Consolidated Horizon E175 Discussion Thread
May 4, 2017, 10:28 pm
#46
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, Or USA
Posts: 1,800
Looks like the second delivery N622QX is going to fly the inaugural PDX-STL run tomorrow https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n622qx
N623QX is the next delivery http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...umbertxt=623QX
N623QX is the next delivery http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...umbertxt=623QX
May 4, 2017, 10:38 pm
#47
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: PDX
Programs: AS 75K, BW Plat, Marriott Gold, IHG Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 10,725
En route and on time http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QXE2790
May 5, 2017, 6:57 am
#48
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Programs: AS MVPG75K, HH Diamond, Hyatt Explorist, AGR S+
Posts: 366
May 5, 2017, 12:38 pm
#49
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 734
Just read that the E175 will be assigned to the Seattle to San Luis Obisbo route. But the PDX - OAK flights are still the old, loud, slow, crammed, wait-for-your-carry-on-bags-in-the-PDX-rain, no-water-in-the-bathroom-sink Q400s. Come on Alaska, San Luis Obisbo? Really? How about throwing Oakland a bone and bring back jet service?
May 5, 2017, 1:00 pm
#50
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,397
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PDX-OAK,SEA-SBP
543 miles (PDX-OAK) vs. 847 miles (SEA-SBP), and the Q400 is considerably slower (414 mph cruise speed vs. 545 mph), which means flying a ~850 mile route considerably increases the block time for a SEA-SBP-SEA routing for a Q400 compared to a E75.
Does that help explain the reasoning?
543 miles (PDX-OAK) vs. 847 miles (SEA-SBP), and the Q400 is considerably slower (414 mph cruise speed vs. 545 mph), which means flying a ~850 mile route considerably increases the block time for a SEA-SBP-SEA routing for a Q400 compared to a E75.
Does that help explain the reasoning?
Last edited by eponymous_coward; May 5, 2017 at 1:06 pm
May 5, 2017, 3:59 pm
#51
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,639
PDX-OAK and PDX-SMF are obvious outliers in the Q400 network (long flight hub to large market). There are only a few longer Q400 routes, to much smaller markets (SEA-STS, SEA/PDX-BIL...) I guess they just feel they have a captive feed/FF base at PDX to fill an adequate number of seats and no interest beyond that in competing with Southwest at SMF/OAK. They're doing a bunch of advertising in the East Bay now, and not leveraging that at all by offering a competitive product at the East Bay's airport.
May 5, 2017, 4:07 pm
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,397
PDX-OAK and PDX-SMF are obvious outliers in the Q400 network (long flight hub to large market). There are only a few longer Q400 routes, to much smaller markets (SEA-STS, SEA/PDX-BIL...) I guess they just feel they have a captive feed/FF base at PDX to fill an adequate number of seats and no interest beyond that in competing with Southwest at SMF/OAK. They're doing a bunch of advertising in the East Bay now, and not leveraging that at all by offering a competitive product at the East Bay's airport.
May 5, 2017, 4:07 pm
#53
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,639
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PDX-OAK,SEA-SBP
543 miles (PDX-OAK) vs. 847 miles (SEA-SBP), and the Q400 is considerably slower (414 mph cruise speed vs. 545 mph), which means flying a ~850 mile route considerably increases the block time for a SEA-SBP-SEA routing for a Q400 compared to a E75.
Does that help explain the reasoning?
543 miles (PDX-OAK) vs. 847 miles (SEA-SBP), and the Q400 is considerably slower (414 mph cruise speed vs. 545 mph), which means flying a ~850 mile route considerably increases the block time for a SEA-SBP-SEA routing for a Q400 compared to a E75.
Does that help explain the reasoning?
May 5, 2017, 4:12 pm
#54
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,639
I expect them to try to compete at the biggest airports in California. Q400s have a sweet spot range and 543 mile flights is not it. AS said as much when they placed the E175 order ("E175s more economical on flights over 400 miles"). Fix that and then expand east.
May 5, 2017, 5:16 pm
#55
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Treasure Coast, FL
Programs: DL Diamond, Marriott LT Plat, HH Diamond, Avis Preferred Plus, National Executive
Posts: 4,578
Could have swore I Saw one in BNA on Tuesday but I did have a couple of cocktails in the Sky Club.
I'm sure it was a 737 and I was hallucinating.
I'm sure it was a 737 and I was hallucinating.
Last edited by apodo77; May 5, 2017 at 5:21 pm
May 5, 2017, 5:37 pm
#56
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,639
Adding insult to injury, this year the PDX-OAK flights are often priced high above PDX-SFO on AS and PDX-OAK on WN. It's not hard to find PDX-OAK on the Q400 priced higher than F on PDX-SFO. I see lots of advance $63 fares to SFO/SJC that are $117 to OAK. I don't recall such a noticeable discrepancy in the recent past. I've moved some flying to SFO and some to WN when PDX-OAK on QX is not remotely competitive.
May 6, 2017, 8:11 am
#57
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: HH Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 10,458
Adding insult to injury, this year the PDX-OAK flights are often priced high above PDX-SFO on AS and PDX-OAK on WN. It's not hard to find PDX-OAK on the Q400 priced higher than F on PDX-SFO. I see lots of advance $63 fares to SFO/SJC that are $117 to OAK. I don't recall such a noticeable discrepancy in the recent past. I've moved some flying to SFO and some to WN when PDX-OAK on QX is not remotely competitive.
I'm sure the OAK flights will be replaced with E175's within the next year or so -- once they get a critical mass of them.
May 6, 2017, 9:03 am
#58
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,639
Their right to make the business decision to put E175s on other routes first, my right to complain about it
May 6, 2017, 12:25 pm
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,397
As for why AS is prioritizing E75s at SFO and SJC over OAK...well, if it wasn't apparent from their acquisition of a hub at SFO and work at making a focus city in SJC... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
May 6, 2017, 12:53 pm
#60
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,639
They could prioritize SFO/SJC and put E175s on PDX-OAK at the same time. 3x E175s to OAK is no addition of capacity. It would be a perfectly logical, conservative thing to do if they want to give people a reason to choose AS over WN. Spending a lot of money on advertising in the East Bay and then not offering a competitive product at the East Bay's airport seems like not an ideal business strategy. But as I said above, that's their prerogative just like it's my prerogative to complain about it.