Q400's

[Hope777]

All,

With Republic doing away with the Lynx Division, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Republic-Air...ml?x=0&.v=4 , do You think US may talk about getting the 11 Q400's? Do You think it's possible Douggie will work something out with additional 190's going to Republic for the Q400's ? OR do You think Piedmont in the end will become just a Ground Handling Company ?

 

[Kneecaps]

All,

With Republic doing away with the Lynx Division, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Republic-Air...ml?x=0&.v=4 , do You think US may talk about getting the 11 Q400's? Do You think it's possible Douggie will work something out with additional 190's going to Republic for the Q400's ? OR do You think Piedmont in the end will become just a Ground Handling Company ?

As far as I know, mainline scope would not allow for the Q400s currently. I also doubt that Airways would be willing to spend money on any aircraft until the company has returned to profitability.

The Q is a nice plane and would pay for itself in the long run, but some of the smaller Dash 8s like 200/300 models can provide a quicker return on investment - which is probably where Airways would invest in Piedmont's flight ops (if at all).

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

As far as I know, mainline scope would not allow for the Q400s currently. I also doubt that Airways would be willing to spend money on any aircraft until the company has returned to profitability.

Ah yes, the idiotic scope clause that lets the "Repulsives" and "Mess-ups" run 86 jets but not for 70 turboprops to be flown by PDT or a contractor. One of the many ways US is messed up. Next time the fuel prices go up, it would be very nice indeed to have Q400s.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Technically US could pull out seats to bring capacity down to 69 and PI could fly them, but US probably wouldn't do that. And FWIW, old US didn't ask for scope relief on the turboprops in any of the concession negotiations (which go back to 1993) or when negotiating the transition agreement. They were only interested in increasing the number and size of RJ's. No union is going to give concessions and then say "How about we throw this in as a freebie since we're so nice."

 

[cynic]

No union is going to give concessions and then say "How about we throw this in as a freebie since we're so nice."

No, but demanding reinstatement of pensions, with interest, for the scope relief needed to give Piedmont Q400s was a little extreme.

 

[cynic]

The Q is a nice plane and would pay for itself in the long run, but some of the smaller Dash 8s like 200/300 models can provide a quicker return on investment - which is probably where Airways would invest in Piedmont's flight ops (if at all).

Piedmont lost 20% of their fleet over the last year, the handwriting is on the wall there.

 

[BoeingBoy]

No, but demanding reinstatement of pensions, with interest, for the scope relief needed to give Piedmont Q400s was a little extreme.

That must have been after I left and it's odd that nobody mentioned it here. Anyway PI can fly the Q400's. All the company had to do is reduce the capacity to 69 seats. They did it with the 170's which were certified for more passengers than the scope allowed at the time.

Jim

 

[Kneecaps]

That must have been after I left and it's odd that nobody mentioned it here. Anyway PI can fly the Q400's. All the company had to do is reduce the capacity to 69 seats. They did it with the 170's which were certified for more passengers than the scope allowed at the time.

Jim

Hey Jim, just curious here - if they did pull a seat out would that prohibit them from taking a jumpseater up front as well (assuming the other 69 seats are full)?

I do find it silly that the airline who calls itself "LCC" is more interested in flying 50 seat RJs on sub 300nm routes rather than turboprops. I guess the "LCC" mantra only applies to labor costs at USAirways..

 

[BoeingBoy]

Hey Jim, just curious here - if they did pull a seat out would that prohibit them from taking a jumpseater up front as well (assuming the other 69 seats are full)?

I've never jumpseated on a Dash and never even ridden a -400 so I don't know. Maybe one of the PDT folks will have the answer.

Jim

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Hey Jim, just curious here - if they did pull a seat out would that prohibit them from taking a jumpseater up front as well (assuming the other 69 seats are full)?

I do find it silly that the airline who calls itself "LCC" is more interested in flying 50 seat RJs on sub 300nm routes rather than turboprops. I guess the "LCC" mantra only applies to labor costs at USAirways..

As has been said, the ticker symbol should be LLCC; Low Labor Cost Carrier.

I guess Q400 - as fast as a CRJ on short haul routes, carrying more people, burning far less fuel, is just too smart an idea for the Sand Castle.

 

[john john]

PDT should merge PSA and go DOH
One big problem among many DH-8 pay is more than PSA

 

[Kneecaps]

I've never jumpseated on a Dash and never even ridden a -400 so I don't know. Maybe one of the PDT folks will have the answer.

Jim

I was actually just wondering about scope, not w&b or anything. Its more of a legal question i guess. Is the jumpseater a "70th passenger" or an "additional crew member?" Something of a gray area im sure, I have no experience in the matter.

My only reason for asking is that I do jumpseat with PDT from time to time so that'd be real dissapointing if the jumpseat became obsolete as well.

 

[a320av8r]

I was actually just wondering about scope, not w&b or anything. Its more of a legal question i guess. Is the jumpseater a "70th passenger" or an "additional crew member?" Something of a gray area im sure, I have no experience in the matter.

My only reason for asking is that I do jumpseat with PDT from time to time so that'd be real dissapointing if the jumpseat became obsolete as well.

I believe that the jumpseat is an ACM but you will be pulled for weight.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I was actually just wondering about scope, not w&b or anything. Its more of a legal question i guess. Is the jumpseater a "70th passenger" or an "additional crew member?" Something of a gray area im sure, I have no experience in the matter.

Sorry I misunderstood the question. I think a320av8r got it about right. Unless PDT's ops manual says differently (and I don't know that it does).

Jim

 

[cynic]

PDT should merge PSA and go DOH
One big problem among many DH-8 pay is more than PSA

Cheaper to shut down PDT and new hire at PSA. You lose all of the guys and gals with 20+ years and start everyone off at the bottom of the scale.