Possible Q400 for AC or JAZZ

THEICEMAN · Post by **THEICEMAN** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:19 pm

I don't know if it's official, but I heard a rumour from a very good source that BBD made an offer towards AC for Q400s.

Given the current times, I am not surprised at all. BBD has been doing Q400 promo/damage control left & right. (anybody been watching TV lately?)
Looks like they are trying to increase sales, in order to increase confidence in the buyers.....

Again, I don't know the details. It's not official........but I hope it's legitimate!

Jazz with Q400s would be insane!

FL_CH · Post by **FL_CH** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:54 pm

I bet Jazz could pick up the 27 Q400's that SAS got rid of rather cheaply!

privateer · Post by **privateer** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:28 pm

From the sound of it those Q4's have already been snapped up. I think Jazz is due to get rid of those old Dash8s and get the next best thing.

Hoov · Post by **Hoov** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:09 pm

I heard today they were going for the new Twin Otter, but opting not to have the glass cockpit.

flying4dollars · Post by **flying4dollars** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:46 pm

wonder if they'll pitch for some Navajo Chieftans!

flyinhigh · Post by **flyinhigh** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:47 pm

Actually we're not getting the twotter, were going to out bid Georgian and CMA in 09' and due the runs that they're doing with the Dash's.

Once they no longer can afford to have the 1900's we're going to buy the planes and run them ourselves.

That is from the horses mouth....

vortac · Post by **vortac** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:49 am

flyinhigh wrote:Actually we're not getting the twotter, were going to out bid Georgian and CMA in 09' and due the runs that they're doing with the Dash's.

Once they no longer can afford to have the 1900's we're going to buy the planes and run them ourselves.

That is from the horses mouth....

The horse told me flyinhigh is just too cool for the RJ and they would like to get rid of him..

Uncle Leo · Post by **Uncle Leo** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:49 am

THEICEMAN wrote: Jazz with Q400s would be insane!

How is that insane?

Inverted2 · Post by **Inverted2** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:04 am

Blah, Ive been hearding the Jazz Q400 rumour for 3 years now......

flyinhigh · Post by **flyinhigh** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:41 am

vortac wrote:
The horse told me flyinhigh is just too cool for the RJ and they would like to get rid of him..

You heard right,

Guess I hit a button eh, sorry

tailgunner · Post by **tailgunner** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:19 am

Jazz needs to be careful for what it wishes for. Do not forget that the entire Jazz fleet, save a few 705's, are essentially worthless. 50 dash 8's at less than a million a piece, plus 50 200's at a million a piece, is not a huge outlay of cash. What I am saying is this CMA, Georgian could easily buy Dashes and under cut Jazz for those routes. Plus KFC, CanJET or anyone else for that matter could buy rjs and compete for the AC contract with jets. AC wins either way, and now essentially being 2 different companies AC can choose the lowest bidder. A CMA Dash captain probably will make a few thousand less than the 90 - 100 that Jazz captains get...just food for thought.[/code]

185/310 · Post by **185/310** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:03 am

Im surprised ATR isnt trying to put more pressure on companies like that, maybe they are. The accident rate with the Q400 right now, I would be looking into ATR42/72's.

vortac · Post by **vortac** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:24 am

flyinhigh...jk...just buggin ya

What are the prices points between the ATR72 and Q400. I must say, the new ATR72's cockpit does not look any more glass than any of the current Jazz Dash's.

station60 · Post by **station60** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:17 pm

vortac wrote:flyinhigh...jk...just buggin ya :wink:

What are the prices points between the ATR72 and Q400. I must say, the new ATR72's cockpit does not look any more glass than any of the current Jazz Dash's.

Well, that aside the ATR72 is a proven technology whereas the Q400's history is obvious. Aside from early problems with icing in the mid 90's (which was pilot error to begin with); ATR has a proven track record. The Q400 can probally carry more, but at what cost, I'm not sure.

Valhalla · Post by **Valhalla** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:55 pm

station60 wrote:Well, that aside the ATR72 is a proven technology whereas the Q400's history is obvious. Aside from early problems with icing in the mid 90's (which was pilot error to begin with); ATR has a proven track record. The Q400 can probally carry more, but at what cost, I'm not sure.

The Q400 has got somewhere close to 1,000,000 cycles on the global fleet. It's being proven in Toronto City Center as being extremely reliable. However, sketchy maintenance will cripple the reliablility of any airplane - including the ATR or Q400.

185/310 · Post by **185/310** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:19 pm

Valhalla wrote:

The Q400 has got somewhere close to 1,000,000 cycles on the global fleet. It's being proven in Toronto City Center as being extremely reliable.

I should hope any brand new airplane will last the short amount of time Porter has been in business for. I wouldnt call Toronto a good example of a difficult proving ground for the Q400. Im not sure about the Q400, but the ATR72 has already been proving itself in remote gravel strips in extreme temperatures around the world.

I know the ATR72 and Q400 are comparable in size, and the Q400 has the 72 in speed, but does anybody know what the operating cost between the two aircraft are?

prop2jet · Post by **prop2jet** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:57 pm

Tailgunner, what you say is only partially correct. Georgian or anyother operator for that matter would have to wait until the current CPA ends, and that is not until 2015. Thereafter there are provisions in place to renew in 5 year terms.

On a different matter all together, the real threat can potentially come from south of the border whereby American Regional carriers could be invited to make their own pitch for an AC CPA. This has already been floated as a possibility by Jazz's mgmt.

BTD · Post by **BTD** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:13 pm

station60 wrote: Well, that aside the ATR72 is a proven technology whereas the Q400's history is obvious. Aside from early problems with icing in the mid 90's (which was pilot error to begin with); ATR has a proven track record. The Q400 can probally carry more, but at what cost, I'm not sure.

This is from the accident report for the ATR 72 accident. And it doesn't really support the bolded area above. Granted in hindsight there is always something we as pilots could have done differently.

The Safety Board is concerned that the FAA and other airworthiness
authorities still permit airplane manufacturers to use stall protection systems (SPS) to
prevent flightcrews from experiencing known undesirable flight characteristics
unique to their particular aircraft design without requiring the manufacturers to
reveal these characteristics to the airworthiness authorities, operators, and pilots.

The caution alert can be activated by one of
several different aircraft systems, including the ice detection system. The flightcrew
did not increase the propeller RPM to 86 percent and activate the ice protection
system when the first caution alert chime sounded at 1533:56, but following the
second caution alert at 1541:07, the FDR indicated that the flightcrew did activate
the Level III ice protection system and increased the propeller RPM to 86 percent.

Although AMR Eagle cautioned pilots in its 1989 memorandum about
flight in freezing rain, the information and training provided by Simmons
Airlines/AMR Eagle to its flightcrews did not prohibit holding in icing conditions
that were perceived to be within the capabilities of the airplane.

However, at the time of the accident, the AFM issued by ATR and approved by the
both the DGAC and FAA did not prohibit (either implicitly or explicitly), holding
with flaps 15 in icing conditions nor did it address the use of flaps in icing
conditions.

Based on the information provided by ATR at the time of the accident,
holding with flaps 15 extended at 175 KIAS provides a more desirable operating
margin for stall protection than the flaps 0 configuration. Further, ATR’s 1992 All
Weather Operations brochure advised flightcrews that if they recognized that they
192
were in freezing rain, they should, “extend flaps as close to Vfe as possible.” This
position was reiterated at the Safety Board’s public hearing by ATR’s chief test pilot,

Because there was no prohibition against flap extension in icing
conditions, and no published information explaining the potential consequences of
extending the flaps in icing conditions, the crew of flight 4184 would not have had
reason to believe that the extension of the flaps would result in an adverse ice
accumulation in front of the ailerons. In addition, the flightcrew’s training was such
that the only performance degradation they would expect from ice accumulation
would have been a continuous loss of airspeed and subsequent stall condition with
stick shaker activation, rather than an aileron hinge moment reversal at an airspeed
well above stall speed,

The flightcrew’s actions were consistent with their training and
knowledge.

Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the
probable causes of this accident were the loss of control, attributed to a sudden
and unexpected aileron hinge moment reversal that occurred after a ridge of ice
accreted beyond the deice boots because: 1) ATR failed to completely disclose to
operators, and incorporate in the ATR 72 airplane flight manual, flightcrew
operating manual and flightcrew training programs, adequate information
concerning previously known effects of freezing precipitation on the stability and
control characteristics, autopilot and related operational procedures when the ATR
72 was operated in such conditions; 2) the French Directorate General for Civil
Aviation’s (DGAC’s) inadequate oversight of the ATR 42 and 72, and its failure
to take the necessary corrective action to ensure continued airworthiness in icing
conditions; and 3) the DGAC’s failure to provide the FAA with timely
airworthiness information developed from previous ATR incidents and accidents
in icing conditions, as specified under the Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement and
Annex 8 of the International Civil Aviation Organization.
Contributing to the accident were: 1) the Federal Aviation
Administration’s (FAA’s) failure to ensure that aircraft icing certification
requirements, operational requirements for flight into icing conditions, and FAA
published aircraft icing information adequately accounted for the hazards that can
result from flight in freezing rain and other icing conditions not specified in 14
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 25, Appendix C; and 2) the FAA’s
inadequate oversight of the ATR 42 and 72 to ensure continued airworthiness in
icing conditions.

I hate it when pilots get the blame for something that wasn't entirely within their control. Remember a lot of what aviation learned about icing came from this accident. So it is unfair to say they should have done things that we know now, before this even occured.

At least learn the accident if you are going to use it as evidence to support your cause.

However, these problems have been addressed

BTD

Bravo1Six · Post by **Bravo1Six** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:50 pm

185/310 wrote:Valhalla wrote:
The Q400 has got somewhere close to 1,000,000 cycles on the global fleet. It's being proven in Toronto City Center as being extremely reliable.
I should hope any brand new airplane will last the short amount of time Porter has been in business for. I wouldnt call Toronto a good example of a difficult proving ground for the Q400. Im not sure about the Q400, but the ATR72 has already been proving itself in remote gravel strips in extreme temperatures around the world.

I know the ATR72 and Q400 are comparable in size, and the Q400 has the 72 in speed, but does anybody know what the operating cost between the two aircraft are?

Hydro Quebec operates its Q400s off of gravel fields.

furious george · Post by **furious george** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:51 pm

prop2jet wrote:On a different matter all together, the real threat can potentially come from south of the border whereby American Regional carriers could be invited to make their own pitch for an AC CPA.

How could this legally take place other than if the American Carrier in question was bought out by a Canadian company?

THEICEMAN · Post by **THEICEMAN** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:03 pm

185/310 wrote:Valhalla wrote:
The Q400 has got somewhere close to 1,000,000 cycles on the global fleet. It's being proven in Toronto City Center as being extremely reliable.
I should hope any brand new airplane will last the short amount of time Porter has been in business for. I wouldnt call Toronto a good example of a difficult proving ground for the Q400. Im not sure about the Q400, but the ATR72 has already been proving itself in remote gravel strips in extreme temperatures around the world.

I know the ATR72 and Q400 are comparable in size, and the Q400 has the 72 in speed, but does anybody know what the operating cost between the two aircraft are?

CASM on the Q400 is much better then the ATR-72. Bottom line is, thst the Q400 is a generation ahead. On a peformance level, the ATRs just get blown away....

How could you discredit the Q400 for ATRs....just because SAS can't fix their airplanes??

. . · Post by **. .** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:54 am

It's because he flys for first air and he has a boner for them.

185/310 · Post by **185/310** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:19 am

THEICEMAN wrote:

How could you discredit the Q400 for ATRs....just because SAS can't fix their airplanes??

I wasent trying to discredit the Q400 just saying what I heard about it, and trying to find actual numbers comparing the Q400 and ATR72, mainly cost wise. A person cant say that the Q400 being operated by Porter is "It's being proven in Toronto City Center as being extremely reliable." when the aircraft are new and there only running a few to begin with.

endless wrote:

It's because he flys for first air and he has a boner for them.

Last I checked First Air dosent have ATR 72s so I dont see your point. Besides is there something wrong that I enjoy the company I work at?

Hoov · Post by **Hoov** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:54 pm

185/310 wrote:THEICEMAN wrote:
How could you discredit the Q400 for ATRs....just because SAS can't fix their airplanes??
I wasent trying to discredit the Q400 just saying what I heard about it, and trying to find actual numbers comparing the Q400 and ATR72, mainly cost wise. A person cant say that the Q400 being operated by Porter is "It's being proven in Toronto City Center as being extremely reliable." when the aircraft are new and there only running a few to begin with.

endless wrote:
It's because he flys for first air and he has a boner for them.

Last I checked First Air dosent have ATR 72s so I dont see your point. Besides is there something wrong that I enjoy the company I work at?

Yeah asshole, what gives you the right to be happy? You really should be ashamed.

shimmydampner · Post by **shimmydampner** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:48 pm

Yeah no kidding, you're a disgrace. You really should get yourself stuck in a boring-ass job so that you can develop an irrevocable bitterness that grows exponentially. Just remember, if you don't have anything negative to say, don't say it here.

(On a side note, what is the criteria to remove a post? Are the mods here moderating or censoring? Endless?)

Possible Q400 for AC or JAZZ

Possible Q400 for AC or JAZZ

Re: Possible Q400 for AC or JAZZ