Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 14126
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

"CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:08 am

Nice article in today's Bergen Record about CO's Q-400s which will start arriving next month, the Q-400 will allow CO to fly more passengers than their ERJ-145s (and with a lower CASM). The short runway performance of the Q-400 will help it better utilize runway 11/29 at EWR during most weather events, the lower cruising altitude it will operate at means less interference for larger aircraft.

CO has 15 firm orders which are going to EWR, with an additional 30 options (15 CLE, 15 IAH?).

Quote:
Continental executives say the 15 Q400s they plan to introduce at Newark next year, replacing 50-seat regional jets, will bring another important benefit. Because of the Q400's larger seating capacity and shorter runway requirements, it will help ease congestion at an airport that is among the worst in terms of on-time flights.



Quote:
the first to fly out of Newark is expected to arrive in the third week of January, subject to regulatory approval. The rest of the fleet will likely arrive by early summer.



Quote:
The Q400s will be able to use Newark's short east-west runway -- known as Runway 11/29 -- when wind conditions would force regional jets to use the busy main runways.

The turboprop "can operate on Newark's shorter crosswind runway in more weather conditions, thus reducing aircraft requirements on Newark's longer runways," Continental Senior Vice President Zane Rowe told the Senate Commerce Committee in a September hearing on airport congestion and delays.



Quote:
The Q400 carries 24 more passengers than the 50-seat regional jets that account for most of the short-haul Continental Express fleet. They will cruise at about 25,000 feet, well below the jet traffic lanes.



Quote:
"The Q400 can fly out of the main traffic patterns," and "will have an impact" on congestion and delay problems at Newark, said Ray Neidl, airline analyst with New York-based Calyon Securities.



Quote:
A bigger, quieter option

A comparison of Continental's regional jets and its Q400 aircraft.

ERJ-145 Q400

Seats 50 74

Range (miles) 1,783 1,757

Cruise speed (miles per hour) 530 415

Cruise altitude (feet) 35,000 25,000

Minimum runway length -- takeoff (feet) 7,448 4,580

Minimum runway length -- landing (feet) 4,593 4,221

Source: Continental Airlines

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?...MmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyMg==
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:31 am

I honestly see the turboprop making a BIG re-emergence in the US. Seems like the airlines are slowly getting ride of the 50 seat RJ market replacing them with more E-Jets, CR7's and CR9's. People are flying and again and airlines now realive that they don't need a 700 aircraft fleet to do business (domestic capacity reductions). Keeping planes in the air longer and and capacity is the norm today. I really would like to see the Q400 and the next generation ATR (is there such a thing? They need one) taking over a lot of the routes the the CRJ/ERJ 50 seaters are flying. I think that once that is in check, things will be much better, as it has already started getting better.
What gets measured gets done.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:33 am

This is great news and I'm glad there are some hopeful statistics in this article. But I would think that CO would need more Q400s based at EWR if they want to really ease conjestion. I mean, how many RJ's are based at EWR right now? I'd imagine quite a few.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
CO787EWR
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:10 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:34 am

Nice find

If your doing this on routes that are less than 500nm long then the turboprop might be slightly faster since you can allow it to take off from 11 and less time to cruise than a RJ.
 
eghansen
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:38 am



Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 1):
I honestly see the turboprop making a BIG re-emergence in the US. Seems like the airlines are slowly getting ride of the 50 seat RJ market replacing them with more E-Jets, CR7's and CR9's.

Possibly in the east coast, but not as likely in the western US. I know that out of SAN we have DL CRJ's to SLC which is a 2 hrs 56 mins. Also AA ERJ's to SJC which is 1 hr 25 mins. Also AC Jazz to YVR which is 3 hrs 5 mins. Can't see these flights being replaced with Turboprops. Our cities are too far apart and the west is too sparsely populated.
Nowadays, it is hard to tell when the commercials end and real life begins
 
CO787EWR
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:10 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:39 am



Quoting Tommy767 (Reply 2):

This is great news and I'm glad there are some hopeful statistics in this article. But I would think that CO would need more Q400s based at EWR if they want to really ease conjestion. I mean, how many RJ's are based at EWR right now? I'd imagine quite a few.



I dont know the exact number but Terminal C Concourse 2 is always full of them I would guesstimate 40 gates.
 
alangirvan
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 2:13 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:47 am

Did I see a comment on another thread that for small jets CO are limited by the agreement with their pilots that jets with more than 50 seats MUST be flown by mainline crews?

A lot of people would say that with rising fuel prices 50 seater E-jets and CRJs are financial disasters. Does this apply to 70 seater and 90 seaters - CRJ-700s and CRJ-900s? and the E-170/175? Surely there must be some distance where the CRJ-900 and E-190 start to look better than the best TPs? 400 miles, 500 miles?

If the Q400 will work well for CO, will the Q400X with 90 seats work even better?

If CO did get E-190s, when would they use them in preference to mainline 737-500s?
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:53 am



Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 1):
I really would like to see the Q400 and the next generation ATR (is there such a thing?

There is. I mean, the ATR 500 series was the the second generation, and the 600 series will be along very soon.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 4):
Also AA ERJ's to SJC which is 1 hr 25 mins.

I would say LA area to SF area is the perfect stage length for the Q400.

NS
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6606
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congest

Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:58 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 4):
Our cities are too far apart and the west is too sparsely populated.

That's true for the examples you mentioned, but there are numerous routes in the West that would work just fine with turboprops. I think QX might be surprised if you told them otherwise, given their fleet mix.  tongue 

I would also look for large turboprops to fly much of the Bay Area-SoCal traffic in the future, as well as all of the QX shuttles between PDX, SEA, and GEG. They just make so much more sense on short routes than RJs.
 
westindian425
Posts: 729
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 7:46 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:59 am

Quoting STT757 (Thread starter):
The short runway performance of the Q-400 will help it better utilize runway 11/29 at EWR during most weather events

Using 11/29 at EWR may be nice in theory but it really depends on staffing at EWR more than weather conditions. Many times the weather favors using 11/29 and we're declined the request because of staffing.

Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 6):
If CO did get E-190s, when would they use them in preference to mainline 737-500s?

If CO got the E190s, they'd have to be flown by mainline CO pilots.

[Edited 2007-12-09 19:00:14]
God did not create aircraft pilots to be on the ground
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 14126
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:00 am



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 6):
Did I see a comment on another thread that for small jets CO are limited by the agreement with their pilots that jets with more than 50 seats MUST be flown by mainline crews?

Jet aircraft with more than 50 seats must be flown by main line CO pilots, hence 74 seat turbo props.

Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 6):
If the Q400 will work well for CO, will the Q400X with 90 seats work even better?

If Bombardier offers a Q-400X with 90 seats I'm sure CO would be interested for heavily traveled routes of 500 miles or less.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
sxf24
Posts: 1001
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:01 am



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 6):
Did I see a comment on another thread that for small jets CO are limited by the agreement with their pilots that jets with more than 50 seats MUST be flown by mainline crews?

A lot of people would say that with rising fuel prices 50 seater E-jets and CRJs are financial disasters. Does this apply to 70 seater and 90 seaters - CRJ-700s and CRJ-900s? and the E-170/175? Surely there must be some distance where the CRJ-900 and E-190 start to look better than the best TPs? 400 miles, 500 miles?

The CO scope is 59 seats for a jet aircraft, with no cap on props.

At about 500-550 miles a comparable sized jet becomes more efficient than the Q400.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 4161
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:10 am

And please bring them to IAH and get rid of those SF34's Colgan Air is flying. I know, different markets and such but us in Houston want the Q!!!
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
LGA777
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 12:46 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:14 am

Anyone know the first planned routes from EWR for the Q400's ?

Thanks

LGA777
 
quickmover
Posts: 2201
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 4:28 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:15 am

Heres a chart that shows the performance of of the Q compared to other commercial aircraft.

On a 60 minute flight, the distance covered is almost the same as a 737-500. Beyond that distance, I'm sure the jets start to stretch it out.

http://www.q400.com/q400/en/performance.jsp
 
westindian425
Posts: 729
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 7:46 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:23 am



Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 12):
And please bring them to IAH and get rid of those SF34's Colgan Air is flying. I know, different markets and such but us in Houston want the Q!!!

You know, I actually thought they'd send some of them down there.
God did not create aircraft pilots to be on the ground
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1684
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:26 am



Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 11):
The CO scope is 59 seats for a jet aircraft, with no cap on props.

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. Props are capped at 79 seats and jets at 50. Taken directly from the CALALPA CBA:

C. The Company will not directly or through an Affiliate establish any new airline which
operates aircraft other than Small Jets and Small Turboprops; provided that a
transaction permitted by and in accordance with Part 7 below does not constitute
establishing a new airline under this Paragraph C.

Y. “Small Jet” means jet aircraft with an FAA certification of fifty (50) or fewer seats.

Z. “Small Turboprop” means turboprop aircraft with an FAA certification of seventynine
(79) or fewer seats.



F. The Company will not authorize the use of more than an aggregate of two hundred
seventy-four (274) Small Jets in Express Carrier Flying, except that, if the Company
operates more Company aircraft having an FAA certification of at least one hundred
(100) seats than the three hundred forty-eight (348) that it operated on March 1, 2005,
it may increase the number of Small Jets engaged in Express Carrier Flying in
accordance with the following:

1. For every single aisle aircraft with an FAA certification of at least one hundred
(100) seats but less than one hundred fifty (150) seats which increases the
number of aircraft operated in the Company’s fleet above the number operated
on March 1, 2005, the Company may authorize the use in Express Carrier
Flying of three (3) additional Small Jets beyond the two hundred seventy-four
(274) Small Jets authorized as of the date of signing of the Agreement.

2. For every single-aisle aircraft with an FAA certification of at least one hundred
fifty (150) seats (but not a twin-aisle aircraft) which increases the number of
aircraft operated in the Company’s fleet above the number operated on March
1, 2005, the Company may authorize the use in Express Carrier Flying of four
(4) additional Small Jets beyond two hundred seventy-four (274) Small Jets.

3. For every twin-aisle aircraft with an FAA certification of at least one hundred
fifty (150) seats which increases the number of aircraft operated in the
Company’s fleet above the number operated on March 1, 2005, the Company
may authorize the use in Express Carrier Flying of five (5) Small Jets beyond
two hundred seventy-four (274) Small Jets.

4. If the Company reduces the number of aircraft it operates in a group specified
in Paragraphs 1, 2, or 3 to less than the number it operated on March 1, 2005,
but increases the number of aircraft it operates in one of the higher groups
beyond the number it operated on March 1, 2005, it may authorize the use of
more than two hundred seventy-four (274) Small Jets in Express Carrier Flying
as shown in the following examples, as long as the net number of aircraft
operated by the Company in the three groups is not less than the number
operated on March 1, 2005.

a. If two single-aisle aircraft with an FAA certification of at least one
hundred (100) seats but less than one hundred fifty (150) seats are
retired and replaced by two single-aisle aircraft with an FAA
certification of at least one hundred fifty (150) seats (but not twin-aisle
aircraft), the Company may add two (2) Small Jets for use in Express
Carrier Flying beyond two hundred seventy-four (274) Small Jets.

b. If two single-aisle aircraft with an FAA certification of at least one
hundred (100) seats but less than one hundred fifty (150) seats are
retired and replaced by one single-aisle aircraft with an FAA
certification of at least one hundred fifty (150) seats (but not twin-aisle
aircraft), the Company may add no Small Jets for use in Express
Carrier Flying beyond two hundred seventy-four (274) Small Jets.

c. If two single-aisle aircraft with an FAA certification of at least one
hundred (100) seats but less than one hundred fifty (150) seats are
retired and replaced by two twin-aisle aircraft with an FAA
certification of at least one hundred fifty (150) seats, the Company may
add four (4) Small Jets for use in Express Carrier Flying beyond two
hundred seventy-four (274) Small Jets.
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 14126
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:28 am



Quoting LGA777 (Reply 13):
Anyone know the first planned routes from EWR for the Q400's ?

CO is going to replace ERJs with Q-400s on routes from EWR of 500 miles or less, current CO ERJ flights from EWR that are in that category includes..

Albany, Baltimore, Hartford, Providence, Syracuse, Rochester, Washington Dulles, Burlington, Manchester, Bangor, Portland ME., Greensboro, Montreal, Norfolk, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Quebec City, Raleigh, Richmond, Toronto etc..
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
runway23
Posts: 2335
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:12 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:59 am



Quoting STT757 (Reply 17):
CO is going to replace ERJs with Q-400s on routes from EWR of 500 miles or less, current CO ERJ flights from EWR that are in that category includes..

Albany, Baltimore, Hartford, Providence, Syracuse, Rochester, Washington Dulles, Burlington, Manchester, Bangor, Portland ME., Greensboro, Montreal, Norfolk, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Quebec City, Raleigh, Richmond, Toronto etc..

Any indication when this will appear in the timetable?

Also will we still see a few ERJ-145s in EWR on those short destinations or will they be used exclusively on thinner long routes which require the aircraft's range?
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 14126
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:00 am



Quoting Runway23 (Reply 18):
Any indication when this will appear in the timetable?

Also will we still see a few ERJ-145s in EWR on those short destinations or will they be used exclusively on thinner long routes which require the aircraft's range?

With only 15 Q-400s I'm sure the ERJs will be plying short hops from EWR for a while, at least until they are replaced by either a Q-400 or 737.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:07 am

If CO is getting rid of its RJ's at EWR, maybe some of them can be shifted to IAH...and BFL can get its IAH flights back!!

As for congestion at EWR, I hope that it does help the situation in the NYC area. At this point, it can't hurt!!
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 4161
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:12 am



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 20):
maybe some of them can be shifted to IAH.

Just get rid of the CHQ stuff, bring back the full ExpressJet group. CHQ is a year now with CO and the issues have not gotten better at least from my experience.

Can't wait to see the Q400 in person with the CO logo.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
eghansen
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congest

Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:28 am



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 8):
I would also look for large turboprops to fly much of the Bay Area-SoCal traffic in the future, as well as all of the QX shuttles between PDX, SEA, and GEG. They just make so much more sense on short routes than RJs.

I don't know about PDX, SEA and GEG, but I doubt that any Bay Area-SoCal will be with Turboprops. The number one airline in this market is Southwest which flies only 737s. Can't see any other airlines using turboprops to compete with Southwest.

The Q400 may replace some of the Skywest flights to small towns in California, but those are turboprop already with EMB120 and SAAB340, so it would not be a change.
Nowadays, it is hard to tell when the commercials end and real life begins
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:36 am



Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 21):
CHQ is a year now with CO and the issues have not gotten better at least from my experience.

My recent flights on CHQ were on time (early) and well run. The staff was friendly. One of the CRJs had a faulty APU, but I've been on plenty of mainline jets where this was also the case. I could not tell the difference between their service and the Xjet ERJs I'd been on with COex before, and frankly, the wider and softer seats of the CRJ as they are fitted for CO made for a more enjoyable flight than the ERJs.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6606
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:51 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 22):
The number one airline in this market is Southwest which flies only 737s. Can't see any other airlines using turboprops to compete with Southwest.

For now, you're right, because many fliers can't seem to tell the difference between a large turboprop and a Cessna 152. (It's hilarious what happens when you tell them the Q400 is bigger than a CRJ.) But the economic advantage of the turboprops will only increase as the price of oil continues to rise. When the turboprop ticket is 40% cheaper, WN may have a hard time competing.
 
threeifbyair
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:44 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:10 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 22):
I don't know about PDX, SEA and GEG, but I doubt that any Bay Area-SoCal will be with Turboprops. The number one airline in this market is Southwest which flies only 737s. Can't see any other airlines using turboprops to compete with Southwest.

Funny you should mention that - QX is going head-to-head with WN 737s on SEA-GEG and both airlines seem to be doing fine.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 17):
CO is going to replace ERJs with Q-400s on routes from EWR of 500 miles or less, current CO ERJ flights from EWR that are in that category includes..

Albany, Baltimore, Hartford, Providence, Syracuse, Rochester, Washington Dulles, Burlington, Manchester, Bangor, Portland ME., Greensboro, Montreal, Norfolk, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Quebec City, Raleigh, Richmond, Toronto etc..

And no jet competition (or competition at all) on many of those routes, so the prop vs. jet issue is more of a fly vs. drive or Amtrak, depending on the route. Given there will only be 15, and that is a lot of routes, it would seem that some of the longer flights closer to 500 miles will stay with the ERJs for now, at least. Greensboro, Raleigh/Durham, and Quebec City appear to be the longest on that list.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:15 am



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 6):
A lot of people would say that with rising fuel prices 50 seater E-jets and CRJs are financial disasters.

They are.

Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 6):
Does this apply to 70 seater and 90 seaters - CRJ-700s and CRJ-900s?

Not yet.
 
iowaman
Posts: 3864
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 2:29 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:24 am

Bay Area-Socal will never be turboprops except maybe a few QX ones. There would have to be like 50x on each airline to match the current capacity, not to mention it would totally screw up ATC since SFO and that corridor is already busy enough. I doubt Q400's would have a chance against the 70-80 (easily) WN 737's between SFO/SJC/OAK and LAX/BUR/SNA/ONT/.

Quoting ThreeIfByAir (Reply 25):
QX is going head-to-head with WN 737s on SEA-GEG and both airlines seem to be doing fine.

SEA-GEG is a much, much smaller market. That's like comparing LAX-LAS and LAX-YUM.
 
WJ
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:14 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:48 am



Quoting WestIndian425 (Reply 9):
Using 11/29 at EWR may be nice in theory but it really depends on staffing at EWR more than weather conditions. Many times the weather favors using 11/29 and we're declined the request because of staffing.

Can you explain? what staffing are you refering to?
146,727,732,733,734,735,73G,738,739,742,743,744,752,753,762,763,764,772,300,310,319,320,321,330,343,DC9,D10,MD11,M80,E17
 
D328
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:50 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:59 am



Quoting STT757 (Thread starter):
CO has 15 firm orders which are going to EWR, with an additional 30 options (15 CLE, 15 IAH?).

I asked my friend at Colgan about IAH, Colgan has no plans to put any Q400's there. But he did tell me the first few pilot bases for the Q400 will be EWR, PIT, ORF, BWI.
 
3201
Posts: 813
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:16 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:14 am



Quoting Iowaman (Reply 27):
Bay Area-Socal will never be turboprops except maybe a few QX ones. There would have to be like 50x on each airline to match the current capacity,

There are actually quite a few CRJ-100/200 and E135/E145 flying SJC-LAX, SJC-SNA, OAK-LAX, SFO-SNA, SFO-LAX, SFO-BUR, and SFO-ONT already. Replacing them with Q400's would increase capacity, not decrease it, with the same number of flights, and could allow the same capacity with fewer flights.
7 hours aint long-haul
 
tinpusher007
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:03 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:35 am



Quoting D328 (Reply 29):
I asked my friend at Colgan about IAH, Colgan has no plans to put any Q400's there. But he did tell me the first few pilot bases for the Q400 will be EWR, PIT, ORF, BWI.

Can anyone please explain the logic behind having pilot domiciles in non hub cities?
"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
 
N1120A
Posts: 26568
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:53 am



Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 3):

If your doing this on routes that are less than 500nm long then the turboprop might be slightly faster since you can allow it to take off from 11 and less time to cruise than a RJ.

The Q400 is, in fact, competitive in speed up to about 600nm. LAX-BOI is a good example of that.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 4):

Possibly in the east coast, but not as likely in the western US.

And why in the world not? Since the infestation of RJ's in the US skies, the place where the turboprop has maintained its foothold is in the western US.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 4):
Our cities are too far apart and the west is too sparsely populated.

Riiiiight. That explains the "sparse" population of California?

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 11):

At about 500-550 miles a comparable sized jet becomes more efficient than the Q400.

No it doesn't. At about 550 Nautical Miles, not statute miles, a comparable sized jet becomes marginally faster. The Q400 still burns significantly less fuel and has a cheaper CASM

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 16):
Z. “Small Turboprop” means turboprop aircraft with an FAA certification of seventynine
(79) or fewer seats.

Interesting that the Q400 has a max certification of 78 seats. Seems they were specifically targeting it.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 22):
I don't know about PDX, SEA and GEG, but I doubt that any Bay Area-SoCal will be with Turboprops. The number one airline in this market is Southwest which flies only 737s. Can't see any other airlines using turboprops to compete with Southwest.

Bay Area-SoCal already sees lots of turboprops, you are just limiting SoCal to Los Angeles and San Diego. As it is, other airlines are running RJs, which are significantly less comfortable and efficient than the Q400, to compete with WN.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 22):


The Q400 may replace some of the Skywest flights to small towns in California, but those are turboprop already with EMB120 and SAAB340, so it would not be a change.

Many of the current turboprop flights are supplemented with RJ flights. Further, there is a lot of excess capacity left on the ground on routes to places like Fresno, Santa Barbara and Bakersfield simply because the aircraft are A) too small or B) must take weight restrictions. The Q400 (or ATR for that matter) would solve all these problems.

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 24):
When the turboprop ticket is 40% cheaper, WN may have a hard time competing.

Well, I really doubt the Q400 would beat WN's cost structure by that much, if it could at all. What it would do is be more competitive than the current aircraft in the market and allow the carriers a higher margin.

Quoting Iowaman (Reply 27):
Bay Area-Socal will never be turboprops except maybe a few QX ones.

Again, already done.

Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 31):

Can anyone please explain the logic behind having pilot domiciles in non hub cities?

This is actually done a lot with the regionals and seems to be based on costs and where aircraft end up at the end of the day. When you are paying crews so little, it makes sense to base them in places that have lower costs of living, which outstations typically do. Further, it may well make more sense from a system prospective to have pilots based in outstations where a lot of aircraft will end up so that you end up paying less in hotel costs.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
eyes2thesky
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:15 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:25 am



Quoting STT757 (Reply 17):
Albany, Baltimore, Hartford, Providence, Syracuse, Rochester, Washington Dulles, Burlington, Manchester, Bangor, Portland ME., Greensboro, Montreal, Norfolk, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Quebec City, Raleigh, Richmond, Toronto etc..

I'll be happy to have the Q400 on something like BTV-EWR in place of 50-seater RJs. Better economics, more space, and bona-fide rear emergency exits. Not just over-wing exits that'll probably be blocked in an accident.
AA,AL,B6,CO,C5,C8,DA,DL,FI,F9,HP,LH,MQ,NW,OO,TZ,UA,US,WN,XJ,YV,ZW,VX
 
Jasondn
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:13 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:03 am

A point to mention of the Q400 vs Jets is the time it takes to decend and the time it spends on finals. It is far quicker than a heavier Boeing 737 for example. This allows for the controller to slot Q400's into a pattern quicker than a jet because the approach speed is faster and it clears the runway quicker.

Also remember that it only needs to climb to 25,000 ft so it is cruising alot quicker than a jet is as well.
 
AviationAddict
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:37 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:07 pm



Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 1):
next generation ATR (is there such a thing? They need one)

Yes, ATR recently launched the 42/72-600 models which feature new avionics, more composite materials, a redesigned pax cabin, LED exterior lighting and many other improvements. It's all on the ATR website.
 
nkops
Posts: 2236
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:09 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:35 pm

Does 11/29 in EWR have an ILS??
Turn left heading 080 contact departure
 
sxf24
Posts: 1001
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:37 pm



Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 16):
I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. Props are capped at 79 seats and jets at 50. Taken directly from the CALALPA CBA:

When did this change from 59?

Quoting Iowaman (Reply 27):
SEA-GEG is a much, much smaller market. That's like comparing LAX-LAS and LAX-YUM.

SEA-GEG is actually a fairly large market with more passengers than SEA-DFW. Of course, it is dwarfed by LAX-LAS or SEA-QLA or QSF.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 32):
No it doesn't. At about 550 Nautical Miles, not statute miles, a comparable sized jet becomes marginally faster. The Q400 still burns significantly less fuel and has a cheaper CASM

Um, I said efficient not cheaper. The Q400 will almost always be cheaper to operate on routes that fall within its range. However, once the spread between block time begins to increase, it makes less sense to operate a prop over a jet with changes in efficiency influenced by utilization and fuel consumption at cruising altitude. The economic advantage of the Q400 is most pronounced on shorter routes.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26568
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:38 pm



Quoting Nkops (Reply 36):
Does 11/29 in EWR have an ILS??

No
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6606
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:38 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 32):
Well, I really doubt the Q400 would beat WN's cost structure by that much, if it could at all. What it would do is be more competitive than the current aircraft in the market and allow the carriers a higher margin.

If you reread my post you'll discover I wasn't talking about today (when the savings exist, but certainly wouldn't beat a 737 by 40%) but about the future, when I expect the price of oil to increase to the point where it is the dominant factor in airfares.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26568
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:50 pm



Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 39):

If you reread my post you'll discover I wasn't talking about today (when the savings exist, but certainly wouldn't beat a 737 by 40%) but about the future, when I expect the price of oil to increase to the point where it is the dominant factor in airfares.

At this point, fuel is the biggest cost airlines have. With other costs remaining fixed, the price of oil will send all tickets up in a commensurate amount. Despite the fact that a Q400 uses less fuel, the carrier flying it will still have to spend the same amount of money (all things being equal) per gallon to buy Jet A. A Southwest 737 carries about double what a typical Q400 does in the way of passengers and kills it on cargo, which means there is more revenue potential to spread the greater costs of fuel over. In 2005, Bombardier estimated the CASM, inclusive of fuel, for the Q400 at 7.9CPM, while WN was running at 7.6CPM.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 14126
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:54 pm



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 20):
If CO is getting rid of its RJ's at EWR, maybe some of them can be shifted to IAH...and BFL can get its IAH flights back!!

Many of the ERJs being replaced at EWR with Q-400s are going to the recently announced CLE expansion, if CO excersises their Q-400 options they would be able to free up additional ERJs which could go to IAH.

Quoting Wj (Reply 28):
Can you explain? what staffing are you refering to?

ATC staffing levels in the NYC area airports are below what they should be, according to recent reports.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:05 pm



Quoting Nkops (Reply 36):
Does 11/29 in EWR have an ILS??



Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
No

11 has a localizer and glide slope- no inner/ outer markers and no DME.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/ewr/ils/11
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
bond007
Posts: 4428
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:02 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 40):
At this point, fuel is the biggest cost airlines have. With other costs remaining fixed.

You mean biggest ... after salary/wage costs!!

The others certainly don't remain fixed. Looking at the 3 month comparison from 2007 to 2006. Fuel costs only increased 4% ... about the same as the increase in ASM, while salary/wage costs increased by 12%.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 40):
the price of oil will send all tickets up in a commensurate amount.

At that 'commensurate amount' is fairly small. Fuel costs account for around 25% of CO operating expenses, therefore even a 20% increase in fuel costs, amounts to around an increase of $12.50 on a $250 ticket.

Sure, fuel costs are higher than a few years ago, but it needs to be looked at in the right context.


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 4161
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:08 pm



Quoting Tjwgrr (Reply 42):
11 has a localizer and glide slope- no inner/ outer markers and no DME.

There is an RNAV (GPS) approach to 11 and most likely some CO specials either in place or in the works which they would most definitely pass along to the Q400 crews......would make sense to train the crews for RNAV's, both GPS and RNP's and make sure the aircraft has RNP certification.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26568
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:11 pm



Quoting Bond007 (Reply 43):

You mean biggest ... after salary/wage costs!!

All indications have been that fuel has surpassed labor as the biggest cost.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 43):

The others certainly don't remain fixed.

I know they don't. I fixed them to make the point.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
bond007
Posts: 4428
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:15 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 45):
All indications have been that fuel has surpassed labor as the biggest cost.

Ooops you are correct .... reading them the wrong way round!


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
User avatar
SuseJ772
Posts: 998
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:13 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:59 pm

No offense, but I hate the Q400. I am sure it is a nice plane. But I would prefer an RJ anyday over a Q400.
Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
 
bond007
Posts: 4428
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:12 pm



Quoting SuseJ772 (Reply 47):
No offense, but I hate the Q400. I am sure it is a nice plane. But I would prefer an RJ anyday over a Q400

Well, perhaps you'd like to explain exactly why?

I'm not disagreeing, but "I hate the Q400", really means nothing unless you explain why you "hate" it.

Have you ever been on a Q400???


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: "CO Hopes Turboprop Planes Ease Newark Congestion"

Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:25 pm



Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 37):
Um, I said efficient not cheaper. The Q400 will almost always be cheaper to operate on routes that fall within its range. However, once the spread between block time begins to increase, it makes less sense to operate a prop over a jet with changes in efficiency influenced by utilization and fuel consumption at cruising altitude. The economic advantage of the Q400 is most pronounced on shorter routes.

Explain to me how "cheaper" isn't an integral component of "efficient." I'd be interested to know where the efficiency crossover point is between a Q-400 and a jet. At some point, the jet gets faster, and at some further point it also gets cheaper.

My suspicion is that from the standpoint of pure efficiency the crossover point is beyond the 500 nm range now applied. I guess you have to take into account more than just the aircraft performance numbers and factor in crew time as well -- but it would be entertaining to see just how complex that formula is, and how they make the calculations. Any bean counters out there?
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

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