Why no Q400 in the U.S?
01-17-2017, 08:57 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,898
Originally Posted by reandld
Besides Horizon, there are no more Q400 operators in the U.S. Why is this? Isn't the plane relatively new and efficient. It's not even a 50 seater.
01-17-2017, 04:38 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by threeighteen
With the 1500hr rule, they'd have a really difficult time staffing it. What 1500 hour CFI is going to go sign up to fly a crash-8 when they can find a job in the right seat of an E175? Some will, but most won't.
GF
01-17-2017, 10:06 PM
#16
Respek
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,603
With the price of fuel being low and the public perception on props it was a no brainer to get rid of them. That being said the Q400 is an outstanding airplane that fits into many markets just not the US anymore. I've flown a handful of 121 props and jets and I can honestly say that of the jet flying I've done the Q was the better plane economically speaking for about 90% of those routes. When I started flying CRJ7/9's and the 175 I realized I was no longer doing regional flights. Mainline utilizes those aircraft on routes that should be flown by a larger jet but, because of regional airlines economies of scale we'll just stick a 70/76 seat jet on it and call it good. It was the perfect storm of reasons that killed the Q and ATR in the US.
01-17-2017, 10:07 PM
#17
Respek
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,603
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
I doubt that's a consideration...plenty of 1500 hour CFIs would take a seat on a Q.
GF
GF
01-17-2017, 10:10 PM
#18
Respek
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,603
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
That's not true. Island Air (regional airline in Hawaii) is replacing their ATR72s with Q400s. They already operate a couple Q400s now.
01-18-2017, 07:20 AM
#19
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Originally Posted by Cruz5350
Mainline utilizes those aircraft on routes that should be flown by a larger jet but, because of regional airlines economies of scale we'll just stick a 70/76 seat jet on it and call it good. .
Actually the biggest justification for RJs is usually frequency, not cost. Pax (ie the customers) prefer to fly at their convenience. A single narrow body is cheaper to operate then three RJs, but the pax would not be happy if they had to take a 0600 flight to the hub and then wait twelve hours for their connection. In fact they would take their business elsewhere.
A big part of the economic challenge of RJs is the fact that you're spreading the revenue from one narrow body out over two or three RJs...that's why RJs only work economically with low crew pay on most routes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
