Mods: I wasn't sure if the Q400s remaining in service with F9 deserved it's own thread or should stay in this thread about new routes.

I am not familiar with the dimensions of the E90 so I am not sure if that particular aeroplane would be certified to operate at ASE. Many years ago the was a backlash to a proposed aerodrome extension because a very well organised small group fought very hard to prevent 'large' aeroplanes operating out of ASE. IIRC the aeroplanes being considered were 737s and maybe 757s. These larger aeroplanes would have allowed non-stop operations from anywhere in the USA (a big plus for Aspen tourism)
There are now a couple of county regulations with restrictions that could affect the certification of the E90, firstly the wingspan must be <96' and secondly a maximum mass of 100,000 lbs.

This all happened about 20 years ago, the protesting group had propaganda using a caricature of of a 747 Jumbo. Perhaps if the larger aeroplanes had been allowed to operate there would have been a reduction in the total number of movements at the aerodrome.

The E90's wingspan is *just* under the limit of 96', if it still exists.

That is my understanding of the situation. I think F9 could make a pretty good case that it is in ASE's best interest to keep them around and adjust the limit slightly to allow the E90 to land there.

Does anyone know if the E90 (or E70) is even capable of serving ASE?
AFAIK the CR7 is the only jet able to climb out on one engine safely. This is why the Q's didn't all go away...RAH didn't have any CR7s.
But, perhaps the new runway has changed things.

That is the reason the e70 was not certified. The e90 has different engines but I do not know if the climb performance is enough for ASE.

If the e90 can't be certified, rjet will have a bit of a pickle on their hands. A 4 plane fleet doesn't make much sense longterm. Do they get more q's and try to use them under cpa for more than just frontier? Do they replace the e45 flying with more Q's? Or do they just drop ASE?

Personally I'd love to see them give the Q's another shot under the RP certificate. Maybe they could buy piedmont?

I would hazard a guess that RJET-owned Q400s are not long for this world, though as a cost-cutting measure they'd be excellent.

F9 has a fair number of destinations a short hop away from MKE and DEN, and they can probably operate a Q400 for the same cost as an ERJ, but with 24 more seats. I don't think anyone will mind being on the plane for 5-10 more minutes vs. a jet if it means either upgrading from an ERJ or maybe getting a cheaper fare because fuel isn't as expensive.

OTOH Frontier would be growing a subfleet of aircraft that it shrunk a few years ago, and at that point they'd have four different types of aircraft to maintain (A320, E-Jet, ERJ, Q400). You can argue that the ERJs and E-Jets are taken care of by the RJET side of the house, but the fact remains that the only customer of the Q400s is F9, whereas ERJs and E70/75s are in use under other RJET brands. If they're going to cut something, the Q400 mini-fleet is what's going.

As for Piedmont, I don't think people would take kindly to switching from ERJs to turboprops of comparable size and significantly older vintage. Plus, US Airways needs those planes to run short-haul routes from Philly and Charlotte, though less so now that NYC is winding down...or will needs increase since DCA is winding up?

F9 *could* contract out to Horizon for Q400 service, or maybe use them to maintain the subfleet. The latter may be more likely since Horizon seems to be utilizing its own fleet pretty heavily at this point. Could be wrong though.

I have a feeling you are correct :(.

They could even put STRETCH on the Qs if they wanted. According to Wikipedia (I know, I know), the Q only needs like 25-30 passengers to break even on a route (I guess assuming a typical fare). It seems like it would be a perfect bird for some of the EAS markets they want to bid on.

Again, definitely agree, but they could swap the Q one for one with the ERJ. Now, again, the ERJ has minimal additional cost for RJET since they are using them for several other vendors. To get new Q400 vs cheap ERJs might just wipe out any cost advantage of the Q.

This off the wall idea would be to continue operating those birds for US, but would give RJET the advantage of having a sizable fleet so they can have big fleet economics even if only a large handful operated for F9. Again, I'm sure there are plenty of differences between the 100, 300, and 400 where this might not even work out that way.

Yeah while the ASE route definitely brings in a revenue premium I doubt it is enough to warrent RJET contracting to another carrier. I have a feeling the rest of the pilots at RJET would frown on that.

I guess here's hoping the E90 can get worked out at ASE!

Thats gonna be a NO! Piedmont has the most senior crews of the US carriers. 25 year guys that started there right out of training and have many years left to go. Their costs for crews is very high.

NYC is winding down. DCA will not see an increase in prop service. 10 Piedmont Dash 8s will be retired to the bone yard starting in October.

The Fleet commonality for parts on the 100/200, 300 and 400 are not that significant so purchasing an aging fleet has no benefit.

Something that could happen is US contracting RAH to fly Q400's along with the E170/5's.

Yes the pilots would but the F/a's would have the bigger contractual complaint.

Yeah I figured it was a bad idea the more I thought about it.

I like this idea though. With the price of fuel probably going nowhere but up (Thanks China!), I would not be surprised to see more and more prop service in short haul markets. Especially if they can find more carriers to pay for this service, it could be a good investment for RJET.

I personally love the Dash so i would have no problems working it! I would get the training now but I would have to be based in DEN and I dont want to go and get myself in the middle of all that drama.

MCI-LAS and HOU
 

Just announced
Intro fares for 59 out of HOU and 89 to LAS each way