727glasair
Topic Author
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:51 am

Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:30 pm

QX 9501 is enroute currently ANC-PDX. Anyone know what this is about?
I noticed it is about a 1640 mile trip, FL 250 steady, ground speed has been 350 MPH most of the way, but just a few minutes ago accelerated to 420 near the southern tip of Vancouver Island. Don't know if this speed increase is due to winds aloft, or the captain verifying there is enough fuel left to increase speed.
Flight takes nearly 5 hours. Would it be some kind of test or training? Is this close to their maximum range? Hope the pilots brought some snacks on board...
 
Raventech
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:25 pm

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:36 pm

My guess is probably a flight to bring it back for maintenance.
 
metaldirtnskin
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:42 pm

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:56 pm

Either maintenance or positioning, presumably - QX cancelled two PDX-EUG round trips yesterday and today, and have been cancelling a lot of flights due to crew issues, as widely reported elsewhere. This may or may not be directly related, but in any case, it's likely they are having to shuffle a lot of equipment around to try to fill holes in the schedule.
 
Tailwinds
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:46 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:58 pm

Probably being ferried to a maintenance base.
 
Chugach
Posts: 1001
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:18 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:30 am

This happens all the time. It's for maintenance that is done at PDX. Typically they'll fly ANC-PDX nonstop going south and route PDX-SIT-ANC going north, unless winds are favorable.

Not a big deal.
 
727glasair
Topic Author
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:51 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:03 am

Thanks Mr. Chugach. Not a big deal, but in my narrow viewpoint, seeing a Q-400 on that long of a leg is fascinating and curious. Very interesting, and again I sure hope the crew had some snacks...
 
WPvsMW
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:56 am

and a bladder tank.
 
aeropix
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:08 pm

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:18 am

WPvsMW wrote:
and a bladder tank.


For the aircraft, or for the pilots?
 
F27500
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:52 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:19 am

5 hours on a Dash 8. ... Kill Me.
 
airnorth
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:30 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:35 am

F27500 wrote:
5 hours on a Dash 8. ... Kill Me.

:lol:
Funny, I would love that trip, pick me please!
 
PDX757
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:06 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:35 am

Looks like it's rotating down to PDX to operate from there. N442QX is operating PDX-BLI tonight, 3 hours after arrival from ANC.
 
debonair
Posts: 2950
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:50 pm

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:01 am

airnorth wrote:
Funny, I would love that trip, pick me please!


Sorry, you missed the chance - some years ago ET was flying DAR-ZNZ-ADD on the Dash8Q400. I did ONLY ZNZ-ADD which was 1055mi and 3hrs15min... Nice ride!
 
727glasair
Topic Author
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:51 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:34 pm

Nice catch PDX757....thanks. Is that a common thing, to move a Dash 8 all the way from ANC?
 
ooslc
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:51 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:04 pm

N451QX flew up to ANC yesterday morning to take it's place.
    Ironically, I don't work for OO anymore, and I'm not in SLC anymore. PDX based, aviation enthusiast, non-aviation worker.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 2929
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:31 pm

727glasair wrote:
Thanks Mr. Chugach. Not a big deal, but in my narrow viewpoint, seeing a Q-400 on that long of a leg is fascinating and curious. Very interesting, and again I sure hope the crew had some snacks...

Well there are Saab 340s and regular dash 8s that make the trip all the time. Do you think the turboprops are just stuck in Alaska forever?
 
PDX757
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:06 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:50 pm

727glasair wrote:
Nice catch PDX757....thanks. Is that a common thing, to move a Dash 8 all the way from ANC?

I've seen a few of those flights before on fr24. Not exactly sure why QX would need to swap out Qs unless there is some heavy maintenance coming up soon.
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 4752
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:12 pm

airnorth wrote:
F27500 wrote:
5 hours on a Dash 8. ... Kill Me.

:lol:
Funny, I would love that trip, pick me please!


You know, I used to think like that too, my first free ticket I ever won when I got in the industry was on Air B.C., So we decided to go to Edmonton from Portland Or, but we weren't going to use the least connections, we wanted stops. So 4h 45m later we had flown from Edmonton to Vancouver in a Dash-8 via places like Ft St John, Dawson Creek, Grande Prairie & Prince Edward or William, something like that, in seats 1A, 1B.

We had the same F/A the whole way, nice lady, she sat across from us, so we got familiar with her. Bottom line those seats were not meant for that many hours, nor were the facilities. Glad I did it while I was young.
707, 717, 720, 727-1/2, 737-1/2/3/4/5/7/8/9, 747-1/2/3/4, 757, 767-2/3/4, 777, DC-8-5/6/7, DC-9-1/3/5, MD-80/2/3/7/8, DC-10-10/30/40, MD-11, F-27, F-28, SWM, J31, D38, DH7, DH8, DH4 SD-330, B-146, L-1011-2/500, ATR-42/72, VCV, A-300/310/318/319/320, CR2/7
 
Canuck600
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:25 pm

Is it common to make such long non revenue ferry flights for maintenance? I know it's not possible to do it all the time but wouldn't it have made more sense to operate it in service from Anchorage or Fairbanks to Seattle then a Seattle to Portland flight?
 
32andBelow
Posts: 2929
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:15 pm

Canuck600 wrote:
Is it common to make such long non revenue ferry flights for maintenance? I know it's not possible to do it all the time but wouldn't it have made more sense to operate it in service from Anchorage or Fairbanks to Seattle then a Seattle to Portland flight?

It's normal for airlines with non connected bases to move aircraft around. That way been way to log a flight for revenue. The only way Alaska could get one through with revenue would be to operate a stop or two in southeast but it's just easier to move the plane direct and not dilute your dusky jet service.
 
PDX757
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:06 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:45 am

32andBelow wrote:
Canuck600 wrote:
Is it common to make such long non revenue ferry flights for maintenance? I know it's not possible to do it all the time but wouldn't it have made more sense to operate it in service from Anchorage or Fairbanks to Seattle then a Seattle to Portland flight?

It's normal for airlines with non connected bases to move aircraft around. That way been way to log a flight for revenue. The only way Alaska could get one through with revenue would be to operate a stop or two in southeast but it's just easier to move the plane direct and not dilute your dusky jet service.

Also a milk run might require a second crew. Seems like there aren't many of those to go around for the Qs!
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:00 am

A revenue flight would also require flight attendants, catering, and a specific schedule (preferably one known quite some time in advance, to give passengers a chance to book). How far in advance would a ferry flight like this be known?

You'll even see airlines flying long-haul ferry flights to get to/from overseas maintenance bases. Sometimes, that's just the cost of doing business.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
bohica
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:13 am

32andBelow wrote:
727glasair wrote:
Thanks Mr. Chugach. Not a big deal, but in my narrow viewpoint, seeing a Q-400 on that long of a leg is fascinating and curious. Very interesting, and again I sure hope the crew had some snacks...

Well there are Saab 340s and regular dash 8s that make the trip all the time. Do you think the turboprops are just stuck in Alaska forever?


The OP is referring to the Q400 flying ANC-PDX nonstop.
 
SoCalPilot
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:37 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:20 am

bohica wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
727glasair wrote:
Thanks Mr. Chugach. Not a big deal, but in my narrow viewpoint, seeing a Q-400 on that long of a leg is fascinating and curious. Very interesting, and again I sure hope the crew had some snacks...

Well there are Saab 340s and regular dash 8s that make the trip all the time. Do you think the turboprops are just stuck in Alaska forever?


The OP is referring to the Q400 flying ANC-PDX nonstop.

And what 32andBelow is saying is that this isn't rare. PenAir does it with their Saabs all the time. Heck, Mokulele ferrys Cessna Caravan's from Hawaii to Santa Maria every now and then.
 
PDX757
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:06 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:38 am

SoCalPilot wrote:
bohica wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Well there are Saab 340s and regular dash 8s that make the trip all the time. Do you think the turboprops are just stuck in Alaska forever?


The OP is referring to the Q400 flying ANC-PDX nonstop.

And what 32andBelow is saying is that this isn't rare. PenAir does it with their Saabs all the time. Heck, Mokulele ferrys Cessna Caravan's from Hawaii to Santa Maria every now and then.


Bring a few soda bottles to fill on that one...
 
Canuck600
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:12 am

I was thinking more of shifting a specific fin# around the system/schedule so it ends up close to a maintenance base with minimal ferry distance. not adding a extra scheduled flight. They know when a specific aircraft is due for a check surely they can move it around the system. Say for example Fin # 123 is flying mostly in Alaska but is coming up for a check couldn't they switch it to a Alaska to Seattle flight and then put it on a Seattle to Portland flight & sub in a aircraft that is coming out of maintenance in Portland by working the aircraft coming out of maintenance Portland-Seattle-Alaska? Deadheading/Non Revenue flights over long distances don't make sense. Once in awhile yes but I don't think it's normal practice?

I know it's not exactly the same thing but in the past when Greyhound Canada bought a new bus to operate in the Calgary-Vancouver corridor they didn't deadhead it from the factory in Winnipeg to Calgary. They put it into service in Winnipeg & the bus worked it's way to Calgary.

hOMSaR wrote:
A revenue flight would also require flight attendants, catering, and a specific schedule (preferably one known quite some time in advance, to give passengers a chance to book). How far in advance would a ferry flight like this be known?

You'll even see airlines flying long-haul ferry flights to get to/from overseas maintenance bases. Sometimes, that's just the cost of doing business.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 2929
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:37 am

Canuck600 wrote:
I was thinking more of shifting a specific fin# around the system/schedule so it ends up close to a maintenance base with minimal ferry distance. not adding a extra scheduled flight. They know when a specific aircraft is due for a check surely they can move it around the system. Say for example Fin # 123 is flying mostly in Alaska but is coming up for a check couldn't they switch it to a Alaska to Seattle flight and then put it on a Seattle to Portland flight & sub in a aircraft that is coming out of maintenance in Portland by working the aircraft coming out of maintenance Portland-Seattle-Alaska? Deadheading/Non Revenue flights over long distances don't make sense. Once in awhile yes but I don't think it's normal practice?

I know it's not exactly the same thing but in the past when Greyhound Canada bought a new bus to operate in the Calgary-Vancouver corridor they didn't deadhead it from the factory in Winnipeg to Calgary. They put it into service in Winnipeg & the bus worked it's way to Calgary.

hOMSaR wrote:
A revenue flight would also require flight attendants, catering, and a specific schedule (preferably one known quite some time in advance, to give passengers a chance to book). How far in advance would a ferry flight like this be known?

You'll even see airlines flying long-haul ferry flights to get to/from overseas maintenance bases. Sometimes, that's just the cost of doing business.

Anchorage to Seattle is like 1800 miles and 3.5 hours on a 737. I don't think you understand this.
 
USAirKid
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:42 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:14 am

Canuck600 wrote:
Is it common to make such long non revenue ferry flights for maintenance? I know it's not possible to do it all the time but wouldn't it have made more sense to operate it in service from Anchorage or Fairbanks to Seattle then a Seattle to Portland flight?


One of the things Alaska Air Group has been pushing is consistency of product. This is one of the reasons the 737-400Cs are going away, they don't have first class, and just are a different beast than the other 737s. Subbing a Q400 in to a longer haul flight for maintenance purposes isn't something that'd maintain a consistent product.
 
airnorth
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:30 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:41 am

RWA380 wrote:
airnorth wrote:
F27500 wrote:
5 hours on a Dash 8. ... Kill Me.

:lol:
Funny, I would love that trip, pick me please!

Ft St John, Dawson Creek, Grande Prairie & Prince Edward or William, something like that,


Prince George.
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 4752
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:47 am

airnorth wrote:
RWA380 wrote:
airnorth wrote:
:lol:
Funny, I would love that trip, pick me please!

Ft St John, Dawson Creek, Grande Prairie & Prince Edward or William, something like that,


Prince George.


Thank you ....
707, 717, 720, 727-1/2, 737-1/2/3/4/5/7/8/9, 747-1/2/3/4, 757, 767-2/3/4, 777, DC-8-5/6/7, DC-9-1/3/5, MD-80/2/3/7/8, DC-10-10/30/40, MD-11, F-27, F-28, SWM, J31, D38, DH7, DH8, DH4 SD-330, B-146, L-1011-2/500, ATR-42/72, VCV, A-300/310/318/319/320, CR2/7
 
Canuck600
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:16 am

Fair enough I clearly don't have enough knowledge of the Alaska system & product.
 
citationjet
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:51 am

Canuck600 wrote:
Is it common to make such long non revenue ferry flights for maintenance?

Back in the 1970's, when Braniff had only 1 747 (N601BN) at the time, they would ferry the 747 from DAL to LAX for maintenance. They would let Braniff employees and their families non-rev on the flight. The flight would board in a hangar at Love Field, and disembark in a hangar in LAX. The plane spent 24 hours at LAX before returning to Love Field. It was fun to fly on a flight with no flight attendants, no announcements, and the three flight crew members did not dress in uniforms. One time I was on it with about 60 employees. They took us into the cockpit in groups of 6 while we were in flight. A great experience.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
 
PDX757
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:06 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:59 am

Canuck600 wrote:
I was thinking more of shifting a specific fin# around the system/schedule so it ends up close to a maintenance base with minimal ferry distance. not adding a extra scheduled flight. They know when a specific aircraft is due for a check surely they can move it around the system. Say for example Fin # 123 is flying mostly in Alaska but is coming up for a check couldn't they switch it to a Alaska to Seattle flight and then put it on a Seattle to Portland flight & sub in a aircraft that is coming out of maintenance in Portland by working the aircraft coming out of maintenance Portland-Seattle-Alaska? Deadheading/Non Revenue flights over long distances don't make sense. Once in awhile yes but I don't think it's normal practice?

I know it's not exactly the same thing but in the past when Greyhound Canada bought a new bus to operate in the Calgary-Vancouver corridor they didn't deadhead it from the factory in Winnipeg to Calgary. They put it into service in Winnipeg & the bus worked it's way to Calgary.

hOMSaR wrote:
A revenue flight would also require flight attendants, catering, and a specific schedule (preferably one known quite some time in advance, to give passengers a chance to book). How far in advance would a ferry flight like this be known?

You'll even see airlines flying long-haul ferry flights to get to/from overseas maintenance bases. Sometimes, that's just the cost of doing business.

I see what you're saying. QX ops in Alaska are disconnected from ops in the lower 48, no real way for a Q400 to work its way down to PDX.
 
hiflyeras
Posts: 1655
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Tue Aug 15, 2017 3:25 am

citationjet wrote:
Canuck600 wrote:
Is it common to make such long non revenue ferry flights for maintenance?

Back in the 1970's, when Braniff had only 1 747 (N601BN) at the time, they would ferry the 747 from DAL to LAX for maintenance. They would let Braniff employees and their families non-rev on the flight. The flight would board in a hangar at Love Field, and disembark in a hangar in LAX. The plane spent 24 hours at LAX before returning to Love Field. It was fun to fly on a flight with no flight attendants, no announcements, and the three flight crew members did not dress in uniforms. One time I was on it with about 60 employees. They took us into the cockpit in groups of 6 while we were in flight. A great experience.


Any flight with even a single passenger, revenue or not, is required to have a FAR minimum flight attendant crew. They were probably there but just didn't provide any inflight service.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 2929
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:45 am

hiflyeras wrote:
citationjet wrote:
Canuck600 wrote:
Is it common to make such long non revenue ferry flights for maintenance?

Back in the 1970's, when Braniff had only 1 747 (N601BN) at the time, they would ferry the 747 from DAL to LAX for maintenance. They would let Braniff employees and their families non-rev on the flight. The flight would board in a hangar at Love Field, and disembark in a hangar in LAX. The plane spent 24 hours at LAX before returning to Love Field. It was fun to fly on a flight with no flight attendants, no announcements, and the three flight crew members did not dress in uniforms. One time I was on it with about 60 employees. They took us into the cockpit in groups of 6 while we were in flight. A great experience.


Any flight with even a single passenger, revenue or not, is required to have a FAR minimum flight attendant crew. They were probably there but just didn't provide any inflight service.
this isn't true. An airline can fly up to 19 non revs without flight attendants.
 
citationjet
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

Re: Q-400 flying ANC-PDX today...

Tue Aug 15, 2017 4:18 pm

hiflyeras wrote:
Any flight with even a single passenger, revenue or not, is required to have a FAR minimum flight attendant crew. They were probably there but just didn't provide any inflight service.


I know for a fact that there were no flight attendants on board. Also, we were allowed to take turns sitting in the co-pilot's seat inflight. Probably another FAR violation. Things were much different in the 1970s, compared to today.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos