Not as major, but this type is really known for it's landing gear issues. SK got rid of them because of that.
SK was found at fault for using chemicals that were not approved. They degraded a part and caise the trouble. There were no other airlines having that issue. The plane has flown for years with few problems.
Dear rbavfan, it is impossible to write anything which is more faulty than your comment above. You know absolutely nothing about it. But you can read the following ADs and learn about it:The following air worthiness directives (AD) were issued:
• Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-20 dated September 12, 2007.
• EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive No. 2007-0252-E dated September 13, 2007.
The above AD’s were revised after additional information became available during the investigation.
• Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-20R1 dated October 11, 2007.
• EASA Airworthiness Directive No. 2007-0272 dated October 16, 2007.
All SK planes were on the way to failing. SK planes failed first because they were launch customer. All Q400 planes were modified to correct the design fault as described in the ADs. All Q400 planes, before being modified, would fail sooner or later if they were operated in climate where they sometimes had to climb and descend in clouds.
The last of the three SK accidents was unrelated. It was caused by sloppy mx work during the hasty fleet modification according to the ADs above.
But it is correct that SK ditched the Q400 due to PR reasons. The relations to the public was so that they would have folded within a month or two if they had insisted on keeping the Q400 in the fleet.
Two of the three accident planes were scrapped. The 26 other planes in the fleet were repaired/modified by Bombardier and are now flying for other operators around the world.