Regional pilot staffing conspiracy
02-27-2014, 06:11 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Seat 0B
Posts: 2,300
Originally Posted by Avroman
... haven't even been called for an interview (well qualified pilots) Of those interviewed, it seems that the selectees are even more scrutinized than ever and the hired % is very low.
Actually AE did send me a rejection email saying to reapply the get back to them in 30 or 90 days or something.
02-27-2014, 06:25 PM
#33
Respek
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,603
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
The upgraded -600 series does a lot to address the performance issues you mention. While it simply doesn't have the ass the Q400 does, it ain't the same doggy ATR that Eagle, TSA and ASA used to fly.
The ATR72-600 is just over $24M, whereas the Q400 is $30M, CRJ7 $37M and a E170 $39M.
On a 400nm segment, the 72-600 burns 1822lb fuel, the Q400 2766lb, 3009lb for the CR7 and 3682lb for the E170.
Now granted you might squeeze an extra leg per day out of the faster planes...but that's a definitely NOT inconsequential delta in both acquisition price and operating expense when you look at a fleet operation.
The ATR72-600 is just over $24M, whereas the Q400 is $30M, CRJ7 $37M and a E170 $39M.
On a 400nm segment, the 72-600 burns 1822lb fuel, the Q400 2766lb, 3009lb for the CR7 and 3682lb for the E170.
Now granted you might squeeze an extra leg per day out of the faster planes...but that's a definitely NOT inconsequential delta in both acquisition price and operating expense when you look at a fleet operation.
Proud to fly a Turboprop: Q400 vs ATR72 | The Flying Engineer
Pretty good comparison.
02-27-2014, 06:28 PM
#34
Respek
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,603
What Bombardier needs to do is redesign the Q300 and be a 50 seat little brother to the Q400. If they could get a decent price I bet it would sell pretty well. I'm sure a lot of small towns could support 50 seat fast props over a 50 seat inefficient jet.
02-27-2014, 07:07 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,236
Originally Posted by TheFly
This is true. At the time, I had 3500TT, 1200Turbine PIC, 1 type and an ATP. Eagle, Compass, Endeavor, Mesa…nada, quiet as a church mouse on Sunday. SKW picked me up around 6 months ago.
Actually AE did send me a rejection email saying to reapply the get back to them in 30 or 90 days or something.
Actually AE did send me a rejection email saying to reapply the get back to them in 30 or 90 days or something.
02-27-2014, 07:19 PM
#36
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,210
Originally Posted by Cruz5350
What Bombardier needs to do is redesign the Q300 and be a 50 seat little brother to the Q400. If they could get a decent price I bet it would sell pretty well. I'm sure a lot of small towns could support 50 seat fast props over a 50 seat inefficient jet.
Oh, and throw in drop-down masks so you can get above the weather.
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
The upgraded -600 series does a lot to address the performance issues you mention. While it simply doesn't have the ass the Q400 does, it ain't the same doggy ATR that Eagle, TSA and ASA used to fly.
The ATR72-600 is just over $24M, whereas the Q400 is $30M, CRJ7 $37M and a E170 $39M.
On a 400nm segment, the 72-600 burns 1822lb fuel, the Q400 2766lb, 3009lb for the CR7 and 3682lb for the E170.
Now granted you might squeeze an extra leg per day out of the faster planes...but that's a definitely NOT inconsequential delta in both acquisition price and operating expense when you look at a fleet operation.
The ATR72-600 is just over $24M, whereas the Q400 is $30M, CRJ7 $37M and a E170 $39M.
On a 400nm segment, the 72-600 burns 1822lb fuel, the Q400 2766lb, 3009lb for the CR7 and 3682lb for the E170.
Now granted you might squeeze an extra leg per day out of the faster planes...but that's a definitely NOT inconsequential delta in both acquisition price and operating expense when you look at a fleet operation.
02-27-2014, 07:25 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 148
It takes an act of God to reverse something Congress spent years to pass, not to mention the public outcry when they get wind that qualifications to be an airline pilot are being lowered. I don't think increasing the retirement age would help either, I don't see many guys working past 65 I would think they'd be more than ready to retire by then.
02-27-2014, 07:28 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,425
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
The upgraded -600 series does a lot to address the performance issues you mention. While it simply doesn't have the ass the Q400 does, it ain't the same doggy ATR that Eagle, TSA and ASA used to fly.
The ATR72-600 is just over $24M, whereas the Q400 is $30M, CRJ7 $37M and a E170 $39M.
On a 400nm segment, the 72-600 burns 1822lb fuel, the Q400 2766lb, 3009lb for the CR7 and 3682lb for the E170.
Now granted you might squeeze an extra leg per day out of the faster planes...but that's a definitely NOT inconsequential delta in both acquisition price and operating expense when you look at a fleet operation.
The ATR72-600 is just over $24M, whereas the Q400 is $30M, CRJ7 $37M and a E170 $39M.
On a 400nm segment, the 72-600 burns 1822lb fuel, the Q400 2766lb, 3009lb for the CR7 and 3682lb for the E170.
Now granted you might squeeze an extra leg per day out of the faster planes...but that's a definitely NOT inconsequential delta in both acquisition price and operating expense when you look at a fleet operation.
Looks like on paper the ATR72 is a slam dunk, but something must be wrong with it because they just aren't appearing here.
02-27-2014, 07:42 PM
#39
Respek
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,603
Originally Posted by pete2800
I want a Q300 with 400 series engines, and a Collins or Honeywell avionics suite. It would be beastly.
Oh, and throw in drop-down masks so you can get above the weather.
You can get a Q400 for about $27M.
Oh, and throw in drop-down masks so you can get above the weather.
You can get a Q400 for about $27M.
That would be awesome I'm sure it have a pretty miserly fuel burn too especially if you took it up to the low 30's.
02-27-2014, 07:44 PM
#40
Respek
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,603
Originally Posted by fosters
Wow that is quite the difference in fuel burn. I also had no idea the -700 series RJ burns much less fuel than the EMB-170. The 170's are nice inside but the -700 fixed 90% of the issues that the -200 had in regards to passenger comfort and pilot complaints.
Looks like on paper the ATR72 is a slam dunk, but something must be wrong with it because they just aren't appearing here.
Looks like on paper the ATR72 is a slam dunk, but something must be wrong with it because they just aren't appearing here.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
