Improved outlook for airline pilots?

[Greg Bockelman]

Hey - assuming the "ATP for 121 pilots" congressional law gets written into a FAR - what happens to folks currently flying at regionals or smaller 121 operators as FOs who don't have the 1500 hours or the ATP - do they get fired?

There is a grace period in the proposal I saw. At this point most, if not all, the 121 pilots currently working are within spitting distance of obtaining the ATP anyway.

 

[Gary F]

I know I know it's only Flying magazine but possibly a glimmer of hope.

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/airline-pilot-hiring-accelerates?cmpid=enews062311

 

[bob_albertson]

There is a grace period in the proposal I saw. At this point most, if not all, the 121 pilots currently working are within spitting distance of obtaining the ATP anyway.

Yes, sir.... We all have our SIC type ratings now. When the ATP is required the SIC type will "qualify" as the ATP equivalent certificate. I am pretty sure that is where the regional pilot group will be headed with that. I think most everyone going to a Major has their ATP - either from being a Regional CA or through taking the military equivalency tests.?

Bob

 

[shenanigans]

Yes, sir.... We all have our SIC type ratings now. When the ATP is required the SIC type will "qualify" as the ATP equivalent certificate. I am pretty sure that is where the regional pilot group will be headed with that. I think most everyone going to a Major has their ATP - either from being a Regional CA or through taking the military equivalency tests.?

Bob

I hadn't heard anything about a SIC type qualifying as equivilant to an ATP for purposes of the new rules. Don't FOs already receive all the training required for an SIC type rating? And wasn't that the case before this legislation passed???

 

[denverpilot]

So if you were one of those low time FO's, what should you do? Rent some time in a C152 on your days off?

Most airlines make you sign a contract that you will not do this, actually. They don't want you timed-out if the have to start junior-manning people during bad weather, holidays, etc.

I found this out when I asked a particularly sharp CFII if he'd do some flying with me after he was hired on at American Eagle. He said it was against his contract to instruct except on truly off weeks in his schedule, and if you did it and timed yourself out for a scheduled trip later, you'd be in deep kimchee.

And the old "I just drank a beer so I'm illegal to fly" when you answer your special phone line for Crew Scheduling -- can only be pulled off so often -- before the Chief Pilot's office notices that you never seem to be available for junior man call-outs.

Best junior-man story ever... A guy named Larry Denton held seniority number #1 on the DHC-7 at Rocky Mountain Airways for a long time.

One day Crew Scheduling made it all the way up the seniority list and still needed a Captain. He laughed at them and hung up the phone.

Or so the legend goes, anyway...

 

[RotorAndWing]

Yes, sir.... We all have our SIC type ratings now. When the ATP is required the SIC type will "qualify" as the ATP equivalent certificate. I am pretty sure that is where the regional pilot group will be headed with that. I think most everyone going to a Major has their ATP - either from being a Regional CA or through taking the military equivalency tests.?

Bob

The "SIC Type Rating" was actually a requirement brought forth by ICAO. The US was slow to adopt the same standard until the ICAO member states started demanding that US airplanes flying into foreign destinations have both crewmembers "Type Rated".

The SIC Type on a Commercial certificate is not an equivalent to a ATP.

 

[bob_albertson]

The "SIC Type Rating" was actually a requirement brought forth by ICAO. The US was slow to adopt the same standard until the ICAO member states started demanding that US airplanes flying into foreign destinations have both crewmembers "Type Rated".

The SIC Type on a Commercial certificate is not an equivalent to a ATP.

Right, but the info on the streets now is that, just like the large flight schools, the FAA will allow exceptions to the rule via an SIC type that the FAA designates as an ATP equivalent for the purposes of the rule. The other word on the street is they will give Regional Airlines 3 years to have all currently employed F/Os certificated as ATPs. If that becomes the case then the FAA is basically allowing everyone currently employed time to upgrade.

Both solutions are directly aimed at minimizing the cost incurred by the airline. So, you can know this is something that is being actively pursued. I wouldn't be surprised if either of those either make it into the wording of the regulation or if the implemented regulation has that 3 year (or some variation thereof) compliance mandate. Either way, I really do see the solution being one that does not cost the airlines anything or minimizes the cost. The FAA is our friend

 

[taters]

I think most everyone going to a Major has their ATP - either from being a Regional CA or through taking the military equivalency tests.?
Bob

Or by getting it on their own.:wink2:

I am really glad I got mine before coming to my cargo job, The ATP can in expedite you into the left seat of a type rated aircraft . I know many FO's who got them on their own and some that even went straight to majors from the right seat of an ERJ.

 

[bob_albertson]

Or by getting it on their own.:wink2:

I am really glad I got mine before coming to my cargo job, The ATP can in expedite you into the left seat of a type rated aircraft . I know many FO's who got them on their own and some that even went straight to majors from the right seat of an ERJ.

I did that .... Though I don't think U.S Airways thinks they need my services in the EMB-190 just yet .

Bob

 

[RotorAndWing]

Right, but the info on the streets now is that, just like the large flight schools, the FAA will allow exceptions to the rule via an SIC type that the FAA designates as an ATP equivalent for the purposes of the rule.

Well, I would take the word "on the streets" with a grain of salt. After 24 years flying in an airline cockpit I'm aware of how "the street" rumors get going.

The other word on the street is they will give Regional Airlines 3 years to have all currently employed F/Os certificated as ATPs. If that becomes the case then the FAA is basically allowing everyone currently employed time to upgrade.

Nothing has come out as a final rule. So far this is all internet driven speculation.

Both solutions are directly aimed at minimizing the cost incurred by the airline. So, you can know this is something that is being actively pursued. I wouldn't be surprised if either of those either make it into the wording of the regulation or if the implemented regulation has that 3 year (or some variation thereof) compliance mandate. Either way, I really do see the solution being one that does not cost the airlines anything or minimizes the cost. The FAA is our friend

This is actually being driven by the ATA, not the FAA.

 

[bob_albertson]

Well, I would take the word "on the streets" with a grain of salt. After 24 years flying in an airline cockpit I'm aware of how "the street" rumors get going.

I don't have that time under my belt, but don't take the "street" literally in this case. I was in D.C. week before last and this is what was being discussed by ALPA.

Nothing has come out as a final rule. So far this is all internet driven speculation.

No, it's being proposed by two unions and several lobby groups from the larger pilot mills to ensure their graduating classes for the next couple years will be grandfathered in.

This is actually being driven by the ATA, not the FAA.

The FAA asked for comments to the rule. So the FAA started the process through their NPRM website. The FAA took that feedback and is now having discussions with the unions and lobby groups. The FAA was the one's who agreed to and are pushing for changes to the proposed rule so that no direct or minimal costs are incurred by the airlines.

Bob

 

[maddog52]

I've read that same story a couple of times a year for over 20 years. In that time there has only been one real hiring boom that lasted a couple of years while the Majors were laying off expensive pilots and equipment and handing the contracts for the routes to regional carriers so a pretty solid percentage of those jobs got filled by the same pilots taking large pay and sometimes seniority cuts, and the other new slots being filled by low time pilots getting payed so little they can apply for Food Stamps. >>>.

The truth is that outsourcing flying to the regional carriers cost the major airlines more per seatmile. At UAL, they pay 18-20 cents per ASM to the regional carriers. Mainline costs are 11-14 cents per seat mile. And worse, when the price of fuel goes up, the regionals are even more expensive because the RJs are way less fuel efficient than larger jets. UAL actually loses money on a majority of the RJ flights because of the expensive contracts with the regionals. No RJ operator can make money unless the vast majority of their flying is payed for by a major airline.

So while a lot of the domestic flying was outsourced to lower paid, less experienced pilots at the regionals, those pilots were ultimately more expensive for the major airlines and their customers. The fact that the most consistently profitable airline in the US, (SouthWest) has never paid someone else to operate an RJ for them ought to tell you something.

 

[Henning]

The truth is that outsourcing flying to the regional carriers cost the major airlines more per seatmile. At UAL, they pay 18-20 cents per ASM to the regional carriers. Mainline costs are 11-14 cents per seat mile. And worse, when the price of fuel goes up, the regionals are even more expensive because the RJs are way less fuel efficient than larger jets. UAL actually loses money on a majority of the RJ flights because of the expensive contracts with the regionals. No RJ operator can make money unless the vast majority of their flying is payed for by a major airline.

So while a lot of the domestic flying was outsourced to lower paid, less experienced pilots at the regionals, those pilots were ultimately more expensive for the major airlines and their customers. The fact that the most consistently profitable airline in the US, (SouthWest) has never paid someone else to operate an RJ for them ought to tell you something.

Yep, I wasn't making a value statement, just kinda putting a quick summation on what has happened. The RJ was a bad deal from day one and wouldn't have happened 2 years later when the price of fuel started the long climb. Thing is, for the mission, the big planes weren't as efficient because they weren't running full. It's rare to step on a "Big Iron" jet anymore that isn't full. Back before the RJ revolution when the feeders were flying all turboprops and all of this started, they were considerably more efficient and cost effective than the big planes and the RJs. But what happened was the passengers were balking at props. The RJ was familiar in how it looked and sounded, it was a scaled down DC-9.... The RJ should have never happened. They should have made a better effort of informing the public about the abilities and advantages of turboprops, which has been happening for the last few years as more RJs get put away for more efficient TPs again.

Southwest has been profitable because they have very good management. They minimize spares by minimizing type variance. The made good hedges on the fuel futures market. They are very selective about the routs they fly and the communities they serve. You can't compare UAL to SWA, they run on entirely different scales.

 

[maddog52]

Yep, I wasn't making a value statement, just kinda putting a quick summation on what has happened. The RJ was a bad deal from day one and wouldn't have happened 2 years later when the price of fuel started the long climb. Thing is, for the mission, the big planes weren't as efficient because they weren't running full. It's rare to step on a "Big Iron" jet anymore that isn't full. Back before the RJ revolution when the feeders were flying all turboprops and all of this started, they were considerably more efficient and cost effective than the big planes and the RJs. But what happened was the passengers were balking at props. The RJ was familiar in how it looked and sounded, it was a scaled down DC-9.... The RJ should have never happened. They should have made a better effort of informing the public about the abilities and advantages of turboprops, which has been happening for the last few years as more RJs get put away for more efficient TPs again.

Southwest has been profitable because they have very good management. They minimize spares by minimizing type variance. The made good hedges on the fuel futures market. They are very selective about the routs they fly and the communities they serve. You can't compare UAL to SWA, they run on entirely different scales.

I hear you about the Turbo props. They are way more efficient than an RJ in most markets. RJs make sense in some smaller markets, but using 2 or three of them to replace one larger mainline jet in major markets doesn't make sense. At UAL, the load factor on the RJs is actually lower than mainline, so the argument they have an advantage over mainline due to load factor is false.

Southwest management is much betterr than pretty much all the major airline managements on all levels. They definitely know that outsourcing your core service to more expensive firms is not a recipe for profit.

Comparing UAL and SWA is indeed hard to do, just don't tell that to UAL management. They use the excuse "we have to compete with the low cost carriers" everytime it comes to compensating it's frontline employees (but not senior managment).

 

[weilke]

SWA serves few markets smaller than 500k, they also dont care whether their schedule is convenient or connects you to any other flights.

UAL, Delta etc. serve many markets a lot smaller than that, they also make an effort to tie those feeders into their hub system.

It's an apples to pineapples comparison.

 

[denverpilot]

You can't compare UAL to SWA, they run on entirely different scales.

And one took taxpayer bailout money, twice and one didn't. Have certainly heard folks say they won't buy anything but Ford for the same behavior in the Auto sector. Why no backlash in Aviation, I've often wondered.

 

[maddog52]

And one took taxpayer bailout money, twice and one didn't. Have certainly heard folks say they won't buy anything but Ford for the same behavior in the Auto sector. Why no backlash in Aviation, I've often wondered.

Which one took taxpayer money twice? Whati circumstances?

 

[maddog52]

SWA serves few markets smaller than 500k, they also dont care whether their schedule is convenient or connects you to any other flights.

UAL, Delta etc. serve many markets a lot smaller than that, they also make an effort to tie those feeders into their hub system.

It's an apples to pineapples comparison.

I agree completely. But you will seldom see a news article referencing profits, loss, or costs that doesn't compare SWA with the major airlines. unfortunately, the major airlines management use the comparisons to justify some of their practices.

Look at Soutwest route map. They have a network that looks alot like a hub based system. But they are smart enough not to pay someonelse an exhorbitant fee to feed those hubs. Airtran tried it for six months and gave it up due to the cost.

I'm not sure how concerned major airlines are with passenger convenience or comfort by putting them on RJs for long flights or cram them into waiting areas where 4 or 5 flights are leaving. Go to the F 10 and 11 gates at ORD for a glimpse of RJ Hell. Rjs have their place in a few markets in order to feed the hubs, but they are a very expensive and often unprofitable way to do it.

 

[maddog52]

...
•A looming wave of pilot retirements in the USA;

I always wonder what they mean by this phrase. The age 65 rule starts forcing manadatory retirement in December of 2012. It's not like there will be 5 years worth of pent up retirements that suddenly happen over night. The normal rate of retirement will simply resume after being effectively suspended for five years. No larger than the normal rate.

I've also seen numerous predictions of pilot shortages over the last couple of decades. I've also seen a few minor surges in hiring that were accompanied by major banks of job losses that largely negated these gains.

Like a lot of people here, I'll beleive a surge in hiring when I see it as well as see how many of those jobs are still around 5 or so years later.

 

[taters]

age 65 really isnt the culprit, it is several senior pilot groups that will have large retirement waves coupled with many of furloughs that didn't take the call back. Our CP is the former CP for Delta, he told me that American Delta and United are beginning to **** bricks from 2013-2015 as they fear the ATP qualified (with some turbine PIC) arent going to be there in the numbers they desire. But I doubt it is going to this decade long thing folks have been talking about, and places like SWA FEDEX etc will still be a hard cookie as it is today.

 

[bob_albertson]

age 65 really isnt the culprit, it is several senior pilot groups that will have large retirement waves coupled with many of furloughs that didn't take the call back. Our CP is the former CP for Delta, he told me that American Delta and United are beginning to **** bricks from 2013-2015 as they fear the ATP qualified (with some turbine PIC) arent going to be there in the numbers they desire. But I doubt it is going to this decade long thing folks have been talking about, and places like SWA FEDEX etc will still be a hard cookie as it is today.

That is what I have been hearing also. Marty May's was telling me that in the middle of the largest group to be retired (around 2013-14 he said) those who want to go to a major and have a couple thousand hours of Turbine (any kind) will be able to pick and choose which airline they want to fly for. FedEx will be much easier to get on with, but they and UPS will most likely have hiring pools -- just not nearly as deep as they have been for the past decade.

Personally, after flying around for a while I will stick to passenger service and not Cargo. I don't mind getting up early, but the thought of sleeping from say 1pm to 10pm and working from 12am to 8am just isn't as appealing as the income. For the most part, if I can get hired in the next three years I should still be able to retire in the top 10% of the seniority list at most all airlines. That would allow me to pick CA on a wide body, get wide body pay, and enjoy 20 days off a month . Actually, though.... If I was say a 787 CA, the pay would be in the upper 100K range. The way I see it, anything over 70K a year is a nice income.

Bob

 

[weilke]

I'm not sure how concerned major airlines are with passenger convenience or comfort by putting them on RJs for long flights

That argument is imho overplayed. Seat pitch is an airline decision and not a design feature, they are rather narrow though and in the small EMBs the curvature of the tube reduces leg and headroom in the outboard seats. I can't say that flying 2hrs30min in a new EMB175 at FL390 is any worse than the same trip in a clapped out DC9 at FL310 in the bumps. The lower per seat cost on the mainline flights is to some extent the result of the decrepit written off equipment used.

or cram them into waiting areas where 4 or 5 flights are leaving. Go to the F 10 and 11 gates at ORD for a glimpse of RJ Hell.

Inept airport operator caused issues should not be blamed on the class of aircraft.

Rjs have their place in a few markets in order to feed the hubs, but they are a very expensive and often unprofitable way to do it.

The place I fly in and out of the most was served by Frontier using Q400s for a while. After a couple of trips got cancelled due to icing in the rockies and the turboprop experience in the bumps, I decided that the $80 saved was not worth the downsides.

 

[denverpilot]

The place I fly in and out of the most was served by Frontier using Q400s for a while. After a couple of trips got cancelled due to icing in the rockies and the turboprop experience in the bumps, I decided that the $80 saved was not worth the downsides.

Lynx, not Frontier.

Bumps are a factor of wing loading, not powerplant.

IMHO, ATRs ride nicer than the Q. (And in relation to the wing loading statement I have no idea what either aircraft is, just a subjective opinion.) Brasilias just suck. Beech 1900D is kinda fun. DHC-7 was the best ever, just 'cause Flaps 40 takeoffs are cool.

 

[Everskyward]

Lynx, not Frontier.

I thought Lynx was part of Frontier, for a while. I'll never forget the look on the face of a mechanic I was traveling with to go pick up an airplane. We had tickets which said "Frontier" and he expected an Airbus. "It has PROPS!?" Um, don't you work on airplanes with props? I guess it was a good thing we were traveling to pick up a jet.

I heard that when Frontier (Republic) were going to get rid of all the Q-400s they changed their mind and left a few in Aspen because they were better at getting in and out than the RJ.

 

[denverpilot]

I heard that when Frontier (Republic) were going to get rid of all the Q-400s they changed their mind and left a few in Aspen because they were better at getting in and out than the RJ.

I heard it was both that and that after they laid everyone off at Lynx, all the Republic people then realized they'd need to get approaches qualified and crews qualified for the RJs. Was going to take a lot of expensive non-rev flights or some heavy sim time and signoffs.

They were supposed to have done that by now. Maybe if you've seen Qs up there still (haven't been to KASE since last summer), their plans changed again.

I bet the RJs can't do the "slam dunk pilot's discretion after Redtable" approach as well as the Qs can with the props full forward. Don't really know though.

They should just rename the approach the "Roller coaster ride from hell with mountains on either side and oncoming traffic when VMC" on the plate.

 

[weilke]

Lynx, not Frontier.

It said frontier on the tail and frontier on the ticket.

Bumps are a factor of wing loading, not powerplant.

Bumps are a factor of how close you fly to the rocks and the weather.

 

[denverpilot]

It said frontier on the tail and frontier on the ticket.

Bwahaha, what rock have you been under for the last 20 years?

All the regionals fly with their "mothership" painted on their tails, but hey're completely separate airlines. Different training regiments, different schedules, different union or non-union contracts, etc.

The marketing fluff on the tail and ticket mean nothing. The tail of the Colgan crash wasn't painted "Colgan Air". The tickets didn't have that on it either in the big logo section. (It is there in the fine print if you look hard enough...)

Wholly-owned regionals died in the early 90s. The paint on tails of the current regionals is open to the highest bidder. I'm surprised the silly things don't say "Geico" on them, really.

Bumps are a factor of how close you fly to the rocks and the weather.

So turboprops can't fly as high as an RJ? I'm not seeing your point here.

 

[Everskyward]

I heard it was both that and that after they laid everyone off at Lynx, all the Republic people then realized they'd need to get approaches qualified and crews qualified for the RJs. Was going to take a lot of expensive non-rev flights or some heavy sim time and signoffs.

They were supposed to have done that by now. Maybe if you've seen Qs up there still (haven't been to KASE since last summer), their plans changed again.

Here's some fairly recent news on the Q400s.

The airline dropping its Q-400 fleet remains the biggest threat to its Aspen service. Republic has claimed the planes, the only ones in Frontier’s fleet equipped to fly into the Roaring Fork Valley, are too expensive to operate.

Mike Boyd, an Evergreen-based aviation consultant, said getting rid of the Q-400s is a more serious and immediate threat to Aspen than Frontier’s corporate woes. He said that move could mark the end of Aspen Frontier service within the next year.

“Even if Frontier was making money hand over fist, we’d still be having this issue with the fleet,” he said. “When those planes go, that’ll be the end of Frontier-branded service there.”

He predicted the company will find creative ways to stay afloat, and will keep running service out of its hub in Denver and to Aspen, but only until it can find someone to buy its three turbo-prop Q-400 planes.

http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/147462

I bet the RJs can't do the "slam dunk pilot's discretion after Redtable" approach as well as the Qs can with the props full forward. Don't really know though.

My guess is that it's the landing distance and/or especially the takeoff and climb required which makes the Q-400s more desirable than the RJs. But then that's only a guess having never flown an RJ or a Q-400.

They should just rename the approach the "Roller coaster ride from hell with mountains on either side and oncoming traffic when VMC" on the plate.

Aspen is probably the most notable place where departures and arrivals play chicken when it's VMC. Actually I think the controllers do a very good job. Besides, the departure procedure has you turning right and then left so that you only cross through the final once...

 

[bob_albertson]

I heard it was both that and that after they laid everyone off at Lynx, all the Republic people then realized they'd need to get approaches qualified and crews qualified for the RJs. Was going to take a lot of expensive non-rev flights or some heavy sim time and signoffs.

They were supposed to have done that by now. Maybe if you've seen Qs up there still (haven't been to KASE since last summer), their plans changed again.

I bet the RJs can't do the "slam dunk pilot's discretion after Redtable" approach as well as the Qs can with the props full forward. Don't really know though.

They should just rename the approach the "Roller coaster ride from hell with mountains on either side and oncoming traffic when VMC" on the plate.

Q400s are fully FADEC.... the props don't go full forward during approach - it helps keep the noise down. If GA power is added, the FADEC moves the prop pitch to best climb - may not necessarily be full forward either.

We're taking the Q400 from IAH direct to Montrose, CO right now. There is a very good chance that we will have a Q400 base in DEN within the next few months.....or...

As far as bumps, and wing loading.... The Q400's gross weight is about 10,000 lbs more then ERJ and CRJs (except the 900 - but that that's not really a "regional jet" anyways).

Bob

 

[denverpilot]

Cool info. An old ATR driver I know liked shoving the props up to get down.

I suspect the bumps would kick either the Q or the RJs butt up there about equally.

Lots of stories of bouncing FAs off the ceiling. It's not really funny, but it's reality up there.

 

[bob_albertson]

Here's some fairly recent news on the Q400s.



http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/147462

My guess is that it's the landing distance and/or especially the takeoff and climb required which makes the Q-400s more desirable than the RJs. But then that's only a guess having never flown an RJ or a Q-400.

Aspen is probably the most notable place where departures and arrivals play chicken when it's VMC. Actually I think the controllers do a very good job. Besides, the departure procedure has you turning right and then left so that you only cross through the final once...

Q400's being heavier and longer than most RJ's requires more runway distance to land. We had been awarded a contract to fly the Q400 into Aspen last year. We did a risk analysis and determined it was too risky for our Q400s. The only advantage we'd have over the RJ's is the increased climb performance up to about FL200.

Another reason why the Q400 needs a little more wiggle room to land is because it's max pitch is 7 degrees for landing. At 7 degrees and you will have a tail strike..... The only way I've seen pilot's make up for lost airspeed on final --- more power to keep the pitch angle down -- or just let it drop and rock. When flying into a place like Aspen..... I don't think that's the time for the old saying.... time to nut up or shut up .

Bob

 

[Everskyward]

Q400's being heavier and longer than most RJ's requires more runway distance to land. We had been awarded a contract to fly the Q400 into Aspen last year. We did a risk analysis and determined it was too risky for our Q400s. The only advantage we'd have over the RJ's is the increased climb performance up to about FL200.

Interesting, since the Q400 evolved from airplanes with good short field performance. Also interesting why your airline found it too risky while Frontier doesn't.

 

[bob_albertson]

Interesting, since the Q400 evolved from airplanes with good short field performance. Also interesting why your airline found it too risky while Frontier doesn't.

No, the Q400 evolved away from those, they wanted more speed and an awesome noise attenuation system. It's just like with any plane - you can't have the best of both worlds.... Which, would you like - short landing distance or speed, LOL. Their approach speed is anywhere from 140-120 depending on weight.

Biggest risk factor -- Fuel. We were planning on a direct flight from Houston to Aspen. The points that became risky - available alternates, reserve fuel available -- If we have say 3 alternates because of using Ops Spec 3585 then we must be able to fly to the most distant one, make an approach, and fly thereafter for 45 mins at normal cruise power. We would be asking pilots to fly for close to 4 hours and shoot approaches at minimums into an area surrounded by mountains. All the little things like that added up.

Bob

 

[Everskyward]

No, the Q400 evolved away from those, they wanted more speed and an awesome noise attenuation system. It's just like with any plane - you can't have the best of both worlds.... Which, would you like - short landing distance or speed, LOL. Their approach speed is anywhere from 140-120 depending on weight.

OK, that makes sense. It just looks so much like its predecessors that I figured it was also a good short field airplane. I know all about the tradeoff between speed and short field performance because the airplane I fly went the other way (great short field and high density altitude performance but not so fast).

Biggest risk factor -- Fuel. We were planning on a direct flight from Houston to Aspen. The points that became risky - available alternates, reserve fuel available -- If we have say 3 alternates because of using Ops Spec 3585 then we must be able to fly to the most distant one, make an approach, and fly thereafter for 45 mins at normal cruise power. We would be asking pilots to fly for close to 4 hours and shoot approaches at minimums into an area surrounded by mountains. All the little things like that added up.

Yeah it doesn't take nearly the amount of fuel to fly from Denver to Aspen which Lynx is doing, as it does from Houston to Aspen.

 

[zaitcev]

And one took taxpayer bailout money, twice and one didn't. Have certainly heard folks say they won't buy anything but Ford for the same behavior in the Auto sector. Why no backlash in Aviation, I've often wondered.

Dunno about others, but I find it hard to care too much. I drive a bailoutmobile made by a union guy, and I like it. Compared to that debacle, UAL was really small potatoes. It was even smaller than AIG. And frankly, I knew the myth of friendly and gentle Southwest was over back when they returned to SFO. In any case, me and my wife switched from SWA to UAL due to Southwest's seating system. Unbearable, really, and way more important than some companies being more or less skilled at corruption and robbing the taxpayer.
-- Pete

 

[bob_albertson]

OK, that makes sense. It just looks so much like its predecessors that I figured it was also a good short field airplane. I know all about the tradeoff between speed and short field performance because the airplane I fly went the other way (great short field and high DA altitude performance but not so fast).

The Q400 takes 10 minutes longer on the same routes flown by RJs

 

[weilke]

All the regionals fly with their "mothership" painted on their tails, but hey're completely separate airlines. Different training regiments, different schedules, different union or non-union contracts, etc.

So ? I get on a Delta plane with a Delta ticket, I may sit in a plane operated by Skywest, Mesaba or Air Wisconsin, if I have a customer service issue I deal with Delta. Who signs the paycheck for the folks up front is of no interest to me.

So turboprops can't fly as high as an RJ? I'm not seeing your point here.

They just dont fly as high as the jets, often that means either closer to the rocks or closer to convective activity. Maybe they can go up higher, but in daily regional operation they just dont go there very much.

 

[bob_albertson]

They just dont fly as high as the jets, often that means either closer to the rocks or closer to convective activity. Maybe they can go up higher, but in daily regional operation they just dont go there very much.

I can't speak about the Q400s, but on the Saab we're limited to FL250 because of regulatory issues enacted above FL250... namely oxygen issues.

Most all turboprops can go to FL300, but propeller efficiency drops so drastically above that altitude that you loose more performance than the engine gains.

Bob

 

[MSPAviator]

So what kind of rate of climb can you get out of Aspen airport in the Q400 @ 7k ft. on the ground?


Do you guys have to shuttle climb at all?

 

[bob_albertson]

So what kind of rate of climb can you get out of Aspen airport in the Q400 @ 7k ft. on the ground?


Do you guys have to shuttle climb at all?

The Q has over 6300hp per side. They would do a reduced power takeoff. At Max T/O weight and 105 ambient air temp they were at 86% power doing right around 4500FPM and they held that until about DA-15K. So, I'd expect that performance outta Aspen, but at the same time it would definitely out do the Jet's during the winter .

Oh, and Above 15, they were holding about 2K-1500 with a full boat.

But.... what a lot of people don't expect from a Turboprop is the nose drop above 10K. They have to pull the power way back to keep from going too fast below 10K. They true out close to 350 at altitude depending on the temp. The guy who flew them for 3 years would be a better source of info --- though I do have the books for the Q . That hoser left us for a plane that they put the fuselage on backwards

Bob