Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops  
User currently offlineBigOrange From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2371 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11201 times:

Source:http://www.flightglobal.com

There were the strongest signs yet of a revival of the turboprop in the USA at the Regional Airline Association’s (RAA) annual conference in Dallas, Texas last week, when it emerged that Continental Airlines has issued a request for proposals (RFP) for 24 new 70-seat turboprops.

According to industry sources, the airline’s RFP specifies that 12 turboprops will operate from Continental’s New York Newark hub and an equal number from the carrier’s Houston hub. Both airports will lose capacity under a new feeder deal with its regional associate ExpressJet, which has to take 69 Embraer ERJ-145s out of its current 274-strong regional jet fleet.

Continental, which phased out its turboprops, now wants 24 70-seaters

The turboprop RFP, which the airline says is just one of several options “for our future regional flying needs”, marks the first serious interest in new-build large turboprops since the 1990s from a US legacy carrier.

Continental was among the pioneers in the USA of an effort to move to an all-jet regional fleet, phasing out its ATR and Embraer turboprops in favour of ERJ-145s. However, more recently the airline has begun to re-introduce some turboprop feeder services through contracts with Colgan Air, Gulfstream International and Regions Air.

ATR and Bombardier – the two producers of 70-seat turboprops in the form of the ATR 72-500 and Dash 8 Q400, respectively – are said to be excited about the potential prospects of the RFP. Both have been waiting and hoping for a revival of the turboprop market in the USA.

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3414 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11138 times:

well, if this happens I can see CO overlaying DL's JFK DH8 network with these (ALB, BDL, PVD, PWM, MHT, ROC, SYR, etc.) out of EWR and at 20 more seats than the 145's I'd be happy to see the additional capacity here.

Having said that, please don't drag the RJ versus turboprop into this - these flights are all about a hour long max and the economics of the industry are dictating that the RJ is just too expensive to profitably operate some of these routes.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11093 times:

Oh please let them me Q400's and not another stone in the river if the RJ fleet must be downsized which I still hope doesn't happen.....GO JETLINCOLN!


Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineAzstagecoach From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10969 times:

are the interiors of the ERJ 145's and the Q400 and ATR72 about the same except for the length? Any thoughts on whether there would be a F cabin?

COEX has very nice interiors on those 145's... it would be a shame to give those up.


User currently offlineCaptainJon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10943 times:

this would be very good indeed and id book a flight on that plane for the hell of it. though i'd love to gone on an ATR-45, any flown nowadays here? I was recently in Israel where I flown from Eilat to Ben Gurion (was supposed to flown to Sde Dov on an ATR-72 i believe) but the flight was cancelled and they put two flights together on a 757. Nice short ride, kinda weird though because they put me in 7E and hte front was empty and they insisted full rows to be used...and the front was 3-3 config too...must suck for the international flights it does...

User currently offlineTjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2461 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10899 times:

Hope it's the Q400. If I figured correctly, the Q400 outperforms the ATR72-500 in load capacity by 3,700-6,200 lbs depending on version.

Would actually look somewhat like this one.....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wojciech Malak (Wlkp_Spotters)



[Edited 2006-05-31 17:42:27]


Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10830 times:

Quoting BigOrange (Thread starter):
Continental was among the pioneers in the USA of an effort to move to an all-jet regional fleet, phasing out its ATR and Embraer turboprops in favour of ERJ-145s.

I find this particularly interesting. I memory serves me correctly, Continental was the first to go to an all jet fleet in about 1999. They went through a huge advertising phase where they talked about flying the youngest fleet in the nation (when counting those brand new ERJs) and the only all jet fleet in the country. Continental's advertising probably had something to do with pushing the thought of turboprops being outdated into the public's heads.

Quoting Azstagecoach (Reply 3):
are the interiors of the ERJ 145's and the Q400 and ATR72 about the same except for the length? Any thoughts on whether there would be a F cabin?

The Q400 and ATR72 are nicer. They are wider and can probably compare more to a CRJ as they have 4 abreast seating. Also they have active noise cancelling, which makes for the perception of a quiet flight even though your head is still ringing at the end of the day.

You definitely can add a first class cabin to the planes. I believe Czech Airlines has a small business class section in the back of their ATRs.

[Edited 2006-05-31 17:45:02]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineTjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2461 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10731 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 6):
They are wider and can probably compare more to a CRJ as they have 4 abreast seating.

The Q400 cabin compares very closely to the CRJ700 cabin. With a slightly longer cabin, the Q400 has more volume in the cabin than the CRJ700. Q400 has 2740 cubic ft, the CRJ700 has 2430 cubic ft. The cabin heights and widths are within a couple inches of each other.



Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
User currently offlineFlyHoss From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10530 times:

Another question is what carrier will operate these aircraft? The incumbants like, ExpressJet, Colgan, Commutair or Gulfstream? Or a new (to CO) operator? Horizon, perhaps? Since Horizon already operates the Q400, that might be the quickest solution (assuming CO orders Q400s), allowing CO to more quickly replace seats lost when ExpressJet begins to withdraw the 69 ERJs.
The CO pilot contract scope clause would allow these aircraft to be flown by an "outside" (non-CO) operator. There have already been posts on the "CAL Forum" website by CO pilots who would like to have the chance to fly these aircraft.



A little bit louder now, a lil bit louder now...
User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3414 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10438 times:

speaking of Commutair - I remember reading that they will be expanding their flying with a larger fleet type by the end of this year. Anyone have any updates?? I wonder if this is a coincidence???

User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10385 times:

Quoting FlyHoss (Reply 8):
Another question is what carrier will operate these aircraft? The incumbants like, ExpressJet, Colgan, Commutair or Gulfstream? Or a new (to CO) operator? Horizon, perhaps? Since Horizon already operates the Q400, that might be the quickest solution (assuming CO orders Q400s), allowing CO to more quickly replace seats lost when ExpressJet begins to withdraw the 69 ERJs.

If the Q's Horizon would be nice.....but what is it with the contract signed with Chautauqua a month or so back, I thought it was for them to crew RJ's but not sure if their a/c of what?

Quoting Tjwgrr (Reply 5):
If I figured correctly, the Q400 outperforms the ATR72-500 in load capacity by 3,700-6,200 lbs depending on version.

From what I've seen of the Q400 it runs circles around an ATR of any version and much more advanced flight deck.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineCLE757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10093 times:

CLE-PIT could use some larger turbo props!

Pittsburgh air traffic up, despite US Airways
Wednesday May 31, 12:06 pm ET
Despite a double-digit dip from US Airways, passenger traffic at Pittsburgh International Airport rose 2.4 percent in April from a year ago, the first increase since September 2004, and only the fourth monthly rise since August 2001.


A total of 850,887 passengers were enplaned and deplaned at the airport in April 2006, compared to 830,645 in April 2005, according to the Scheduled Airline Traffic Report issued by the Allegheny County Airport Authority.

US Airways (NYSE:LCC - News) and US Airways Express had a 12.9 percent decrease in traffic in April 2006 compared to April 2005 (468,098/537,216) and year to date, its combined traffic is down 16.4 percent (1,742,017/2,083,520).

Still, US Airways remained the dominant carrier, transporting more than 55 percent of people to and from the airport.

Southwest (NYSE:LUV - News) reported a total of 91,643 passengers in April - a total of 10.8 percent of total scheduled traffic.

Seven other airlines reported increases, including Midwest Airlines, which had a 111.6 percent increase (7,676 passengers in April 2006/3,628 passengers in April 2005). Air Canada (2,891/1,894, 52.6 percent), Continental (NYSE:CAL - News; 39,357/27,615, 42.5 percent), American (35,253/32,082, 9.9 percent), United (59,077/54,076, 9.2 percent), Delta (63,311/60,794, 4.1 percent) and Northwest (NASDAQ:NWAC - News; 40,442/39,465, 2.5 percent).

For the year, scheduled airline traffic is down 3.5 percent in 2006 compared to 2005 (3,100,901/3,214,705).

Published May 31, 2006 by Pittsburgh Business Times



Cleveland the best location in the Nation
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10060 times:

This story finally surfaced......it took a while as this has been floating around for about a year now.

Last year, CO was looking at 70 seat turboprops and was very impressed with the Q400, thats all I can really say at this point. And,the Q400s are not for Expressjet.


User currently offlineNuggetsyl From United States of America, joined May 2006, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9936 times:

Ahhhhhh dutchjet you beat me to the punch. I was going to say that cal has to fly the planes because of the pilots contract.

User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9902 times:

CO did demo a few Q400's at IAH last year!


Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineANNOYEDFA From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 451 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9820 times:

CAL pilot's will not be flying props... EVER. The scope is for jet's not props.


"TWA... One Mission, Yours."
User currently offlineNuggetsyl From United States of America, joined May 2006, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9757 times:

Quoting ANNOYEDFA (Reply 15):
CAL pilot's will not be flying props... EVER. The scope is for jet's not props.

Maybe i am mistaken but it though it was for seats (anything above 50) has to be flown by cal pilots out of there hubs.


User currently offlineYOW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9730 times:

Quoting FlyHoss (Reply 8):
allowing CO to more quickly replace seats lost when ExpressJet begins to withdraw the 69 ERJs.

Aren't those 69 ERJs being replaced by an exact number of 50-seaters by Chautauqua?


User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1959 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9556 times:

Quoting Nuggetsyl (Reply 16):
Maybe i am mistaken but it though it was for seats (anything above 50) has to be flown by cal pilots out of there hubs.

Nope, CAL's scope clause covers jets with more than 50 seats and turboprops with more than 80 seats. As long as they have less than 80 seats, they will be flown by a regional.

Quoting YOW (Reply 17):
Aren't those 69 ERJs being replaced by an exact number of 50-seaters by Chautauqua?

Nope, Expressjet is keeping those 69 ERJ's, so CAL will not be giving them to CHQ. Currently, it's still up in the air if CHQ will fly for CAL at all, since the original agreement was predicated on flying the old XJT aircraft. The fact that they must now obtain other aircraft changes everything.


User currently offlineOptionsCLE From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8698 times:

There has been talk of this for a long time. Commutair was making noise about flying the Q400 from CLE.

User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7301 times:

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 18):
Nope, Expressjet is keeping those 69 ERJ's, so CAL will not be giving them to CHQ. Currently, it's still up in the air if CHQ will fly for CAL at all, since the original agreement was predicated on flying the old XJT aircraft. The fact that they must now obtain other aircraft changes everything.

Oh great, you mean if the contract is going to go as currently done to CHQ then the nicely painted like CAL, interior to match, and the crew uniforms might have to change from the CAL/ExpressJet same to another........ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no please no! I've written a couple of letters to CAL about this as I hope numerous others in the OnePass Elite group and others to NOT let this happen, let alone having to lose our much liked "Jetlincoln" guys/girls!!!! Should it occur the Q400 is my desire to replace a jet with a prop.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6926 times:

ExpressJet's callsign is actually 'Jetlink', not Jetlincoln.

User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6833 times:

Quoting 777gk (Reply 21):
ExpressJet's callsign is actually 'Jetlink', not Jetlincoln.

It is, oh my, now what am I to do!

It is a local lingo thing for some of us kids but never mind, guess it will have to be rethought for sure, what could it become?  mischievous 



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineHPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1024 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6759 times:

Quoting YOW (Reply 17):
Aren't those 69 ERJs being replaced by an exact number of 50-seaters by Chautauqua?

that deal's dead in the water...



Why do I fly???
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6727 times:

Quoting 777gk (Reply 21):
ExpressJet's callsign is actually 'Jetlink', not Jetlincoln.

Phew... I was trying to figure out who this JetLincoln person was and if I had competition for the name here on A.Net (just two weeks ago I met the only other person with the first name Lincoln I've, well, ever met).

Lincoln



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
25 DTWAGENT : Well, I was thinking since Mesaba is losing it's RJ and going with their Saab 340's. Why not go with the Saab 2000. It is a larger aircraft for NW. Al
26 Lincoln : Couldn't agree more -- the aircraft itself is mildly tolerable, uncomfortable for a tall person, very light as far as comforts go -- gaspers, useful
27 Thomasphoto60 : If this were to come to pass I am sure that a number of local markets served from IAH, i.e. BPT, CLL and others who have been clamouring for years for
28 KAUSpilot : This is greatly appreciated. Long live the Jetlincoln controller at houston approach. Nothing like hearing "give me a good rate or turn on departure"
29 Supa7e7 : Clearly, CO would love some 70 to 90 seat jets. But props are their only option due to scope.
30 ContnlEliteCMH : Is that so clear? I have personally flown on many CO flights that would surely be more profitable on a turboprop. CLE-CMH comes to mind. I think I've
31 ContnlEliteCMH : I wrote them a similar letter a few months back and received a personalized email in return. I told them that one reason I flew CO was because of the
32 Stirling : I think it is ironic....no, ironic is not the word, maybe curious, yeah, that's it.....anyway, all this time the aviation community has been screaming
33 KAUSpilot : I don't see this happening on a large scale. Delta is set to have ASA ditch it's ATR's in a couple of years as it is. Just a few years ago, CAL had a
34 Supa7E7 : It was just a side note. Of course the 70 seat props are perfect for some missions. Since CO cannot get some desperately needed big RJs, it might as
35 Ikramerica : I sat on a homeowner's association committee with Arte. I used to live in his neighborhood. Really nice guy. And you are right, 70 seat jets are also
36 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : I'm not a great historian, but wasn't WWI started with the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand? I believe the would-be assassin had originally plann
37 Archer : Having recently flown EWR-ALB several times I always wonder how they can make $ on a 35 Minute flight with an ERJ. It climbs to 16,000', cruises for 5
38 Nuggetsyl : Is this bird going to slow traffic getting into ewr?
39 OyKIE : Does anyone have a link to this RFP? It would be interesting to know in what kind of time-frame we are looking at for EIS.
40 A340Spotter : If CO decides to go with the Dash 8-400, speeds of that aircraft shouldn't affect EWR traffic that much. In fact, if conditions permitted, the use of
41 FlyHoss : The CO pilot contract scope section DOES NOT prevent CO from operating 70-90 seat jets, it simply requires that CO pilots fly them. Concievably, this
42 STT757 : 11/29 is 6,800ft long, I've seen everything from CO 777s to TAP A340s land on that runway. As for departures the biggest aircraft I've seen depart 11
43 FoxBravo : I once departed 11 on a KLM 767 bound for AMS. I was a bit surprised! The only other time I recall using 11 was landing in an ERJ, although I have se
44 Azstagecoach : "Continental Compass" anyone?
45 KaiGywer : If the grammar of that letter was comparable to that post, I'd be surprised if they even knew what they were reading. Which unfortunately is no longe
46 Post contains images Ikramerica : I had no idea what he was saying, either...
47 DTWAGENT : Sorry I did not know they were not making the Saab 2000 anymore. Next time I'll just shut my mouth.......
48 DTWAGENT : Some poeple in here are just down right rude and nasty.....Their is not good reason to be this way. I don't have the knowledge of which aircraft is or
49 TWAtwaTWA : We are all well aware of comfort improvements and performance improvements with jet a/c. However, with today's fuel prices, it is interesting to think
50 Arrow : I don't have any numbers, but I bet turboprops (using the Q400 as an example) are more efficient (not faster) on routes up 1000 miles; up to 500 mile
51 PlanesNTrains : Maybe I missed it, but where exactly was anyone "rude and nasty" to you? What could KaiGywer have said differently than "Which unfortunately is no lo
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...
70-seat Turboprops Vs Jets posted Wed Jul 25 2001 21:50:12 by Flying-Tiger
AI(R) 70-seat Regional Jet posted Sun Oct 22 2006 10:09:16 by BA
Continental Question Regarding Seat Selection? posted Wed Apr 5 2006 22:11:46 by Njdevilsin03
MEA Looking At 50-70 Seat Regional Jets posted Sun Jan 29 2006 02:32:50 by BA
Continental Adding Avod On 752's! posted Sun Oct 2 2005 00:30:16 by COEWR2587
NW Pilot Pay Cuts Equals 70 Seat RJ Rights! posted Wed Jul 28 2004 22:04:04 by KarlB737
NWA Might Possibly Buy 70-seat RJs? posted Sat Jul 17 2004 15:51:53 by Planemaker
AA Mainline To Operate 70-Seat RJs? posted Tue May 13 2003 20:28:37 by Ord
Best 50-70 Seat Aircraft For Midwest Operator? posted Thu Jul 25 2002 20:34:37 by ALSF 2
70 Seat RJ's For Chautauqua..... posted Wed Jul 24 2002 07:08:40 by ChautauquaFA