Return of the props
02-28-2009, 01:22 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: Swing that gear
Posts: 354
I have been approached by passengers who said they flew with us because it was a Q400... and not an RJ. Most love the fact it burns up less fuel and therefor creates less pollution... but lots comment on the extra headroom.
I am sure every RJ pilot can share stories about the relief passengers expressed when they realized they weren't flying a prop. How many of those people bought their ticket for the lowest price without checking? People got freaked out by the media after previous crashes. The public will forget it... they always do.
CAL offering to book people on a mainline flight for an extra charge... genius!
I am sure every RJ pilot can share stories about the relief passengers expressed when they realized they weren't flying a prop. How many of those people bought their ticket for the lowest price without checking? People got freaked out by the media after previous crashes. The public will forget it... they always do.
CAL offering to book people on a mainline flight for an extra charge... genius!
02-28-2009, 01:57 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Professional Monkey Trainer
Posts: 309
I heard that DAL and UAL both hedged at $90 per barrel at 40% and 60% for 2008/2009 respectively, straight from the Comair CEO's mouth.
I'm not saying that what you heard is false, the same CEO that I heard this from also said he was trying to grow Comair.
I'm not saying that what you heard is false, the same CEO that I heard this from also said he was trying to grow Comair.
02-28-2009, 02:02 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Professional Monkey Trainer
Posts: 309
I have been approached by passengers who said they flew with us because it was a Q400... and not an RJ. Most love the fact it burns up less fuel and therefor creates less pollution... but lots comment on the extra headroom.
I am sure every RJ pilot can share stories about the relief passengers expressed when they realized they weren't flying a prop. How many of those people bought their ticket for the lowest price without checking? People got freaked out by the media after previous crashes. The public will forget it... they always do.
CAL offering to book people on a mainline flight for an extra charge... genius!
I am sure every RJ pilot can share stories about the relief passengers expressed when they realized they weren't flying a prop. How many of those people bought their ticket for the lowest price without checking? People got freaked out by the media after previous crashes. The public will forget it... they always do.
CAL offering to book people on a mainline flight for an extra charge... genius!
02-28-2009, 02:28 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Assistant Greens Keeper
Posts: 1,011
I left BUF the morning before the crash from BUF-LGA on Airways... there was Dash that had been delayed from like 550a to 930a and there was a AWAC RJ at 945a, I decided to take the RJ just beacuse those Dash's are slow and louded as heck. I had a PAX come up to me and say I dont want to ride on the Dash 8 because of the wind and snow... he then says "one day one of those things are gonna crash up here" Im thinking to myself this guy is stupid, and I still do... but still felt kinda weird that night when I saw the news...
Im sure that guy thought he was the smartest guy in world that night... whatever
Im sure that guy thought he was the smartest guy in world that night... whatever
02-28-2009, 02:56 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: Swing that gear
Posts: 354
The only problem with fuel efficiency and the Q400 is that they maximize their performance (fuel savings) at FL250, and they hardly get to cruise there. Most of the props get FL180 (max FL210) in the NE due to the CRJ/ERJ's cruising in the FL200 to FL300 range, at faster speeds than the Q400 can achieve.
The only US company to fly both the RJ and Q is getting rid of the RJs. Not saying both airframes don't have a place in aviation... but the Q can be a market killer.
02-28-2009, 03:13 PM
#38
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 30
why harp on the guy because of the way he feels? sure, we may be stupid but not everyone flys on props to earn their living. it's a big adjustment from an rj to a prop for some people.
02-28-2009, 04:11 PM
#39
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
02-28-2009, 07:26 PM
#40
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: EMB-170/175
Posts: 34
Actually the Q400 saves the most fuel during take off and climb. Jets are fuel drinkers by comparison at the lower altitudes. The fuel burn for the Q per mile is almost the same at 180 as it is at 250 (.15 lb per nm vs .16) while at cruise. It isn't hurt nearly as much when your kept down low. Any company would love to have a full Q at 180 than a full RJ in the 20's. I usually get to 250 in 8-10 minutes (from DEN) with an unrestricted climb under average wts and temps. How long does it take an RJ to get to its filed altitude? And what is the fuel flow during the climb? Thats where the fuel savings occurs.
The only US company to fly both the RJ and Q is getting rid of the RJs. Not saying both airframes don't have a place in aviation... but the Q can be a market killer.
The only US company to fly both the RJ and Q is getting rid of the RJs. Not saying both airframes don't have a place in aviation... but the Q can be a market killer.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
