Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Continental's Q400s  
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8942 times:

I believe Continental is financing some Q400s for Colgan to operate. The investment group that owns 6% of XJT stock asked XJT to cease the branded flying. With oil "stable" near the $100 bbl makr, is this the beginning of the end of the 50 seat RJs?

What about capacity restrictions in the NYC area?

67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16819 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8945 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Thread starter):
What about capacity restrictions in the NYC area?

CO is replacing 37 and 50 seat ERJs operating out of EWR with 74 seat Q-400s on routes of less than 500 miles. It increases capacity without adding additional flights, the operating costs of the Q-400s on routes 500 miles or less is superior to Regional jets thus making them an efficient alternative.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8937 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Thread starter):
With oil "stable" near the $100 bbl makr,

Umm... oil has fallen considerably from there, and currently sits in the $89 ballpark. There is NOTHING "stable" about oil prices right now.


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8923 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 1):

CO is replacing 37 and 50 seat ERJs operating out of EWR with 74 seat Q-400s on routes of less than 500 miles. It increases capacity without adding additional flights, the operating costs of the Q-400s on routes 500 miles or less is superior to Regional jets thus making them an efficient alternative.

Concur.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 2):

Umm... oil has fallen considerably from there, and currently sits in the $89 ballpark. There is NOTHING "stable" about oil prices right now.

Other than the fact that 2 years ago from today, it was in the $50 something/bbl range?


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8906 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 3):

Other than the fact that 2 years ago from today, it was in the $50 something/bbl range?

This is true, but in economic terms there is a pretty significant difference between 89 and 100.... and there's still nothing stable about oil prices in any direction.

Furthermore, what do XJT's shareholders whining about short term profit margins have to do with the Colgan Q400's?


User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1958 posts, RR: 33
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8898 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Thread starter):
With oil "stable" near the $100 bbl makr, is this the beginning of the end of the 50 seat RJs?

No. Look at the scope clause in your contract if you want to know the reason why.


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8870 times:



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 4):

Furthermore, what do XJT's shareholders whining about short term profit margins have to do with the Colgan Q400's?

How about everything. XJT has consistently lost money. XJT's stock IPO'd in the $20 range; it has dropped to the $2.50 range as other regionals have been signed by CO (CO indicated their costs were too high, and Chautauqua was introduced). Now Colgan has larger a/c than XJT's financed by CO.

Regionals are contract labor, and price pays the largest role in determining who wins the capacity contracts.


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8863 times:



Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 5):

No. Look at the scope clause in your contract if you want to know the reason why.

I bet that changes in the near future too, to the benefit of CO and the pilot group... but what is apparrent is that XJT's costs are too high, and they are struggling.


User currently offlineNorthwestair From Poland, joined Jul 2001, 647 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8818 times:

now that I work for CO we were told that the Q400's will also be flown out of the CLE hud on flights that are no more than 2 hr long. This makes me wander if we will change the 2 daily OKC-CLE ERJ's to Q400's cause the flying time is about 1hr 50mins. I would love to have a Q400 in OKC.


I don't care who you fly just as long as you fly
User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8819 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 6):
XJT has consistently lost money.

No. 2007 is the first year that XJT ever lost money. And even at that, only the branded side lost money... the fee-for-departure side is still profitable.

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 6):
(CO indicated their costs were too high, and Chautauqua was introduced).

And then CHQ's flying was never increased as planned because of their service reliability and the response from CO's FF's.

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 6):
ow Colgan has larger a/c than XJT's financed by CO.

It's not so much the size of the aircraft as the costs of props. No jet is competitive with a turboprop on a run under 300 miles like these Q400's will be put on. Continental is also the king of the 2+ hr RJ trip... and until their scope allows E-jets to be brought on property they need ExpressJet, as nobody else has a 50 seat bird capable of many of the routes CO deploys them on. Remember, the 145XR is the most capable 50 seater out there... and ExpressJet is the only operator of it.

By the way, knowing how Continental actually cares about the quality and seamless service of their regional carriers... I'm anxious to see how long this courtship with Colgan lasts on some of these higher priority northeast markets. Colgan makes Chautauqua look like BA. With CO owning these aircraft and acting as a pimp to whomever is the cheapest operator... methinks Colgan's stint will last as long as that contract is written for and not a day longer. You may even see ExpressJet running the Q400's someday.


User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1958 posts, RR: 33
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8796 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 7):
I bet that changes in the near future too, to the benefit of CO and the pilot group... but what is apparrent is that XJT's costs are too high, and they are struggling.

Even if CALALPA gives up further jet scope 50 seat jets will still be around at AA for a long time unless their pilots make similair concessions. Use of larger regional jets at AA is tightly restricted by the APA. Furthermore I sincerely hope you are wrong about the introduction of larger RJ's at continental, as doing so would be a detriment to the pilot career in my opinion. It would no doubt accelerate the retirment of the older aircraft in your narrowbody fleet, much as it has at DL, NW, and US. I will conceed that you are probably correct in your prediction, however.


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8796 times:



Quoting Northwestair (Reply 8):
now that I work for CO

What so you do for CO?


User currently offlineNorthwestair From Poland, joined Jul 2001, 647 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8785 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 11):
What so you do for CO?

I took the NW Enhanced Severince that was offered to me. I had 9 years with NWA in OKC and then OKC went from NWA station to a 9E station. SO I went to CO and now I am a Lead on the Ramp. I just don't know how to change my username!!!!!!!



I don't care who you fly just as long as you fly
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16819 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8751 times:

So far these are the routes and frequencies CO has scheduled for their Q-400s from EWR;

Albany 2- Baltimore 4- Buffalo 1- Burlington 2- Columbus 1- Greensboro 2- Hartford 3- Norfolk 5- Pittsburgh 6- Providence 2- Raleigh 3- Rochester 2-

CO also has a couple Q-400s flights scheduled between CLE and BWI and MDW.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8728 times:



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 9):
No. 2007 is the first year that XJT ever lost money. And even at that, only the branded side lost money... the fee-for-departure side is still profitable.

So what does the profit/loss statement say? You can provide a ref?

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 9):
And then CHQ's flying was never increased as planned because of their service reliability and the response from CO's FF's.

A reference to the above statement would be appropriate.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 9):
It's not so much the size of the aircraft as the costs of props. No jet is competitive with a turboprop on a run under 300 miles like these Q400's will be put on. Continental is also the king of the 2+ hr RJ trip... and until their scope allows E-jets to be brought on property they need ExpressJet, as nobody else has a 50 seat bird capable of many of the routes CO deploys them on. Remember, the 145XR is the most capable 50 seater out there... and ExpressJet is the only operator of it.

Isn't that why the 50 seat RJs are doomed? Every time it rains at a CO hub, 20 RJs divert b/c they can't hold enough gas to go anywhere. Maybe you remember when CO Express flew Beech 1900s, Brasilias and ATRs...Consider Horizon seems to set the standard in turboprop ops...Moreover, the RJs cost CO and the majors a lot (and increasing amount) of gas at hubs due to their poor climb performance... 290kts at 10000 and 1500 fpm while the big jets get slowed and vectored...

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 9):
By the way, knowing how Continental actually cares about the quality and seamless service of their regional carriers...

Very good point...A guy named Gordon mentioned "seemlessness" years ago.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 10):
Furthermore I sincerely hope you are wrong about the introduction of larger RJ's at continental, as doing so would be a detriment to the pilot career in my opinion

CO is struggling to maintain 3 type ratings if the 787 works out. They will not spend the $$ to introduce another fleet type (70 -100 seaters) when those 70-100 seaters present the same problems the 50 seater do... They'll carry 70-100 people about 3 hours, which is just not enough airplane ( which is why a 737-500 weighs about, what, 20k more than a 190?) RJ diverts have a huge negative impact.


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8653 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 14):

So what does the profit/loss statement say? You can provide a ref?

The CO Express branded side of ExpressJet is guaranteed profit from CO as per the contract. It's run on a cost - plus basis as are most "fee for departure" RJ contracts. ExpressJet makes the same money on those flights whether there is 1 or 50 for a load. It's up to CO to figure out how to make the revenue work, which they do quite well on many flights. Chances are the Colgan contract is the same.

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 14):
Isn't that why the 50 seat RJs are doomed? Every time it rains at a CO hub, 20 RJs divert b/c they can't hold enough gas to go anywhere. Maybe you remember when CO Express flew Beech 1900s, Brasilias and ATRs...

They're going to fly a Q400 on EWR-OKC? IAH-DAY? EWR-OMA? IAH-GRR? Those are pretty highly yielding niche routes for CO, of which there is currently no viable alternative to the 145XR as far as CO's scope is written. The numbers won't suffice a 737. And as far as the diversions, I spent alot of time flying out of ABE... I saw those RJ's come in. And at the same time there were just as many mainliners diverting except their airport of choice was SWF more often than ABE. Should CO stop flying the 757's across the Atlantic too by that theory? Guess what, on those kinds of days you're going to see Q400's divert too. Nothing can hold for upwards of 2 hours like the lines at EWR sometime reach. I'm sure ABE will be just as happy to accept a Colgan/CO Q400 as they are to accept an ExpressJet ERJ for a gas-n-go.

As far as "When CO Express flew Beech 1900's," that is is just ending now... in CLE... on Commutair. Except that was CO Connection by name.


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8621 times:

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 15):
The CO Express branded side of ExpressJet is guaranteed profit from CO as per the contract. It's run on a cost - plus basis as are most "fee for departure" RJ contracts. ExpressJet makes the same money on those flights whether there is 1 or 50 for a load. It's up to CO to figure out how to make the revenue work, which they do quite well on many flights. Chances are the Colgan contract is the same.

Wall Street, unfortunately, doesn't make this distinction. How has XJT done, as a company? I believe they lost money for FY 07...

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 15):
They're going to fly a Q400 on EWR-OKC? IAH-DAY? EWR-OMA? IAH-GRR? Those are pretty highly yielding niche routes for CO, of which there is currently no viable alternative to the 145XR as far as CO's scope is written.

Sure. The stage length is probably close. EWR-TUL came and went with a 145XR...The flights you mentioned were/are thin even for an RJ....One could claim EWR - Lubbock as a route, too, but that booger of profitability still runs the show.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 15):
Should CO stop flying the 757's across the Atlantic too by that theory?

Uhhh.... CO 757s can do a Cat III autoland; the divert rate for a CO 757 compared to any RJ is so small it is not even valid.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 15):
Nothing can hold for upwards of 2 hours like the lines at EWR sometime reach.

Wrong. There is no way an RJ can, in any real world case.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 15):
As far as "When CO Express flew Beech 1900's," that is is just ending now... in CLE... on Commutair. Except that was CO Connection by name.

Wrong again. Co Express is now XJT, Commutair is Commutair...2 different companies. And yet one other slight distinction...When CO Express existed, it was owned by CO. After CO sold it, it became XJT. Capacity purchase made CO money, but XJT as a stand alone did/has not. That is my point... and question.

[Edited 2008-02-02 21:13:13]

[Edited 2008-02-02 21:18:16]

[Edited 2008-02-02 21:19:06]

User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1958 posts, RR: 33
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8568 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 14):
CO is struggling to maintain 3 type ratings if the 787 works out. They will not spend the $$ to introduce another fleet type (70 -100 seaters) when those 70-100 seaters present the same problems the 50 seater do... They'll carry 70-100 people about 3 hours, which is just not enough airplane ( which is why a 737-500 weighs about, what, 20k more than a 190?) RJ diverts have a huge negative impact.

So are you arguing that CO might do away with RJ's altogether and replace them with Q400's? I find that unlikely, in fact I would be quite surprised to ever see more than 40 Q400's operating as CO connection. Or are you arguing that CO management will simply do "whatever it takes" to relax scope in the negotiations with ALPA, and ultimately replace the 50 seaters with 70 seat jets? Are you saying 70-90 seat RJ's are only econimcal for CO when outsourced to a firm such as Republic? Perhaps that is true. E170's at mainline didn't exactly work out too well for US. Looking at it from a pilot's perspective, I would rather see CO pilot accept regional-esque wages for a 70-90 seat airframe rather than conceed scope. The pay can be improved eventually once the airframes are on property, but once the scope is gone it is nearly impossible to recover, and will come at the expense of mainline narrowbody flying. Not a concern for the senior pilots at CAL, but definitely a concern for the jr. CAL pilots who are already suffering from the age 65 rule and those of us with aspirations for better jobs someday. But I have no say in the matter, I'm just bystander when it comes to the decisions of the CAL pilot group.

I don't quite understand what you mean by RJ diverts having a huge negative impact? Are you referring to the crowded nature of the airspace around NYC? To be honest, I fail to see how the Q400 is going to be the savior for EWR's congestion. For starters, it has a footprint equivalent to a 737, creating gate space issues. Second, most of CO's EWR RJ ops can already utilize Rwy 29/11 when requested, so the Colgan operation really doesn't bring anything new to the equation in terms of airport efficiency save for perhaps the occasional ability to conduct LAHSO operations on 11 short of 4L/22R.

Lastly, I think CO will keep their RJ's and simply look for new markets to deploy them in as they are replaced on some routes by the Q400. I don't have exact numbers on the Q400, but I'd imagine it cruises at around 350 true.....that's 100 knots less than an RJ, so on your typical 800-1000NM RJ route you're starting to add 45 minutes+ to the stage lengths, if it even has the endurance for that kind of thing (I honestly do not know, a.net lists it's range at 1200 NM, then again, it lists the 145LR's at 1550, which is quite generous to say the least). In addition you must consider the maintenance intensive nature of the Q400. Even established operators such as QX continue to experience reliability issues with this aircraft, whereas the RJ fleet has had the time to iron most major issues out. Only time will tell if those issues can be resolved I suppose.


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8517 times:

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 17):
So are you arguing that CO might do away with RJ's altogether and replace them with Q400's?

Yep. RJs were a pre 9/11 marketing thing that replaced turbo props. Turboprops, I think, will be coming back.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 17):
Or are you arguing that CO management will simply do "whatever it takes" to relax scope in the negotiations with ALPA, and ultimately replace the 50 seaters with 70 seat jets?

highly unlikely, due to CO's aversion to a new type and the lack of capabilities... but if it does occur, a 70-100 seater on CO property will be a CO a/c...not a sub contract.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 17):
I'm just bystander when it comes to the decisions of the CAL pilot group.

Note that 70-100 seat RJ sales in the US have "cooled" to say the least. CO wont buy them, neither will a good regional. 100 seats doesn't work in the US system, unless it can fly for 5 hours or so with a reserve, which is a 130000 lb a/c, which is an A318/319 or 737 500/600 market. A winglet kit for a -500/ -300 or 757-200 is about 3 million $...Those things are happening, but for some reason that money is not being directed at a new a/c. The RJs are too fuel inefficient and the turboprops will return, IMO.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 17):
I fail to see how the Q400 is going to be the savior for EWR's congestion.

XJT just had a LAHSO incident for 11/29 in EWR. The Q400 wont have those problems, and EWR will could operate with a Boeing/turbo prop mix like it did pre 9/11. Again, hubs do well with a turboprop/737 or Abus mix. RJs clog the system, and have been the impetus of lower "RJ" routes by the FAA, which further enhances the resurrection of turboprops.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 17):
so the Colgan operation really doesn't bring anything new to the equation in terms of airport efficiency save for perhaps the occasional ability to conduct LAHSO operations on 11 short of 4L/22R.

Huge, b/c CO can use that to minimize EWR delays. That is a huge political issue, and therefore a huge cost issue, and CO is positioning itself to address that.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 17):
typical 800-1000NM RJ route

800-1000 nm for a typical route? Better check that route length. The ATR 42-500 had a LOWER block time, IAH to CRP, than an RJ, b/c it was a 300 kt a/c. But 800 nm is not accurate for an average stage length for a CO (sub) RJ.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 17):
In addition you must consider the maintenance intensive nature of the Q400.

Before your time, the ERJs APU was bad, and the gust lock for the elevators was a joke and became electomechanical with 1, and then 2 cutouts... Nose wheel steering issues? The 145 EP came about due to horrible performance from the original a/c. Long story short, the ERJ has not set the world on fire in terms of its performance.

It took XJT a solid year after CO quit buying their gas to transition to Flaps 22 landings...not exactly an earth shattering adaptation, but very long in the making.

The sad thing about the airlines, as a career, is that hindsight is truly the best predictor of future issues. Use that history to help you with career decisions (respectfully submitted). The funny thing about this forum, and all airline rumors, is to make a proper analysis. Most on these forums haven't a clue.

[Edited 2008-02-02 22:02:36]

[Edited 2008-02-02 22:04:16]

[Edited 2008-02-02 22:08:48]

[Edited 2008-02-02 22:11:33]

[Edited 2008-02-02 22:18:00]

[Edited 2008-02-02 22:26:44]

User currently offlineSNCntry32 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8471 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Thread starter):
I believe Continental is financing some Q400s for Colgan to operate.

Pinnacle Corp is buying the planes.



Long Live Memphis!
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8452 times:



Quoting SNCntry32 (Reply 19):

Pinnacle Corp is buying the planes.

OK. Gota reference on that?


User currently offlineSNCntry32 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8444 times:

http://www.milehighcustoms.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6510
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0CWU/is_2007_March_16/ai_n18726936

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 20):
OK. Gota reference on that?




Long Live Memphis!
User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1958 posts, RR: 33
Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8411 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 18):
800-1000 nm for a typical route? Better check that route length. The ATR 42-500 had a LOWER block time, IAH to CRP, b/c it was a 300 kt a/c. But 800 nm is not accurate for an average stage length for a CO (sub) RJ.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 17):
In addition you must consider the maintenance intensive nature of the Q400.

Before your time, the ERJs APU was bad, and the gust lock for the elevators didn't even exist. Nose wheel steering issues? The 145 EP came about due to horrible performance from the original a/c. Long story short, the ERJ has not set the world on fire in terms of its performance.

It took XJT a solid year after CO quit buying their gas to transition to Flaps 22 landings...not exactly an earth shattering adaptation, but very long in the making.

The sad thing about the airlines, as a career, is that hindsight is truly the best predictor of future issues.

True, the average stage length for COEX today is undoubtedly closer to 500NM, I was simply using the 800-1000 to demonstrate what kind of time the Q400 would be giving up on a route of that length. As I'm sure you're aware, there are many, many COEX routes that fall into that range, and adding 1:30 to a turn is significant in terms of aircraft utilization, although I suppose it may be worth it if the fuel savings are there. However, I think the RJ will continue to serve CO well on such routes.

I fully achnowledge that the E145 had it's share of issues when it was a new type. Call me naive, but I would venture to say it's an exceptionally reliable aircraft with it's current software and modifications. Considering that the Q400 has been flying for nearly a decade, its maintenance issues have been fairly high profile and well documented. One european operator recently went to the extreme measure of prematurely replacing their entire fleet, but I digress. Let's just say that Colgan might not be the best operator to select if you wish to avoid those types of problems. I truly wish them all the best.

I won't argue the merits of turboprops, they definitely have a place in the airline system, but I don't think it's feasible to to expect to see the RJ fully phased out of COEX any time soon. I believe that it was unfortunate for Expressjet that CO decided to retire the COEX turboprop fleet before the IPO. In my opinion, a susccessful regional needs a varied fleet to meet the varied demands of their customers.

PS:The flaps 22 initiative is toast because it created more expense in landing gear/brake wear than it saved in fuel cost.


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8347 times:



Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 16):

Uhhh.... CO 757s can do a Cat III autoland; the divert rate for a CO 757 compared to any RJ is so small it is not even valid.

What does that have to do with diversions to EWR? ExpressJet doesn't divert to ABE because of Cat II/III conditions because if you know anything about the Lehigh Valley it is by FAR more foggy than EWR is most times. Most EWR diversions to places like ABE, SWF, etc. are because of congestion... in other words more flow than the AAR of EWR can handle, creating large backups and holding. It doesn't matter if you're a 777 or a ERJ-135... if you're #20 in line, you're #20 in line. You either hold for an hour or two, or divert. Unless you brought along 90 minutes or whatever of holding fuel, welcome to Newburgh, Lehigh Valley Int'l, Windsor Locks, Albany, or God knows where else. You act like everyone else doesn't divert away from NYC on these days. Comair/Chautauqua ops into JFK do, NWA, UA, and Frontier mainliners do, and that's just the tip of the iceberg at the more common diversion point of ABE. I've seen days of over 30 birds hanging out at ABE because of NYC airspace congestion... every tail you can imagine including some int'l carriers... but this is ExpressJet's fault?


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8195 times:



Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 22):
Call me naive, but I would venture to say it's an exceptionally reliable aircraft with it's current software and modifications.

I certainly agree.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 22):
I believe that it was unfortunate for Expressjet that CO decided to retire the COEX turboprop fleet before the IPO. In my opinion, a susccessful regional needs a varied fleet to meet the varied demands of their customers.

Or to save fuel, but I strongly agree as well.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 23):
What does that have to do with diversions to EWR?

Everything. The 737s and larger can carry more gas for a given stage length, so they have more flexibility, and when they get to any airport, they can utilize lower mins (737NGs and larger). When the diverts start at a CO hub due to weather, capacity, whatever, in EVERY case the # of RJ diverts exceeds that of the larger a/c. RJs simply aren't as capable.


25 JBLUA320 : EssentialPowr, You are not comparing apples to apples here! What Tornado said was that the B1900 flying ex-CLE is just now ending, and he is correct
26 STT757 : I don't see the ERJs leaving all together, however they are being replaced in many areas with Q-400s and 737s from EWR. CO wants to increase EWR's pas
27 AmtrakGuy : hmmm these two routes are Southwest's frequent routes -- I wonder if the Q400 flying time will be same or slight little more as Southwest's 737? I'm
28 Justlump : CO did not finance Colgan's Q400s. As SNCntry32 pointed out, the Pinnacle Group financed the purchase of the new Q400s. In an earlier thread I explai
29 FlyPBA : coincidentally, Horizon Air is thinking of doing just that and becoming an all Q400 airline
30 United_Fan : So,when are these going to come to ROC?
31 Cumulonimbus : It already has IMHO. I heard that Skywest is strongly eyeing the Q as well now.
32 STT757 : This month according to OAG.
33 Rjnut : I KNEW IT...!!!the legacies/regionals get caught behind the 8 ball now desperately trying to get their hands on the Q400's which wont be able to be pr
34 CALMSP : I'm assuming that you are referencing pax loads.............and if so, IAH-GRR pax loads warrant a 737-500!!
35 Tornado82 : If so I would think they'd increase it to more than 2x on the RJ's. Don't forget the 735's are leaving the fleet pretty soon too, so at that point yo
36 Justlump : Try Tomorrow!!! CO3250 (EWR-ROC) is scheduled to arrive in ROC at 0929 on the 4th of February.
37 Wjcandee : I was under the impression that the provider bid a fixed fee for departure on these contracts, perhaps with some inflation escalation, not that they
38 CALMSP : we could if we had more RJ's....when we started to dump them, we lost the 3rd flight.
39 Teneriffe77 : ALB, ROC, and BUf ain't the only places in New York state that will see the 400's as I've noticed that SYR's second flight fo the day (see below) is o
40 United_Fan : I wish they'd come in later in the day.The light is no good in the morning in my spots...
41 DC10sRULE : Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 17): so the Colgan operation really doesn't bring anything new to the equation in terms of airport efficiency save for perhap
42 Cumulonimbus : Well I have to say it to all the Turboprop haters and RJ lovers. I have been saying it for about two years, no one belived when I said "the RJ's days
43 Ikramerica : but the dollar was weaker. in terms of the euro, it was $55 or E45 beginning of 2006 and $90 or E60 now. 33% more, but not as bad as it looks from th
44 Post contains images Planemaker : It certainly would. The above makes no sense. No, they were not a "marketing thing". And other than the Q400 there is no other TP that will be coming
45 FlyPBA : don't know the source ... but I found this posted on another forum ... Turboprops on the rebound The story of the turboprop revival keeps getting bett
46 Ikramerica : Yes, they were. There is no doubt to this. Customers had a bad image of Turbo Props: loud, fly at a lower altitude so bumpy, accident prone. Fair or
47 Planemaker : No they weren't. RJ's provided much greater productivity than the Dash 8-300 or ATR-42, etc. and are quieter, have far less vibrations and are smooth
48 Wingnut767 : CO’s new Q400, operating as Flight 3221 from Albany , N.Y. (ALB) to EWR, made its first revenue flight Monday. Colgan Air will operate all Q400 flig
49 Slider : Well said.
50 AS739X : Horizon is not thinking it, they are doing it. It will be done over the next few years. Alaska Air Group realizes now how much the CR7 cost and can't
51 Cumulonimbus : Hmmm look at those 50 seat RJ orders too... If I remember correctly too, the ARJ MRJ,and RRJ are all 70 SEATS PLUS!
52 Planemaker : I guess you haven't been following the overcapacity of the 50-seat RJ market... and didn't read about Independence Air, just for example. It is calle
53 Post contains links Cumulonimbus : Actually yes I have been. Looks like it isn't anymore because there WOULD BE NO MARKET FOR IT! http://www.avbuyer.com.cn/e/2007/19563.html Here is th
54 Post contains images Flyboy1108 : [quote=Tornado82,reply=23]I've seen days of over 30 birds hanging out at ABE because of NYC airspace congestion... every tail you can imagine includin
55 KAUSpilot : Call me lucky but I've flown into newark about a hundred times over the past 4 years and never diverted once. Heck I've never even done more than two
56 Post contains images Flyboy1108 : A lot of it has to do with the time of year too...as I learn more and more about how the whole system works (i should be getting credit towards my de
57 KAUSpilot : I have a feeling I will not be back to EWR for a very long time. I actually don't mind flying in there though, nice terminals and aside from the occa
58 Post contains images Planemaker : You couldn't have otherwise you wouldn't have posted... Why do you echo what I posted? What don't you understand about... No, you don't understand -
59 Cumulonimbus : My quote was pertaining to 50 seaters. Odviously you are a moron and do not understand anything anyone says and just want to attack people because th
60 Post contains images Planemaker : If so, then you show that you know even less about the market!! As I already said, just where are all the Dash-8-300 & ATR-42 orders that are pouring
61 Post contains links Viscount724 : 2007 was the record year for ATR orders (113) in the entire history of the program. http://www.atraircraft.com/public/at...press/releases-details.php
62 Post contains images Planemaker : " target=_blank>http://www.atraircraft.com/public/at...d=807 Yes, only 16 ATR-42s... "As I already said, just where are all the Dash-8-300 & ATR-42 o
63 Viscount724 : I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make, but why should ATR or Bombardier care whether they sell the ATR-42/Q300 vs the ATR-72/Q400
64 Planemaker : I responded to the statement of mine that you quoted... So what is there not to understand about 16 orders not being "orders that are pouring in "in
65 Viscount724 : Sorry, I thought you were referring to orders for propeller aircraft in general and not just the 40-50 seat models. In any case, for ATR to set the o
66 Tornado82 : Q's can be Cat IIIa (Horizon's are) but I somehow doubt Colgan could get anywhere near that level of qualifications lined up while at the same time b
67 Post contains images Planemaker : No problem. Don't be too impressed... you have to put "the the one-year (all models) sales record 22 years after the first ATR went into service year
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...
Continental Airlines, A History Question. posted Wed Jan 30 2008 08:58:29 by Readytotaxi
Continental Airlines Flight Help (1993) posted Tue Jan 29 2008 17:30:09 by Missourifarmer
Continental Doubles Fuel Surcharge posted Fri Jan 25 2008 08:47:14 by BA744PHX
Continental Pilots Prepare For Potential Merger posted Fri Jan 25 2008 05:43:04 by JFK787NYC
Continental Onepass Question posted Thu Jan 24 2008 05:14:10 by Elite
SAS Q400s: Manufacturer Made Serious Mistakes posted Wed Jan 23 2008 20:52:48 by RedChili
Service / Meal Quality Down At Continental? posted Wed Jan 23 2008 10:26:31 by AA737-823
Continental Airlines Overseas Employee Benefits posted Wed Jan 23 2008 07:17:05 by LHR777
Continental Registration Help posted Sun Jan 20 2008 09:35:19 by Gpbcroppers63
Does The 787 Delay Affect Continental's Future Fleet ? posted Thu Jan 17 2008 16:37:31 by CB777