There was never a danger of unlimited Q400's. CAL and the passengers don't want too many. The old scope is much better than our new UAL scope.

Well ask the passengers and they will tell you they don't want the 50 seat jets either, but that didn't stop management from using them.

We shall see how good it is.

The CAL language was "self limiting" Sure, the 50 seat RJ's were unlimited, but due to their poor economics they were "self limiting." The company could have crews flying for free and they still would have poor economics due to their limited payload capability. The 50 seat jet was poorly thought out and poorly implemented. It may have made sense on paper to replace the E-120's with an E 145, but the reality is it was not.

The language does limit the flying while simultaneously providing scope relief. How stringent the limitations are, and how well it is enforced, combined with the company's TRUE plans on 90 class seat aircraft in the future will show us how GOOD it is (or isn't).

I deadheaded a couple of times on a CoEx Q400 while based in JFK. I thought it was a great ride. Second only to Jetblows E190 product. A Q400 is vastly better than any other turboprop, including some brand new ATR72's I rode on in SE Asia. They too had the active noise suppression but only after thrust reduction. They were a poor second to the Q's.

I would take a Q ride anytime over an ERJ or Canadair. Fairly roomy seats, and very quiet.

Really??? Effectively SLOW.

LOUD

It's a turboprop with a nicer interior and a fancier cockpit.