CRJ900X
Topic Author
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:47 am

Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:12 am

Hey all,

What do you think will happen to future sales of the Q400 aircraft? Will current operators and future carriers (i.e Arik Air, Colgan, and Croatia Airlines) go through with current orders?

I know it's very early into the investigation of what's happened to the two SAS Q-400's, but I am just curious to know thoughts about the future of the Dash 8Q-400.

Cheers,

CRJ900X
 
kbfispotter
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:56 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:20 am

Well, QX is staking their future on the aircraft. When they are not experiencing any mx issues, the Q400 are a very good aircraft, and can carry a good sized load. But the downside is that they are turning out to be very maintenance intensive.

Kris
Proud to be an A&P!!!
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11420
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:35 am

What choice to carriers who need a new 70-ish seat prop have? Fair or not, I think there's still a fair bit of concern about icing and ATRs in this country (related to the MQ Roselawn crash), and that leaves the Q400 and... the Q400. In the U.S. at least, there will likely be more orders for that reason. The rest of the world, it would seem, isn't so ATR-phobic.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:37 am

Whats their options, Embraer and ATR surely have long delivery time for new airplanes and the 2nd hand market is limited since airplanes like SAAB2000 has been converted into military AWACS use.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6418
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:31 am

In my country I would assume that the future of Q400 is next to nil.

You know, here it is not just these two accidents within the last three days. For six years it has over and over again been a public discussion - also in the press - whether this plane is a "flying death trap" or just an immensely unreliable thing which much too often doesn't bring the customers from A to B within expected time frame.

Whether it is in reality a perfectly good plane, and all faults are with SAS mx, and everything gets fixed... It just doesn't matter. It has now gone way too far.

Also today SAS told that "we are looking at both short and long term fixes". That can hardly mean anything else but "Q400-exit" has been decided.

These latest developments just mean that passenger confidence went from "ten percent" to "minus a hundred percent".

For myself: I have enjoyed being a SAS customer hundreds of times, and flown on all SAS short/medium range planes all way from the CV-440 to the Airbus 321, Caravelle, F-27, F-50, B737, and of course every DC-9 related thing from the DC-9-20 to the MD-90. Except the Dash-8-Q400.

Every time there was chance that I could be on a Q400, then I found an alternative, another non-Q400 airline, changed shedule avoiding an otherwise possible non-stop flight, or I simply took my car. I don't think I was scared of the Q400. But due to the extensive negative press-coverage of that plane right from its introduction day one, seven years ago, then I knew that I would never feel comfortable on that plane.

And now: If I some day in the future see a Q400 at the gate, when I expected other equipment, then I will refuse to board, and they will have to retrieve my baggage. Even if that means that I will have to tear my ticket apart and buy a new one at another airline. Most pax won't act like this, most of them because they have no clue which plane type they are on. But we will be many, at least enough to be disturbing to Q400 ops.

But it won't happen. "Denmark, Q400 - exit".

What I fear mostly is that people will just "put all turboprops in one basket". That could damage our dear Cimber Air who for decades have performed perfect and very reliable service with their ATR-42/-72 fleet. BTW they were launch customer of the ATR-42 the same way as SAS was with the Q400. Former Cimber Air CEO, captain Ingolf Nielsen, even bragged that his personal ideas influenced the final design of the ATR in several ways.

He was a rather special personality. Even if he developed a quite large, regional airline, then he always kept his feet in the air, and let other people "fly the desk". There were Cimber Air flights where he was the PIC, his son was FO and his daughter was FA.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Basefly
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:35 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:45 am

I wonder if there is an jet alternative to the Q400??.

Are there any airliners out there that can do what the Q400 does (That are available) ??
757/777-A340/A380, Love them.
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:49 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
I think there's still a fair bit of concern about icing and ATRs in this country

This isssue related to early ATRs and was resolved long time ago. ATRs has beed operated succesfuly in Finland for years so certainly they could be operated in the US as well.
 
9252fly
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:51 am

SK experience with the Q400 and it's relationship with Bombardier have been peculiar since the aircraft was introduced. What I don't understand is why it seems primarily to be SK that has constantly had problems. Could it be that they were the one of the launch customers and they received early build lemons? There are many customers worldwide that are very satisfied with their Q400's,so it makes one wonder what the real issue is. QX for example is betting it's future on the Q400. I can't help feel there is more to this story. From a safety point of view,it would appear the only issue that crops up constantly are landing gear issues. That in itself hardly constitutes an aircraft that is a death trap,especially considering that pilots are getting warning indicators prior to departure on start-up in many cases and are cancelling the flights on the apron.
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:55 am

Basefly, Embraer170 is one option, I´m sure LOT will gain on these problems.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:01 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 4):
I would assume that the future of Q400 is next to nil.

The words "I would assume..." generally mean "I have no idea about..."

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 4):
I don't think I was scared of the Q400. But due to the extensive negative press-coverage of that plane right from its introduction day one, seven years ago, then I knew that I would never feel comfortable on that plane.

It appears you are basing your fear (or discomfort) upon "negative press coverage". Is there anything more concrete you can point to that causes your concern? Perhaps a more tangible and accurate examination of the Dash 8-400 safety record may be in order.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7681
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:07 am

Quoting Basefly (Reply 5):
I wonder if there is an jet alternative to the Q400??.

Absolutely, the CRJ-700, 705 and 900.

They burn a little more fuel, but they are also faster and are capable of 1000+ mile trips loaded.
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2231
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:12 am

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 8):
Basefly, Embraer170 is one option, I?m sure LOT will gain on these problems.

How many hundreds of pounds of fuel extra will be burned on a one hour flight? The E-170 is about the same size, but can't compete with the economics of the Q400. Neither can the CRJ 700, 705, or 900.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 4):
If I some day in the future see a Q400 at the gate, when I expected other equipment, then I will refuse to board, and they will have to retrieve my baggage.

That's a bit of an overreaction. The Q400 is a great aircraft to fly on. I've flown on the Q400 at least a dozen times, and every flight arrived at the destination on time. Operators like Flybe and Horizon Air operate the airplane day in and day out, completing their schedule. It's odd that the world's two largest operators of the Q400 haven't experienced all these gear issues SAS has supposedly been having for the last several years. Makes one wonder if the problem is the Q400 or SAS.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:12 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
Absolutely, the CRJ-700, 705 and 900.

But they can't operate into the same airstrips as the Dash now can they?
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
Gr8Circle
Posts: 2382
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:44 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:20 am

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 11):
It's odd that the world's two largest operators of the Q400 haven't experienced all these gear issues SAS has supposedly been having for the last several years. Makes one wonder if the problem is the Q400 or SAS.

I haven't heard of Porter having any problems either.....and they've been flying the Q400 for over 6 months now....
 
alaska737
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:19 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:31 am

I love the Q-400, I have flown on it a lot on QX and I will keep flying it, its far better than a Q-200 and more comfortable than a CRJ.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:16 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 4):
Whether it is in reality a perfectly good plane, and all faults are with SAS mx, and everything gets fixed... It just doesn't matter. It has now gone way too far.

Also today SAS told that "we are looking at both short and long term fixes". That can hardly mean anything else but "Q400-exit" has been decided.

These latest developments just mean that passenger confidence went from "ten percent" to "minus a hundred percent".

For myself: I have enjoyed being a SAS customer hundreds of times, and flown on all SAS short/medium range planes all way from the CV-440 to the Airbus 321, Caravelle, F-27, F-50, B737, and of course every DC-9 related thing from the DC-9-20 to the MD-90. Except the Dash-8-Q400.

Every time there was chance that I could be on a Q400, then I found an alternative, another non-Q400 airline, changed shedule avoiding an otherwise possible non-stop flight, or I simply took my car. I don't think I was scared of the Q400. But due to the extensive negative press-coverage of that plane right from its introduction day one, seven years ago, then I knew that I would never feel comfortable on that plane.

And now: If I some day in the future see a Q400 at the gate, when I expected other equipment, then I will refuse to board, and they will have to retrieve my baggage. Even if that means that I will have to tear my ticket apart and buy a new one at another airline. Most pax won't act like this, most of them because they have no clue which plane type they are on. But we will be many, at least enough to be disturbing to Q400 ops.

But it won't happen. "Denmark, Q400 - exit".

I don't understand this at all. You've been very anti-Q400 on here before, which makes me suspicious that you have an agenda other than simply refusing to fly on an unsafe aircraft.

Why wouldn't you fly on the -Q400, but would fly on the aircraft you've listed? Most of them are significantly older technology, with higher cycles. The 737 has had serious problems over its life, never forgetting the rudder issues and the slat bolt issue. F-27s crash all over the place, it has a huge w/o rate, the Fokker 50 is just a warmed up version of it. The ATRs have had serious icing problems etc.

A rudder hard over is much more serious than an unlocked landing gear. Furthermore the incidence of two right landing gear unlocked incidents in two days with the same type and the same airline suggests dodgy airline practices just as much as it does aircraft faults.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18974
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:57 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
Quoting Basefly (Reply 5):
I wonder if there is an jet alternative to the Q400??.

Absolutely, the CRJ-700, 705 and 900.

They burn a little more fuel, but they are also faster and are capable of 1000+ mile trips loaded.

But the majority of routes operated by CRJs and other regional jets are much shorter than 1000 miles, and for anything up to 500 miles or so, turboprops are much more economical due to their lower fuel consumption, especially at current and projected fuel prices. That's why orders for both Bombardier and ATR turboprops have been up significantly over the past couple of years. There's also very little difference in block times vs. RJs, especially when comparing the Q400 which is significantly faster than the similar-size ATR-72.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6418
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:33 am

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 7):
From a safety point of view,it would appear the only issue that crops up constantly are landing gear issues. That in itself hardly constitutes an aircraft that is a death trap,especially considering that pilots are getting warning indicators prior to departure on start-up in many cases and are cancelling the flights on the apron.

No, it is definitely not landing gear problems alone. In fact SAS told us Sunday night after the first crash that it was the FIRST landing gear problem they encountered on the Q400.

On the other hand the Danish CAA received sixteen problem reports from SAS from Feb to Jul this year.

The Q400 is said to have produced around fifty safety landings every year at CPH alone. Two of them on Monday, the day before yesterday, right between the two accidents 58 hours apart. None of those two safety landings were gear related.

The main problem with the Q400 in SK service is that it simply much, much too often doesn't bring the passenger from A to B in the expected time frame. Delays, re-routings, getting stranded, that's what has eroded passenger confidense to a minimum long time before the accidents happened. In this country those accidents are considered "only" the icing on the cake.

I did not say that it is a death trap. I reported that the public and the press over six years have discussed whether it is a death trap or just an extremely unreliable plane. No technical facts, the only fact being that that discussion has taken place.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 15):
F-27s crash all over the place, it has a huge w/o rate, the Fokker 50 is just a warmed up version of it. The ATRs have had serious icing problems etc.

These days F-27s are flown into mountains by third world operators which are banned from EU air space. That has nothing with plane reliability to do. All those three types have done sterling service in this country with very fine dispatch rates, ATR still does in quite large numbers. Never heard about an icing problem on ATR in this country, never experienced a delay on an ATR flight. That's very modest statistics of course. The only fact I can tell is that ATR and Q400 in this country are considered placed at two different ends on the reliability scale.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 15):
Why wouldn't you fly on the -Q400, but would fly on the aircraft you've listed?

Well, thinking in a rational way I wouldn't avoid the Q400 because I'm afraid of crashing. But two reasons:
1. When I travel, then it has a purpose and a time schedule. Arriving late or being stranded some strange place is a great inconvenience, to me, and to colleagues who rely on me doing my work.
2. When on a plane or a train or boat, I relax, read a book, work on the laptop or whatever. I couldn't do that on a Q400 because I would be constantly alert for sounds or vibrations which could indicate a problem. It's probably not rational, but that's how it is.

I have no idea where the faults are. If it's purely within SAS or something else. I only report the general feeling in this country, that after seven years this old story has now gone way too far, and if SAS wants to continue to be a significant airline, then they must rely to that in a way which their customers understand. How on earth that can be anything else but "Q400-exit", that's beyond my imagination.

But first the minister of transport will have to read all Q400 snag-reports from seven years of ops from the speaker's stand in the parliament. Then there is a whole bunch of politiciant stumbling over each other to make the Danish CAA monitor SAS Q400 ops AT LOT more closely.

You live in another country, and you look upon these technical issues as solveable technical problem, and that's of course exactly what they are.

But I live here in Denmark where it is a political problem, a customer confidense problem, a survival problem for an airline. It's an entirely different animal. You have to see it in that perspective, or you won't understand what I have written. I do not tell that it is rational that it is so, but that's the way it is.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
freshlove1
Posts: 1245
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:38 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:44 am

I believe the future will be ok for the Q400. No aircraft is perfect and unfortunatly along the way you will run into unforseen issues like we have here. I am sure they will go back to the drawing board and fix this issue so it does not continue to happen.
 
aeronut
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:41 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:56 am

Is there a future for the Q400, it is a successful part of many airlines fleets.I beleive when this problem is investigated, you'll discover there is a maintenance element to the two recent accidents and Bombardier and their suppliers will get to share the blame with SAS. Would I fly on a 400, I have and I will continue to. Will I fly on SAS, probably not. I get a kick out of all these discussions. Do you really think ATR (or any other manufacturer for that matter) is really any better than Bombardier? Not likely, all aircraft manufacturers go through these issues from time to time. Its not like the automobile industry, there are only (2) turboprop manufacturers!

It is obvious however that Q400 can now not be part of SAS fleet. Public perception has killed Q400 Scandanavia.
 
Aleksandar
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2000 11:43 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:13 pm

The good thing for those Q400 incidents is that there were no fatalities. It gives future to the whole Q400 programme. Even if it is not the case, and airliner industry saw that too, too much money and effort was already invested not only by Bombardier, but by airlines as well. I already mentioned it in another post and I will do it again. Do you know what problems DC-10s had in late 1970s? Or 737 Classic after British Midland crash and few other incidents? Or not very promising start of A320?

At the moment, I really doubt SAS will get rid of its Q400 fleet. First, at this moment, I doubt they would find anyone they could sell those planes to. Second, do they have enough money to buy something else to replace Q400s (ATR-72s come to my mind).

As for other carriers, Austrian Arrows has a large fleet of Q300s and Q400s. Same as SAS. Luxair is very new user. Qantas Link, too. I don't know what is going on with Royal Jordanian fleet. Any news from them?

As for future users, the ones who have Q400s ordered, Croatia Airlines might pull out but not only because of recent problems with the planes, but because they already have ATRs.

Finally, somebody asked if there is a jet alternative to Q400s. In terms of capacity, of course there is. In terms of fuel consumption, the answer is no.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
 
Farzan
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:55 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:19 pm

The Swedish news media menoronline today states that Bombardier has decided to stop the production of the Q400 until further notice. News media and aviation always make me sceptical especially as it also states that Bombarier has grounded all delivered Q 400's. I was not aware that they could even do that.

Sorry in Swedish only.

Produktion av olycksplan stoppas
2007-09-12


Bombardier har beslutat upphöra med tillverkningen av olycksdrabbade flygplanet Dash 8-400 tills vidare.

Flygplanet har varit inblandat i en rad incidenter, bland annat de som flyger åt SAS. Den senaste olyckan inträffade i Litauen, den liksom alla andra tillbud beror på att landningsstället brustit.

NU HAR DEN kanadensiska tillverkaren Bombardier bestämt att sluta tillverka planet och bolaget har belagt alla befintliga Dash 8-400 med flygförbud.

Flygplanstypen har två turbopropmotorer och används för matarflyg på korta distanser. Det fraktar främst passagerare men också lättare flygexpressgods.
 
acjazzame
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 1:48 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:24 pm

[

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 15):
Why wouldn't you fly on the -Q400, but would fly on the aircraft you've listed? Most of them are significantly older technology, with higher cycles. The 737 has had serious problems over its life, never forgetting the rudder issues and the slat bolt issue. F-27s crash all over the place, it has a huge w/o rate, the Fokker 50 is just a warmed up version of it. The ATRs have had serious icing problems etc.

Couldn't say it better mayself.

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 19):

You are bang on with that.

I might put my neck on the chopping block to say this but it comes from good sources. SAS is the worst company to a launch customer. Thier MX unions are so strong that their maintenance workers can refuse to work on the Q400 if they want. I know that one Q400 came in with a sang to change some light bulbs that were burnt out and they refused to work on it for 3 days until the Bombardier rep replaced it himself. Their Maintenance dept has no interst on working on the Q400. Maybe the Q400 is too advanced for them.

Just remember there are always 2 sides to every story. There is no doubt that the Q400 is safe as are the other turboprops flying around. Furthermore don't compare RJs to turboprops. The ability to perform many cycles a day is far more demanding than the hours it flys.

I also remember one of the early SAS Q400s had it's tail damaged by a very hard landing. Maybe their pilots have some role to play in this??
 
stburke
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:11 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:28 pm

I strongly believe the Q400 has proven itself, and still has even more to prove. With the start of F9's Lynx I look forward to flying on them, just wish they'd start flights to FAR or GFK.
 
Aleksandar
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2000 11:43 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:30 pm

Another Q400 operator announces flight cancellations for today. This time it is FlyBe which will cancel 30 flights today due to further inspections.

http://www.flybe.com/news/0709/13.htm
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18974
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:59 pm

Quoting Farzan (Reply 21):
it also states that Bombardier has grounded all delivered Q 400's. I was not aware that they could even do that.

The aircraft manufacturer can only make recommendations. It's up to the government regulatory authorities of the countries where the aircraft are registered to make anything mandatory. The Canadian government has issued an Airworthiness Directive covering the Q400. It's common for other countries to take the lead from the country where the aircraft is manufactured.

The original Bombardier inspection recommendation only covered aircraft with 10,000 or more landing gear cycles. That's been expanded in the airworthiness directive to cover all Q400s, with more intensive requirements for aircraft with more than 8,000 landings or more than 4 years in service.

I couldn't find the airworthiness directive itself but it should appear here soon:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/applica.../awd-lv-cs1401.asp?rcnt=true&rand=

This is the latest Bombardier press release which summarizes the airworthiness directive requirements:

Bombardier Supports Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive Related To Recent Q400 Landing Gear Issue

Toronto, September 12, 2007


Investigations still ongoing
Proactive measures to result in highly rigorous inspections

Today, Transport Canada issued an Airworthiness Directive (AD) applicable to Bombardier Q400 turboprop aircraft following two recent incidents of right main landing gear collapse.

Bombardier has been working closely with safety and regulatory authorities to establish a proactive course of action to ensure a high level of safety is maintained. The AD, effective immediately, requires the operators to implement the following corrective actions:

All Q400 aircraft operators must conduct a general visual inspection of the left and right main landing gear system and main landing gear retract actuator jam nut. This applies to all Q400 aircraft.

Furthermore, the AD requires that a detailed visual inspection of the main landing gear retract actuator be immediately conducted on actuators that have accumulated 8,000 or more landings, or been in service for more than four years since new, whichever comes first. Bombardier estimates that this affects approximately 85 Q400 aircraft.

Newer actuators will also be inspected with varying timelines depending on the age of the actuator.

“We understand that this proactive measure will unfortunately inconvenience many of our customers and their passengers. However, safety remains our primary concern. We are working diligently with our customers to ensure the affected aircraft return to revenue service as quickly as possible,” said Steven Ridolfi, President, Bombardier Regional Aircraft.

Bombardier has sent two separate air safety teams to the sites of the two recent incidents to assist in the investigations involving the Q400 aircraft operated by SAS. The first incident occurred at Aalborg, Denmark on September 9, 2007. The second incident occurred on September 12, 2007 at Vilnius, Lithuania.

Bombardier continues to provide its support to the investigations being conducted by the Danish and Canadian regulatory authorities. Until such time as investigations are concluded by the relevant aviation authorities, Bombardier cannot speculate or comment as to the cause of these incidents.


[Edited 2007-09-13 06:03:15]

[Edited 2007-09-13 06:04:29]
 
Flighty
Posts: 7681
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:00 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 16):
But the majority of routes operated by CRJs and other regional jets are much shorter than 1000 miles, and for anything up to 500 miles or so, turboprops are much more economical due to their lower fuel consumption, especially at current and projected fuel prices. That's why orders for both Bombardier and ATR turboprops have been up significantly over the past couple of years. There's also very little difference in block times vs. RJs, especially when comparing the Q400 which is significantly faster than the similar-size ATR-72.

Sure, I agree with all that. Despite that, the CR9 continues to sell well...

For 500 miles and less, the Q400 is the best tool for the job, no question about that. But ask a customer which they want, and they will pick the jet. Is it worth the fuel price to them, yes probably.

So, the airlines are extremely slow to buy Q400s even though they perform great. Most people are still scared of turboprops. As in, afraid of dying in the pit of their stomach. People hate them. Unfortunately.

If not for that, we would see over 1,000 Q400s flying today in the USA. Its performance would mothball many 50-seat RJs... I only wish!
 
T prop
Posts: 910
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 4:33 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:33 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25):
All Q400 aircraft operators must conduct a general visual inspection of the left and right main landing gear system and main landing gear retract actuator jam nut. This applies to all Q400 aircraft.

Furthermore, the AD requires that a detailed visual inspection of the main landing gear retract actuator be immediately conducted on actuators that have accumulated 8,000 or more landings, or been in service for more than four years since new, whichever comes first. Bombardier estimates that this affects approximately 85 Q400 aircraft.

Newer actuators will also be inspected with varying timelines depending on the age of the actuator.

Ok, there's a clue to what the problem could be. It may be possible that the retract actuator jam nut is coming loose and changing the stroke length of the piston. It then maybe possible that the actuator stops the gear travel short of fully extended. If that happens no alternate extension or gear down emergency hand pump will fully extend the gear. Strange that if this is a problem, why it only appears now and 2 incidents days apart.  scratchchin 
 
F9Animal
Posts: 3649
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:22 pm

We do not know the exact cause of the incidents involving the Q400. Let's wait till the investigation is complete. It could be a million things, including SAS. The Q400 is a fine aircraft, and I would not hesitate to fly on it anytime, any day, or anywhere. Not to mention, the Q400 is one sexy looking airplane.




My car had a recall for a very serious fault, and I took it in to get it repaired. Would that change my opinion of buying a newer model of my car in the future? No way.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
qantas787
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:59 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:26 pm

Qantas has temporarily grounded 7 of their 400's pending some work. I don't know why really, but there you go.
G'day
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:33 pm

With QantasSunstate operating a strong fleet of the Q400 type and placing an order for a further 2 to be delivered early next next I feel the Q400 has a bright future... Just my 2 cents...

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
gilesdavies
Posts: 2271
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:51 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:07 pm

I don't think the current issues with the Dash 8-Q400 is anything for Bombardier to be worried about... Many aircrafts have over their life span have had recall issues after an incident has occurred with that type of aircraft, and as long as the manufacturer deals with these incidents responsibly and promptly, I do not see this as an issue or will have a long tern effect on the aircraft.

FlyBE has been operating the aircraft for about 6yrs now and has a reasonably large fleet. They are likely to have the highest utilisation of this type of aircraft, being a low cost carrier and operating 25min turnarounds. They have replaced repeat orders over this time and if they had an issue with the aircraft I would have thought these would have come to light by now.
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:15 pm

Quoting EK413 (Reply 30):
next next

correction next year

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
User avatar
teme82
Posts: 1197
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:38 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:21 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
I think there's still a fair bit of concern about icing and ATRs in this country (related to the MQ Roselawn crash)

Back here AY has been flying with ATR in the past and winter time, temps bellow -15 celsius. And no problems at all. And now FC uses ATR's in here.
Flying high and low
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:57 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
Fair or not, I think there's still a fair bit of concern about icing and ATRs in this country

ATRs don't have icing problem anymore. The issue has been fixed looooong time ago.
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
 
Maersk737
Posts: 654
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:37 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:58 pm

I have to agree a little with Prebennorholm. Every time I travel from AAL to CPH, I avoid the Q400 if it's possible, not because I'm afraid, but because I want to get to my destination on time.

Cheers

Peter
I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
 
EMA747
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:01 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:00 pm

In Scandinavia is it the Q400 that people are 'scared' of or is it the dash 8 in general? If it's just the Q400 could SAS not lease a few Dash 8-300s for a short term fix? Assuming there are any for leases/sale in the world that is.
Or how about the Dornier 328? I don't know that much about this aircraft though.
Failing doesn’t make you a failure. Giving up and refusing to try again does!
 
Boeing77W
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 6:27 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:03 pm

The Q400 is an excellent aircraft compared to other aircraft within the same size market. It's highly efficient, has a good range and can get into some quite tricky airports. I think that the Q400 does have a good future ahead of itself, especially as airlines are becoming more and more "eco-friendly". However, the maintenance issues do seem to be quite a problem, for example just this morning Flybe had their whole Q400 fleet grounded!
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 1934
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:17 pm

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 7):
From a safety point of view,it would appear the only issue that crops up constantly are landing gear issues.

Yes, but they are also the most dramatic, from a media reporters standpoint. If I were a 'normal' traveller and a Q400 was at the gate, I would certainly ask the question "is this the same as the other two that crashed?" If the media interest in Denmark in the Q400 is as common as we are being led to believe, then I would definatley be reluctant to fly on the Q400, out of ignorance, if nothing else.

Its not like SAS' 737s A330/A340, A319s or A321s are crashing regularly.....

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 19):

It is obvious however that Q400 can now not be part of SAS fleet. Public perception has killed Q400 Scandanavia.

 checkmark 
Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
 
degenfly
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:27 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:20 pm

Quoting EMA747 (Reply 36):
In Scandinavia is it the Q400 that people are 'scared' of or is it the dash 8 in general? If it's just the Q400 could SAS not lease a few Dash 8-300s for a short term fix?

Widerøe has flown Dash-8s for many years in Norway, and also have a few Q400s, and they've never been considered problem/unsafe-aircraft here. I doubt that these accidents will have any consequences for Dash-8 in Norway.
 
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:40 pm

Remember the DC-10? Well it is still flying. Problems fixed.  checkmark   old 
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:50 pm

Quoting Nwarooster (Reply 40):

I was about to post that very thing. There is a long list of plane crashes where people died and the planes continued to serve in airlines.

Nobody died from 2 partial gear up landings. That says a lot about the safety of the plane.
What the...?
 
OHLHD
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:02 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:11 pm

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 11):
How many hundreds of pounds of fuel extra will be burned on a one hour flight? The E-170 is about the same size, but can't compete with the economics of the Q400. Neither can the CRJ 700, 705, or 900.

That is true. Economics are quite good on these aircrafts.

Funny nobody mentioned LH. I hardly doubt they will replace them.

As for OS they will keep them since they have no money to get other aircrafts.   

Fun aside. I think it is a good aircraft but Bombardier need to get theirs together. If they do not react in a proper way now they could suffer from this story.  

[Edited 2007-09-13 14:13:22]
 
DYflyer
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 3:06 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:31 pm

Quoting Degenfly (Reply 39):
Wider?s flown Dash-8s for many years in Norway, and also have a few Q400s, and they've never been considered problem/unsafe-aircraft here. I doubt that these accidents will have any consequences for Dash-8 in Norway.

My thoughts too. Maybe SAS Norge can trade their F50s for some Q400 from SAS Danmark.
Life is like a book. If you don't travel, you only read one page.
 
OHLHD
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:02 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:53 pm

Quoting DYflyer (Reply 43):
My thoughts too. Maybe SAS Norge can trade their F50s for some Q400 from SAS Danmark.

NO  Big grin I want to fly them next year.  Smile

See here: SAS F-50 Routes (by OHLHD Sep 9 2007 in Aviation Polls & Prefs)
 
CPH757
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:40 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:58 pm

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 17):
You live in another country, and you look upon these technical issues as solveable technical problem, and that's of course exactly what they are.

But I live here in Denmark where it is a political problem, a customer confidense problem, a survival problem for an airline. It's an entirely different animal. You have to see it in that perspective, or you won't understand what I have written. I do not tell that it is rational that it is so, but that's the way it is.

I agree with you on some of your analysis, but not your point. It has been spun here in Denmark as as big issue, but the truth is that the media have a hard time realizing the technical issues (like everytime media and aircraft stories meet). There is a public concern right now regarding the Q400, but to say that it has been a broad debate for seven years is a rather big postulate. Sure, there have been stories once in a while, but nothing big, a certainly no one has noticed except frequent flyers used to the aircraft. What the outcome of these particular issues will be will decide what is going to happen with the SK fleet. I think it's possible that they let the entire fleet stay. After all, hardly anyone can tell the difference between a Q400 and an ATR, and jets are probably not an alternative on many of the Q400 routes for economical reasons. I would have no problems flying a Q400 as soon as they are approved to fly again.

Quoting EMA747 (Reply 36):
In Scandinavia is it the Q400 that people are 'scared' of or is it the dash 8 in general? If it's just the Q400 could SAS not lease a few Dash 8-300s for a short term fix? Assuming there are any for leases/sale in the world that is.
Or how about the Dornier 328? I don't know that much about this aircraft though.

Seriously, people have never been able to tell planes from each other, and they still can't. They now know from the extensive media coverage that the Q400 is a bad type, but everytime a prop is at the gate, people in this country will believe it is dangerous getting on board. The long term fix is not Dash 8-300's or ATR's if the Q400's are getting of the ground again, but an extensive PR campaign to let people know that props are not dangerous. To be honest, I believe that within a year, the story is entirely forgotten, and people don't think about it anymore.

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 38):
Yes, but they are also the most dramatic, from a media reporters standpoint. If I were a 'normal' traveller and a Q400 was at the gate, I would certainly ask the question "is this the same as the other two that crashed?" If the media interest in Denmark in the Q400 is as common as we are being led to believe, then I would definatley be reluctant to fly on the Q400, out of ignorance, if nothing else.

Well, in my oppinion the media interest in the Q400 concering the broader public starter with the first SK incident. Be reluctant at least until they've found out what have been wrong with the landing gear.

The result of these incidents is that SK (and their unions) and Bombardier start working closer together to fix the issues on the SK Q400 and determine who bears the responsibility.
Last flight: SAW-CPH on H9 on 02/11/09 - Next Flights: 23/12/09 CPH-AAL on QI, 30/12/09 CPH-LHR on SK, 19/01/10 CPH-CDG-
 
cainanuk
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 4:05 pm

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:59 pm

Quoting Boeing77W (Reply 37):
for example just this morning Flybe had their whole Q400 fleet grounded!

Where on earth did you hear that bit of nonsense? BE have exactly SIX airframes grounded. That's it! Get your facts straight before posting mate!
Cainan Cornelius
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:45 pm

Quoting CPH757 (Reply 45):
Well, in my oppinion the media interest in the Q400 concering the broader public starter with the first SK incident. Be reluctant at least until they've found out what have been wrong with the landing gear.

The media is interested in any story involving bad things happening to planes...it's always so DRAMATIC...the talking heads on the news get to make their serious faces and tsk and cut to the scene...just before giggling about what the kitten did with a ball of yarn.

The planes were broken. Thankfully, nobody was seriously injured. Hopefully, they get fixed.

The news is about real information as much as a lion is about being a vegetarian.
What the...?
 
bAe146TOM
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:26 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:16 am

I hear flybe have grounded some of their Q400's is this true?
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1152
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: Future Of The Q-400?

Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:20 am

All blame is being put on the Q400 and we dont even know 100% what the cause was...

Im sorry but SK may just have internal MX problems with the plane cause all the Other Q400's have not had these problems... they may be unreliable but two gear failures in 3 days and both at SK..hmmmmmmmmm


Leo
Happiness is V1 in Lagos