Bombardier Q400 -- to solve shortage?

Reply Subscribe

Page 2 of 4

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

07-29-2014, 09:33 AM

#11

Goflynow

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: May 2014

Position: Plane Owner

Posts: 119

Quote:

Originally Posted by solinator

I believe that what the Q400 can save are the routes that pilot shortage/economics are about to take away. By making it economic to fly routes at risk, there is one solution, but pilot shortage is another issue.

Is the other issue to pilot shortage the low pay?

There are plenty of guys sitting at desks today with ATP's and several thousand hours that would leave the desk for an office with a view.

There's a pay shortage.

07-29-2014, 09:39 AM

#12

Avroman

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Feb 2008

Position: FIRE ALPA

Posts: 3,082

Quote:

Originally Posted by sevenforseven

Let's add another factor into the equation:

Recruiter: "Would you like to fly a Q400?"
Pilot candidate: "Do you have any jets?"

Recruiter "Well yes, but we're recruiting for the Q400"
Pilot candidate: "Bye".

SJS my friend. SJS. I'm sure recruiting for Piedmont is awesome...

I bet it's an easier job than recruiting for Endeavor Air. Ultimately it's about bases and pay.

07-29-2014, 09:58 AM

#13

Flightcap

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jun 2014

Posts: 924

Quote:

Originally Posted by sevenforseven

I think you're selling the new guys short. 700 TT CFI here, and I would turn down a jet job to fly the Q400 if I could live in base and support a family.

07-29-2014, 10:02 AM

#14

sevenforseven

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Oct 2013

Position: Prone

Posts: 399

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flightcap

I think you're selling the new guys short. 700 TT CFI here, and I would turn down a jet job to fly the Q400 if I could live in base and support a family.

Always exceptions to the rule, but I've been in this industry long enough to know that your average new guy coming into the industry isn't always thinking about QOL; they're thinking more about what they get to fly.

07-29-2014, 10:22 AM

#15

BE19Pilot

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Sep 2008

Posts: 239

If you are REALLY using what you fly, why anyone would select an airline crew is sniffing glue...

07-29-2014, 10:34 AM

#16

Dan64456

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Apr 2007

Posts: 456

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flightcap

I think you're selling the new guys short. 700 TT CFI here, and I would turn down a jet job to fly the Q400 if I could live in base and support a family.

A-Men! I happen to love the Q400, I think it's a very sleek and efficient airplane.. I'd love to fly it, but not gonna happen for less than 60k/yr. I'll keep my software job also.

07-29-2014, 10:47 AM

#17

FlyingKat

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Oct 2011

Position: Taco Rocket Operator

Posts: 2,485

Quote:

Originally Posted by N927EV

Pax are idiots. They see props and automatically think it's ancient. I overheard one once saying they our ATR-72-212A (deliveried in 98) was more than likely built in the 60s.

When I worked as an agent at NWA passengers would often come up to me and say they wanted to be rebooked from the Mesaba turboprop flight to the NWA jet flight all the time because the jet was "newer" technology an safer.

The Saab had just been delivered to Mesaba and still had the new airplane smell.....the DC9-10 or -30 was built in 1964-68 depending on which boneyard it had been pulled out of.....

Go figure...

07-29-2014, 10:58 AM

#18

Dan64456

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Apr 2007

Posts: 456

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingKat

They should do a better job of marketing it.. the airlines and the manufacturer.. Perhaps they can use the "Green" card and explain in a simple way why it's more efficient for shorter routes.. Might make people feel better and realize that it is in fact a newer and totally safe aircraft.

07-29-2014, 11:20 AM

#19

Is offline

Dumb Pilot

Joined APC: Apr 2013

Position: Broke

Posts: 784

There is a reason the Q has not been successful. It may burn less fuel but the maintenance eats ants cost savings very fast. I have flown the airplane and it is no where a replacement for the 700 or 175.

07-29-2014, 11:22 AM

#20

billyho

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Sep 2013

Posts: 2,450

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan64456

Yes.... I just got back from Germany where fuel is much more expensive and I didn't see one 50 seat RJ anywhere. Mainly 700/900's Q300/400's and EMB 175/195. I think a big factor for the Q400 in the US is we haven't hit the big fuel prices of Europe plus I believe they want 30 million a plane and that isn't cheap for a turbo prop.