Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bombardier Phasing Out Q200, Q300 Production  
User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8947 times:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/serv...arierq3000403/BNStory/robNews/home


MONTREAL — Bombardier Inc. is phasing out production of its Q200 and Q300 Dash 8 turboprop aircraft, made at the company's facility in Downsview, Ont.

The company said this morning that job losses will be minimal because most of the work will be transferred to the expanding Q400 program.

The Q200 and Q300 seat 37 and 50 people, respectively.

Montreal-based Bombardier has been focused on expanding its Q400 program. The aircraft seats 78 passengers.


A total of 950 people work on the Q200, Q300 and Q400 programs at Downsview, said Bombardier Aerospace spokesman Marc Duchesne.

The Q200 and Q300 backlog now stands at 17 planes and the assembly line will come to a stop in May of 2009 when the final delivery is made, said Mr. Duchesne.

[Edited 2008-04-03 20:28:21]

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineA346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1283 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8931 times:

Interesting. Is there no longer any market for the 50 seat and under turboprops?


You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
User currently offlineMattRB From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1624 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8898 times:

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out for BBD when QK decides it is time to replace the DHC-8-100 & DHC-8-300.


Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7092 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8873 times:

Its going to be ATR's gain in this market in future...

User currently offlineD328 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 304 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8855 times:

Well looks like Piedmont will be going to ATR then....good for them.....?????

I wish and hope Saab would consider the 340 and 2000 once again, two of the best turboprops....
Too bad no more D328's.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11638 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8716 times:



Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 3):
Its going to be ATR's gain in this market in future...

That's just what I was thinking, especially with the ATR42-600 in development, it's just handing the entire 50 seat market straight to them on a plate... unless they are planning on creating a 'new' Q300 sized aircraft. Strange move by Bombardier indeed - they must be making more profit on the Q400s to warrant just producing this model, I wonder if Viking might purchase the rights and take up production of the Dash 8 if the Twotter re-run is a big hit?


Dan  Smile



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21505 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8703 times:

Maybe they'll just move to a Q500 instead at 95 seats...

Considering a backlog of merely 17 for 2 members of the family, they don't seem to be losing out on much by giving up this market to the ATR and others. The expanding market seems to be for 70+ seat regional aircraft...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12092 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8683 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

NZ seem to like their new Q300s and they are still placing more orders for them.

User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1920 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8581 times:

How much difference is there between the Q200's, Q300's and Q400's. Aren't these planes shortened versions of the Q400's or are there a lot of different parts needed (like important ones as different wings?)

If not, why can't they just roll them off the same line like the A330/A340? That way, you can keep the planes in your portfolio, enabling customers to buy a family of planes with a lot of commonality in them.

Cheers!  wave 



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineTwinOtter4Ever From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8495 times:



Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 8):
How much difference is there between the Q200's, Q300's and Q400's. Aren't these planes shortened versions of the Q400's or are there a lot of different parts needed (like important ones as different wings?)

Unfortunately the Q200 & Q300 are a very different beast from the Q400. Aside from the similarities of body shape and basic design, they use a different wing much higher powered engines, different landing gear. Not sure why they use a different landing gear manufacturer.. Q2-300 are messier-dowty while the Q400 are goodrich. I'm sure they wished they had stayed with Messier-Dowty on the gear. I don't think the old designs had any problems with gear issues. The Q400 are much faster planes and are more efficient as they break-even well under 50 passengers (34 I think, though that depends on fuel cost, etc.). I still sorta prefer the Q200 and Q300 for their reliability. Q400 bugs have tarnished the DASH8 name.
There is some talk of a stretch Q400 and some people have suggested a shortened Q400, though I would have a hard time seeing if that would make it much cheaper to operate than it already is.


User currently offlinePlunaCRJ From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 574 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8444 times:



Quoting 777ER (Reply 7):
NZ seem to like their new Q300s and they are still placing more orders for them

Well, it seems they won´t be able to do so now.


Aren´t there any plans to bring the Q200/300 up to Q400 standards? That would make a great airplane.


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8426 times:



Quoting A346Dude (Reply 1):
Interesting. Is there no longer any market for the 50 seat and under turboprops?

Maybe not now but I guess at a later date they have to resurrect them sometime again just like they did with the DHC 6 and Do 228.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12092 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8409 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting PlunaCRJ (Reply 10):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 7):
NZ seem to like their new Q300s and they are still placing more orders for them

Well, it seems they won´t be able to do so now.

There was talks about NZ replacing its 1900Ds with Q200s, and that order would be for around 20 Q200s


User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7092 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8403 times:



Quoting 777ER (Reply 12):
There was talks about NZ replacing its 1900Ds with Q200s, and that order would be for around 20 Q200s

Hard luck now eh bro. Nothing we can get in the 19 seater to 30 seater market to replace the 1900Ds


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12092 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8388 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 13):

If NZs Q300 order is anything to go by, which started off as an order for around 14x Q300s and now growen to 23+ Q300s, then a Q200 order would have growen easily to 25+ Q200s. Maybe the Q200s could have provided IVC with more frequencys, and maybe a IVC-ZQN link to help REALDEALs IVC Tasman flights!


User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4313 posts, RR: 36
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8378 times:



Quoting Columba (Reply 11):
Maybe not now but I guess at a later date they have to resurrect them sometime again just like they did with the DHC 6 and Do 228.

But it doesn't make sense to keep the line open for say 6 planes a year, like as TwinOtterFever discribes, the Q200/300 was a separate production line from the Q400.
The ATR-42 doesn't sell well either compared to the ATR-72, but it's much easier for them to make one as these types are much more similar.
There are almost 2000 Saabs, Brasilia's, F-50s, DHC-8 (non Q400) and ATR 42s which are still fine and which will fly for another 10-20 years and do well on the 2nd hand market. Air New Zealand probably got a last chance to top up their order for Q300s if they really like them, and can buy 2nd hand from now on just like they do with the Beech 1900D which stopped production too.
By the time these 2000 aircraft are all falling apart, it might be time for a new cleansheet 30-50 seater. The basic wings and structure of the Q400 might be too heavy to make a successful shrink.



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12092 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8352 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 15):
Air New Zealand probably got a last chance to top up their order for Q300s if they really like them, and can buy 2nd hand from now on just like they do with the Beech 1900D which stopped production too.

Even finding second hand aircraft, like 19-50 seater Turbo-props is hard. NZ has only been able to source 1x 1900D from Japan, which will arrive shortly. NZ also uses a charter company who has J31s and 1900C and Ds for a fair amount of their 19 seater flights due to the lack of used aircrafts on the market.

Even if only 10 or less Q200s/Q300s are built each year, it would be better if those productions are combined with the Q400 line, as it will provide airlines who need those type of aircraft. The ATR42 only really competes with the Q300. The Q200 works well for airlines wanting aircraft sizes around the 19+ seats. Combining the production lines will also enable airlines like NZ who want to combine their fleets, which having a fleet of Q200s, Q300s and Q400s will reduce costs


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8352 times:



Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 15):
By the time these 2000 aircraft are all falling apart, it might be time for a new cleansheet 30-50 seater. The basic wings and structure of the Q400 might be too heavy to make a successful shrink.

I don´t know if for many EU/US and Canadian airlines the older DHC 8, F50s, Brasilias are not too old in 5 years but maybe if they see the need they will opt for the ATR42-600.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1920 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8337 times:



Quoting TwinOtter4Ever (Reply 9):
Unfortunately the Q200 & Q300 are a very different beast from the Q400

Thanks for your post!

Cheers!  wave 



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineYULspotter From Canada, joined Mar 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8294 times:

You have to ask yourself how many orders have been placed for the Q200 or Q300 in the last few years? Not many at all. The demand simply isn't there and does not justify keeping the Q200 & Q300 line open.

Also, why would and airline order an older designed Q200 or Q300 when you can order a more modern Q400 who's break even PAX count is about the same as the max seating capacity of the Q200 (plus the Q400's extra seats).

Besides, Bombardier is busy enough with their Q400 & Global backlog at their De Havilland facility in Toronto.

YULspotter.


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12092 posts, RR: 18
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8267 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting YULspotter (Reply 19):
Also, why would and airline order an older designed Q200 or Q300 when you can order a more modern Q400 who's break even PAX count is about the same as the max seating capacity of the Q200 (plus the Q400's extra seats).

Easy for airlines to choose the Q200/300s over the 400s. The Q400s would be too big for the routes, and would make it harder for the airlines to make a profit, when they need the same number of seats as the smallers Qs to be taken


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8150 times:



Quoting 777ER (Reply 20):
Easy for airlines to choose the Q200/300s over the 400s. The Q400s would be too big for the routes, and would make it harder for the airlines to make a profit, when they need the same number of seats as the smallers Qs to be taken

Did you even read his post? Why order an older technology plane with 37 or 50 seats when the Q400 makes a profit at around 35-40 seats?


User currently offlineVhqpa From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 1456 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8150 times:



Quoting 777ER (Reply 20):
Quoting YULspotter (Reply 19):
Also, why would and airline order an older designed Q200 or Q300 when you can order a more modern Q400 who's break even PAX count is about the same as the max seating capacity of the Q200 (plus the Q400's extra seats).

Easy for airlines to choose the Q200/300s over the 400s. The Q400s would be too big for the routes, and would make it harder for the airlines to make a profit, when they need the same number of seats as the smallers Qs to be taken

Futhermore the Q200's field performance is far superior to the Q400 which comes in handy particularly in mountainous regions such as NZ.




Vhq



"There you go ladies and gentleman we're through Mach 1 the speed of sound no bumps no bangs... CONCORDE"
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11638 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8134 times:



Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 21):
Did you even read his post? Why order an older technology plane with 37 or 50 seats when the Q400 makes a profit at around 35-40 seats?

Mainly because not all airports have runways which can take the Q400.

Also, is the Q400 certified form gravel and unpaved strips? I'm not sure on that one, but it's another major bonus for the smaller 100/Q200 especially.


Dan  Smile



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineFlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8045 times:



Quoting D328 (Reply 4):
Well looks like Piedmont will be going to ATR then....good for them.....?????

Well god help us if we do. Some of the older pilots just want SOMETHING, but I think in the end, no pilots here want the ATR. Plus, we're not in the market for new 37-50 seaters. We are in the market for 70 something seaters. But of course US Airways mainline are the douches they are and are making it damn near impossible to get ANY new planes.



Go Trojans! Fight On!
25 D328 : Love it! Haha....
26 Bravo1Six : It is, with a gravel strip mod I believe. The Hydro Quebec Q400s operate off of gravel strips.
27 YULspotter : While I agree that the Q400 is too large from some carriers and may not be as well suited for some airports as the Q200/Q300, the reality is that very
28 Luisca : What type of Dash does Piedmont have? Q or non Q I have an interview with them in few weeks. Looking forward to hardcore old school IFR fliying in th
29 Planemaker : Messier gear is purchased while Goodrich is a risk-sharing partner. A heck of a lot. Aside from the airframe, wing, avionics, systems, & engine major
30 DYflyer : Exactly. In a couple of years it is time for Wideroe to start thinking about replacing their 100s. The Q400 is no candidate to replace those.
31 Cubsrule : I wonder if we're going to wind up with another 757 situation... That almost sounds like what you're describing (little demand for new frames but rob
32 Planemaker : It won't be a 757 situation. The move is correct for the short- to mid-term because there is going to be a glut of CRJ200s and ERJ-135/140/145s befor
33 Cubsrule : It seems like there's an assumption about the cost of fuel buried in that statement.
34 FlyUSCG : I believe the -300's WERE Q's but apparently it's too expensive to maintain so the system has been deactivated. But either way, we don't fly anything
35 Planemaker : Not buried... just what is being forecasted by the energy industry.
36 Cubsrule : Fair enough... It is worth noting, however, that there will be a point above which new Qs would be superior to old RJs, especially if regional carrie
37 JBo : I think, in terms of demand for turboprops, we'll probably see a new entrant in the 19-seater category before anything larger. There are only 400 or s
38 Cumulonimbus : Hmm Isin't the EMB 120 still in production? I thought Embraer offers them still if you wanted to buy some.
39 Aeronut : With the cancelation of the -200 and -300, I wonder if a second dash 8-400 line would be opened?
40 Tangowhisky : I think the real reason Bombardier is phasing these out is that they can not sell these SMALLER planes at a high enough price to make it profitable.
41 777ER : Yes I did thanks, and the post below further proves my point, as to why the Q400 would be useless for some airlines 100% correct. I'm surprised the Q
42 Silentbob : 200s had the controls for the Q system, never seen them in any of the 300s.
43 Flighty : I think so too. The fuel burn of a CRJ on a 300 mile flight is considerable. Imagine if you have an old DC-9 and a new A319. Given that the newer air
44 FlyingAY : At least there were deliveries still last year. What are the current options in the 30-40 seat segment? ATR42-500 is a fine plane and the -600 will b
45 777ER : Simple answer is nothing, unless you can find second hands
46 Vfw614 : Well, both the Twin Otter and Dornier 228 will be produced again soon by Viking and RUAG respectively. So new 19 seaters will be available (though unp
47 MEA-707 : There was some misunderstanding about this in this thread. The 'newest' airframe is fuselage 120359 which was built in 2001 already. The last few fra
48 R2rho : So they're basically handing over the market to ATR, which has no intention of abandoning it as they are developing the ATR-42-600. I admit it's a sma
49 Vfw614 : Thanks for clearing that up. So, as I had assumed, there is virtually no new-built turboprop available between 20 and 48 seats and only one product i
50 Aeronut : At one time BBD looked at shortening the Q400 into an advanced Q300. This is probably the most logical way to upgrade the Q200 / Q300 and keep a comm
51 PA515 : Bombardier's 31st January 2008 Program Status Report had a backlog of 17 and at least one has been delivered to Air Philippines since then. Has there
52 JBo : I've read it somewhere on here that the Brasilia may not be actively in production, but is not officially out-of-production. I think it's still theor
53 Planemaker : That was back in 2000. TPs are not leading RJs in sales. Just FYI, they have changed the model designation to the X600... in keeping with the all-new
54 Rikkus67 : As was stated earlier, perhaps Viking could eventually take the Q200 & Q300 production over? They own type certificates on everything up to and includ
55 CRJ900 : If the Q400 can break even with only 35 pax, why not just have the Q400 in the fleet and misuse it on certain routes...? Having 2 FAs onboard is alway
56 777ER : Because the Q400 might not be suitable for some routes which the Q200/300s operate on, and this has already been talked about further up the thread.
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...
WN To Begin Phasing Out B733 posted Thu Nov 29 2007 03:17:06 by Swalifebtw
Casm For Dash 8 Q200/Q300/Q400? posted Thu Aug 24 2006 05:43:02 by Jmc1975
Northwest Phasing Out DC-9's? posted Thu Apr 6 2006 07:33:37 by EK413
Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production posted Fri Oct 28 2005 15:18:53 by Backfire
Bombardier's Profits Sink, Slows Jet Production posted Thu Dec 2 2004 08:05:45 by Greaser
CO Phasing Out MD-80s! posted Wed May 26 2004 23:58:42 by Rj777
Swiss Phasing Out MD-11's posted Sun Nov 16 2003 20:56:56 by Fred1982
Is Onur Air Phasing Out Its MD-88's? posted Thu Mar 13 2003 16:46:10 by 717fan
Is AF Phasing Out The B747? posted Wed Jan 29 2003 15:33:42 by Lapper
Is Alaska Airlines Phasing Out The MD80 posted Sun Dec 24 2000 03:16:49 by Taber00