larry70470

I am a United Global Flier (lifetime membership) and was hopeful that the New United would offer more full sized airplanes out of medium sized cities, like Buffalo, NY my base. Unfortunately after the merger with Continental Airlines they are using the Colgan Air propeller airplanes to both Newark and Dulles airports, those airplanes are frightening, I am off to Buenos Airies next week I booked Delta over United so I would not be subject to the propeller airplane. Size does matter!

channa

Continental had an arrangement with Colgan prior to the merger, and they operated quite a few turboprops for CO. Even in bigger cities like DCA-EWR.

I refused to fly them under CO, and I still refuse to fly them under UA. I understand they may be reducing that service now, but as you point out, people book away from lousy aircraft like that.

dls25

I don't mind the Q400, especially since they have added F and E+. They are much better than the CRJ or ERJ. I just hate that they are operated by an incompetent company like Colgan Air. I had two acquaintances die on 3407 so I refuse to fly them out of principle. I could not be happier to see them shutting down so that a reliable and safe carrier can take over this flying. I love Alaska's and Porter's Q400's though.

Yoshi212

I too am not a fan of these and actually paid more to fly on ERJ almost daily flight(s) on the EWR-BUF route. The flight being so short it is doable on an ERJ and the one time I had to do it on a Q-800 while I hated it...the suffering doesn't last long.

ULMFlyer

+1

I think the Q400 is a very comfortable and safe aircraft and would take it any day over an ERJ and a CR2. The OP shouldn't be frightened by the propeller, since it's a turboprop and thus not that different from a turbofan. The only drawback I see is that they tend to fly lower than jets and thus the ride is bumpier in longer sectors. In short ones such as BUF-EWR, or PIT-EWR which I fly often there's not much of a difference if any.

Now, like dls25, because of Colgan I avoided the Q400 when I had the option to choose ExpressJet between PIT-EWR. And that was even before 3407, when I learned Colgan was part of Pinnacle. So, while I feel for the employees, I'm also glad they're shutting down.

andrewwm

The Q400 is larger than most other regional jets?

And while they may have propellers, it's basically a propeller that is attached to a jet engine, the same type of engine on any other jet.

Finally, the safety record of the Q400 is as good or better than any other small to medium jet flying.

I don't get the reason people are so negative about them?

ULMFlyer

Probably because big prop = WWII technology.

Also, despite the Q, they're not really that quiet. But I find the ERJ a pretty noisy airplane as well.

I guess I should have written: "Probably because some people think big prop = WWII technology. "

TWA Fan 1

Well, a modern-day Q has very little in common with a WWII aircraft.

Sure, it has a propeller, but the engine running it is a state-of-the-art jet, it has modern avionics and a "glass" flight deck.

I know propellers make people uncomfortable, but there is nothing inherently "old" or "untrustworthy" about a propeller-driven plane.

In fact, some of the most amazing, versatile (and therefore safe) planes are driven by propellers, including the remarkable STOL Twin Otter and BN2 Islanders (both much older technology than the Bombardier Dash 8 series).

Also, let's not forget that there were jets in WWII as well...

As far as PMCO is concerned, the answer is, sort of, yes.

PMCO had a scope clause that limited regional jets flying for CAL to 50 seaters, so this meant the largest RJ's allowed were the E-135 or 145 and the CRJ-200.

The Q-400 holds 74 pax in its UaCo configuration. It is longer than any of the above RJ's, and also wider than the Embraer 135's and 145's.

edcho

Pretty sure that they are just phasing the name out (to Mesaba). The staff and planes should still remain.

ytjk

Not to get too OT, but I'd hardly call a turboprop like an engine on any other jet. 90%+ of the thrust comes from the prop--- But my years in a C-130 allow me to get a certain sense of comfort. Plus, you can always tell if the engine has good seals right away--- if it ain't leaking, it must be empty.

Cheers
ytjk

jrmcrm

I flew on an LH DH4 once. I thought it would be bumpy as the plane was small. It actually was one of the smoothest rides I ever had. Wouldn't hesitate to fly on it again.

WChou

The low bypass JT8D turbofans on the MD-80s flown by AA are significantly older technology than the PW1x0 turboprops used on the Dash-8. Actually, the specific model, PW150, on the Q400 is newer than the engine types used on the ERJs and CRJs. Not sure what there is to fear about planes with props. As others have said, despite the look, they are jets and otherwise bear little resemblance to those old WWII B-17s and C-47s. The upcoming geared turbofan engines to be used on the A32x NEO borrows concepts from turboprops to increase fuel efficiency.

TWA Fan 1

The point is it's a turbine, like a jet. There are no pistons, nothing like that, as you would have had in a classic propeller engine (and which still exists, just not on the Dash 8).

Also, the fact is that modern jet engines are really more like turbo props in some ways, because they have a fans that provide thrust as well.

In essence, the fan is like a propeller in a housing.

The bumpiness is mostly a function of weather and altitude.

Small turboprops are all pressurized and can fly above weather, but often they fly lower just because their routes are too short to fly at very high altitude (not enough time to climb and descend).

But there is really no direct correlation between flying on a turboprop and having a bumpy ride.

ULMFlyer

I agree with almost all of what you wrote. However, the Q400's service ceiling is only FL250, so she cannot climb above that in longer sectors to avoid bumpy rides. Part of the reason for this is that most Q400s do not have oxygen masks, although this option only increases the ceiling to FL270, IIRC.

But I believe this is only a small disadvantage given the shorter sectors they usually fly.

TWA Fan 1

Yes, of course, that's right. But, as you write, it's basically not possible to climb beyond 25k or 27k on these short runs.

The point is that if a mainline jet operated these same short routes, it would have to fly at the same altitudes and face the same weather.