Toonces

True statement. For the same price point, you are saving far more in fuel efficiency (to a point of course),


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

silver fleet

and 500,000 times less advanced and pilot friendly....For the price, the Q is a rip-off for what you get.

gloopy

Because the jet of the same size is still ridiculously over priced. If there is going to be any hope of a major fleet refresh, the price of whatever they get is going to have to come down a lot. Even then that only solves a small part of the problems with the outdated ACMI regional sector.

Ramprat

The Q is very pilot friendly. Glass, FADEC, Dual VNAV FMS, big cockpit, forward lav... I could go on.

Cruz5350

Have you even flown the Q?

billyho

Q400 is very advanced. For the price you get more money on your return, a plane that burns much less fuel and produces less noise and pollution.

Plus it received operational approval for single-engine approaches to Category III – a first for a commercial regional airline aircraft.

Sure sounds advanced to me.

Mesabah

NO

MaxQ

I just have to add my two cents to this one.
A number of years ago I came to the conclusion that most short haul flying should be done by turboprops due to their superior fuel efficiencies. Due to the flatness of world oil production and the apparent inability of the world economy to function very well with prices above $100/bbl, nothing has changed my mind as to the fundamental soundness of that conclusion.
That being said, I am no longer as certain that the future will see a return of large numbers of new turboprops.While I believe that they are the best match for many markets in terms of cost, they will only be put back in production(I consider the 50 seater the "sweetspot"of many of these markets.) if one of the "big dogs" management teams decide to make a large order, be it either on their own or in conjunction with some partner airline.
I doubt that any of the top airline managements have the critical thinking skills to make such a move.
To become a top player, even a CEO or CFO type, at any of the worlds large multinational corporations requires many higher qualities of intelligence, ambition,and probably ruthlessness. One of the qualities at most large organizations that IS NOT an asset is radical, or even particularly original, thinking. I can't think of a single larger airline in the USA that has a management team that is willing to color outside the lines, let alone think outside the box.Such an order(move) would be contrarian to current thinking, and hence puts the decision maker(s) at huge risk if it didn't work out very well. Failure when it involves conventional thinking is allowed, but not when it involves a novel approach to either problems or predicaments.
If any of them spent some time thinking about our modern industrial civilization, what makes it function and how it is has come to operate in the last few decades, they would possibly come to the conclusion that the only way to maintain the feed from smaller AND FINANCIALLY POORER markets, is to have a cheaper method. The turboprop could provide this, at least for a while. Unfortunately I don't see this happening and I fear that by the time it becomes apparent that it is the only viable way to maintain such markets, it will be too late. The production of the smaller turboprop will have gone away and none of the companies would be able to retool to restart production.( I hope I'm wrong)
Could write lots more but will add just a few thoughts.
1. Putting big engines that burn a lot of fuel for an extra 50 to 75 knots is a mistake on a turboprop. The laws of diminishing returns enters in and the fuel burns to go from a 270 ktas to 330 ktas defeat much of the reason to operate a turboprop.
2.The majors write the schedules for the regionals. With the caveat that there are probably factors involved beyond cost efficiencies, it strikes me that "they" either don't understand where the cost advantages are to be had, or they can't be bothered to find a way to exploit these advantages. (example: putting a 50 seat turboprop on a 350 nm segment while running a 50 seat RJ 2 gates down on a 150 nm segment).
Hope I'm wrong.
Would think Bombardier would have a market if they reopened the line (with operating weights that reflect the new 190 to 200 pax weights as opposed to the 170 pound pax back when originally certified)
For what it's worth, my two cents.

CBreezy

I have to believe it's far more complicated than unit cost to operate. For instance, is customer demand low in a certain market for turboprops? I have flown with many passengers who claim to refuse to fly on them. Of course, I don't know how a price drop would affect that rationale. I'm sure it's possible that certain regionals offer to fly certain routes at risk versus FFD.

BoilerUP

Assuming equal ticket costs, I seriously doubt passengers would avoid booking on a large turboprop...especially if the alternative to the turboprop involves additional segments and time.