8b775zq From St. Kitts and Nevis, joined Aug 2005, 191 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 17731 times:
With the abundance of regionals that are flying why did Bombardier decide to discontinue the Q300 and basically concede that segment to ATR. I understand the fact that the Q400 is a very capable and efficient aircraft but what about the airlines for whom this size turboprop is just too large? There are many operators of the Q300 who will be looking to renew fleet in few yrs so what will be a suitable replacement did Bombardier just underestimate and now this segment is ATR's to plunder? All comments and facts are welcome as I personally see this as a huge mistake on the part of Bombardier.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11122 posts, RR: 63 Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 17713 times:
I believe it was because there are only a certain number of slots on the production line which can be occupied by any of the Dash 8 family (Q200, Q300, Q400), and the Q400 was netting the most income. For the numbers it was selling, they figured out it was more economical to drop the two smaller types.
NASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1254 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 17653 times:
Also, looking at the economical numbers, it appears as though the Q400 (depending on the operator charges for tickets) can make a profit by filling less than half its capacity - which is less than the capacity of a -300 series. Given that both types generally operate out of the same airfields, it would be logical to assume that the -300 was made rather obsolete.
Having said all that, however, call me crazy but I think I read somewhere a year ago or so about Bombardier studying the feasibility of a shortened version of the Q400; essentially, a -300 replacement. Anyone else know what I'm talking about?
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2610 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17367 times:
I also think there are a number of changes from the Q200/Q300 to the Q400. It makes sense to concentrate production on a single type rather than having to build multiple numbers of types. I would also suggest that the reason to drop the Q100 initially was that plane had a different engine, and that would also apply to the Q200/Q300 (which used the same engine as each other) vs the Q400.
wn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 17197 times:
Basically, what everyone has said.
When you have an aircraft that costs about the same to operate on a per-seat basis, but with less MX costs to consider, by itself, that is already better than anything the 300 could hope to be. Now add in the flexibility of being able to add in more seats at will, and the business case for the 300 (as well as the any ATR that isn't the new 600) completely evaporates.
I'm sure that many Q400 operators do not fully utilize the space available. But the total cost is still below a 300, never mind an RJ, so they're thrilled to have them.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5481 posts, RR: 34 Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 16923 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 1): I believe it was because there are only a certain number of slots on the production line which can be occupied by any of the Dash 8 family (Q200, Q300, Q400), and the Q400 was netting the most income.
There is actually a lot of space at deHavilland and it is not a production space issue. The Q200 & Q300 fuse (was) fabricated in Ontario while the Q400's is mainly fabricated outside of Canada (China). That helped sink the smaller Dash.
Quoting NASBWI (Reply 2): Having said all that, however, call me crazy but I think I read somewhere a year ago or so about Bombardier studying the feasibility of a shortened version of the Q400; essentially, a -300 replacement. Anyone else know what I'm talking about?
Way back in 2000 DH had plans for the Q500... a shrink of the Q400 but there were no interests in it though they tried over several years to flog it. Now it is the Q400X stretch that is more likely.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
NASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1254 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 16620 times:
Quoting 8b775zq (Reply 7): Is there no way the Q300 could be updated in such a way as ATR is now doin withe the 600 series?
It remains to be seen with regards to the ATR42-600 series. From where I'm standing, the only difference between the -600 series and the current offerings is the upgraded avionics and powerplant. Short-field performance will be improved, but what about the airlines that currently use 42-500s and aren't concerned about short runways? Even with a shorter strip, the 42-500 is quite adequate for most of the missions it's designed for.
When it comes to the -300 series of the DHC-8, I will say that it's my favorite aircraft...albeit for rather shallow reasons. the DHC-8-100 series was introduced to the market as a more efficient version of the DHC-7. Fewer passengers, yes, but the short-field performance was second-to-none for its class of aircraft. The -300 series was pretty-much a stretch of the -100, and still offered quite a bit of efficiency, at the cost of runway requirement. Therefore, many of the major operators of the -300 series dispatched them to airports with ample runway length for the type. This brings me to my argument for the Q400...if the -400 can achieve the desired revenue with only half of its capacity filled, why keep a similar aircraft around with a smaller margin, and similar performance statistics (with regard to runway requirements)? Although the -100 and -200 are STOL, the -300 is not.
8b775zq From St. Kitts and Nevis, joined Aug 2005, 191 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 16576 times:
The Q300 is not STOL? Is the Q300 sgort field performance better than the ATR72 because up until fairly recently LI used the Q300 to EIS but AE used the ATR42 and has in recent years sent the ATR72 since the runway has been lengthened. I have seen the Q300 operate out of some short fields here in the caribbean and it was always my impression that it was STOL especially upon touchdown in AXA.
NASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1254 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 16133 times:
Quoting 8b775zq (Reply 9): The Q300 is not STOL? Is the Q300 sgort field performance better than the ATR72
Perhaps I jumped the gun a liiiittle bit there , but the Q300's accelerate-stop info requires a 3,900ft strip of runway. The AT4-500 needs about 3,800ft while the AT7-500 needs about 4,200ft. I'm not entirely sure if there's a particular runway-length requirement to be considered STOL, but perhaps it's less than 3,000ft? Both the -100 and -200 series need about 2,700ft (compared the the DHC-7's 2,200ft).
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2804 posts, RR: 41 Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 16087 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting NASBWI (Reply 10): m not entirely sure if there's a particular runway-length requirement to be considered STOL, but perhaps it's less than 3,000ft? Both the -100 and -200 series need about 2,700ft (compared the the DHC-7's 2,200ft).
Well there is no real spec, the old FAA/CAA spec "STOL Field" lengths were:
Aircraft under 30000lbs= 1200'
Aircraft 30000lbs and over= 1800'
The original Dash 7 just barely can squeak the 1800' with a limited fuel load...
However STOL basically became 2500-3000' somewhere in common use, even 4000' in some literature... so ?
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2248 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13686 times:
The main reason for BBD to kill the Q300 is that the Q400 is more than just a simple stretch. Apart from having different engines, I believe the Q200/300 were actually built on a different assembly line. For less than 20 planes a year, it wasn't worth keeping it open. So yes, they've handed that market entirely to ATR, but if you look at the ATR-42 orders, that market is quite small, so BBD is not losing out on any big money. On the other hand, ATR can continue to produce handfuls of ATR-42's each year because they come off the same line as the ATR-72 and are basically the same aircraft except for a few fuselage plugs, so producing -42's comes at no additional cost to them.
From an airline point of view, as has been said, the Q400 has a very low break-even load factor, you can fly them half full and still not lose money. So those airlines who want to stay with the Qseries will have little probelm readapting their routes to the Q400. And those who really want a 50-seater with low operating costs can buy the new ATR-42-600.
In any case, the market is clealy leaning to larger turboprops. I have no doubt that a 90-seater would be a great seller if somebody dared to develop it.
ACJAZZAME From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 47 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13580 times:
The main reason Bombardier decided to stop production of the Q100, 200, 300 series is Collins stopped producing the EFIS screens for these aircraft. To update these DASHs to a new avionic platform would require lots of engineering and money and with the great economics of the Q400, it was just easier to sell the Q400. I think most operators will have no problems substituting a Q400 for a 300.
Birdwatching From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3573 posts, RR: 52 Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13504 times:
Is it just me, or is there no such thing as a Q300 or Q200?
I always thought there was the -200, -300 and the Q400. They added the Q to the 400 for "quiet"
I could be wrong though...
Soren
All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
NASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1254 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13135 times:
Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 14): Is it just me, or is there no such thing as a Q300 or Q200?
I always thought there was the -200, -300 and the Q400. They added the Q to the 400 for "quiet"
Originally, the -100s, -200s, and -300s did not have the ANVS system in place, as the technology wasn't available until 1995 (According to Bombardier's website). The system was retrofitted to those models at the request of the airlines operating them, and it was made standard on all -400 series and subsequent -1, 2, and -300 series models until production ceased.
MHG From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 670 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13090 times:
Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 14): Is it just me, or is there no such thing as a Q300 or Q200?
I always thought there was the -200, -300 and the Q400. They added the Q to the 400 for "quiet"
I could be wrong though...
Oh, yes there is such thing called Q200 and Q300 !!!
They´re essentially upgraded versions of the basic 200/300 series.
(different avioncs and - more important - a significantly reduced noise level inside cabin !!! )
Unfortunately some airlines operating the older versions advertise their fleet as Q-series (i´ve seen that already)
Easy as you can´t tell the differences from outside ...
Quoting MHG (Reply 16): Unfortunately some airlines operating the older versions advertise their fleet as Q-series (i´ve seen that already) Easy as you can´t tell the differences from outside ...
8b775zq From St. Kitts and Nevis, joined Aug 2005, 191 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 11530 times:
What is the the break-even point for the Q300 vs Q400? I ask because lets say an airline can barely half-full their Q300's then I am thinking a Q400 is a bit much for them but then this is probably where the new twin otter comes into play. can the Q400 operate into all short-fields just as the Q400 e.g. EIS???
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3592 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 11479 times:
The ATR42-600 has only sold 5 frames so far, and it is also a slighter smaller aircraft than the Q300 (IIRC, max. capacity 48 vs. 56 - although the latter is seldom used on the Q300). My feeling is that the small number in which the ATR42-600 is selling nowadays is due to STOL-type niche applications for which its nearest competitor would be the Q200 rather than the Q300.
I guess for the time being the market is fine. Most network carriers have stopped or are in the process of stopping using 50 seaters through their affiliates. For third-level carriers, plenty of reasonably young Fokker 50, ATR42, DHC8-300 are in the 2nd hand market, and those carriers generally are not interested in buying factory fresh aircraft if decent used aircraft are available. It will be interesting when all those 50 seaters are becoming long in the tooth even for smaller carriers and nothing is on the market to which they could turn to other than Q400s or ATR72s which have good economics, but may be limited in sone operational aspects.
acjazzame From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 47 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 11236 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 20): I guess for the time being the market is fine. Most network carriers have stopped or are in the process of stopping using 50 seaters through their affiliates. For third-level carriers, plenty of reasonably young Fokker 50, ATR42, DHC8-300 are in the 2nd hand market, and those carriers generally are not interested in buying factory fresh aircraft if decent used aircraft are available. It will be interesting when all those 50 seaters are becoming long in the tooth even for smaller carriers and nothing is on the market to which they could turn to other than Q400s or ATR72s which have good economics, but may be limited in sone operational aspects.
Couldn't agree with you more. Maybe in a few years the carriers will go back to the aircraft who started it all: the Twin Otter. The new 400 series looks great!!
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5481 posts, RR: 34 Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 11187 times:
Quoting r2rho (Reply 12): Apart from having different engines, I believe the Q200/300 were actually built on a different assembly line.
The Q400 is not so much built but assembled at DH, while the smaller Dash-8s really were fabricated/built/assembled at the deHavilland plant (which is mainly pre-WW2 and the additions merely followed the same "bay" format). While BBD attempted to sub-contract out as much fabrication of parts and components on the smaller Dash-8s as they could and rationalize production to improve costs they weren't successful. In the end, it was really the RJ that killed the Q300.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
doug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3162 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 11141 times:
Quoting 8b775zq (Reply 19): What is the the break-even point for the Q300 vs Q400? I ask because lets say an airline can barely half-full their Q300's then I am thinking a Q400 is a bit much for them but then this is probably where the new twin otter comes into play. can the Q400 operate into all short-fields just as the Q400 e.g. EIS???
Depends on ticket prices and airline costs. Break even load factors when given as absolutes are completely meaningless.
.....But the return on bigger aircraft with more seats probably outweighed the depreciated cost of used Q200s (if they could really get those cheaper than new and higher capacity MA-60s in the first place) even considering the load penalty those have to take at Caticlan.
Quoting 8b775zq (Reply 19): I ask because lets say an airline can barely half-full their Q300's then I am thinking a Q400 is a bit much for them
This doesn't seem to be much of a problem in MPH's case, as one carrier even use the ATR-72-212A despite the restrictions.....
25 woodsboy: I know that some of AirCanada Jazz Dash-8-300s are not Q300s or maybe none of them are....they are, without a doubt that loudest most insanely uncomfo
26 wn700driver: You do realize it's no quieter in the flight deck. I should think pilots have a much tougher time, especially considering what regionals tend to pay.
27 Arrow: A little hyperbole there maybe? If not, I hope you saw a doctor -- bleeding ears sounds more like a cabin pressure issue than noise. I've had dozens
29 Devilfish: I couldn't find the particular news item now, but this old report suggested so..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...g-cjs-and-going-all-turbop
30 speedygonzales: WF operates their -100s from several 800m airports, often with challenging terrain.
31 Pacific: Load penalty? Only if regulators enforce it (note: CAT 2). The MA-60 involved in the overrun had 50+ passengers. Quite disturbing really, although th
32 MHG: That´s true but the -100 has slightly better field performance than the -200 ... ! Didn´t sound logic to me but Bombardier´s website shows it that
33 Devilfish: Noted, hence these subsequent portions of the post..... . Please note that a ban had been issued, and PAL Express has since been allowed to resume se
34 ChallengerDan: This one actually is a Q aircraft, the ANVS was fitted on it. And it is not used commercially, it flies a 2/3 x daily shuttle between Bombardier's Mo
35 doug_Or: Past tense. They're all gone. I got to fly on an Asian Spirit/Zest Dash-7 in fall 08. Picked them for the a/c type... it went mechanical and we weren
36 Devilfish: I was waiting for someone to pick it up --- note the captions..... Posted the other photo to emphasize MHG's last point. . They had another very inte
37 doug_Or: That certainly would have been a trip as well. I've been on the one at the museum in NRT, and that'll probably be the closest I ever come to flying i
Sponsor Message: 
From St. Kitts and Nevis, joined Aug 2005, 191 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11122 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1254 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2008, 348 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2610 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5481 posts, 
, but the Q300's accelerate-stop info requires a 3,900ft strip of runway. The AT4-500 needs about 3,800ft while the AT7-500 needs about 4,200ft. I'm not entirely sure if there's a particular runway-length requirement to be considered STOL, but perhaps it's less than 3,000ft? Both the -100 and -200 series need about 2,700ft (compared the the DHC-7's 2,200ft).
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2248 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4427 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
