Why no Q400 in the U.S?
01-18-2017 | 07:39 AM
#21
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,172
Likes: 805
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
01-18-2017 | 08:31 AM
#22
Respek
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,938
Likes: 76
Airlines may not plan their fleet preferences off of what a pilot wants but the pilots certainly use that as a decision point. All one needs to look at was RAH's signing bonus for the Q vs their jet fleet.
01-18-2017 | 02:50 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 988
Likes: 0
From: Seat: Vegan friendly faux leather
Before I got my plane I used to take a Dash 8 2-3 times per week on Continental, I guess it went away after the merger with UA - I had not realized.
+1 to lower fuel prices and flexibility of route, arguably less risk in icing.
In back something like the 170 is much more quiet and comfortable, and does not have the sensations like deceleration that the turboprop can give.
And yeah, as Shy said the whole Colgan thing.
+1 to lower fuel prices and flexibility of route, arguably less risk in icing.
In back something like the 170 is much more quiet and comfortable, and does not have the sensations like deceleration that the turboprop can give.
And yeah, as Shy said the whole Colgan thing.
01-18-2017 | 03:15 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 118
01-18-2017 | 09:28 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,201
Likes: 32
From: 4A2FU
They'd take a seat on the Q if the Q was the only choice, but give them the choice of the E175 or a Q and 9/10 will take the jet without thinking twice. Right now a 1500hr CFI has lots of choices and options, and the Q is near the bottom unless you desperately want to work for Horizon (which is getting 175s now anyway).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
