SOCguy

The Q400 departures plus E75s deliveries will result in a QX fleet of 42 aircraft (a 33% reduction from the current fleet). The whole point is to be able to get to a fleet that can be staffed. The current fleet cannot, full stop, and the fact that it isn't being flown like the same fleet was pre-pandemic is proof of that. The demand is there, the pilots aren't, they've gone to mainline and cargo carriers where there was a pandemic driven mass exodus of pilots combined with schedules that rebounded years quicker than initially anticipated when retirement was made so attractive to so many. That isn't a QX caused problem, it's a regional problem (see: OO trying to dump EAS flying). Make no mistake, this happening now and this quickly is driven purely by pilot and maintenance technician staffing. A single fleet was always going to be the end result - the Q400s weren't going to be around forever - but the move was significantly hastened by the pilot and tech labor environment.

There won't be furloughs and hiring will absolutely be happening continuously for the foreseeable future.

notquiteaff

That is more than I feared and doesn’t bode well for smaller out stations and their feeder flights to SEA etc. Isn’t that likely then also cause less feed for the AS flights from the hubs?

jrl767

absolutely :/

Tack

And for their OW partners. It’s going to be a vicious circle of frequency and route losses. AS/QX is estimating the need to hire 500 pilots a year through 2025. (Growth/Retirements/Attrition). The next 2-3 years, for all carriers, but for this thread specifically, AS/QX will have a certain amount of suck for those of us that prefer them over others.

Waitlisted

I've never done the math on this, but I wonder how much shorter time wise a 500 mile flight is using an E75 vs a Q400? Would this allow for more frequencies on said route? I know from flying PDX/SEA often when changing planes to somewhere else it seems in the back of my mind the EJet is about 10-12 minutes faster, more if they depart SEA to the south.

GUWonder

You mean 2025, not 2015.

notquiteaff

https://www.alaskaair.com/content/tr...o/our-aircraft

Typical Cruise Speed:

Q400: 400 mph
E175: 495 mph

There is probably a noticeable advantage for the E175 on some routes, but on others (RDM-PDX is 116 miles) it probably isn’t meaningful.

There are other differences: loading/unloading passengers from front and back doors, gate-checked hand luggage, …

I doubt it will make up for the 33% reduction in fleet size. Someone with actual knowledge should chime in, though.

ashill

I don’t have actual knowledge, but given the much lower cruise altitude of the Q400, the Q400 probably spends appreciably more of a short flight at cruise altitude than the E175, further reducing any speed advantage of an E175 once at cruise. Taxiing time is nearly as important as flight time on flights within WA, OR, and BC even once the door is closed.

ashill

Even headroom-wise, at 6’2”, I like the Q400 a lot. I can stand up fully in the aisle (though I don’t have 2” to spare, so a 6’4” person probably not quite). But I view the comparison as to an E145 or a CRJ200/700, all of which have much lower ceilings. If the E175 really does actually replace the Q400, as in existing routes continue to be flown, great. But I’m not optimistic, and if EAT or YLW get dropped, or even reduced further to single daily flights, I probably won’t be able to continue to use AS much at all. That would make me sad.

jsguyrus

As you point out, there is way more to it that cruising speed. The Q400 has the ability to stay faster longer on approach due to its ability to use the props as drag and slow down rapidly. Jets cant slow as rapidly therefore they have to start slowing much sooner than the Qs. For flights under 500 miles there really is no difference in flights times.

I think generally most people are supportive of the change to an all E175 fleet, its just the way they are doing it by parking planes before there are replacements is crazy. The fact is they would have zero problem attracting all the pilots they need if they would increase pay. You cant do that by paying first year pilots $44,000 (yes that is what they get paid), and using SkyWest to bid against Horizon to keep cost down. Simply increase pilot pay and give every Horizon pilot flow to Alaska and there is zero problem.

PotomacApproach

The E175 isn't just about speed, but comfort. If the thing could make it across the country, I'd buy the solo F seat.

jrl767

it can; just not nonstop

there are a couple of AS-to-AA E75 connection opps between SEA/PDX and DCA, but they don’t fit my schedule or budget particularly well (full disclosure, I went DCA-DAL-SEA in 2018 because it was considerably less than the nonstop, and the 75K upgrades cleared at booking)

mtofell

Yeah, I love the E175. By far my favorite plane to fly. Smaller capacity = quicker loading/unloading and less baggage at the carousel. I also really like the single FC seats. It almost feels like flying private.... almost.

Tide_from_PAE

I still count a summertime BLI-SEA on a Q400 flying at 12,000 feet as one of my most scenic flights ever. Even on a long Q-400 route such as SEA-RNO, the difference in scheduled flight time is around 15 minutes or less.

AA and CO used to offer a number of 2+ hour flights on the E145/140. Those were long, but still somewhat enjoyable in the single Y seats.

Depending on how much AS reduces frequency on QX routes, WN might find it advantageous to do a 1x daily flight to LAS and 1-2x daily to OAK or PHX as it is doing out of EUG and BLI. It would be putting more seats in the market, but would also stimulate a leisure travel market and provide connections elsewhere in the US, which is an expansion of G4's business model.

jsguyrus

I totally agree, those summer flights between YVR and SEA are spectacular!