Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QX To Order The CRJ-900 For New Routes?  
User currently offlineolddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 383 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9732 times:

On a flight last night BURSEA and a pilot was dead-heading back to SEA for his next flight. We jabbered for most of the flight. He was saying his partner was on a team of staff from AS/QX researching the CR9. They've already put on the drawing board potential markets: FAT, RNO, BUR, LGB, TUS, PHX, SMF to PDX and FAT, RNO, STS, MRY, SBA, SMF, BUR, LGB to SEA as well as RNO to FAT, SJC & LGB... as well as beginning SBP to LAX and SEA with Q400's.

Doesn't this seem like a lot of smoke and no fire? He said they'd been looking for equipment between the 73G and CR7 and that didn't pan out, now they're looking for equipment between the Q400 and 73G. It's also still viewed as a commuter aircraft so some of the slot restricted stations (ie LGB) wouldn't be an issue and that it would help SJC & SNA with their curfews too. He wasn't sure of any variations but that they thought of seating w/F class around 82-86 pax... If this equipment was such a marvelous piece of machinery for QX why wasn't it ordered sooner?

How does the CR9 operate in the hot markets like TUS & PHX? Also if the CR7 didn't work how would the CR9? Some of the runways don't seem long enough to be taking the CR9 like STS?

Then he said something very interesting... AS/QX was also looking into CCR-LAX, CCR-SEA on the Q400. They had been in talks for months with Contra Costa County, Alameda County and Buchanan Field managers.

My question is if PSA ran a 146 CCR-LAX, Eagle ran a J31 CCR-SJC, and I think Air21 CCR-FAT ran an F28, and none of them could make it work, how has the market been primed? None of the smallest equipment from the J31 to the largest 146 could make it work. Can there be anything to this? Maybe some sort of it is a subsidy? Can the Bay Area support 4 commercial airports? I know SJC has lost a lot of business since the down-turn of the Silly-con Valley

Of course my final question to him was how he knew all of this aside from his partner's word? Apparently AS would like the CR9 to be their aircraft if they order it and not QX. But if AS has the CR9 (instead of QX) would the AS pilots be at the same level on a CR9 as the 737 pilots? Not sure what the last part means if he was speaking of salary, hours required to fly, seniority, etc

Does this sound possible plausible or more like someone's fantasy?

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAS739BSI From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9602 times:

Pilot rumors are typically the ones that are the least likely to happen. I doubt QX would want another fleet type after ditching the CR7s.

User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1267 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9524 times:

I have no insider knowledge of this, but it would seem very odd to dump the CR7s and outsource that flying to Skywest only to purchase CR9's a year or two later. Why get rid of a small subfleet to streamline and then add another small subfleet?

User currently offlinetoltommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3289 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9368 times:

Quoting cargolex (Reply 2):

I have no insider knowledge of this, but it would seem very odd to dump the CR7s and outsource that flying to Skywest only to purchase CR9's a year or two later. Why get rid of a small subfleet to streamline and then add another small subfleet?

Because the market has changed perhaps? To look at a business decision once and never revisit it could be foolish.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
On a flight last night BURSEA and a pilot was dead-heading back to SEA for his next flight

Rumors from crew tend to be what that crewmember wants (i.e. new service to the city they commute from, or a new airplane so they'll be able to upgrade). Rarely is it based on actual business knowledge.


User currently offlineHiFlyerAS From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 944 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9344 times:

Quoting cargolex (Reply 2):
would seem very odd to dump the CR7s and outsource that flying to Skywest only to purchase CR9's a year or two later

Exactly. This makes no sense....QX was hell-bent on getting to a single fleet-type as quickly as possible.


User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5803 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9311 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
It's also still viewed as a commuter aircraft so some of the slot restricted stations (ie LGB)

LGB's restrictions are that commuter slots can only be used by aircraft under 75,000 lbs MTOW. The base CR9 is 80,500 lbs MTOW so it would not be able to use commuter slots.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1267 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9244 times:

Quoting toltommy (Reply 3):
Because the market has changed perhaps? To look at a business decision once and never revisit it could be foolish.

I don't disagree, but it's been less than a full year since Skywest has been operating those CR7's. It would have to be an awfully fast and dramatic change to justify the expense of a subfleet of new RJs.


User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6126 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9225 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Then he said something very interesting... AS/QX was also looking into CCR-LAX, CCR-SEA on the Q400. They had been in talks for months with Contra Costa County, Alameda County and Buchanan Field managers.

This guy is blowing smoke to you buddy. CCR will not have airline service anytime soon. The NIMBY's would cream the idea first off. Second, why would AS/QX serve OAK/SMF and CCR?

He said he was on a team evaluating the plane for AS/QX service. Did he mention that they are looking to own CR9? It still takes a team to evaluate the service even if they will have OO operate them. This is always a possibility.

And I third the above opinions on crew rumors!

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 5):
LGB's restrictions are that commuter slots can only be used by aircraft under 75,000 lbs MTOW. The base CR9 is 80,500 lbs MTOW so it would not be able to use commuter slots.

Has AS given up their mainline slots?



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5803 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9181 times:

Quoting as739x (Reply 7):

Has AS given up their mainline slots?

Yes. The current allocation of mainline slots at LGB is JetBlue (32), US Airways (5), Delta (2), FedEx (1), UPS (1), that covers all 41 mainline.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineolddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9103 times:

I knew it was too good to be true. It just makes you wonder I guess, 'could' there be small amount of truth to needing to fill a gap from a Q400 to a 737. That's a pretty big gap. The Q400 to a CR7 is relatively the same pax wise. But is buying a new sub fleet of say 20% more seating worth it? Probably not... who knows. The only thing I can say is QX has been known to go outside of the box. like their new service from SAN? I flew a QX Q400 from PRC-LAX a few years ago. And carriers who flew into SMF, SFO, OAK, SJC, SCK & FAT added CCR, like PSA. Of course maybe that's why it didn't last  The upper East Bay doesn't seem like it has the passenger flow it would need to sustain the flow they would need to open a station.

Anyway, thanks for all of the input...


User currently offlinejrfspa320 From Australia, joined Sep 2005, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8981 times:

They may as well go for the CRJ1000...

User currently offlinewedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5902 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8890 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
My question is if PSA ran a 146 CCR-LAX, Eagle ran a J31 CCR-SJC, and I think Air21 CCR-FAT ran an F28, and none of them could make it work, how has the market been primed? None of the smallest equipment from the J31 to the largest 146 could make it work. Can there be anything to this? Maybe some sort of it is a subsidy? Can the Bay Area support 4 commercial airports? I know SJC has lost a lot of business since the down-turn of the Silly-con Valley

I completely disagree that CCR could not support PSA's 146 service to LAX. The CCR-LAX route continued through the US/PS merger. Flights were always full. The ONLY reason why CCR-LAX was dropped is because USAir removed the 146's from service, which doomed a lot of intra-CA service.

I don't think AA Eagle (Wings West) ever served CCR. I do know that Westair served CCR-SFO with both twin-otter and Cessna 402 equipment.

Could QX successfully serve CCR-LAX or CCR-SEA with a Q400 today? Definitely! By the way, that would be 5 Bay Area airports with STS.

Quoting as739x (Reply 7):
This guy is blowing smoke to you buddy. CCR will not have airline service anytime soon. The NIMBY's would cream the idea first off. Second, why would AS/QX serve OAK/SMF and CCR?

There's enough catchment area under the watchful eye of Mt. Diablo and across and along the Straits that could definitely support QX service to either SEA or LAX.

However, you are right that the public would have more than a cow. The public wants Buchanan Field closed...let alone new passenger service. TVL is in the same boat.


User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3205 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8459 times:

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 11):
The ONLY reason why CCR-LAX was dropped is because USAir removed the 146's from service, which doomed a lot of intra-CA service

Same exact concept in Oregon, when QX pulled the Q200's....sigh. BTW, I liked flying the 146, kinda loud but fun and good for looking out the window, no pesky wings to obstruct your view.  

It surprised me when QX got rid of the CR7's, but they did it at a time the planes were still worth something. Since then I've been thinking that AS does need a plane type for routes like SBA, LGB, ONT, BUR. Whether that is OO or QX remains to be seen. But if AS does it, they thought it out fully. Is AS and their customers experiencing the same AS/QX spirit when flying on OO? If there are enough unhappy elites, maybe AS/QX is looking at bringing those routes back in house.

[Edited 2012-04-11 04:22:44]


AA-AC-AQ-AS-BN-BD-CO-CS-DL-EA-EZ-HA-HP-KL-KN-MP-MW-NK-NW-OO-OZ-PA-PS-QX-RC-RH-RW-SA-TG-TW-UA-US-VS-WA-WC-WN
User currently offlineyenne09 From Canada, joined Jun 2010, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8304 times:

I don't know the exact situation regarding CCR-LAX. But I flew on Air Canada JAZZ CRJ 705 that in fact is a CRJ-900
fuselage with some business class seats. Can it be because of having business class over the CRJ-700?


User currently offlinemsp747 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 317 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8219 times:

I know they are loyal to Bombardier, but maybe AS or QX would consider adding some 190's to the fleet. That is a roomier plane, so I'm sure the elites would be happier. They could probably even make it work with the mainline pilots flying it. Plus, it would give them more seats (including first class) than the CRJ900. I think AS needs to expand their fleet beyond two planes. While they have several sizes of 737's, the Q400 does limit them, especially on the longer, thinner routes

User currently offlinewhatusaid From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 664 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8159 times:

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 12):
Is AS and their customers experiencing the same AS/QX spirit when flying on OO? If there are enough unhappy elites, maybe AS/QX is looking at bringing those routes back in house.

[Edited 2012-04-11 04:22:44]

OO has nailed the service model for AS. Yes, the first month or so was more Skywest or "lost identity" than AS, but that's changed at least in my opinion. I'm doing SEA-FAT on OO often and it's as good as any Horizon Air flight. The Skywest ground crew at FAT has finally learned to hustle the bags on to the jetway.


User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3205 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8126 times:

Quoting whatusaid (Reply 15):

OO has nailed the service model for AS. Yes, the first month or so was more Skywest or "lost identity" than AS, but that's changed at least in my opinion. I'm doing SEA-FAT on OO often and it's as good as any Horizon Air flight. The Skywest ground crew at FAT has finally learned to hustle the bags on to the jetway

Good to hear, I hope farming these routes out to OO will keep flyers happy. I'd love to think AS/QX would farm out the smaller cities they abandoned when the Q200 left the fleet. Having QQ use EMB-120's to fly LMT, RDD, ACV, OTH as AS, would take care of not having small enough aircraft to service these places. I doubt this rumor is true if AS is happy with OO.   



AA-AC-AQ-AS-BN-BD-CO-CS-DL-EA-EZ-HA-HP-KL-KN-MP-MW-NK-NW-OO-OZ-PA-PS-QX-RC-RH-RW-SA-TG-TW-UA-US-VS-WA-WC-WN
User currently onlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3070 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8037 times:

Quoting whatusaid (Reply 15):
I'm doing SEA-FAT on OO often and it's as good as any Horizon Air flight.

I agree with that. I did the SEA-FAT evening OO/AS flight last 8/31 and the service was outstanding. It was one of the best coach flights I've ever had. One of the flight attendants was especially good. The free beer never stopped flowing on that flight (once I told her truthfully that we only had to walk across the street to the hotel, and weren't driving).


User currently offlineiceberg210 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7992 times:

I think you'd see AS push BBD into stretching the Q400, into the Q500 or whatever you'd want to call it, before you see them picking up CRJ900's. Sounds like Skywest is working out well for them, so why not let OO continue running all the jet stuff, and QX can run the prop stuff.

Great idea on the EMB120's, I'm still curious what Skywest is going to do down the road, they continue to wind that fleet down, but nothing really to replace them... If I were EMB I would be VERY much chatting with Skywest about the possibility of a EMB120NG, given that it's not like the EMB120/ERJ145 line is exactly busy these days, nothing might happen, but it'd certainly be a conversation I'd want to have (not to say it hasn't happened already). Course that's another topic for another thread...



Erik Berg (Foster's is over but never forgotten)
User currently onlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6018 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7531 times:

Quoting iceberg210 (Reply 18):
If I were EMB I would be VERY much chatting with Skywest about the possibility of a EMB120NG,

Embraer will need to do something here soon about the E-120. While you can still "buy" one, the design is out-dated, and uses old weight standards. Plus, from what I hear, certain spare parts are getting harder to come by, which will eventually lead to cannibalization of any stored aircraft, and possibly scrapping.

[Edited 2012-04-11 09:18:18]


Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlinechrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2103 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6816 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
How does the CR9 operate in the hot markets like TUS & PHX?

They operate just fine. Both TUS and PHX have ~11,000 foot runways, you know...


User currently offlinepenguins From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6372 times:

The CRJ-900 flies 2500 km at 850 km/h while the 2522 km at 667 km/h. The range is the same for both aircraft and the Q400 does not fly to much slower than the CRJ. Because QX is west coast only the speed will only increase flight time for a little bit. Therefore, for the sake of fleet comonality, they should keep the Q400s as their only plane in my opinion.

User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2180 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4503 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Did QX buy the CRJ700 because of scope clause limitations or because it was the only aircraft available at the time? The CRJ900 and E-Jets didn't appear until 2004 or so.

70-seat one-class CRJ700s probably became too small and uneconomical, but an 80-84-seat two-class CRJ900 or 94-seat two-class CRJ1000 might be a good complement to the Q400. If scope clause agreements allow it, though.



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4397 times:

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 22):
Did QX buy the CRJ700 because of scope clause limitations or because it was the only aircraft available at the time?

There isn't really a scope clause at Alaska that would prohibit a regional from operating something with more than 70 seats. I think it's partly due to the CRJ700 being the best regional jet available at the time. The first order was placed in 1998 for 25 aircraft. So yes, before the larger regional jets hit the scene. This was also a time when fuel was cheap, so having a fleet of half jets and half props wasn't the craziest idea especially when the regional jet boom took off in the US.


User currently offlineflyPBA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4361 times:

I wish AS/QX flew to SBP

25 msp747 : I think part of the decision was based on the fact that these jets were replacing QX's fleet of F-28's, which had 69 seats. The CRJ-700 was basically
26 SuperDash : It was the only jet available and the F-28 were already aged and fuel was going up. Horizon was a launch customer for the CRJ-700 but deliveries were
27 toltommy : Have you noticed the price of fuel lately? The -900 moves a lot more ASMs for not a lot more fuel than the -700. A year can be a long time in this bu
28 Post contains images cschleic : Especially now that Eagle's long gone.
29 RWA380 : Not much would surprise me with QX flying into several California cities. We already know they are big at LAX, they wish to expand from SAN with the
30 ANM604 : On that note, I wonder if AS/QX would ever consider ordering the C-Series? I could see it fitting in nice between the Q's and the 737's, at least ins
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...
Will Sales Pick Up For The CRJ-900 In 2007? posted Sun Dec 31 2006 05:16:53 by CRJ900X
Why Did TWA Wait So Long To Order The 757? posted Wed Mar 7 2012 14:20:03 by MaddogJT8D
LAN To Strengthen The LIM Hub With New Frequencies posted Tue Jan 31 2012 18:31:02 by SCL767
And The AA Announcement Is... (NEW ROUTES) posted Wed Oct 6 2010 05:05:47 by AA767400
Chance To Fly The 753 In Europe, Airlines & Routes posted Wed Feb 3 2010 22:22:17 by Spetouss
EasyJet To Launch AMS-PRG And More New Routes posted Mon Dec 21 2009 07:25:48 by Joost
First CRJ-900 For Estonian posted Mon Aug 17 2009 00:14:30 by Someone83
Questions About The CRJ-900 posted Sun Apr 26 2009 23:05:47 by Viajero
Who Are Most Likely To Order The A388R posted Thu Feb 19 2009 11:36:28 by 747400sp
Sources For New Routes From Paris? posted Sat Jun 14 2008 03:54:46 by A340-600