Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CRJ700 Vs Dash 8 Q400  
User currently offlineozark1986 From Italy, joined Sep 2011, 6 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11747 times:

I need some help. I know that comparing CRJ700 with DASH8 Q400 is like apples and oranges, but can someone help me understand the differences in average flight cycle operating costs between these 2 commuter planes? Is the Q400 that much cheaper on a percentage basis compared to the CRJ700. Are there any advantages to the CRJ700? I know this is quite an open ended thread, but....

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16866 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11696 times:

Quoting ozark1986 (Thread starter):
Is the Q400 that much cheaper on a percentage basis compared to the CRJ700. Are there any advantages to the CRJ700? I know this is quite an open ended thread, but....

From what i've read the Q400 has the advantage on routes up to 500 miles, after that the economic advantage of the Q400 begins to decline vs regional jets like the CR7.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11611 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 1):
From what i've read the Q400 has the advantage on routes up to 500 miles, after that the economic advantage of the Q400 begins to decline vs regional jets like the CR7.

Very true, the jet has a speed advantage, it can do more cycles in a day (over 500 miles) than a turboprop. But at less than 500nm range, the turboprop has a clear advantage. The trouble is that the ATR72 beats both at the 500nm range, at per flight operating costs. The Q400 can do more cycles since it's faster, but it will burn a lot more fuel too. The ATR72 is very efficient, but a bit slower.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16866 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11584 times:

I wish Pinnacle would exercise the options they have with Bombadier for additional Q400s for UA, the Q400 would be perfect for intra-California and Denver hub routes. Those places have lots of UA routes of 500 miles or less.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8541 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11551 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 2):

Very true, the jet has a speed advantage, it can do more cycles in a day (over 500 miles) than a turboprop

Bingo. That dramatically increases revenue per aircraft. And revenue per pilot, if you look at it that way.

At first glance, the Q400 wins hands down. But that isn't the case. It is an expensive new build aircraft. It turns out in a saturated RJ market with low residual values, there is little opportunity for Q400 right now.


User currently offlineozark1986 From Italy, joined Sep 2011, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11541 times:

Thanks for the comments. I have heard that the ATR is more efficient on the shorter legs. Is it that there are so many dated RJs around, it is more cost advantageous than a new Q400?

[Edited 2011-09-23 06:44:24]

User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11507 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 3):
I wish Pinnacle would exercise the options they have with Bombadier for additional Q400s for UA, the Q400 would be perfect for intra-California and Denver hub routes. Those places have lots of UA routes of 500 miles or less.

These days, they would be better off with ATR's, especially a combination of ATR42's and ATR72's. I believe only the Q400's are being offered today. The ATR family would give them more flexibility, more efficient airplanes, and it would cost them less money.


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11496 times:

Quoting ozark1986 (Reply 5):
. Is it that there are so many dated RJs around, it is more cost advantageous than a new Q400?

Not sure what you mean, but if you are referring to ATR's and Q's, no, the RJ's have nothing to do with it. The ATR's are just cheaper to build. If you are referring to RJ's, you can basically pick up a lightly used RJ at the same price as a Q400. Depending on what routes would be used for, most people would buy an RJ since it offers more flexibility on longer flights.


User currently offlineozark1986 From Italy, joined Sep 2011, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 11304 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 7):
Depending on what routes would be used for, most people would buy an RJ since it offers more flexibility on longer flights.

I am evaluating short haul (450 Nm +/-) flights, 4-6 cycles a day. It appears that the ATR family offer a more economical cost structure.


User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5438 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 11265 times:

Quoting ozark1986 (Reply 8):
the ATR family

This is an indefensible, non-economic reason for objecting to an aircraft, but ... the ATR42 cannot satisfy my need for speed. I get seriously impatient on them. It's like a noisy balloon ride. On a typical short-haul I'd rather drive than fly one of those things.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 11228 times:

Question guys,

Do the ATR's and Q400's have comparable economics when flying at the same speeds? Obviously the Q400 is the sprinter, but how is it when matching the ATR's slower speeds?



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineYYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1082 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 11225 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

I doubt anyone would know (but would be happy to find out too) because why buy the Dash if you are going to fly it slow. Why not just get the ATR?


DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 11203 times:

I was thinking along the lines for times that speed would be desired. Such as making up time in the air for a ground delay for example.


Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinerdh3e From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 11188 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
there is little opportunity for Q400 right now.

I think if you look at it, the problem is that there is very little availability. Major carriers don't want 5 AC of a type in their fleet, they want 50. (just an example). From what I understand, if you wanted to order today Bombardier cannot deliver a DH8-4 to you for several years, meaning it would take even longer to gain critical mass in a fleet. I believe that airlines are suffering now for a lack of foresight years ago.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 7):
Depending on what routes would be used for, most people would buy an RJ since it offers more flexibility on longer flights.

Most schedules that a Q (or an RJ) operate under are as part of a larger fleet containing both types. So they really don't go head to head as much as you would think, as you get the Q's you can cherry pick the most appropriate routes from the RJ's.


User currently offlineDash9 From Canada, joined Nov 2008, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 10915 times:

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 13):
if you wanted to order today Bombardier cannot deliver a DH8-4 to you for several years,

BBD is slowing production due to lack of demand. I'm pretty sure if an airline ask for 50 Q400 BBD would be glod to deliver all of them within a year or two.

Dash9


User currently offlinephllax From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 437 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10842 times:

There was an article in one of the magazines a few years back about Horizon and how they were comparing the Q to the CR7 on PDX-SEA. The Q actually beat the CR7 by 5 minutes on most of the comparisons and still used less fuel.

User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3075 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10782 times:

Quoting phllax (Reply 15):
There was an article in one of the magazines a few years back about Horizon and how they were comparing the Q to the CR7 on PDX-SEA. The Q actually beat the CR7 by 5 minutes on most of the comparisons and still used less fuel.

The Q is scheduled for 2:30 from FAT-SEA while the CR7 is scheduled for 2:00. However, my Q flight FAT-SEA was more like 2:10-2:15 and that was while taking a less direct route over the valleys due to T-storms in the Sierras.

I figured a 2:30 flight with no reclining seats on the Q was better than a 3 hour rental car drive to SMF or SJC in 100 degree heat. Having said that, it really wasn't as bad as I expected. The Q FAT-SEA was tolerable and well worth it for the ability to go non-stop. The free beer and wine went a long way to making it a decent flight too.


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10652 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 10):
Do the ATR's and Q400's have comparable economics when flying at the same speeds? Obviously the Q400 is the sprinter, but how is it when matching the ATR's slower speeds?

The ATR would still be ahead. There are some airlines that are acctually flying them slower to save on fuel, but the difference is not beating ATR economics. I had some data on this a while back, I will try to dig it up again and post it here.


User currently onlineLimaFoxTango From Antigua and Barbuda, joined Jun 2004, 789 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 9697 times:

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 13):
I believe that airlines are suffering now for a lack of foresight years ago.

I agree 150%. I also wonder why Bombardier never considered a 50 seat version of the Q400 to replace the Q300's. There are many airlines out there having a tough time because of this. LI is an example of this. LI has a fleet of 15's 300's which are getting up there in age and the astronomical cost of switching to ATR 42-600's is making fleet renewal a tough decision. Bombardier will loose many customers because of this.



You are said to be a good pilot when your take-off's equal your landings.
User currently offlinedoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3407 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 9577 times:

Quoting LimaFoxTango (Reply 18):
I also wonder why Bombardier never considered a 50 seat version of the Q400 to replace the Q300's.


The principal update going from the 300 to the 400 (aside from size) was in power (speed). Using Q400 updates on a 300 would result in a 300 that while faster, was also more expensive to acquire and more expensive to operate. Most independent airlines looking for smaller t-props seem to have a lot of trouble affording new build airframes. The cost per seat to acquire newer generation TPs probably has almost as much to do with the death of the market segment as the RJ boom did.



When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlinerikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1646 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 9537 times:

Quoting LimaFoxTango (Reply 18):
which are getting up there in age

Which begs the question: I wonder how long the 19 to 50 seat products - regardless of manufacturer - can still go lumbering along (proper maintainence aside)? Nothing new down the pipe, even if it is considered more of a niche market now. I am also not looking at economics, or scope clauses, but simply one for one replacement.



AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 684 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 9450 times:

Quoting LimaFoxTango (Reply 18):
I also wonder why Bombardier never considered a 50 seat version of the Q400 to replace the Q300's.

Because there is no demand for 50 seat turboprops. ATR has only 3 ATR42 in his backlog and continues to offer it because it is assembled on the same assembly line of the ATR72. In addition, operating costs of the ATR72 is not much higher than the ATR42 (same for Q400 vs Q300)


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25332 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 9439 times:

Quoting doug_Or (Reply 19):
Quoting LimaFoxTango (Reply 18):
I also wonder why Bombardier never considered a 50 seat version of the Q400 to replace the Q300's.


The principal update going from the 300 to the 400 (aside from size) was in power (speed). Using Q400 updates on a 300 would result in a 300 that while faster, was also more expensive to acquire and more expensive to operate. Most independent airlines looking for smaller t-props seem to have a lot of trouble affording new build airframes. The cost per seat to acquire newer generation TPs probably has almost as much to do with the death of the market segment as the RJ boom did.

Orders for the Q300 had also disappeared. And almost all recent ATR sales have been for the -72. As of June 20 (latest info I can find on the ATR website), there was only an order backlog of 10 -42s compared to 196 -72s. Excerpt below:

2011 STATUS
(as of June 20th, 2011)
Aircraft type Orders Deliveries
ATR 42 ..........426...... 416
ATR 72.......... 709.......513
TOTAL......... 1135...... 929


User currently onlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5465 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 9171 times:

The 500 mile point is often bandied about as the flight length were the advantage shifts from the Q400 to the jets. Does anyone have any real world data indicating where that point actually is? It just seems to me that the crossover point should at least be a couple of hundred miles longer...but I'm just guessing.

Some real data would be nice.



What the...?
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7191 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8476 times:

Quoting ozark1986 (Thread starter):

I need some help. I know that comparing CRJ700 with DASH8 Q400 is like apples and oranges, but can someone help me understand the differences in average flight cycle operating costs between these 2 commuter planes? Is the Q400 that much cheaper on a percentage basis compared to the CRJ700. Are there any advantages to the CRJ700? I know this is quite an open ended thread, but....

The DH4 is about 30% cheaper to operate per block hour per seat, but you need to allow for the speed difference. I would disagree with the line crossing at 500 miles. I would say it is more like 750 miles, but the revenue is the other issue. Revenue may be affected if you fly a significantly slower plane than the competition. I would say that taking both revenue and cost into account, the Q400 is the better plane to 600 miles.

BTW, the price of oil significantly alters the crossover point. My numbers are based on $90 oil. As fuel goes higher, the advantage of the Q400 increases and the inverse below $90.

[Edited 2011-09-23 19:17:57]

25 wn700driver : That's actually not indefensible when you think about it. As a customer, you are making a choice to drive or otherwise get to a hub over taking the 4
26 gigneil : The other thing is... The Q300 is just a Dash 8-300 with a Q added. It wasnt really improved in any serious way. I also wonder with the other posters
27 LAXintl : Bombardier managed to get themselves in a catch-22 marketing wise. Similar to problem faced with Airbus a few years back over the A330/A340. At the en
28 Post contains links Wingscrubber : This thread got me curious, so I went hunting, found some interesting analysis on the topic, and there is probably more out there to be found since it
29 Post contains links Wingscrubber : Here's some more. http://www.transportenvironment.org/...AFQjCNHhLffHgPyItGLiGrvQ_FXbPZJlBQ This one doesn't mention turboprops in great detail, but i
30 ozark1986 : Everyone, thanks for your comments. Wingscrubber, fantastic collection of knowledge. The issue is that everyone is talking economics and no one is tal
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic CRJ700 Vs Dash 8 Q400
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is The Cost (flight-hour) Of A Dash-Q400? posted Thu Feb 19 2009 22:49:40 by Beaucaire
A319 Vs Bombardier Q400 Fuel Usage posted Tue Aug 12 2008 20:01:14 by FlyHi76
Rusty Bolts On SAS Dash-8 Q400 Landing Gear posted Mon Oct 15 2007 12:45:23 by Starlionblue
Opt. Cost Of ATR 72 VS Dash 84 posted Sun Dec 19 2004 00:00:56 by AirbusCanada
Dash Q400 take off speed ? posted Sun Jul 11 2004 21:52:07 by Trb10
Dash-8-Q Vs Dash-8 Non-Q posted Fri Aug 9 2002 03:24:55 by Crank
Q400 Vs. A320/A321 - What's More Fuel Efficient? posted Sat Jul 25 2009 07:06:15 by YTZ
Q400 Main Cabin Door Higher Than Other Dash 8s? posted Thu Mar 8 2007 05:17:36 by Flyboy80
Pros And Cons Of Speed Vs Vector Stabilty posted Tue Sep 20 2011 15:50:09 by Chamonix
United Vs Continental 757 posted Sun Sep 18 2011 08:45:29 by dla320
CRJ700 Vs Dash 8 Q400 posted Fri Sep 23 2011 05:29:22 by ozark1986
What Is The Cost (flight-hour) Of A Dash-Q400? posted Thu Feb 19 2009 22:49:40 by Beaucaire
A319 Vs Bombardier Q400 Fuel Usage posted Tue Aug 12 2008 20:01:14 by FlyHi76
Rusty Bolts On SAS Dash-8 Q400 Landing Gear posted Mon Oct 15 2007 12:45:23 by Starlionblue
Opt. Cost Of ATR 72 VS Dash 84 posted Sun Dec 19 2004 00:00:56 by AirbusCanada
Dash Q400 take off speed ? posted Sun Jul 11 2004 21:52:07 by Trb10
Dash-8-Q Vs Dash-8 Non-Q posted Fri Aug 9 2002 03:24:55 by Crank
Q400 Vs. A320/A321 - What's More Fuel Efficient? posted Sat Jul 25 2009 07:06:15 by YTZ
Q400 Main Cabin Door Higher Than Other Dash 8s? posted Thu Mar 8 2007 05:17:36 by Flyboy80
Low LF Pax Balance Placement: ATR/Dash 8 posted Sun Nov 6 2011 23:37:14 by intsim

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format