated that, Management believes that it would be much more cost effective due to oil prices.
According to a comprehensive study undertaken by Horizon Air before they commited to purchasing both Q-400 turboprops and CRJ-700 jets (both operated in Y70 configuration), the economics of the Q-400 are superior to the CRJ -- with flight times nearly the same -- on flights under 500 miles in distance. Since most flight segments operated by the likes of ASA and CO Express are (still) under 500 miles, the only reason I can imagine for not choosing Q-400s for a major portion of their respective fleet renewal programs would be the issue of prop vs. jet perceptions by customers.
SLC1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3594 times:
If ASA does, that would be great. As far as CoEx, they are proud of their all jet fleet and it probably won't happen, but airlines have been known to sharply reverse positions on issues and take a marketing u-turn.
Miller22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 711 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3564 times:
The problem with turboprops in the US isn't cost, its the loss of revenues from people not wanting to fly them. Almost every route in the US that ASA or COEX could put a Q400 on has a jet alternative. The RJ has been proven to be preferred over the turboprop in the US.
Sure they cost less, but the loss of revenues are greater.
TinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 963 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3493 times:
I would not put much stock in the ASA rumor especially since they have some 30 + aircraft still on firm order from Bombardier. With DL doing all it can to keep pax flying with them, from a marketing standpoint, having ASA switch to turbo-props would be suicide. Also, what about Comair? When it comes to aircraft, your average Joe and Jane pax are very irrational, but they do pay the bills. I agree with Miller22
"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
ANNOYEDFA From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 451 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3466 times:
COEX Is not and WILL not be getting any type of Turbo Prop. We are an all jet fleet and intend to stay that way. No one wants to sit on or work on a hot and loud turbo prop when we fly modern jet aircraft.
Who honestly cares about these small airlines like commute or colgan. They have a few planes and they operate short hops out of IAH, CLE, FL, and upstate NY. At the end of delivery our fleet will be as large as Continentals and with more take-off's and landings in a day. Everytime a junk prop is brought in we are cleared for more expansion through mexico and other cities so it is a benefit to us. I think we just started our 30th city in mexico... It's in my bid packet. Enjoy the props..... I know I won't.....
Ouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4309 posts, RR: 22 Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3423 times:
I think people are a little over dramatic when it comes to props. This isn't like 10 years ago where we were all paying high fares...low fares have spread everywhere. People are look for 1) price and 2) nonstop service. If it makes more sense to redeploy the high cost 50-seat RJs to longer point to point flights...then do it. You won't see many people complain on a comfortable 70+ seat Q400 that is flying at nearly the same speed as its cousin that are paying that cheap fare they love.
Something to think about...American Eagle use to do extremely well, loads and yeilds wise, in TOL to ORD with 5 to 7 AT7s a day. The fares were a bit lower and the people were there. Now they are at 4 50-seat ERJs a day...with higher fares as American tried to increase yeilds. Regardless of people's beliefs of the jet effect...the route has gone from one of the top 5 profitable Eagle only ORD markets to one of the bottom 5. Jets do no good when 1) you have fewer seats, 2) higher fares, and 3) higher costs.
I always liked this picture taken on board of the Q400 demo plane...
Any opinion/comment posted is that of my own and not that of Southwest Airlines Co.
Boeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3375 times:
I wouldn't be surprised if about 60% of the 50 seaters are replaced by the Q400, particularly with DLC. It's a more appropriate aircraft for the route and the same number of pax equate to a break even load, but with 70 vs. 50 seats available. The 400 burns 100-120 GPH less and the speed difference for the routes targeted is nominal. The 70 RJ's will be around, but their economics are better on the 500nm+ segment. Far more flexibility than with the CRJ-200.
The 50 seat RJ....Too Much...Too Soon...So short lived.
What was the old saying? Don't fly a jet anywhere unless is has 64 or more seats...Looks to be holding true once again.
CALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3738 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3125 times:
i would absolutely love to see our colors in the 170. i've been hearing some jokes that they are calling it the 180....b/c it pushes back and turns right back around for maintenance. but this is going to be the wave of the new RJs. Everyone loved the 135/145 when they first came out...but they have lost someof the interest now that they have been stretched to their limits. The 170 will be the new 135/145 in the next 4 years!! and we need some now!!!
okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25996 posts, RR: 78 Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3116 times:
>I have Heard That ASA will likely Buy the Q-400 to replace the Crj-200. I asked her why they may do this and she stated that, Management believes that it would be much more cost effective due to oil prices.<
Would be much more cost effective if oil was half the price.
>I worked on props there IS NO IMPROVEMENTS! They are all hot and noisy....<
I have been downright cold on a Brasilia, and that is a much older turboprop than the Q400 which is the same as a CR7 without the costs and with spinners.
BTW, Turboprops are Jets.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
25 Boeing7E7: BTW, Turboprops are Jets. Yeah well, try and tell that to joe blow who doesn't get it.
26 Rikkus67: I flew on Horizon's Dash 8-Q400 from SEA to YYC shortly after the type was introduced. I found the flight to be AMAZINGLY QUIET, and the seats large a
27 Srbmod: The only way I could see EV getting any Dash 8s would be if some of the Delta Connection Inc. CRJ-200 order slots were to be converted into Dash 8s. W
28 Ouboy79: Nowadays...if you are going to fly a turboprop...you might as well just go in with the larger models due to cost differences - they aren't that great.
29 DALMD88: There is another advantage the Dash8Q400 has at ASA. They can fly an unlimited amount of them. The pure jets are capped by pilot scope clauses. I real
30 KaiGywer: When WF got the Q400 I made sure to fly it over the 300. I was sitting in the very last row talking to a couple of 300-pilots, and as we're talking th
31 Delta-flyer: I am not convinced that the average passenger cares, or even notices, whether the plane on which he is flying is a prop or a jet. Nowadays passengers
32 N1120A: >No one wants to sit on or work on a hot and loud turbo prop when we fly modern jet aircraft.< Um, what makes a turbo-prop not modern?
33 CORULEZ05: totally agree with you Miller......who wants to fly on a turboprop when you can fly on a JET. Revenues would definetly be down especially if you offer
34 Geg2rap: low fare is the name of the game now, if you can lower costs and pass it on, joe blow will fly you here is my thoughts, go for the q400 add free booze
35 737-990: For those who think jets will always win over props look at the pacific northwest and Horizon vs. Southwest. Horizon has maintained it's market share
36 Doug_Or: Not much more than a parrot of previous replies, but the Q400 is a comfortable and modern airplane. My mom (who is extremely afraid of anything with u
37 Avek00: This thread is too funny... CO is looking to bring in turboprops on flights under 300 miles. Why? Because from an economic standpoint, the use of an R
38 JBo: I don't think public perception is as anti-turboprop as it once was. Sure, there are still people who think props are older and unsafe. But on the oth
39 Boeing7E7: Why wouldn't they just order more ATRs since they currently operate the type? Because the ATR is too slow and that speed translates in to less utiliza