Q400 is AWEFUL!

 
Old Feb 13, 08, 10:36 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1
Q400 is AWEFUL!

I flew the Q400 last week from PIT to EWR. I was really disappointed in the airplane. Everyone talks about the airplane, but I was not impressed. It was loud, we flew low (12000 feet, this should be great in the summer storms), service was awful and the flight took 30 minutes longer than the jet. I heard the flight attendants talking. They said the was shorter going back, so they were only going to do a water service. That is all they did... water! Gave everyone a glass of water. Other than being a nice, new airplane, I have nothing good to add. The crews seem miserable and it showed in their service. We never heard from the flight crew in flight or on the ground. The airplanes did not seem to have oxygen masks. Nothing in the overheads and the flight attendants didn't demonstrate how to use them which leads me to believe there aren't any.

The landing on 11/29 in EWR scared the siht out of me. I have landed several times on that runway in the embraer, but that was by far the CLOSEST I have ever been to the tops of the hotel roof and even more scary was the closeness the the high tension power lines near the train station. The plane skidded down the runway with the props in reverse and the pilots obviously standing on the brakes. We BARELY got stopped before 22R. I am also concerned about the maintenance on the airplane since Colgan has a less than stellar maintenance reputation. Colgan had the Beech nosedive into the ocean (Hyannis I think) a few years ago when maintenance messed up the flight control cables.

My suggestion... avoid at all costs.
COFrequentFlyer is offline  
Old Feb 13, 08, 10:49 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DCA
Programs: AA EXP, LT Gold, UA LT 1K, Bonvoy LT Titan, Avis PC, Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,007
We will be seeing more of the Q400. CO is planning to use this to fly from EWR to DCA. The reason being the low attitude avoids the air congestion and delays.

But I think it will drive people to the train or the DL shuttle. The flights from DCA - EWR have less passengers than before and this will be the lynch pin. Even the 3pm DCA-EWR - popular for connectors to CO international desintations is going from a 735 to an RJ.

Turboprops from DCA - NYC are considered history. Years back I flew a DL prop plane from DCA to Bridgeport Conn - every week. But it bounced around so bad, I switch to flying CO from Bridgeport to EWR to DCA. At least the EWR-DCA was a jet and in those days a Y up fare was A class.
cova is offline  
Old Feb 13, 08, 11:05 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CLE
Programs: UA GS+LT UC, AA LT PLT, Fairmont LT PLT, SPG PLT, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Diamond, Avis CHM.
Posts: 3,741
Thanks for the warning, I'll see if I can avoid the Q400 frequencies popping up on CLE-BWI and CLE-MDW.
ctownflyer is offline  
Old Feb 13, 08, 11:05 pm
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: 40 41' 45" N - 74 10' 18" W
Programs: UALCO Holdings General Member
Posts: 18,784
I was suppossed to fly one today part of SAN-IAH-PIT-EWR
But since there was weather issues the last 2 days , i got the agents to put me on a nonstop SAN-EWR and avoid being stuck in PIT in case the flights got cancelled or i missed connections.
rolov is offline  
Old Feb 13, 08, 11:13 pm
  #5  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PDX
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Plat
Posts: 11,475
Originally Posted by COFrequentFlyer View Post
I flew the Q400 last week from PIT to EWR. I was really disappointed in the airplane. Everyone talks about the airplane, but I was not impressed. It was loud, we flew low (12000 feet, this should be great in the summer storms), service was awful and the flight took 30 minutes longer than the jet.
I'm interested to know where you were sitting in the plane? Near the engines?

What kind of service were you expecting? 4 course meal? Foot rub?

What is wrong with flying at 12,000 ft?

Originally Posted by COFrequentFlyer
I heard the flight attendants talking. They said the was shorter going back, so they were only going to do a water service. That is all they did... water! Gave everyone a glass of water. Other than being a nice, new airplane, I have nothing good to add. The crews seem miserable and it showed in their service. We never heard from the flight crew in flight or on the ground. The airplanes did not seem to have oxygen masks. Nothing in the overheads and the flight attendants didn't demonstrate how to use them which leads me to believe there aren't any.
The planes may not have oxygen masks, I'm not sure. But then again, do you really need them at 12,000 feet?

There was nothing in the overheads so you assume the overheads don't exist?

Originally Posted by COFrequentFlyer
The landing on 11/29 in EWR scared the siht out of me. I have landed several times on that runway in the embraer, but that was by far the CLOSEST I have ever been to the tops of the hotel roof and even more scary was the closeness the the high tension power lines near the train station. The plane skidded down the runway with the props in reverse and the pilots obviously standing on the brakes. We BARELY got stopped before 22R. I am also concerned about the maintenance on the airplane since Colgan has a less than stellar maintenance reputation. Colgan had the Beech nosedive into the ocean (Hyannis I think) a few years ago when maintenance messed up the flight control cables.

My suggestion... avoid at all costs.
First, the incident at Yarmouth was attributed to both poor maintenance and the lack of clarity in the maintenance manuals.

Second, if the props were in reverse I'd be very worried.

The account of the landing is kind of strange as well as there is a taxiway right before 22R so who's to say the pilot didn't do exactly what he was supposed to.

I've been on a Dash 8 during a severe storm going into CLT and can say that I felt just fine as we bounced around and eventually landed (near mountains, at night) in ROA.
Hartmann is offline  
Old Feb 13, 08, 11:24 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Central Florida
Programs: Bonvoy-Gold, HH-Gold, Sixt-Plat
Posts: 2,043
so was it Full of Awe or just plain ol' awful?

HobokenFlyer is offline  
Old Feb 13, 08, 11:28 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Central Florida
Programs: Bonvoy-Gold, HH-Gold, Sixt-Plat
Posts: 2,043
Flew the Q400 HPN-CLE-HPN back in December. Reminded me of those SEA-YVR-SEA flight I used to do on QX way back when....not so bad.

Would I prefer mainline...sure...a Jungle Jet in 12A or 9A, you betcha, but it's NOT THAT BAD.

- HF
HobokenFlyer is offline  
Old Feb 13, 08, 11:28 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: UA PLT (MR Gld; Hertz PC), AA 2MM, Bonvoy LT GLD, GP Plt, Mets fan.
Posts: 5,054
Welcome to FT. Nice name you chose there...

The FT community is always glad to welcome someone who comes out flaming on their first post.

That said:

Originally Posted by COFrequentFlyer View Post
we flew low (12000 feet, this should be great in the summer storms)
FlightAware shows that, going back over the last 10 days (starting today), only once did CO 3310 (the daily Colgan Q400 flight PIT-EWR) operate below 25,000 feet -- and that was at 17,000 feet. FYI, of all the RJ-operated flights on this route today, none went above 25,000 either.

Originally Posted by COFrequentFlyer View Post
the flight took 30 minutes longer than the jet.
Tonite CO 3310 took 1:07 -- the longest in that stretch. The fastest was Feb 10 at 0:50. Of all the RJ operated PIT-EWR flights today, the fastest was CO 2511 at 0:46; the slowest was 1:04. So, it looks like the jet was 3 or 4 minutes faster.

Originally Posted by COFrequentFlyer View Post
The landing on 11/29 in EWR scared the siht out of me. I have landed several times on that runway in the embraer, but that was by far the CLOSEST I have ever been to the tops of the hotel roof and even more scary was the closeness the the high tension power lines near the train station.
If you look at the "Track Log" from today's flights as a sample, you'll see that the Q400's last few reported altitudes before landing (based on time) were in the middle of the ranges shown by the RJ flights. Obviously, not knowing when you flew doesn't speak to your flight, but one flight doesn't make causality either...

Originally Posted by COFrequentFlyer View Post
I am also concerned about the maintenance on the airplane since Colgan has a less than stellar maintenance reputation. Colgan had the Beech nosedive into the ocean (Hyannis I think) a few years ago when maintenance messed up the flight control cables.
Yes, MX was a primary cause of that Beech crash (Colgan's only fatality, I believe) -- but pilot error and a less than optimal manual were major contributing factors. See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...04X01459&key=1


So, what's your beef with Colgan? Are you a disgruntled XJT'er looking to get back at CO?
CO FF is offline  
Old Feb 13, 08, 11:40 pm
  #9  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: DL Diamond, B6 Mosaic, AS MPV Gold, UA Gold MM, Marriott Plat, SPG Plat, Nat'l Exec Elite
Posts: 16,679
The Q400 does have oxygen masks. Whether the flight attendants remembered to demonstrate them or not is another matter. I've been on more than one RJ or turboprop flight where the flight attendant either forgot to do a part of the safety demonstration, or just neglected to do the demo at all (as happened on a US Express DHC-8-200 back in 1997).
ssullivan is offline  
Old Feb 14, 08, 2:09 am
  #10  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: AA, HH, MR elite. Fly mostly AA/WN/B6.
Posts: 18,798
Horizon operates the Q throughout the northwest, especially on SEA-PDX. It's a more comfortable ride than most RJs IMHO. Great legroom.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Feb 14, 08, 3:39 am
  #11  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
Originally Posted by CO FF View Post
Yes, MX was a primary cause of that Beech crash (Colgan's only fatality, I believe) -- but pilot error and a less than optimal manual were major contributing factors. See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...04X01459&key=1
If the Q400, as a plane, had a better safety record, then I would be more comfortable. Given that it has had more than its share of high-profile problems recently, I'm not overly excited about the idea of teaming it with an outfit like Colgan.

Originally Posted by BearX220 View Post
Horizon operates the Q throughout the northwest, especially on SEA-PDX. It's a more comfortable ride than most RJs IMHO. Great legroom.
Is it actually great legroom, or do the non-reclining seats just make it seem that way?
pbarnette is offline  
Old Feb 14, 08, 3:53 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Wild, wild west
Programs: Marriot Rewards, Gold Hilton HHonors, SPG
Posts: 45
No O2 masks on flight as Q400 will not operate at heights where they are required.

32" seat pitch on all seats and headroom is 6'5''.

Cruise speed is >400 mph
Confirmed Must Ride is offline  
Old Feb 14, 08, 3:54 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: MUC (home), DUS (office), XXX (customer)
Programs: LH, AB, SPG, CC, Sixt, EC
Posts: 6,334
Originally Posted by CO FF View Post
Welcome to FT. Nice name you chose there...

The FT community is always glad to welcome someone who comes out flaming on their first post.

That said:



FlightAware shows that, going back over the last 10 days (starting today), only once did CO 3310 (the daily Colgan Q400 flight PIT-EWR) operate below 25,000 feet -- and that was at 17,000 feet. FYI, of all the RJ-operated flights on this route today, none went above 25,000 either.



Tonite CO 3310 took 1:07 -- the longest in that stretch. The fastest was Feb 10 at 0:50. Of all the RJ operated PIT-EWR flights today, the fastest was CO 2511 at 0:46; the slowest was 1:04. So, it looks like the jet was 3 or 4 minutes faster.



If you look at the "Track Log" from today's flights as a sample, you'll see that the Q400's last few reported altitudes before landing (based on time) were in the middle of the ranges shown by the RJ flights. Obviously, not knowing when you flew doesn't speak to your flight, but one flight doesn't make causality either...



Yes, MX was a primary cause of that Beech crash (Colgan's only fatality, I believe) -- but pilot error and a less than optimal manual were major contributing factors. See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...04X01459&key=1


So, what's your beef with Colgan? Are you a disgruntled XJT'er looking to get back at CO?
Thanks for enlightening!
supermasterphil is offline  
Old Feb 14, 08, 4:20 am
  #14  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 69,156
Originally Posted by pbarnette View Post
If the Q400, as a plane, had a better safety record, then I would be more comfortable. Given that it has had more than its share of high-profile problems recently, I'm not overly excited about the idea of teaming it with an outfit like Colgan.
The plane has a "history," but the majority of it is with SAS, where a bad valve is being blamed. That being said, the fact that it is only having issues really at one carrier makes it hard to believe that the bird is inherently unsafe.

As for the service issues in the air (limited service, etc.), my understanding is that the crew is operating as Colgan Air for Continental Connection, or something like that. Given the history of Colgan, one that includes the introduction of the word "wachuwant" into our vernacular, that is something that CO will have to deal with on a customer service level.
sbm12 is offline  
Old Feb 14, 08, 4:46 am
  #15  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
Originally Posted by sbm12 View Post
The plane has a "history," but the majority of it is with SAS, where a bad valve is being blamed. That being said, the fact that it is only having issues really at one carrier makes it hard to believe that the bird is inherently unsafe.
Sure, but that the issues have only occurred at one carrier (which happens to be one of the longest-operating carriers of the type) does not imply that the plane is safe. This is especially true when the carrier in question has a very good safety record, and where one particular type of plane is the only one giving them any sort of consistent issues. Compounding this is the fact that the faulty valves were found on virtually every one of the carrier's aircraft. You can give the benefit of the doubt to an aircraft, but I really don't see why.

I guess the question is whether you would fly SK? If one believes it is the carrier that is unsafe, then this would seem the conclusion one should reach.

Painting CO on the tail doesn't make the plane any safer. And it certainly doesn't make it something worth getting excited about, as many have done here. I know that we have more than our share of homers here, but we have a plane with at least some questions about its safety, which is at least partly being introduced so that CO can get around its more expensive pilot contracts (how many times have I had to read how great CO is because they do right by their employees), and which doesn't seem to offer much improvement to the customer experience (actually degrading it for those routes, like DCA, where mainline capacity is being replaced). All of a sudden, it is high-fives all around and many seem convinced that this thing is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I just don't get it.
pbarnette is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread