Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
727glasair
Topic Author
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:51 am

E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:38 pm

My recent, ongoing spotting at SEA reveals an accelerated number of the Embraer 175 jets in service, and fewer Q-400's.
Both AS and Delta seem to be employing LOTS of the 175's.
How does this affect the future of commuter turboprops?
How is Dehavilland/Canada/ going to compete or stay relevant?
 
rajincajun01
Posts: 769
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:16 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:42 pm

Americans hate turboprops. They just have a bad reputation here.

Four of the top five airlines in the US have significant E170/175 fleets.
 
MO11
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:44 pm

727glasair wrote:
My recent, ongoing spotting at SEA reveals an accelerated number of the Embraer 175 jets in service, and fewer Q-400's.
Both AS and Delta seem to be employing LOTS of the 175's.
How does this affect the future of commuter turboprops?
How is Dehavilland/Canada/ going to compete or stay relevant?



No future in the US. Overseas is a different matter.
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:59 pm

rajincajun01 wrote:
Americans hate turboprops. They just have a bad reputation here.


True, but re Q400 v E175, the E175 is clearly, empirically, a better passenger experience. It's not just reputation. QX E175s have first class, have premium, have wifi/free texting, fly faster and higher, are quieter and have larger overhead bins. They're much better planes to fly in.
 
Jshank83
Posts: 4589
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:01 pm

ucdtim17 wrote:
rajincajun01 wrote:
Americans hate turboprops. They just have a bad reputation here.


True, but re Q400 v E175, the E175 is clearly, empirically, a better passenger experience. It's not just reputation. QX E175s have first class, have premium, have wifi/free texting, fly faster and higher, are quieter and have larger overhead bins. They're much better planes to fly in.


I would rather fly in a E175 than a 737 or A319/20/21 in most cases. Great planes. Can't really compare them to turboprops.
 
MCIRNO
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 2:49 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:04 pm

Plus, the E175 has more versatility than the Q. For example, AS uses them for long non-stops out of both SFO and SAN
 
727glasair
Topic Author
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:51 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:09 pm

So, with more fuel efficient jet engines, I guess the economics is becoming more favorable for these 78 passenger E-175's. Just 10 years ago, the Q-400's were making a great case for relatively small fuel burn, and close to "jet" travel times between cities.
 
WkndWanderer
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:36 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:59 pm

727glasair wrote:
So, with more fuel efficient jet engines, I guess the economics is becoming more favorable for these 78 passenger E-175's. Just 10 years ago, the Q-400's were making a great case for relatively small fuel burn, and close to "jet" travel times between cities.


Alaska is also using the E175 to open up or develop new, longer services that wouldn't be viable on a turboprop. You aren't going to see PDX-MCI or SJC-AUS in a Q400.
 
User avatar
Slash787
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:37 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:08 pm

So E175 is more fuel efficient than the Q400?
 
Runway28L
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:09 pm

This already happened on the East Coast a while back. YX’s Q400 ops on behalf of UA were completely replaced by E175s.
 
Socrates17
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2003 3:47 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:11 pm

Sad, but true. I'm an American who loves turboprops and who has always had a great time on the Q-400, but I know that I'm in a small minority. The E-175 is a fine airliner, and I understand that it delivers a more comfortable experience overall, but it feels less like "flying" to me than the Q or other turboprops. I feel more connected to history in a turboprop. Ah, well.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23112
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:15 pm

Slash787 wrote:
So E175 is more fuel efficient than the Q400?

No. But it is close on cost effectiveness on 450nm+ flights. The next generation aircraft, if they could get around scope clauses, will cost lest per flight down to 300nm.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:17 pm

The E175 outclasses the Q400 in comfort, noise and speed. America is a fairly premium market, and it's geographically huge. It has many midsize, mid distance markets.

As lightsaber says above, the E-175 unit cost is very similar to Q, partly because (again) it is faster and can do more flights per day. So the pilots, and aircraft, cost less per mile, even if they cost the same per hour. The fuel burn is probably worse, but it's not bad.

It's a dignified airplane and I love the opportunity to go places on them. They are also a network planner's friend, because routes and times that are losing money on a 737 can be put on E-175 and make money. This allows the overall airline system to thrive. Even mainline pilots win there.
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:37 pm

I'll be happy to ride Q400s on PDX-SEA but am not sad to see them leaving PDX-OAK and other 500+ mile flights. They're great for short hops but not the long routes QX has been using them on while they use new E175s to open up new midcon markets.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:46 pm

Jshank83 wrote:
ucdtim17 wrote:
rajincajun01 wrote:
Americans hate turboprops. They just have a bad reputation here.


True, but re Q400 v E175, the E175 is clearly, empirically, a better passenger experience. It's not just reputation. QX E175s have first class, have premium, have wifi/free texting, fly faster and higher, are quieter and have larger overhead bins. They're much better planes to fly in.


I would rather fly in a E175 than a 737 or A319/20/21 in most cases. Great planes. Can't really compare them to turboprops.


While I generally agree, my most recent E175 flight on Compass was about the most uncomfortable flight I've ever been on. Zero legroom. Crew was great, though.
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4637
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:06 pm

With fuel prices climbing out of control again, could we see a rise in Q400 orders again? While I would prefer to fly a 175 over the 400, I still dig flying on the 400. My last trip on a Horizon Q400 was dismal to say the least. The cabin was worn down bad, with seats and panels falling apart. I remember when Horizon flew the F-28, and they kept the cabins looking nearly new!! I know Horizon has been struggling a little, which may explain why my Q400 was beat to hell. Hope they are able to update the interiors if they havent already.

Does Horizon have any plans to add their special paint jobs to any of the 175's?
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5399
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:10 pm

rajincajun01 wrote:
Americans hate turboprops. They just have a bad reputation here.

Four of the top five airlines in the US have significant E170/175 fleets.

The bigger issue in the US is that the Q40 is classified the same as the large RJs now at the US3 so for them to operate the Q40 they would have to trade it for either 70 skaters or 76 sweaters depending on configuration which the US3 isn't going to do. The jets are a lot more flexible than a prop would be.


AS on the other hand can do whatever they feel like doing because they don't really have a scope agreement with its unions


Runway28L wrote:
This already happened on the East Coast a while back. YX’s Q400 ops on behalf of UA were completely replaced by E175s.

And this is a example of what I am talking about above

At the time CO got the Qs they couldn't operate a jet above 50 seats but could operate as many 51+ seat props as they wanted
Once they merged with United, the JCBA with the pilots they basically took the Delta/DALPA scope agreement word for word. This allowed United to trade the Qs for more 76 seat jets and away they went.

In Europe the airlines are allowed to outsource flying a lot more liberally compared to the US3 which is why you see things like Q/ATR fleets, 100 seat outsourcing etc.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:25 pm

deltal1011man wrote:
so for them to operate the Q40 they would have to trade it for either 70 skaters or 76 sweaters


What is this, a flea market? lol
 
Jshank83
Posts: 4589
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:52 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
ucdtim17 wrote:

True, but re Q400 v E175, the E175 is clearly, empirically, a better passenger experience. It's not just reputation. QX E175s have first class, have premium, have wifi/free texting, fly faster and higher, are quieter and have larger overhead bins. They're much better planes to fly in.


I would rather fly in a E175 than a 737 or A319/20/21 in most cases. Great planes. Can't really compare them to turboprops.


While I generally agree, my most recent E175 flight on Compass was about the most uncomfortable flight I've ever been on. Zero legroom. Crew was great, though.


Interesting. I think I have only been on a Skywest ones so far (united). I have a Republic (Delta) one coming up in about a month though. It will be interesting to see how they compare.
 
leghorn
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:29 pm

Here is where the Q400 works
Average flight time is 59 minutes
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... al-carrier
 
User avatar
TripleDelta
Screener
Posts: 1283
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:13 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:07 pm

727glasair wrote:
How is Dehavilland/Canada/ going to compete or stay relevant?


It's not, because it doesn't exist anymore. The Q400 was developed out of the standard DHC-8 series by Bombardier after they acquired DeHavilland Canada.
 
User avatar
452QX
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:30 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:14 pm

F9Animal wrote:
Does Horizon have any plans to add their special paint jobs to any of the 175's?


That would be a no, we aren't even keeping all of the college liveries on the Qs
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:21 pm

Jshank83 wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:

I would rather fly in a E175 than a 737 or A319/20/21 in most cases. Great planes. Can't really compare them to turboprops.


While I generally agree, my most recent E175 flight on Compass was about the most uncomfortable flight I've ever been on. Zero legroom. Crew was great, though.


Interesting. I think I have only been on a Skywest ones so far (united). I have a Republic (Delta) one coming up in about a month though. It will be interesting to see how they compare.


My flight was on Compass but was an AA* flight. The Delta Connection layout might be slightly different, not sure. I'm assuming that the mainline carriers generally have their feeder flights fitted the same within their branding but, again, not sure.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:27 pm

Jshank83 wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:

Interesting. I think I have only been on a Skywest ones so far (united). I have a Republic (Delta) one coming up in about a month though. It will be interesting to see how they compare.


My flight was on Compass but was an AA* flight. The Delta Connection layout might be slightly different, not sure. I'm assuming that the mainline carriers generally have their feeder flights fitted the same within their branding but, again, not sure.


Just out of curiosity I checked the seatguru for the big 3. United and Delta are 31 in of pitch on the 175 and AA is 30. AA has en extra row of premium seats.


That explains it. If you go AA 175, go premium. Trust me. :-)
 
Jshank83
Posts: 4589
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:33 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:

While I generally agree, my most recent E175 flight on Compass was about the most uncomfortable flight I've ever been on. Zero legroom. Crew was great, though.


Interesting. I think I have only been on a Skywest ones so far (united). I have a Republic (Delta) one coming up in about a month though. It will be interesting to see how they compare.


My flight was on Compass but was an AA* flight. The Delta Connection layout might be slightly different, not sure. I'm assuming that the mainline carriers generally have their feeder flights fitted the same within their branding but, again, not sure.


Just out of curiosity I checked the seatguru for the big 3. United and Delta are 31 in of pitch on the 175 and AA is 30. AA has en extra row of premium seats.
 
Coriander
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:56 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:41 pm

I know which I would choose to take if I had to. Its the jet every time.
 
superjeff
Posts: 1452
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:47 am

actually, in the U.S., all E175's on Alaska, American, Delta, and United are configured essentially the same. You probably couldn't tell the difference between them, due to the scope clauses.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:56 am

I reckon a 100 seat Q400 might improve its economics enough to give it a new lease on life. A relatively simple stretch, (as these things go). It has plenty of built in strength and lots of power to do a stretch trading range, (it has more than it uses on 90% of its current routes), for passengers.

It would be tough to beat sub 6-700nm.
Last edited by JoeCanuck on Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:00 am

superjeff wrote:
actually, in the U.S., all E175's on Alaska, American, Delta, and United are configured essentially the same. You probably couldn't tell the difference between them, due to the scope clauses.


The fact that some list it with 31" pitch and some with 30" (with the requisite changes in Y/Y+ mix) means that you actually can tell the difference. Again, I was on a 30" pitch 175 and it sucked - noticeably. :-)
 
93Sierra
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:01 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:53 am

You do know that the crj 900 is cheaper for an airline to operate that the eeeeeeejet
 
727glasair
Topic Author
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:51 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:16 am

I have very mixed feelings about all this. Somehow, I love flying with those big 5000 shp turboprop engines with the 6 bladed Dowty propellers; the unique sounds and vibrations! A remarkable evolution of the technology. I rather hope these birds can maintain a substantial presence in my local SEA aviation route structure....
 
User avatar
ricport
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:21 pm

ucdtim17 wrote:
rajincajun01 wrote:
Americans hate turboprops. They just have a bad reputation here.


True, but re Q400 v E175, the E175 is clearly, empirically, a better passenger experience. It's not just reputation. QX E175s have first class, have premium, have wifi/free texting, fly faster and higher, are quieter and have larger overhead bins. They're much better planes to fly in.


Totally agree. Good riddance to the Qs! Last time I flew in one, I looked out the window to see a little, old lady in a wheelchair passing us on the ground.
 
yzfElite
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:31 pm

93Sierra wrote:
You do know that the crj 900 is cheaper for an airline to operate that the eeeeeeejet


I'm not sure the 900 is a big upgrade from the Q400. The bid advantage of the E175 is that it gives the mainline jet experience for passengers. I enjoy the 900 for the speed over a prop, but it feels like a small cigar tube.
 
Dominion301
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:52 pm

MO11 wrote:
727glasair wrote:
My recent, ongoing spotting at SEA reveals an accelerated number of the Embraer 175 jets in service, and fewer Q-400's.
Both AS and Delta seem to be employing LOTS of the 175's.
How does this affect the future of commuter turboprops?
How is Dehavilland/Canada/ going to compete or stay relevant?



No future in the US. Overseas is a different matter.


Overseas and north of the US border too. AC + WS + PD combined operate approx. 120 Q400s. Distances in Canada are the same as in the US, but here AC generally use CR9s/E75s on routes requiring a J cabin. PD of course partially use Qs out of necessity and partially for their economics and partially for their speed vs. an ATR.

I personally love Dash 8s of all types, but the E-Jets are wonderful to fly on too.

So to answer your question, yes Q400s are declining in the US, but globally they're experiencing a bit of a renaissance. 2017 and 2018 have been very good years for the Q400 and I expect additional Q orders at Farnborough.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6678
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:53 pm

727glasair wrote:
I have very mixed feelings about all this. Somehow, I love flying with those big 5000 shp turboprop engines with the 6 bladed Dowty propellers; the unique sounds and vibrations! A remarkable evolution of the technology. I rather hope these birds can maintain a substantial presence in my local SEA aviation route structure....


I’m like you. I think flying on the Q400 is fun. My longest Q flight was FAT-SEA. Wasn’t that big of a deal. Got me home on time. I rather enjoy the airplane, especially when it comes with free beer. ;)
 
32andBelow
Posts: 5742
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:20 pm

Dominion301 wrote:
MO11 wrote:
727glasair wrote:
My recent, ongoing spotting at SEA reveals an accelerated number of the Embraer 175 jets in service, and fewer Q-400's.
Both AS and Delta seem to be employing LOTS of the 175's.
How does this affect the future of commuter turboprops?
How is Dehavilland/Canada/ going to compete or stay relevant?



No future in the US. Overseas is a different matter.


Overseas and north of the US border too. AC + WS + PD combined operate approx. 120 Q400s. Distances in Canada are the same as in the US, but here AC generally use CR9s/E75s on routes requiring a J cabin. PD of course partially use Qs out of necessity and partially for their economics and partially for their speed vs. an ATR.

I personally love Dash 8s of all types, but the E-Jets are wonderful to fly on too.

So to answer your question, yes Q400s are declining in the US, but globally they're experiencing a bit of a renaissance. 2017 and 2018 have been very good years for the Q400 and I expect additional Q orders at Farnborough.

Qs are built in Canada, it’s no surprise their countryman buy them.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10204
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:24 pm

727glasair wrote:
My recent, ongoing spotting at SEA reveals an accelerated number of the Embraer 175 jets in service, and fewer Q-400's.
Both AS and Delta seem to be employing LOTS of the 175's.
How does this affect the future of commuter turboprops?
How is Dehavilland/Canada/ going to compete or stay relevant?


You're about 15 years late with your observations in the U.S. market. SEA (and QX) has been the U.S. outlier.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:51 pm

32andBelow wrote:
Dominion301 wrote:
MO11 wrote:


No future in the US. Overseas is a different matter.


Overseas and north of the US border too. AC + WS + PD combined operate approx. 120 Q400s. Distances in Canada are the same as in the US, but here AC generally use CR9s/E75s on routes requiring a J cabin. PD of course partially use Qs out of necessity and partially for their economics and partially for their speed vs. an ATR.

I personally love Dash 8s of all types, but the E-Jets are wonderful to fly on too.

So to answer your question, yes Q400s are declining in the US, but globally they're experiencing a bit of a renaissance. 2017 and 2018 have been very good years for the Q400 and I expect additional Q orders at Farnborough.

Qs are built in Canada, it’s no surprise their countryman buy them.


Because they were the best plane for the job?
 
32andBelow
Posts: 5742
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:28 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Dominion301 wrote:

Overseas and north of the US border too. AC + WS + PD combined operate approx. 120 Q400s. Distances in Canada are the same as in the US, but here AC generally use CR9s/E75s on routes requiring a J cabin. PD of course partially use Qs out of necessity and partially for their economics and partially for their speed vs. an ATR.

I personally love Dash 8s of all types, but the E-Jets are wonderful to fly on too.

So to answer your question, yes Q400s are declining in the US, but globally they're experiencing a bit of a renaissance. 2017 and 2018 have been very good years for the Q400 and I expect additional Q orders at Farnborough.

Qs are built in Canada, it’s no surprise their countryman buy them.


Because they were the best plane for the job?

They aren’t though. Porter is flying megs that would be much more efficient and faster on e175
 
diverted
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:49 pm

32andBelow wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Qs are built in Canada, it’s no surprise their countryman buy them.


Because they were the best plane for the job?

They aren’t though. Porter is flying megs that would be much more efficient and faster on e175

And Porter is also based at YTZ where the biggest plane they can fly is a Q400. There's a ban on jets with the exception of medevacs.

Further to that, Westjet bought them for multiple reasons as well, because they were the best plane for the job. Engine out performance over the rockies for one. Speed for two.

I imagine Jazz's thought process was much the same, as well as already having substantial -100 and -300 fleets

There's a decent number of ATR operators in Canada as well, where the speed isn't such a big deal. Calm Air, First Air, among others.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:13 pm

Several weeks ago I flew a Piedmont Dash-300, horrible ride, overhead bins rattled the whole trip, vibration made it impossible to relax, cabin noise was very loud and flying at low altitudes gives way to more of a bumpy ride, I.E. can't fly over bad weather. The Dash series is decades old and is avoided by passengers who have a choice. I have flown the CRJ-700 and 900, a world of difference. Dash-8, rest in piece.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 5742
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:20 pm

diverted wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:

Because they were the best plane for the job?

They aren’t though. Porter is flying megs that would be much more efficient and faster on e175

And Porter is also based at YTZ where the biggest plane they can fly is a Q400. There's a ban on jets with the exception of medevacs.

Further to that, Westjet bought them for multiple reasons as well, because they were the best plane for the job. Engine out performance over the rockies for one. Speed for two.

I imagine Jazz's thought process was much the same, as well as already having substantial -100 and -300 fleets

There's a decent number of ATR operators in Canada as well, where the speed isn't such a big deal. Calm Air, First Air, among others.

Yet q400s were a spectacular disaster in the state of Alaska.
 
diverted
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:33 pm

32andBelow wrote:
diverted wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
They aren’t though. Porter is flying megs that would be much more efficient and faster on e175

And Porter is also based at YTZ where the biggest plane they can fly is a Q400. There's a ban on jets with the exception of medevacs.

Further to that, Westjet bought them for multiple reasons as well, because they were the best plane for the job. Engine out performance over the rockies for one. Speed for two.

I imagine Jazz's thought process was much the same, as well as already having substantial -100 and -300 fleets

There's a decent number of ATR operators in Canada as well, where the speed isn't such a big deal. Calm Air, First Air, among others.

Yet q400s were a spectacular disaster in the state of Alaska.


And that's relevant to PD/WS/AC how?
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:47 pm

32andBelow wrote:
diverted wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
They aren’t though. Porter is flying megs that would be much more efficient and faster on e175

And Porter is also based at YTZ where the biggest plane they can fly is a Q400. There's a ban on jets with the exception of medevacs.

Further to that, Westjet bought them for multiple reasons as well, because they were the best plane for the job. Engine out performance over the rockies for one. Speed for two.

I imagine Jazz's thought process was much the same, as well as already having substantial -100 and -300 fleets

There's a decent number of ATR operators in Canada as well, where the speed isn't such a big deal. Calm Air, First Air, among others.

Yet q400s were a spectacular disaster in the state of Alaska.


Disaster?
 
User avatar
ACCS300
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:05 pm

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:54 pm

cheapgreek wrote:
Several weeks ago I flew a Piedmont Dash-300, horrible ride, overhead bins rattled the whole trip, vibration made it impossible to relax, cabin noise was very loud and flying at low altitudes gives way to more of a bumpy ride, I.E. can't fly over bad weather. The Dash series is decades old and is avoided by passengers who have a choice. I have flown the CRJ-700 and 900, a world of difference. Dash-8, rest in piece.


Q400 is light years ahead of those ancient Dash-300, faster, far quieter, far less vibration and a totally new up-to-date modern clean, fresh and very functional cabin design.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 5742
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:35 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
diverted wrote:
And Porter is also based at YTZ where the biggest plane they can fly is a Q400. There's a ban on jets with the exception of medevacs.

Further to that, Westjet bought them for multiple reasons as well, because they were the best plane for the job. Engine out performance over the rockies for one. Speed for two.

I imagine Jazz's thought process was much the same, as well as already having substantial -100 and -300 fleets

There's a decent number of ATR operators in Canada as well, where the speed isn't such a big deal. Calm Air, First Air, among others.

Yet q400s were a spectacular disaster in the state of Alaska.


Disaster?
alaska tried to fly them on intra Alaska routes and it was a disaster so they don’t anymore
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4637
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:01 am

452QX wrote:
F9Animal wrote:
Does Horizon have any plans to add their special paint jobs to any of the 175's?


That would be a no, we aren't even keeping all of the college liveries on the Qs


Bummer!!! I mean, it makes better financial sense, as most people rarely look at paint jobs like an a.nutter does. But!!! I still get goosebumps when I see a QX 400 with a special paint on it. They look so darned sharp, and really stick out of the bunch when they fly over my house. I bet a Huskies paint would look stunning on the 175.
 
leghorn
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

Re: E-175 rising, Q-400 declining?

Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:52 pm

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