EWRkid1990 From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 175 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1368 times:
Recently looking at several booking options that originate/arrive at EWR, I noticed that the Q400 has been replaced on several routes I have flown the Q400 on before, like EWR-PIT, EWR-BUF, EWR-ALB. I know this is only a small sampling of the routes it flew out of EWR, but it looks like they've been removed from the EWR schedule. Are the Q400's flying out of another UA hub, or are they gone altogether, because United still lists the aircraft on its fleet page.
EWRkid1990 From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1370 times:
So Q400's are coming back to EWR soon? I love them if you sit aft of the engine, WAY less noisy. The flights I've had with them were comfortable, quiet (again, sit BEHIND the prop), and felt less cramped than an E145, even though its 2-2 seating. The ceilings seemed higher also, and having bins on both sides of the isle is definitely a plus.
I assume you mean the only regional AIRCRAFT you like better than the Q400?
BTW, looking at the schedules for this spring, Republic is operating them on the IAD-PVD route again!
I am ecstatic to see them coming back! Love them! The Q1/200, while only having flown on my first one very recently, are fun little puddle-jumpers! The shaking and rattling makes the flight more interesting!
Thomas_Jaeger From Switzerland, joined Apr 2002, 2335 posts, RR: 29 Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1372 times:
From what I can see in our schedule data at ch-aviation, they plan to resume EWR operations from January 2, 2013 operating to ALB, BWI, BOS, BUF, BTV, PIT, PWM, RDU, ROC, IAD.
Does anyone have an updated status of their fleet, we currently have the following as flying in our database. Is that list correct or do we have too many as I assume:
Are the following still parked or already operating?:
[Edited 2012-11-11 18:38:28]
Swiss aviation news junkie living all over the place
jetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2689 posts, RR: 35 Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1370 times:
Quoting Caspian27 (Reply 3): While I'm not exactly a fan of who is operating them, can you expound a bit on why you dislike them?
From a ramp agent perspective:
Extremely unreliable and maintenance sensitive aircraft, we have at least one flight a day that is delayed 4+ hours for maintenance. "A Day" If it doesn't delay it cancels.
They are a pain in the neck to load and unload because of the shelf in the aft bin. On landing, all the bags that are stacked on the shelf fall forward onto the floor section (because of the braking action) of the bin and block the doorway and get stuck in the bin webbing.
On overnighters you have to secure the propellers with ropes and ties so they don't windmill on the ramp.
You have to hand pump the brakes before dead towing. This is done with a pole that is inserted into a hand pump in the gear well of the right main gear. Takes some pumping to get the brake system up to pressure.
The aft bin door is also temperamental and difficult to shut sometimes. And having to raise the door and then secure the door from closing on you with a large pole adds more time and complexity to a "quick turn."
The lavatory dump system is also fun, it's not uncommon to not get it right and have lavatory waste on the ramp. Luckily I haven't had that problem yet (knock on wood), but have seen many very experienced agents mess it up and put turds on the ramp. Other aircraft it's a very easy task and usually no problem.
From a passenger perspective:
They are noisy and the vibrations can drive you insane, especially the closer to the engines you are. The forward door is very small and you have to duck quite a bit on entering.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 4074 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 17 hours ago) and read 1371 times:
Quoting EWRkid1990 (Reply 12): wouldn't the lack of Q400's free up gate space for mainline jets in the C2 concourse, where the -400's seem to always park?
As said above they are coming back, and looking at summer schedules (which are, admittedly, a place holder) they seem to be using them out of EWR and IAD.
Assuming that they don't come back, then it must be inevitable that there will be more big RJs in EWR. I think the first step to filling in those C gates would be to move the ERJ-170s over from A1, allowing them to consolidate their A operations and close the A1 United Club.
Unfortunately the A2 zoo is here to stay since there is simply no way to shoehorn those ERJs into C
Thomas_Jaeger From Switzerland, joined Apr 2002, 2335 posts, RR: 29 Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 17 hours ago) and read 1371 times:
Quoting jetmatt777 (Reply 11): Republic is the sole operator of the Q400 for UA and they are being exclusively flown out of DEN. No EWR Q400's.
Republic will fly them from EWR from next year.
From what I can see the only regional operators currently at EWR are Commutair with Dash 8-200s and Dash 8-300s, Expressjet with ERJ-145s and Shuttle America with EMB-170s. I do not see any CRJs scheduled today or for any future dates.
Swiss aviation news junkie living all over the place
jetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2689 posts, RR: 35 Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 17 hours ago) and read 1371 times:
Quoting RDH3E (Reply 13): I disagree with everything you just wrote. The Q is a pretty quiet aircraft, and I do not notice any real vibrations that would "drive me insane". Most people seem to agree with me.
On short flights they are no problem, but United is deploying these aircraft on 1.5-2 hour flights. 2 hours on any prop is a non-starter for me.
I can only talk for myself, but I don't have any problem with the Q. It does rattle a bit when it starts up, and takeoffs can be a bit noisy, but during cruise I've never had a problem with noise or vibration.
My longest Q flight was CBR-BNE, which was blocked at 2:20. Other than being a pain since the 737 block time is 1:50, i didn't bother me at all.
I am, however, a much bigger ATR fan than Q. the 72-500s are a great little aircraft. They are (I feel) more spacious and quieter.
mcg From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 738 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 15 hours ago) and read 1369 times:
For what it's worth I recently had a trip from DEN that was Q400's both ways. The outbound was delayed a couple of hours by unspecified mechanical issues. The return flight was canceled. When I asked the customer service agent what was the reason for the cancellation she said 'well we've got this aircraft called a Q400 and it presents us with ongoing reliability issues'.
I like riding in the aircraft. It's a little loud but I like the lower cruise altitude for looking out the window. My wife said the airplane on the outbound leg was 'real nice', which is a good measure of how typical passengers would perceive it.
For what it's worth, I have flown them on the EWR-MYR route, which clocks in at between 1:20-1:45, a few times and I didn't notice any of what you mentioned. It was the same as a CRJ-900, except for the higher noise pitch, but that's it.
jetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2689 posts, RR: 35 Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 1369 times:
Quoting RDH3E (Reply 20): It appears there is a sweet spot with this aircraft that it makes sense to target this type of segment.
Yes but how much are the rebookings and loss of reputation costing the airline when everyday you are spending money to rebook passengers at a much higher cost on Frontier, Delta, and American?
The dispatch reliability of this aircraft is terrible. Republic acknowledges it and is agreeing to sub in E170's on routes if the maintenance delay is in excess of 4 hours (which is becoming extremely common, almost daily is a Q400 flight delayed more than 4 hours at my station).