BigOrange
Topic Author
Posts: 2291
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:20 am

Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Wed May 31, 2006 11:37 pm

Source:http://www.flightglobal.com

There were the strongest signs yet of a revival of the turboprop in the USA at the Regional Airline Association’s (RAA) annual conference in Dallas, Texas last week, when it emerged that Continental Airlines has issued a request for proposals (RFP) for 24 new 70-seat turboprops.

According to industry sources, the airline’s RFP specifies that 12 turboprops will operate from Continental’s New York Newark hub and an equal number from the carrier’s Houston hub. Both airports will lose capacity under a new feeder deal with its regional associate ExpressJet, which has to take 69 Embraer ERJ-145s out of its current 274-strong regional jet fleet.

Continental, which phased out its turboprops, now wants 24 70-seaters

The turboprop RFP, which the airline says is just one of several options “for our future regional flying needs”, marks the first serious interest in new-build large turboprops since the 1990s from a US legacy carrier.

Continental was among the pioneers in the USA of an effort to move to an all-jet regional fleet, phasing out its ATR and Embraer turboprops in favour of ERJ-145s. However, more recently the airline has begun to re-introduce some turboprop feeder services through contracts with Colgan Air, Gulfstream International and Regions Air.

ATR and Bombardier – the two producers of 70-seat turboprops in the form of the ATR 72-500 and Dash 8 Q400, respectively – are said to be excited about the potential prospects of the RFP. Both have been waiting and hoping for a revival of the turboprop market in the USA.
 
PVD757
Posts: 3030
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:23 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Wed May 31, 2006 11:49 pm

well, if this happens I can see CO overlaying DL's JFK DH8 network with these (ALB, BDL, PVD, PWM, MHT, ROC, SYR, etc.) out of EWR and at 20 more seats than the 145's I'd be happy to see the additional capacity here.

Having said that, please don't drag the RJ versus turboprop into this - these flights are all about a hour long max and the economics of the industry are dictating that the RJ is just too expensive to profitably operate some of these routes.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Wed May 31, 2006 11:55 pm

Oh please let them me Q400's and not another stone in the river if the RJ fleet must be downsized which I still hope doesn't happen.....GO JETLINCOLN!
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
azstagecoach
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:55 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:25 am

are the interiors of the ERJ 145's and the Q400 and ATR72 about the same except for the length? Any thoughts on whether there would be a F cabin?

COEX has very nice interiors on those 145's... it would be a shame to give those up.
 
CaptainJon
Posts: 546
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 3:21 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 am

this would be very good indeed and id book a flight on that plane for the hell of it. though i'd love to gone on an ATR-45, any flown nowadays here? I was recently in Israel where I flown from Eilat to Ben Gurion (was supposed to flown to Sde Dov on an ATR-72 i believe) but the flight was cancelled and they put two flights together on a 757. Nice short ride, kinda weird though because they put me in 7E and hte front was empty and they insisted full rows to be used...and the front was 3-3 config too...must suck for the international flights it does...
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 am

Hope it's the Q400. If I figured correctly, the Q400 outperforms the ATR72-500 in load capacity by 3,700-6,200 lbs depending on version.

Would actually look somewhat like this one.....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wojciech Malak (Wlkp_Spotters)



[Edited 2006-05-31 17:42:27]
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:43 am

Quoting BigOrange (Thread starter):
Continental was among the pioneers in the USA of an effort to move to an all-jet regional fleet, phasing out its ATR and Embraer turboprops in favour of ERJ-145s.

I find this particularly interesting. I memory serves me correctly, Continental was the first to go to an all jet fleet in about 1999. They went through a huge advertising phase where they talked about flying the youngest fleet in the nation (when counting those brand new ERJs) and the only all jet fleet in the country. Continental's advertising probably had something to do with pushing the thought of turboprops being outdated into the public's heads.

Quoting Azstagecoach (Reply 3):
are the interiors of the ERJ 145's and the Q400 and ATR72 about the same except for the length? Any thoughts on whether there would be a F cabin?

The Q400 and ATR72 are nicer. They are wider and can probably compare more to a CRJ as they have 4 abreast seating. Also they have active noise cancelling, which makes for the perception of a quiet flight even though your head is still ringing at the end of the day.

You definitely can add a first class cabin to the planes. I believe Czech Airlines has a small business class section in the back of their ATRs.

[Edited 2006-05-31 17:45:02]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:57 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 6):
They are wider and can probably compare more to a CRJ as they have 4 abreast seating.

The Q400 cabin compares very closely to the CRJ700 cabin. With a slightly longer cabin, the Q400 has more volume in the cabin than the CRJ700. Q400 has 2740 cubic ft, the CRJ700 has 2430 cubic ft. The cabin heights and widths are within a couple inches of each other.
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
FlyHoss
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:20 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:47 am

Another question is what carrier will operate these aircraft? The incumbants like, ExpressJet, Colgan, Commutair or Gulfstream? Or a new (to CO) operator? Horizon, perhaps? Since Horizon already operates the Q400, that might be the quickest solution (assuming CO orders Q400s), allowing CO to more quickly replace seats lost when ExpressJet begins to withdraw the 69 ERJs.
The CO pilot contract scope clause would allow these aircraft to be flown by an "outside" (non-CO) operator. There have already been posts on the "CAL Forum" website by CO pilots who would like to have the chance to fly these aircraft.
A little bit louder now, a lil bit louder now...
 
PVD757
Posts: 3030
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:23 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:03 am

speaking of Commutair - I remember reading that they will be expanding their flying with a larger fleet type by the end of this year. Anyone have any updates?? I wonder if this is a coincidence???
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:12 am

Quoting FlyHoss (Reply 8):
Another question is what carrier will operate these aircraft? The incumbants like, ExpressJet, Colgan, Commutair or Gulfstream? Or a new (to CO) operator? Horizon, perhaps? Since Horizon already operates the Q400, that might be the quickest solution (assuming CO orders Q400s), allowing CO to more quickly replace seats lost when ExpressJet begins to withdraw the 69 ERJs.

If the Q's Horizon would be nice.....but what is it with the contract signed with Chautauqua a month or so back, I thought it was for them to crew RJ's but not sure if their a/c of what?

Quoting Tjwgrr (Reply 5):
If I figured correctly, the Q400 outperforms the ATR72-500 in load capacity by 3,700-6,200 lbs depending on version.

From what I've seen of the Q400 it runs circles around an ATR of any version and much more advanced flight deck.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
cle757
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:28 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:25 am

CLE-PIT could use some larger turbo props!

Pittsburgh air traffic up, despite US Airways
Wednesday May 31, 12:06 pm ET
Despite a double-digit dip from US Airways, passenger traffic at Pittsburgh International Airport rose 2.4 percent in April from a year ago, the first increase since September 2004, and only the fourth monthly rise since August 2001.


A total of 850,887 passengers were enplaned and deplaned at the airport in April 2006, compared to 830,645 in April 2005, according to the Scheduled Airline Traffic Report issued by the Allegheny County Airport Authority.

US Airways (NYSE:LCC - News) and US Airways Express had a 12.9 percent decrease in traffic in April 2006 compared to April 2005 (468,098/537,216) and year to date, its combined traffic is down 16.4 percent (1,742,017/2,083,520).

Still, US Airways remained the dominant carrier, transporting more than 55 percent of people to and from the airport.

Southwest (NYSE:LUV - News) reported a total of 91,643 passengers in April - a total of 10.8 percent of total scheduled traffic.

Seven other airlines reported increases, including Midwest Airlines, which had a 111.6 percent increase (7,676 passengers in April 2006/3,628 passengers in April 2005). Air Canada (2,891/1,894, 52.6 percent), Continental (NYSE:CAL - News; 39,357/27,615, 42.5 percent), American (35,253/32,082, 9.9 percent), United (59,077/54,076, 9.2 percent), Delta (63,311/60,794, 4.1 percent) and Northwest (NASDAQ:NWAC - News; 40,442/39,465, 2.5 percent).

For the year, scheduled airline traffic is down 3.5 percent in 2006 compared to 2005 (3,100,901/3,214,705).

Published May 31, 2006 by Pittsburgh Business Times
Cleveland the best location in the Nation
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:35 am

This story finally surfaced......it took a while as this has been floating around for about a year now.

Last year, CO was looking at 70 seat turboprops and was very impressed with the Q400, thats all I can really say at this point. And,the Q400s are not for Expressjet.
 
nuggetsyl
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:46 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:08 am

Ahhhhhh dutchjet you beat me to the punch. I was going to say that cal has to fly the planes because of the pilots contract.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:13 am

CO did demo a few Q400's at IAH last year!
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
ANNOYEDFA
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:16 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:32 am

CAL pilot's will not be flying props... EVER. The scope is for jet's not props.
"TWA... One Mission, Yours."
 
nuggetsyl
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:46 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:47 am

Quoting ANNOYEDFA (Reply 15):
CAL pilot's will not be flying props... EVER. The scope is for jet's not props.

Maybe i am mistaken but it though it was for seats (anything above 50) has to be flown by cal pilots out of there hubs.
 
yow
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:47 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:52 am

Quoting FlyHoss (Reply 8):
allowing CO to more quickly replace seats lost when ExpressJet begins to withdraw the 69 ERJs.

Aren't those 69 ERJs being replaced by an exact number of 50-seaters by Chautauqua?
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:13 am

Quoting Nuggetsyl (Reply 16):
Maybe i am mistaken but it though it was for seats (anything above 50) has to be flown by cal pilots out of there hubs.

Nope, CAL's scope clause covers jets with more than 50 seats and turboprops with more than 80 seats. As long as they have less than 80 seats, they will be flown by a regional.

Quoting YOW (Reply 17):
Aren't those 69 ERJs being replaced by an exact number of 50-seaters by Chautauqua?

Nope, Expressjet is keeping those 69 ERJ's, so CAL will not be giving them to CHQ. Currently, it's still up in the air if CHQ will fly for CAL at all, since the original agreement was predicated on flying the old XJT aircraft. The fact that they must now obtain other aircraft changes everything.
 
optionscle
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:08 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

There has been talk of this for a long time. Commutair was making noise about flying the Q400 from CLE.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:48 am

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 18):
Nope, Expressjet is keeping those 69 ERJ's, so CAL will not be giving them to CHQ. Currently, it's still up in the air if CHQ will fly for CAL at all, since the original agreement was predicated on flying the old XJT aircraft. The fact that they must now obtain other aircraft changes everything.

Oh great, you mean if the contract is going to go as currently done to CHQ then the nicely painted like CAL, interior to match, and the crew uniforms might have to change from the CAL/ExpressJet same to another........ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no please no! I've written a couple of letters to CAL about this as I hope numerous others in the OnePass Elite group and others to NOT let this happen, let alone having to lose our much liked "Jetlincoln" guys/girls!!!! Should it occur the Q400 is my desire to replace a jet with a prop.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
777gk
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2000 3:04 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:40 am

ExpressJet's callsign is actually 'Jetlink', not Jetlincoln.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:51 am

Quoting 777gk (Reply 21):
ExpressJet's callsign is actually 'Jetlink', not Jetlincoln.

It is, oh my, now what am I to do!

It is a local lingo thing for some of us kids but never mind, guess it will have to be rethought for sure, what could it become?  mischievous 
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
HPAEAA
Posts: 882
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 7:24 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:05 am

Quoting YOW (Reply 17):
Aren't those 69 ERJs being replaced by an exact number of 50-seaters by Chautauqua?

that deal's dead in the water...
Why do I fly???
 
lincoln
Posts: 3133
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:22 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:07 am

Quoting 777gk (Reply 21):
ExpressJet's callsign is actually 'Jetlink', not Jetlincoln.

Phew... I was trying to figure out who this JetLincoln person was and if I had competition for the name here on A.Net (just two weeks ago I met the only other person with the first name Lincoln I've, well, ever met).

Lincoln
CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
 
DTWAGENT
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:16 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:24 am

Well, I was thinking since Mesaba is losing it's RJ and going with their Saab 340's. Why not go with the Saab 2000. It is a larger aircraft for NW. Also CO needs to get rid of those B1900's. As a travel agent I lose alot of sales with CO out of TOL because of the B1900's. Maybe the Q400 with replace the B1900
 
lincoln
Posts: 3133
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:22 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:29 am

Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 25):
Also CO needs to get rid of those B1900's. As a travel agent I lose alot of sales with CO out of TOL because of the B1900's.

Couldn't agree more -- the aircraft itself is mildly tolerable, uncomfortable for a tall person, very light as far as comforts go -- gaspers, useful reading lights... - (being able to look through the flight deck window and watch the takeoff and landing is a plus, though), but... I've not been on a CO-coded B1900 flight that was delayed less than two hours... and all of the flights times have been scheduled as less than an hour.

Lincoln
CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
 
thomasphoto60
Posts: 3716
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 1:04 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:15 pm

If this were to come to pass I am sure that a number of local markets served from IAH, i.e. BPT, CLL and others who have been clamouring for years for a pure jet service are going to very disappointed.

Thomas
"Show me the Braniffs"
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:02 pm

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 20):
Oh great, you mean if the contract is going to go as currently done to CHQ then the nicely painted like CAL, interior to match, and the crew uniforms might have to change from the CAL/ExpressJet same to another........ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no please no! I've written a couple of letters to CAL about this as I hope numerous others in the OnePass Elite group and others to NOT let this happen, let alone having to lose our much liked "Jetlincoln" guys/girls!!!! Should it occur the Q400 is my desire to replace a jet with a prop.

This is greatly appreciated. Long live the Jetlincoln controller at houston approach. Nothing like hearing "give me a good rate or turn on departure" when cleared for takeoff from 15L, then flying right over the terminal and tower at 1000 agl and 250 knots.
 
supa7E7
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:05 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:37 pm

Clearly, CO would love some 70 to 90 seat jets. But props are their only option due to scope.
"Who's to say spaceships aren't fine art?" - Phil Lesh
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1376
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:51 pm

Quoting Supa7e7 (Reply 29):
Clearly, CO would love some 70 to 90 seat jets. But props are their only option due to scope.

Is that so clear? I have personally flown on many CO flights that would surely be more profitable on a turboprop. CLE-CMH comes to mind. I think I've done that one (or it's reverse) about 120 times. The prop would seem to be so much more effective, unless the crew costs mean that ExpressJet is actually cheaper up to 50 seats. I suppose they're afraid of public perception when flying the props. If posters in this forum are any indication, their fears are not unfounded.

I remember in 1994 going CMH-ORD-LHR on AA. The CMH-ORD leg was an ATR, and I recall thinking that it seemed appropriate for a 350 mile flight.
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1376
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:56 pm

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 20):
I've written a couple of letters to CAL about this as I hope numerous others in the OnePass Elite group and others to NOT let this happen, let alone having to lose our much liked "Jetlincoln" guys/girls!!!! Should it occur the Q400 is my desire to replace a jet with a prop.

I wrote them a similar letter a few months back and received a personalized email in return. I told them that one reason I flew CO was because of the seamless relationship between Continental and ExpressJet. Honestly, I don't care whether the plane is a jet or not; in fact, I'd like to fly a few turboprops. What I *really* care about is the Continental name and service as well as on-board comfort. If I get on a CO-coded Mesaba flight, and it sucks, I'm gonna be hacked off, which was essentially my point. I even told them I'd pay a premium to fly on CO and ExpressJet because the product was so good. And I love the ERJ. It's noisy, but very comfortable. I love never having to share my seat with anybody except the aisle.

So long as they can maintain this sort of product with their turboprop operator, I'll have no problem with it. If the interior feels like a CRJ, I'm not going to be nearly as happy. CRJ's SUCK!
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
 
stirling
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:03 pm

I think it is ironic....no, ironic is not the word, maybe curious, yeah, that's it.....anyway, all this time the aviation community has been screaming in the direction of Montreal; begging Bombardier to do something in response to the Jungle Jets sprouting like weeds from south of the equator.....and all along, if what I'm reading is true, they've been sandbagging with a nice fat potential order from Continental.

And it doesn't end with Continental. This airline is a leader, not a follower.

Delta. Can we say in unison please, "CRJ Overload" !! What that airline needs is an enema, and in the process hopefully flushing itself of half its RJs and putting to bed the the "All-Jet Hub" at CVG and stick some economical Q400s in there.

So could it be?, that all this time, Bombardier has been paying only lip service to those wanting something a little more meatier, when in fact, they've been preparing to pounce upon the turboprop market. No offense to ATR, but it doesn't really compare....do they even have any updates coming up or in the works?

In the immortal words of Arte Johnson from "Laugh-In",
"Very Interesting......."
Delete this User
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:08 pm

Quoting Stirling (Reply 32):
Delta. Can we say in unison please, "CRJ Overload" !! What that airline needs is an enema, and in the process hopefully flushing itself of half its RJs and putting to bed the the "All-Jet Hub" at CVG and stick some economical Q400s in there.

I don't see this happening on a large scale. Delta is set to have ASA ditch it's ATR's in a couple of years as it is. Just a few years ago, CAL had a sizeable ATR fleet operating out of EWR, which they promptly phased out. If they do bring back the props I think it will be on a relatively small scale, much like what they've done in IAH recently. Maybe a dozen or so aircraft out of EWR.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 31):
I wrote them a similar letter a few months back and received a personalized email in return. I told them that one reason I flew CO was because of the seamless relationship between Continental and ExpressJet.

A sincere thanks to both of you for doing that. Even if it doesn't make a difference in Continental's decisions about us, our reputation will help us secure flying with other mainline partners if need be (and it looks like it will). Thanks again.
 
supa7E7
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:05 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:13 pm

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 30):
Quoting Supa7e7 (Reply 29):
Clearly, CO would love some 70 to 90 seat jets. But props are their only option due to scope.

Is that so clear? I have personally flown on many CO flights that would surely be more profitable on a turboprop. CLE-CMH comes to mind.

It was just a side note. Of course the 70 seat props are perfect for some missions. Since CO cannot get some desperately needed big RJs, it might as well order some props to improve its short range economy.
"Who's to say spaceships aren't fine art?" - Phil Lesh
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:18 pm

Quoting Stirling (Reply 32):
In the immortal words of Arte Johnson from "Laugh-In",
"Very Interesting......."

I sat on a homeowner's association committee with Arte. I used to live in his neighborhood. Really nice guy.

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 34):
It was just a side note. Of course the 70 seat props are perfect for some missions.

And you are right, 70 seat jets are also needed. I still believe a scope modification similar to delta's will be coming soon enough.

Then again, I'm not exactly sure why CO can't fly 70-90 seat jets as mainline and just work out a new payscale for mainline pilots. I don't quite understand why these jets MUST be flown by feeder airlines or they don't make sense...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:36 pm

Quoting Stirling (Reply 32):
So could it be?, that all this time, Bombardier has been paying only lip service to those wanting something a little more meatier, when in fact, they've been preparing to pounce upon the turboprop market.

I'm not a great historian, but wasn't WWI started with the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand? I believe the would-be assassin had originally planned to carry out the plot in one spot, but lost his nerve or whatever, wandering off to sulk. However, the car that Ferdinand was in made a wrong turn and ended up stopping right in front of him. The assassin got lucky with the wrong turn, and the rest is history.

Why the story (if it's accurate  Smile)? Because I think Bombardier lost it's nerve, went off to sulk in it's mediocrity, and got lucky by the wrong turn in fuel prices.

I doubt they had any master vision - though it's a nice thought  Smile.

-Dave
-Dave
 
Archer
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:07 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:24 pm

Having recently flown EWR-ALB several times I always wonder how they can make $
on a 35 Minute flight with an ERJ. It climbs to 16,000', cruises for 5 minutes, then
starts the descent and a long "tour" into EWR, usually.
Would seem a Q 400 would make more sense.
Obviously adding another type with training, parts etc. is a factor.
 
nuggetsyl
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:46 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:27 pm

Is this bird going to slow traffic getting into ewr?
 
Oykie
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:41 pm

Does anyone have a link to this RFP?

It would be interesting to know in what kind of time-frame we are looking at for EIS.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
A340Spotter
Posts: 1741
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:52 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:45 pm

Quoting Nuggetsyl (Reply 38):
Is this bird going to slow traffic getting into ewr?

If CO decides to go with the Dash 8-400, speeds of that aircraft shouldn't affect EWR traffic that much. In fact, if conditions permitted, the use of rwy 11 for landing would increase with these airplanes being able to utilize it while keeping the 04/22s open for the regular jet traffic. 11 is already used for the RJs, corporate traffic and even some 737 traffic.
"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
 
FlyHoss
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:20 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:40 am

Quoting Supa7e7 (Reply 29):
Clearly, CO would love some 70 to 90 seat jets. But props are their only option due to scope.

The CO pilot contract scope section DOES NOT prevent CO from operating 70-90 seat jets, it simply requires that CO pilots fly them. Concievably, this could be for an operator other than CO (but using pilots from the CO pilot seniority list).

Don't forget that CO used to operate jets in this size class, The DC-9-10.
A little bit louder now, a lil bit louder now...
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13222
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:44 am

Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 40):
11 is already used for the RJs, corporate traffic and even some 737 traffic.

11/29 is 6,800ft long, I've seen everything from CO 777s to TAP A340s land on that runway. As for departures the biggest aircraft I've seen depart 11/29 would be a CO M80.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
FoxBravo
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 1:34 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:21 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 42):
11/29 is 6,800ft long, I've seen everything from CO 777s to TAP A340s land on that runway. As for departures the biggest aircraft I've seen depart 11/29 would be a CO M80.

I once departed 11 on a KLM 767 bound for AMS. I was a bit surprised! The only other time I recall using 11 was landing in an ERJ, although I have seen 747s, A330s, etc. land on 29 when the wind is blowing just right.
Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
 
azstagecoach
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:55 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:25 am

Quoting FlyHoss (Reply 41):
Concievably, this could be for an operator other than CO (but using pilots from the CO pilot seniority list).



Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 12):
And,the Q400s are not for Expressjet.

"Continental Compass" anyone?
 
User avatar
KaiGywer
Crew
Posts: 11182
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:59 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:39 am

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 20):
Oh great, you mean if the contract is going to go as currently done to CHQ then the nicely painted like CAL, interior to match, and the crew uniforms might have to change from the CAL/ExpressJet same to another........ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no please no! I've written a couple of letters to CAL about this as I hope numerous others in the OnePass Elite group and others to NOT let this happen, let alone having to lose our much liked "Jetlincoln" guys/girls!!!! Should it occur the Q400 is my desire to replace a jet with a prop

If the grammar of that letter was comparable to that post, I'd be surprised if they even knew what they were reading.

Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 25):
Why not go with the Saab 2000

Which unfortunately is no longer made.

Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 25):
Maybe the Q400 with replace the B1900

Replace 19 seats with 70?
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:43 am

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 45):
If the grammar of that letter was comparable to that post, I'd be surprised if they even knew what they were reading.

I had no idea what he was saying, either...  Wink
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
DTWAGENT
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:16 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:12 am

Sorry I did not know they were not making the Saab 2000 anymore. Next time I'll just shut my mouth.......
 
DTWAGENT
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:16 am

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:14 am

Some poeple in here are just down right rude and nasty.....Their is not good reason to be this way. I don't have the knowledge of which aircraft is or is not being made anymore. So please for give my stupidity........
 
TWAtwaTWA
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 5:18 pm

RE: Continental Adding 70 Seat Turboprops

Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:29 am

We are all well aware of comfort improvements and performance improvements with jet a/c. However, with today's fuel prices, it is interesting to think about seat costs.

Are turboprops more fuel efficient than their jet equivalents on a per seat basis?
We're your kind of airline. Uh, I mean, We *were* your kind of airline.