Boeingluvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3170 times:
He was saying something about them getting too old. I guess they could substitute a/c for other routes could they not?? As I said just heresay from mtc...
ZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1927 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3140 times:
I heard that because AC, well QK is only allowed X amount of Jet a/c they are getting rid of the CRJ100s in favour of the CRJ 705. I believe the AC and QK pilot unions have come to an agreement that will allow AC to get more 705s as long as they stay under a certain number of jet a/c. From what I heard they can get as many Turbo-Props they want, mind you with the Q400 at 75 seats (I believe) who knows.
COERJ145 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1420 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3111 times:
Quoting CayMan (Reply 1): Seems very unusual given the different cruising speed and range of a jet vs turboprop a/c...
The Q400 cruises at 370kts, while the CRJ1 cruises at 450ishkts. Also, the Q400 has similar range to the CRJ-100, while carrying more pax(74 vs 50) and burning less fuel.
ZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1927 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3084 times:
Quoting COERJ145 (Reply 4): The Q400 cruises at 370kts, while the CRJ1 cruises at 450ishkts. Also, the Q400 has similar range to the CRJ-100, while carrying more pax(74 vs 50) and burning less fuel.
Also for most of the flights the Q400's will replace would be flights like YVR-YLW which is only in and around 30 mins so 30 mins vs ~40 mins would not make such a big difference. The longer flights such as YYC-YZF (~2h) will remain on CRJ's so the extra speed of the CRJ will not have a huge impact I am going to assume. But the extra 24 seats, the better operating costs and all this will really help QK.
Sebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1658 posts, RR: 15 Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3075 times:
Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 3): I heard that because AC, well QK is only allowed X amount of Jet a/c they are getting rid of the CRJ100s in favour of the CRJ 705. I believe the AC and QK pilot unions have come to an agreement that will allow AC to get more 705s as long as they stay under a certain number of jet a/c. From what I heard they can get as many Turbo-Props they want, mind you with the Q400 at 75 seats (I believe) who knows.
Yes, there is a ratio between Jazz and AC jet flying. AC has considered adding up to 7 more 705s, at least that was implied by previous, now archived versions of the fleet plan. And Bombardier is building its NG version of the 900/1000, and presumably AC would be interested in the efficiencies of those NGs in an upgraded 705. That being said, AC owns the CRJ-100s and leases them to Jazz and it is unlikely that there would be takers for them on the open market. So if AC were to buy new aircraft, there would have to be a compelling, and I mean compelling case, based on lower operating costs to replace fully depreciated -100s with new jets or Q400s, especially when there are a lot of newer CRJ200s available fairly cheaply in the desert right now.
9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1350 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2972 times:
Quoting Sebring (Reply 6): That being said, AC owns the CRJ-100s and leases them to Jazz and it is unlikely that there would be takers for them on the open market.
I was under the impression that AC leases the aircraft from other owners and sub-leases them to Jazz? This is based on how I interpreted the restructuring of all the aircraft leases during AC CCAA proceedings and what it implied. Jazz is very interested in the DH4,as they have test flown it. The CRJ 100's from what I understand,were not intended to be in the fleet long term. It should be interesting to see how things unfold over the next year of two.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2945 times:
Quoting CayMan (Reply 1): The CRJ-1s might not be ideal but I'd take a shorter flight on one of them any day over a turboprop even a new one.
Quoting CayMan (Reply 1): Seems very unusual given the different cruising speed and range of a jet vs turboprop a/c...
The CRJ-1s might not be ideal but I'd take a shorter flight on one of them any day over a turboprop even a new one.
Have you flown on a Q400? They are excellent and in my opinion much more comfortable than the CRJ100/200. And as others have mentioned, on AC's current CRJ100 routes, the Q400's high speed (much faster than earlier Dash 8 models) would mean very little difference in elapsed time.
Threepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2093 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2912 times:
Quoting CayMan (Reply 1): I'd take a shorter flight on one of them any day over a turboprop even a new one.
To the contrary, I'd much rather fly in a Q400 (not the same beast as the Dash-8 100/300's you're used to flying in) than the CRJ 100/200. Whether the route is short (YLW-YVR) or longer (YVR-YXY), my preference applies.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
ZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1927 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2897 times:
Quoting Threepoint (Reply 9): To the contrary, I'd much rather fly in a Q400 (not the same beast as the Dash-8 100/300's you're used to flying in) than the CRJ 100/200. Whether the route is short (YLW-YVR) or longer (YVR-YXY), my preference applies.
While I would agree with the YLW-YVR sector, I have yet to see a CRJ working YVR-YXY unless I am not noticing these things. I thought it was always the CRA that flies up to YXY in which case the IFE, nicer cabin, better seat location vs the 1/200s in addition to the higher speed, would make me choose the CRA. Although I have yet to fly on a Q400.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2859 times:
Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 10): I have yet to see a CRJ working YVR-YXY unless I am not noticing these things. I thought it was always the CRA that flies up to YXY in which case the IFE, nicer cabin, better seat location vs the 1/200s in addition to the higher speed, would make me choose the CRA.
AC now uses the CRJ-705 (CRA) on the YVR-YXY route but they did previously use the CRJ100/200 (2nd photo below):
Jean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2106 posts, RR: 23 Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2702 times:
Last August I flew YXY-YVR and, if I recall correctly, at that point the evening rotation was a CRA and the morning (which I took) was a 100 or 200. Would have loved to take the 705, but scheduling didn't work out. At leasts I had a pretty girl to look at, and the scenery on that whole flight can't be beat!
That said, I am sure that consistent 705 service on the route, as well as being an indication of higher yields and loads on the route, also gives AC a decided service advantage over Air North. Does it also make it look less like a market ripe for Westjet? Sorry if this is taking things a little off topic, but I doubt a 'Yukon Aviation Thread' would get too far.
CanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3371 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2368 times:
Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 10): have yet to see a CRJ working YVR-YXY unless I am not noticing these things. I thought it was always the CRA that flies up to YXY
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11): AC now uses the CRJ-705 (CRA) on the YVR-YXY route but they did previously use the CRJ100/200 (2nd photo below):
Although it could change, the last year or two on YVR/YXY it's been the 50-seat CRJ-200 during the relatively quiet winter, then larger 75-seat CRJ-705 during the busy summer season, switching back to the 200 in the fall and back to the 705 in spring and so on.
One thing I was wondering is how much cargo profit Air Canada has been missing out on with these CRJs? For YVR-YXY Jazz's CRJs don't take any cargo, while Air North's 737s are hauling a couple thousand pounds on almost a daily basis...
Jean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2106 posts, RR: 23 Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2282 times:
Interesting point about the cargo, CanadianNorth.
Before the CRJ's, what did Air Canada use on YVR-YXY? Did they at some point use 732's? DC-9's? Did they formerly move significant cargo with mainline planes?
Sebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1658 posts, RR: 15 Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2240 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):One thing I was wondering is how much cargo profit Air Canada has been missing out on with these CRJs? For YVR-YXY Jazz's CRJs don't take any cargo, while Air North's 737s are hauling a couple thousand pounds on almost a daily basis...
[/quote]
You can't have a fleet that covers every possible situation. AC went into this knowing it wouldn't have cargo space. It presumably modelled the route as all-passenger, and that's that. It may also be missing out on cargo profit on other routes where it is capacity constrained by weight/fuel considerations, but short of getting 200 777-200LRs, there are going to be situations where it can't meet cargo demand.
Floridaflyboy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1988 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2190 times:
Quoting COERJ145 (Reply 4): The Q400 cruises at 370kts, while the CRJ1 cruises at 450ishkts. Also, the Q400 has similar range to the CRJ-100, while carrying more pax(74 vs 50) and burning less fuel.
Not to mention that the Q400 is worlds more comfortable than the CRJ1. Some people just hate turbo-props because they're turbo-props.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2143 times:
Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 14): Before the CRJ's, what did Air Canada use on YVR-YXY? Did they at some point use 732's? DC-9's? Did they formerly move significant cargo with mainline planes?
Prior to CRJs they used 732s inherited from CP which for many years (since the 1940s) was the only carrier on the route. YXY was one of CP's first 732 destinations starting in 1969, replacing DC-6Bs.
Sometime in the 1980s, AC's YVR-based regional carrier Air BC introduced their own YVR-YXY service using BAe 146s, competing with CP 732s, but the Air BC service didn't last very long and they dropped the route after a year or two.
Threepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2093 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2114 times:
Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 10): While I would agree with the YLW-YVR sector, I have yet to see a CRJ working YVR-YXY unless I am not noticing these things.
My YXY remark was to indicate the stage length rather than the actual route itself. Although, as pointed out by others, the CRJ did in fact operate on the route from a preiod of time.
Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 14): Before the CRJ's, what did Air Canada use on YVR-YXY?
They used 319's for a while immediately prior to theintroduction of the CRJ/CRA. I'm sure they could fill a 319 or a 320 in the summer time on a twice daily basis, but the AC fleet planners have obviously found more logical/profitable routes fro the larger planes.
Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 16): Not to mention that the Q400 is worlds more comfortable than the CRJ1. Some people just hate turbo-props because they're turbo-props.
Agreed, and that was the intent of my original post. There are turboprops that rattle and those that hum. Despite the external similarity to its smaller siblings, the Q400 definitely fits into the latter category. In many cases, they're far beter than regional jets.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
Boeingluvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2112 times:
Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 16): Not to mention that the Q400 is worlds more comfortable than the CRJ1. Some people just hate turbo-props because they're turbo-props.
It's like when you're boarding a plane and you hear people saying "ughh a turbo prop" or "not a propeller plane". I for one love the turbo props especially the Q400. A delight to fly on. It'd be a nice change as well!
Floridaflyboy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1988 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2094 times:
Quoting Threepoint (Reply 18): Despite the external similarity to its smaller siblings, the Q400 definitely fits into the latter category. In many cases, they're far beter than regional jets.
Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 19): I for one love the turbo props especially the Q400. A delight to fly on. It'd be a nice change as well!
Absolutely! I love the Q400. Being from BIL, I remember when QX replaced the CR7 to SEA with the Q400. I actually like the Q400 better than the CR7. But, you still get people whining that they don't want to ride on a turbo-prop. My favorite experience was this older lady who went the whole flight thinking she was on a jet (on the Q400), and then, as we were deplaning in SEA, she looked out the windows and noticed the propellors, and had a fit at the flight attendant because, "They should have told her she was on a propellor plane. If they had told her that, she'd have just gone back to the ticket counter and gotten her money back. She didn't want to risk her LIFE like that." Never once stopped to think about the fact that she hadn't even NOTICED all flight long." I think it was all the F/As could do not to laugh at her.
Boeingluvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1971 times:
Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 20): Absolutely! I love the Q400. Being from BIL, I remember when QX replaced the CR7 to SEA with the Q400. I actually like the Q400 better than the CR7. But, you still get people whining that they don't want to ride on a turbo-prop. My favorite experience was this older lady who went the whole flight thinking she was on a jet (on the Q400), and then, as we were deplaning in SEA, she looked out the windows and noticed the propellors, and had a fit at the flight attendant because, "They should have told her she was on a propellor plane. If they had told her that, she'd have just gone back to the ticket counter and gotten her money back. She didn't want to risk her LIFE like that." Never once stopped to think about the fact that she hadn't even NOTICED all flight long." I think it was all the F/As could do not to laugh at her.
Ahh yes, the glory day of dealing with idiots haha! People just don't understand. I know we're pilot enthusiasts, but if people understood flying the would realize it's no different. The engines are exactly the same inside and is a turbine driven propeller haha. I discussed it with a gentleman I was flying on a DH-8 with years ago who claimed they were piston driven and I couldn't help but laugh at him as he insisted I was an idiot for saying they were turbine engines... Some people are completely clueless... There was that ad on Frontier out of DEN as well claiming they were unsafe with the no oxygen mask story... Retarded media!!!
Jamincan From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 766 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1732 times:
I wonder how much cargo AC would actually get, even if it provided the capacity. Air North and First Air have comprehensive networks in the north, which I imagine would favour them for shipping cargo into the north as well.
25 Sebring: It would depend, of course, on the point of origin. Were freight to originate elsewhere on the AC network, as it might for some goods, AC would have
26 CRJ900: In other threads it has been discussed that the CRJ705, E175 and E190 cannot take cargo when fully loaded with baggage, so I think AC should consider
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 905 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1420 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2007, 554 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
