Originally Posted by
slowplay
It's not just the MX reliability. The Q400 has been available for sale since 2000. Out of a total production of 383 aircraft (including all the military models) I think there are less than 60 flying in the US, and Bombardier only plans to deliver 28 worldwide this year. Their production backlog is just 29 airplanes. Compared to CRJ sales during the same period the Q has not been popular with Bombardier's customers. PCL says the Q400 contract is the worst financial performer in their portfolio.
It's my opinion that we need additional scope language covering aircraft in this class with "nextgen" powerplants.
Flew the Q400 for ~2400 hours for QX. They had more experience with the airframe than any airline in the world and excellent in-house MX, and I think the very best dispatch reliability they ever saw was around 98%, and some months far worse. That said, if Bombardier ever does a rework that takes care of the Q400's reliability problems, it's a potential threat. It'll take 76 pax + bags without being very load-limited, trues out at 370 knots, and is relatively quiet for a turboprop. I thought it was more comfortable from a passenger standpoint than Horizon's CRJ700s.
It's my opinion that scope clauses from here on out should not differentiate between powerplant types. Jets and turboprops are starting to get hard to tell apart as the props gain blades and the fans get geared down with variable pitch.