Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
As to the planes, according to my trusty book here, on a 400sm trip like ATL-MCO or ATL-RDU, or sort of JFK-RDU and JFK-CLE. The Q400 is 12 minutes slower but burns over 1,000 lbs less fuel. Over a 14 hour day you can do 9 trips on the CRJ and 8 on the 400. That is based on both airplanes using an ideal climb, cruise and descent profile. I'm sure it changes tremendously if one can take off VFR out of LGA/JFK and one waits in line and is held down from its optimum.
Q400: 278 block speed, 2800lbs
CRJ700: 321 and 3200lbs
ATR72-500: 243 and 1800lbs
...
50 Seaters, same route
CRJ-200 2,400lbs and ERJ145 2,600 lbs
The Q400 is also quite a bit bigger than the RJ - including the CRJ-700. Its a bigger diameter tube and can be configured to more than 70 seats; QX has theirs configured to 76. Though, when configured to 70, it makes for some nice leg room in each row. So, 9 legs on a 50 seat RJ is 450 seats moved, 8 legs on a Q400 configured to 70 is 560 seats moved. 110 more seats with a lot less fuel used. The Q400 is also faster and bigger than the ATR and can actually handle the ice. QX has their Q400's Cat III certified as well (not that any DCI carrier would want to pay the expense of installing a certifing that HGS system).
On paper, the Q400 kickes butt over just about any other type of equipment on the shorter segments. Too bad that reliability has been such an issue.