Return of the props
02-28-2009, 05:56 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 564
I had 2 pharm reps yesterday tell me they bought tickets BUF to PHL and are on a dash 8 (USair) at 915am, or they could switch to a A320 at 10am or so. They said $150 change fee to get the later flgight. They asked me my opinion!
02-28-2009, 07:21 AM
#24
Am I Wrong??????????
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: ThE jEtTtTtTtT
Posts: 662
The morning after the crash we took a full boat to PHL outta BUF...the gate agents said the first 2 dash flight went almost empty....everyone was trying to rebook to jet service.......I saw it for myself
02-28-2009, 11:01 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: F/O- G-V/550
Posts: 1,163
Back to the topic, you say passengers want to rebook from a regional jet to a mainline jet... I'm saying most passengers don't really care wether its a mainline jet or an RJ, all most passengers care about is that its not a turbo-prop.
My opinion- as far as passengers are concerned, jet way better than prop, large jet better than small jet.
02-28-2009, 11:48 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: CEO
Posts: 152
Passengers in newark have been refusing to get on q400's... at least they were the week or two after. If you are ever there ask the customer service desk workers. They are told to change the ticket if an open seat is on a later flight and to offer a refund if they dont want to travel. I think most airlines do this for the weeks after a crash.
Did they do it for the Airbuses after the US1549 Crash in New York?
I'm not doubting they did it in Newark, its just that it seems completely absurd.
02-28-2009, 11:55 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: CEO
Posts: 152
That, coupled with the complete lack of objective evidence that people are in any way avoiding the Q400, renders these sweeping statements absurd.
The general public is not afraid of the Q400--they are afraid, inherently, of flying in general. That's why you always have these statements after every accident, where the exact cause is not immediately known, that "passengers are refusing to fly on the _______" You can fill in the blank with any transport aircraft built in the last eighty years.
02-28-2009, 12:59 PM
#28
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 30
FWIW, i don't particularly like travelling on props nor do i feel like rolling the dice on the CRJ200's flaps working on a that day.
i have never changed my flight from a prop (although i should have - rough flight and almost chucked my cookies). but i have changed my flight from a crj200 to an E175.
i guess i'm a normal crazy pax
i have never changed my flight from a prop (although i should have - rough flight and almost chucked my cookies). but i have changed my flight from a crj200 to an E175.
i guess i'm a normal crazy pax
02-28-2009, 01:03 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: LeftSeat PA-44
Posts: 528
The general public views turbo props as old unsafe aircraft. They can't tell the difference between a Q400 or a Dash8-200. All they know is it has that props and not jets. My mother wouldn't get on a TP, to her anything smaller than a 737 is unsafe. When a larger jet goes down people chalk it up to "it happens sometimes", when a RJ or a TP goes down it is because they are unsafe and a miracle they stay in the air to begin with. It is just a stereotype that you will have to live with.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
