Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)
-   -   Whats next for LYNX? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/45627-whats-next-lynx.html)

GAPILOT36 11-09-2009 02:50 PM

Whats next for LYNX?
 
I am curious to know what is going on there or what the latest might be. Heard a rumor about LYNX going to CHQ certificate. Any info would be appreciated.

TPROP4ever 11-09-2009 02:52 PM


Originally Posted by GAPILOT36 (Post 709202)
I am curious to know what is going on there or what the latest might be. Heard a rumor about LYNX going to CHQ certificate. Any info would be appreciated.


Which Lynx, the one in Denver???

GAPILOT36 11-09-2009 02:54 PM

yea....F9 Lynx

minimwage4 11-09-2009 03:09 PM

CHQ can't fly 50+ seaters because they fly for AA.

Herbie 11-09-2009 03:17 PM


Originally Posted by minimwage4 (Post 709218)
CHQ can't fly 50+ seaters because they fly for AA.

Probably not for long......Unless Bedford buys AA too.

TheBills 11-09-2009 03:46 PM


Originally Posted by GAPILOT36 (Post 709202)
I am curious to know what is going on there or what the latest might be. Heard a rumor about LYNX going to CHQ certificate. Any info would be appreciated.

Skywest is gonna buy lynx and put the Q400's with united in place of Mesa's 200's.

btwissel 11-09-2009 04:49 PM


Originally Posted by minimwage4 (Post 709218)
CHQ can't fly 50+ seaters because they fly for AA.

i believe that APA's scope is the same as CAL's: no jets with >50seats. turboprops are allowed.

GAPILOT36 11-09-2009 04:52 PM

50+ seaters for AA is Jets only. Once UAL contract for 145s are up then it would be perfectly legal...who knows

UND_Sioux 11-09-2009 04:56 PM


Originally Posted by GAPILOT36 (Post 709284)
50+ seaters for AA is Jets only. Once UAL contract for 145s are up then it would be perfectly legal...who knows

That is incorrect. Read the AA scope. It specifically says "aircraft" not "jet or turbojet aircraft". Turboprops are included.

Joachim 11-09-2009 04:58 PM

nevermind....

dojetdriver 11-09-2009 08:23 PM


Originally Posted by btwissel (Post 709282)
i believe that APA's scope is the same as CAL's: no jets with >50seats. turboprops are allowed.

Is the CRJ700 a jet?

Killer51883 11-09-2009 08:37 PM

isnt the scope clause based off of GTOW and not seats? If its solely seats then eagle has been breaking the scope clause for years with the 68 seat ATR.

Flyboyrw 11-09-2009 09:22 PM


Originally Posted by GAPILOT36 (Post 709202)
I am curious to know what is going on there or what the latest might be. Heard a rumor about LYNX going to CHQ certificate. Any info would be appreciated.

The world may never know.


You know as much as we do.

Milo 11-10-2009 05:31 AM


Originally Posted by TheBills (Post 709245)
Skywest is gonna buy lynx and put the Q400's with united in place of Mesa's 200's.

Why wouldn’t Republic just hang onto Lynx and cut a deal directly with United for the flying?

Flyboyrw 11-10-2009 06:29 AM


Originally Posted by Milo (Post 709517)
Why wouldn’t Republic just hang onto Lynx and cut a deal directly with United for the flying?

Because BB doesn't want turboprops. He is very proud of his all jet fleet, and for some reason says he doesn't know what to do with them.

JetJock16 11-10-2009 06:44 AM


Originally Posted by Milo (Post 709517)
Why wouldn’t Republic just hang onto Lynx and cut a deal directly with United for the flying?

A. F9 v. UAL
B. $129M + more.
C. SKW has “Last Rights” to any United large TP flying.
D. BB loves his jets. LOL!

JetJock16 11-10-2009 06:48 AM


Originally Posted by TheBills (Post 709245)
Skywest is gonna buy lynx and put the Q400's with united in place of Mesa's 200's.

Q400’s are not replacements for Q200's, just ask Horizon. It’s a better replacement for the CR2.

Flyboyrw 11-10-2009 06:52 AM


Originally Posted by JetJock16 (Post 709593)
A. F9 v. UAL

BB already has this, i don't think he would care to add a few more planes.

JetJock16 11-10-2009 06:55 AM


Originally Posted by Flyboyrw (Post 709601)
BB already has this, i don't think he would care to add a few more planes.

2 F9 in DEN?

Flyboyrw 11-10-2009 07:03 AM

He already has planes out of den with ual painted on them.

Vegaspilot 11-10-2009 07:21 AM

Not to mention if I was UAL (or any other codeshare) I'd be done giving RAH any more flying. I think UAL would be nuts to give RAH more money which they can use to compete directly with them with Airbuses.

JetJock16 11-10-2009 07:30 AM


Originally Posted by Flyboyrw (Post 709613)
He already has planes out of den with ual painted on them.

So BB will pull the Q's away from F9? As long as they don't continue to operate for F9 BB could get away with it......could. See C on page 2.

I don’t have a clue what the “Rev” has cooking but I wouldn’t put anything past him. He just has to figure a way around the SKW clause.

Time will tell. Good luck to all those at Lynx. I truly mean that.

Flyboyrw 11-10-2009 07:52 AM

Exactly, he is sneaky. Won't know what is up until it happens.

Diver Driver 11-10-2009 08:22 AM

BB has SJS.

flyandive 11-10-2009 01:18 PM


Originally Posted by Diver Driver (Post 709670)
BB has SJS.

LOL, for our sakes he needs SPS, Shiny Prop Syndrome. :rolleyes:

The Q is a great airplane for Denver, only turboprop I know of that can carry a full payload (People and Bags) out of high elevation airports with lots of fuel. Great alternative to an RJ, more capable than a Brasilia and an old Dash. Don't know if it would have a high enough profit margin to compete with an old dash though, Doesn't have the crazy weight restrictions a Brasilia has at high elevation, so it might be enough to justify replacing a Brasilia with a Q400. The only thing a Brasilia has over an old Dash is speed.

lavMan 11-10-2009 01:31 PM


Originally Posted by Killer51883 (Post 709404)
isnt the scope clause based off of GTOW and not seats? If its solely seats then eagle has been breaking the scope clause for years with the 68 seat ATR.

Eagle ATR's are configured 66 and 64 seats.

JetJock16 11-10-2009 03:06 PM


Originally Posted by flyandive (Post 709840)
LOL, for our sakes he needs SPS, Shiny Prop Syndrome. :rolleyes:

The Q is a great airplane for Denver, only turboprop I know of that can carry a full payload (People and Bags) out of high elevation airports with lots of fuel. Great alternative to an RJ, more capable than a Brasilia and an old Dash. Don't know if it would have a high enough profit margin to compete with an old dash though, Doesn't have the crazy weight restrictions a Brasilia has at high elevation, so it might be enough to justify replacing a Brasilia with a Q400. The only thing a Brasilia has over an old Dash is speed.

The Q400 is NOT a replacement for the E120, S340 and Q2 (ask Horizon) but it is a great replacement for the CR2. Bottom line, the MAJORITY of the markets the E120, S340 and the Q2 serve are not large enough to sustain a Q4 unless you seriously reduce frequency. Now a combination of Q2 types (off peak) and Q4 types (peak) might work on some markets. Customers love options more than they care about the aircraft. Just like they care more about the price of a ticket than the aircraft that carry’s them to their destination. Yes they’ll b1tch and moan about the size and type but they’ll complain a lot more about the price. At least until they start driving and at that point it will no longer matter what aircraft we operate.

We need someone to produce another Next Gen 30-40 seat turboprop. If they did I'd guarantee they'd sell more than enough to turn a rather handsome profit. I'd also wager that SKW would purchase 40-50+ of the airframes and would probably be the launch customer in NA.

PS. I too believe the Q400 has a long profitable future ahead of it but it's not right for every TP market.

qxlooper 11-10-2009 09:29 PM

They can't go to the CHQ certificate due to the faa wanting to redo the proving runs as CHQ doesn't have TP's. Also the manual and training would have to be redone as well. The truth is that BB was going to move them over, but the FAA said wait a sec and came back with this. Thus is why he is calling it an orphan fleet. I got this info from a Lynx guy familiar with the situation. The Lynx certificate csots money and BB doesn't want to pay to keep it.

qxlooper 11-10-2009 09:30 PM

can be a replacemnet. 22 to break even on the 200, 29 to break even on the 400. QX numbers on that from when I was there. 400 can go everywhere the 200 can.

JetJock16 11-11-2009 04:26 AM


Originally Posted by qxlooper (Post 710140)
can be a replacemnet. 22 to break even on the 200, 29 to break even on the 400. QX numbers on that from when I was there. 400 can go everywhere the 200 can.

Capacity isn't the determining factor when you consider an aircrafts BEP. It's all about the yield. You can put 1 person on the airplane if they're willing to pay for it.

We fly SBA - SJC - SBA and with the yield we pull the E120 BPE is 5 passengers each way. On average our BPE using our average customer yield is around 12 passengers. Based upon Bombardier’s Q400 fuel cost per seat per hour theQ400 burns almost as must in fuel alone as the E120’s total cost per seat per hour (E120 = $36 per seat per hour).

The Q400 is not a replacement for an E120 type a/c. Yes the E120 may be weight restricted in DEN to 20 passengers but it’s still turning a very handsome profit. Otherwise why did SKW cancel all the E120 retirements and slowly start placing them back in DEN (as well as several others) on at-risk routes?

Q400.COM - Turbo Profits

The Q400 is a great airplane but again it’s not a replacement for an E120 type a/c. If it was then QX would still be flying small markets like OTH, LMT and MWH with the Q4. Now SKW is operating them at-risk with the E120 and doing very well. As a matter of fact OTH has proven to be a very solid money maker for us.

note: Numbers based upon $60 oil.

johnso29 11-11-2009 09:01 AM


Originally Posted by UND_Sioux (Post 709286)
That is incorrect. Read the AA scope. It specifically says "aircraft" not "jet or turbojet aircraft". Turboprops are included.

Ummmm, so what about the ATR's? Do they have -72's in MIA or is it just -42's?

HercDriver130 11-11-2009 01:36 PM

I dont believe AmEagle has any 42's left.....

lavMan 11-11-2009 02:56 PM


Originally Posted by HercDriver130 (Post 710535)
I dont believe AmEagle has any 42's left.....

Nope, just 72-212A and 72-212 series.

Airdale 11-11-2009 03:48 PM

This is why we need an SLI ASAP!!!!

I don't know if its the IBT that is taking their sweet a$$ time with this SLI or what, but if an SLI doesn't happen ASAP, I feel a lot of jobs are going to be lost, along with the hopes to get the Midwest pilots back in the air anytime soon.

Flyboyrw 11-11-2009 06:41 PM


Originally Posted by Airdale (Post 710613)
This is why we need an SLI ASAP!!!!

I don't know if its the IBT that is taking their sweet a$$ time with this SLI or what, but if an SLI doesn't happen ASAP, I feel a lot of jobs are going to be lost, along with the hopes to get the Midwest pilots back in the air anytime soon.

Agreed....


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:39 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands