Alaska Airlines has revealed plans to significantly simplify its fleet by next year, and this involves retiring quite a few planes.
In this post:
Alaska Airlines retiring A320-family & Q400 aircraft
Alaska Airlines has announced that by the end of 2023, the Seattle-based carrier’s fleet will consist exclusively of Boeing 737s for mainline flights, and Embraer E175s for regional flights. This means that the airline will retire all Airbus A320-family jets, plus all Bombardier Q400 turboprops.
For context, the current fleet of Alaska Airlines and wholly owned subsidiary Horizon Air consists of 320+ planes, including the following:
- 35 Airbus A320s
- 10 Airbus A321neos
- 11 Boeing 737-700s
- 61 Boeing 737-800s
- 91 Boeing 737-900s
- 16 Boeing 737 MAX 9s
- 63 Embraer E175s
- 32 Bombardier Q400s
In addition to the carrier’s current fleet, the airline has nearly 150 planes on order, including the following:
- 15 Boeing 737 MAX 8s
- 54 Boeing 737 MAX 9s
- 60 Boeing 737 MAX 10s
- 19 Embraer E175s
As it’s described, this fleet simplification decision is “consistent with Alaska’s low-cost high productivity mindset,” and “these transitions are expected to drive significant economic benefits.” Alaska Airlines states that these changes will allow for simplicity, flexibility, scalability, better fuel efficiency, and reduced maintenance costs.
Despite all of these planes being retired, Alaska Airlines’ fleet (including subsidiaries) should consist of 400 aircraft by mid-decade.
Prior to this latest announcement, Alaska had already revealed plans to retire its A320s by the end of 2023. However, this is the first time we’ve definitively heard of the carrier’s plans to retire A321neos and Q400s.
My take on Alaska Airlines’ fleet changes
A few thoughts about Alaska Airlines’ announcement:
- Alaska Airlines was already planning on retiring most of its Airbus fleet, so the A321neo retirement doesn’t come as a huge surprise; this jet was ordered by Virgin America pre-merger, and it would probably be pretty inefficient for Alaska Airlines to keep around such a small subfleet
- The elimination of Q400s is much more interesting to me, since the Q400 turboprop and E175 jets have the same capacity of 76 seats (though the latter has more comfortable cabins and first class seats)
- I wonder if on some level this decision comes down to the general pilot shortage we’re seeing, as it’s especially tough to get pilots to want to work on turboprops nowadays, when they could be working on jets
- Even with Alaska Airlines still having some E175s on order, this represents a significant capacity decrease for Alaska’s regional fleet, so I’m curious to see what markets end up getting cut, or if some markets transition to 737s
- The Q400 is a pretty polarizing plane — I know some people won’t miss these planes, while others love them
Bottom line
Alaska Airlines has revealed plans to significantly simplify its fleet, and by the end of 2023 plans to retire A320s, A321neos, and Q400s. The A320 retirement had previously been announced, but the A321neo and Q400 retirement is new.
From an efficiency standpoint it’s not surprising to see Alaska completely retire its Airbus fleet, especially with the number of Boeing 737 MAXs on order. The Q400 retirement has more implications, as it will significantly reduce capacity in Alaska’s regional fleet. I’m sure many won’t miss this turboprop, though.
What do you make of Alaska Airlines’ fleet changes?
I live in Kelowna (YLW) and the SEA-YLW route has been cut back over the last few years from 3 daily flights to one and now back to 2. I certainly hope that they do not cancel this route but there have been times where flights to YLW have been axed in favour of running a Washington State local run.
It used to be a direct connect YLW-SEA-PVR in the winter until they cancelled...
I live in Kelowna (YLW) and the SEA-YLW route has been cut back over the last few years from 3 daily flights to one and now back to 2. I certainly hope that they do not cancel this route but there have been times where flights to YLW have been axed in favour of running a Washington State local run.
It used to be a direct connect YLW-SEA-PVR in the winter until they cancelled the 06:00 flight. Now it's an overnight in both directions. Any other routing has at least one overnight on AC or WS. Charters never operate when we need them.
Fingers crossed they don't cancel completely.
1: alaska has been with boeing for years so airbus is out of the cards
2: I grew up flying on the Q400. It is my favorite plane. The way I see it Alaska is making a HUGE mistake. They should retire their E175s instead.
It will be a very sad day in the PNW when all the PAC-12 Q-400 logo planes retire. I hope Alaska will have the foresight to continue this tradition with their Embraer 175's. Go Cougs!
Alaska Air, makes good business sense for these changes but is risky, they might have to lower some prices at first to get people to fly Alaska for the public that pays attention to the type of aircraft they are getting on...with the troubles of the Max fleet and Boeing management troubles, people who notice will hesitate to fly Alaska...how ever, Boeing is a business to, and they to will get their act together to...
Alaska Air, makes good business sense for these changes but is risky, they might have to lower some prices at first to get people to fly Alaska for the public that pays attention to the type of aircraft they are getting on...with the troubles of the Max fleet and Boeing management troubles, people who notice will hesitate to fly Alaska...how ever, Boeing is a business to, and they to will get their act together to compete on the world stage, the Max fleet will end up being the safest planes to fly on, and a better purchase deal for other Airlines as well in the years to come. Boeing made gross errors in management and quality control, but so did FAA and FAA approves all civil aviation in US and surrounding international waters, what does that say? I'll fly on Max, will I have slight pause yes, I'm human, but Boeing planes are safe, and even safer now, sorry it took those sad and horrendous mistakes, to wake up. Alaska, good idea.
Given my choice, I’d pick an Airbus 320 or 321 over a 737 any day. In fact, I have on several occasions. But while I will certainly miss the Airbus fleet — just as I still miss Virgin America to be honest — this makes total sense from a business perspective: fewer types of spare parts; no need for cross-training of the cockpit crews, nor the FAs or mechanics; etc.
In re: the MAX…. I’m...
Given my choice, I’d pick an Airbus 320 or 321 over a 737 any day. In fact, I have on several occasions. But while I will certainly miss the Airbus fleet — just as I still miss Virgin America to be honest — this makes total sense from a business perspective: fewer types of spare parts; no need for cross-training of the cockpit crews, nor the FAs or mechanics; etc.
In re: the MAX…. I’m of two minds. On the one hand, there clearly WAS something wrong, and people paid with their lives. That is something that Boeing will have to live with, as will the tarnished reputation Boeing now has among large segments of the flying public.
OTOH, that plane itself has undergone rigorous testing, as has the software, prior to being “recertified” (or whatever the official terminology is for being allowed — the world over — to fly with passengers once again). I’ve already flown on a MAX and really wouldn’t hesitate to do it again…unless an A320/321 is a viable alternative.
No airline wants a Max aircraft its Boeings worst most dangerous plane ever produced I believe?
But at a certain price point when they simply dump them on the market to clear them out the profit whores at airlines see big dollar signs
And all risks aside Alaska decided to take the plunge /bullet and dive in head first.
Just another risk to consider when flying Alaska now.I’m sure Alaska will try...
No airline wants a Max aircraft its Boeings worst most dangerous plane ever produced I believe?
But at a certain price point when they simply dump them on the market to clear them out the profit whores at airlines see big dollar signs
And all risks aside Alaska decided to take the plunge /bullet and dive in head first.
Just another risk to consider when flying Alaska now.I’m sure Alaska will try to bury the Max logo
Who would want to admit they are flying an aircraft that repeatedly went into a downward death spiral and crashed?Might as well call the new fleet Valuejet (the former airline that crashed into the swamp and alligators consumed the passengers for lunch)
I happen to like Airbus Planes they seem quieter more comfortable and for some reason I feel better once I’ve landed and exited the plane
Love the A380 blows the overrated overhyped 787 Dreamliner away
The A321 is a superior airplane compared to the 737. The 737 is 1950's technology, Airbus 320 is mid 1980’s technology. I have flown them both at the airlines professionally as a pilot, any pilot who is honest will tell you 321 over 737 without question. Why an airline will buy the 737 Max over an Airbus 321 is because they are 50% of the cost of the 321.
737 is a much better plane, good fuel efficiency and lower maintenance costs than the Airbus! And made in America!
What has been stated is inaccurate and misleading.
1) the original 737 came out in the 60s.
2) the technology used on today's versions has advanced from the original. Engines, avionics, glass displays, and some fly by wire.
We might as well stay that Modern aircraft are technology from 1903. Am I Wright?
Good luck Alaska! I WILL NEVER step foot on ANY MAX type aircraft!! Good way to treat your customers on a DEATH TRAP!! Airbus is a MUCH better product!! Bye bye Alaska!
Sad that so many Airbus touts always forget about the slew of A32X that regularly crashed while they were sorting out their fly by wire software. Or some A3XX that have weight balance problems. Airbus managed to blame "pilot error" and got away with it.
The Max is a solid product with an incredible safety record. Too bad that there were two crashes within a short time - both with inexperienced pilots. The first had...
Sad that so many Airbus touts always forget about the slew of A32X that regularly crashed while they were sorting out their fly by wire software. Or some A3XX that have weight balance problems. Airbus managed to blame "pilot error" and got away with it.
The Max is a solid product with an incredible safety record. Too bad that there were two crashes within a short time - both with inexperienced pilots. The first had a reported but unsolved maintenance issue in the angle of attack sensor that created the problem.
Think I'll stick with Boeing. The 787 cabin environment is much better than the A350 or A330-900neo series.
Must admit the 777-300ER is a bit noisy aft of first but I recently survived 17 hours in row 43 after being bumped from 4G by QR mistake. Thinking back to a 17 hour flight on an EK A380 in Y a few years ago - the 777 was a better experience.
I also understand the efficiency issues, but the 320s and the few 321s are SO superior to the 737s for passenger comfort. But with the Seattle base, it is not going to snub Boeing.
I have flown roundtrip from LAX to DC in the Airbus 320/321s on American Airlines and they are terrible compared to the 737s.
What does American Airlines have to do with Alaska Airlines, Debra?
Considering I prefer the Airbus 320 series of planes to the Boeing 737 series, I'll clearly miss these. But it won't make me stop flying AS...
SIMPLE decission:
. . . even with over 189k Miles (as a European) in my AS FQTV Account, i will NEVER fly that airline (and NEVER did! before) :-)
. . . simply the WRONG airplane in the fleet.
Can all be so simple, sorry AS, you did NOT learn from the past!
I see the writing on the wall for widebodies, but I still really hate narrowbodies. I think that's the main reason I dread domestic travel while long, international trips in coach don't bother me as much.
I miss Alaska Airlines service into MMH
The Q400s are such a superior small airport plane it will be a shame to lose them. On routes like RDM where both the Q and E175 fly, it takes 5 minutes to deplane the Q400 and at least 15 on the Embraer. The rear entry and exit on the Q400 is so handy.
Skywest is also going to be adding 17 E175’s to their Horizon/Alaska network, so it won’t be a decrease in planes.
SeaTac is my home airport and I fly often. Alaska is my preferred airline- due to destinations and convenience, not quality. I’ve logged way too much Q400 time. It’s a great aircraft for safety and fuel efficiency. But, the cabin is a nightmare. The noise sets off my Apple watch’s health warnings and the cushioning on the seats feels like it’s never been replaced. Good riddance.
Have always love the Q400 and the fact that a craft beer and wine is complimentary. Recently flew one from Seattle and was offered a nice wine. Sadly, the bean counters win out and will eliminate this perk during the transition to the ERJ175. Horizon also used to offer a premium snack, but that disappeared long ago in order "to standardize" snacks across the Horizon/Alaska fleet. Definitely will miss "a la cart" baggage service that...
Have always love the Q400 and the fact that a craft beer and wine is complimentary. Recently flew one from Seattle and was offered a nice wine. Sadly, the bean counters win out and will eliminate this perk during the transition to the ERJ175. Horizon also used to offer a premium snack, but that disappeared long ago in order "to standardize" snacks across the Horizon/Alaska fleet. Definitely will miss "a la cart" baggage service that makes it so easy to travel on the Q400.
Will also add that I have flown Alaska over 50 years, beginning with Golden Samovar Service, SEA-ANC. Frequently flew between BOI & PDX, first on the Fokker, then the CRJ (wow, what amazing performance!), and finally the Q400 which took a little longer, but made up for that with the baggage cart.
I'll miss the Q400 nice quiet plane.
Paul, Me too I was reading the comments to see who else would comment on "Majorly", you were further down the comments than I hoped.
Lucky, what does "Majorly" mean would it be spelt this way? Perhaps, "Majority" could be used.
As a frequent Delta flyer, I'd love to see them take the A321s (and even A320s) off Alaska's hands if it thwarted talks of their 737 MAX purchase.
It's hard to imagine that the maintenance and training cost differential for Horizon's Q400 fleet outweighs the aircraft's lower cost of operation relative to the E-jets.
On short-hop regional flights, where the airline has little to no competition, and a jet doesn't have time to significantly exceed the Q400's airspeed, why not use the aircraft that's more cost-effective to operate?
I wouldn't be surprised if this partially a result of Viking/Longview not being able to...
It's hard to imagine that the maintenance and training cost differential for Horizon's Q400 fleet outweighs the aircraft's lower cost of operation relative to the E-jets.
On short-hop regional flights, where the airline has little to no competition, and a jet doesn't have time to significantly exceed the Q400's airspeed, why not use the aircraft that's more cost-effective to operate?
I wouldn't be surprised if this partially a result of Viking/Longview not being able to reconstitute de Havilland quickly enough for Horizon to order and receive new aircraft to replace their aging fleet.
The Q400 is more green than the E175. If you like the E175 for shorter or medium range flights, you are for global warming.
Why dont you post your obnoxious comment a third time just to cement your image on here!
The Q400 is more green than the E175. If you like the E175 for shorter or medium range flights, you are for global warming.
Why don’t you just say …. If you are for the E175 over the Q400 you are for Putin? Just as idiotic a statement!
Obviously Derek is an idiot!
Per the Seattle Times, it seems like the retirement timeline for the 321neo's won't be quite as aggressive as OMAAT reports:
"Shane Tackett, Alaska’s chief financial officer, said the Airbus A320ceos will be gone by the first quarter of next year. Alaska will still retain its 10 larger A321neo aircraft. Those are leased through 2030, although Tackett said, “our goal is to find a new home for them as fast as we can.”"
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alaska-doubles-down-on-growth-plans/
Per the Seattle Times, it seems like the retirement timeline for the 321neo's won't be quite as aggressive as OMAAT reports:
"Shane Tackett, Alaska’s chief financial officer, said the Airbus A320ceos will be gone by the first quarter of next year. Alaska will still retain its 10 larger A321neo aircraft. Those are leased through 2030, although Tackett said, “our goal is to find a new home for them as fast as we can.”"
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alaska-doubles-down-on-growth-plans/
That will be a good thing for DCA transcons as AS cannot use 739 or 7M9 for that. Also the DCA transcon has limited slots so more seat is always better as they cannot just increase number of flights on DCA transcons
As a frequent Alaska traveler, I certainly won't miss the Q400 flights from Seattle to Portland. Noisy and bouncy on those flights. Just had to fly American down to Mexico and back, and really missed the Alaska service and "feeling" from Alaska staff. Great Airline!
"it’s especially tough to get pilots to want to work on turboprops nowadays"
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? That's nonsense. You got some basis for making this assertion? Sure, everybody wants to fly the big iron for the majors (it pays better), but where do you think airline pilots gain experience before stepping up to larger, jet aircraft?
Dumping the Q400s will mean a significant reduction in regional service. This is really bad news for smaller cities across the region.
Nope. Horizon will actually end up with more planes because Skywest is also adding 17 E175’s to their Horizon/Alaska Air service fleet.
Thank you I love 737’s and made in America
The families of a couple of 737 Max planes full of people don't love them with quite the same zeal.
I heard that the only reason they still have the Q400 was the MAX grounding
Sounds like they're trying to outsource more of they're flying to skywest. Probably the reason why skywest is trying to get rid of their contracts with the government (eas routes) to fly into smaller cities.
Nothing like outsourcing to a non-union company and using this as union busting.
Please, please.."hugely", "majorly".... just stop. cease. end. discontinue.
Alaska is already using 737s on some of the routes used by the smaller planes.
I do have a (small) soft spot for the Q400. I really like going onto the tarmac, putting my carry on onto the cart and climbing aboard. And for a turboprop it's reasonably fast and relatively quiet. But the E175s are more comfortable and ultimately faster.
I don’t think this is related to the pilot shortage but purely cost based. Pilots prefer the Airbus over the 737 (for the most part). I know a fair number of colleagues that aren’t applying to Alaska or Southwest as they “don’t want to fly a 737 for the rest of their career.” I think a lot of passengers prefer the Airbus experience as well. The accountants on the other hand…
I would disagree that all pilots prefer the airbus. It’s a very polarizing opinion in the industry.
However I would agree that not many want to fly a 737 for the entire career.
Chris,
Please reread Brett's comment. He wrote, "Pilots prefer the Airbus over the 737 (for the most part)" - repeat - ***for the most part***.
You wrote in response, "I would disagree that all pilots prefer the airbus."
Brett didn't write, " ***all*** pilots prefer the airbus". He wrote ***for the most part***. That's a big difference.
I don't know if Brett's assertion is true or not, but it would help if we all (including me) comment on what people actually write.
I think it comes down to economics. The A320neo family cost less and are more fuel efficient than the 737 Max's and a lot more so than the 737NG. However, Alaska already had so many 737s that it's probably impossible to swap them out for a complete Airbus lineup and keeping both and having to have pilots and mechanics certified on what was 4 different types of planes is very inefficient.
It's odd they...
I think it comes down to economics. The A320neo family cost less and are more fuel efficient than the 737 Max's and a lot more so than the 737NG. However, Alaska already had so many 737s that it's probably impossible to swap them out for a complete Airbus lineup and keeping both and having to have pilots and mechanics certified on what was 4 different types of planes is very inefficient.
It's odd they chose the 175 though. I've always enjoyed flying on those planes but they are probably the least efficient current passenger jets on the market. Do they hope to save so much from having fewer types that they can cover the increased running costs?
If a new airline the size of Alaska with it's routes wanted to start anew they'd probably be buying A220's for any short to medium distances and a321neos, or XLRs for long distance. The 737 Max is almost as efficient (within 5%) per passenger seat mile but why go that direction to just give up 5% to your competition.
I'm sure that the Alaska board has Boeing buddies in Seattle too. Even though Boeing is doing everything it can to leave Seattle. That may have influenced the decision.
What they don’t mention in this article is that Horizon Air also has quite the maintenance shortage. They have lost 30% of their mechanics in the last seven months.
Will SFO convert to a 737 Max base? Alaska has no scope clause in their collective bargaining contract. Will this change with the retirement of the Q400? In talking with an AS Pilot, the A-321 Neo has been great for the airline lately. So much so they are training new pilots with the type. Its high capacity and dispatch flexibility has been keeping up with the passenger demand. I'm surprised they would retire the type.
I for one am thrilled about the retirement of Q400's. I much prefer the E175 as the cabin is much more comfortable than the Q400 and it is quieter. The only thing I'll miss about the Q400 is the free beer and wine on afternoon and evening flights.
Living in Seattle, if I can't find non-stop award seats to Asia I don't mind taking the Q400 to Vancouver to start my trip. It's like going to an amusement park: walking up the stairs to the ride, a short fun flight, then I spend some time at the aquarium at YVR.
I remember the economics (fuel burn) of the Q400 on short flights being stellar compared to jets.
That said, longer flights like STS-SEA seem to go on forever. More time to drink the free beer, I guess.
I won't miss the Q400.
It is a false statement to say that the Q400 is a pilot shortage-based retirement, at least in terms of pilots not wanting to fly the aircraft versus a jet. Although it is true at Horizon that more pilots wish to fly the Embraer, it is due to better pay. Since the Embraer flies longer routes, you get more pay, despite both aircraft having the same hourly wage. This is a similar pattern at other...
It is a false statement to say that the Q400 is a pilot shortage-based retirement, at least in terms of pilots not wanting to fly the aircraft versus a jet. Although it is true at Horizon that more pilots wish to fly the Embraer, it is due to better pay. Since the Embraer flies longer routes, you get more pay, despite both aircraft having the same hourly wage. This is a similar pattern at other airlines, such as Envoy, which needs to provide larger bonuses to incentivize pilots to fly the Embraer E140/E145. One could even make the same argument at SkyWest, where many CRJ pilots bid for the CRJ700 over the CRJ200 when bidding their schedules. Both turboprops and jets count towards "turbine time," which is the metric airlines use to determine your experience level in large aircraft. So this is not the issue at hand.
This isn’t completely correct. Most importantly, majors use to look down on turbo prop time vs jet time. I’m not saying that I agree, but back before the shortage of pilots, major wanted to see you flying a swept wing jet. Also, SkyWest does have a different pay scale for CRJ 200 trips vs CRJ 700 or 900 trips. So not only are CRJ 200 trips multiple short flights, but you get paid at a lower rate as well.
Boeing partially financed Alaska's purchase of Virgin America. Gee, I wonder why they're getting rid of the Airbus'. Duh.
Financially and operationally, this seems sensible. But, it is a pity. The Q400 is a great turboprop to fly, and it always seemed that having this equipment meant that AS was more able to serve smaller airports with shorter runways. I guess that's not as much of a concern than I thought. And the E-175s are good aircraft (though the fact that there's no overwing exit has always had me scratching my head).
As for...
Financially and operationally, this seems sensible. But, it is a pity. The Q400 is a great turboprop to fly, and it always seemed that having this equipment meant that AS was more able to serve smaller airports with shorter runways. I guess that's not as much of a concern than I thought. And the E-175s are good aircraft (though the fact that there's no overwing exit has always had me scratching my head).
As for harmonizing the fleet: yes, that's smart. While it's too bad that they chose the 737, it's also not the least bit surprising. And they have a big order in for the MAX series (can't recall just how many of which model), which will mostly fill any gaps left by the retirement of the A320 series aircraft.
The Q400 has no mid emergency exits either. Climate wise we‘d need more turboprops. Flying a Q400 is good training as it has less automation than the E175 and no autothrust, thus helping to acquire good basic flying skills. While the EJets are nice to fly they rather pamper you with their flight path centered HUD philosophy that facilitates flying with a less than decent scan.
Is there still as serious a pilot shortage with all the pandemic airline cutbacks?
Many of the current cutbacks are caused due to the pilot shortage. I can personally tell you, as a pilot in training, that airlines are offering insane bonuses to get people to come work for them. The shortage is particularly acute for qualified Captains, as a hiring drought from 2020-2021 is going to have an entire "missing generation" of people eligible to upgrade into the left seat. I just saw yesterday that Republic is offering...
Many of the current cutbacks are caused due to the pilot shortage. I can personally tell you, as a pilot in training, that airlines are offering insane bonuses to get people to come work for them. The shortage is particularly acute for qualified Captains, as a hiring drought from 2020-2021 is going to have an entire "missing generation" of people eligible to upgrade into the left seat. I just saw yesterday that Republic is offering a $60k bonus for Captains to jump ship. Expect those numbers to increase.
At least that "Proudly all Boeing" decal will be mostly true again.
We were flying out of Sun Valley 2 years ago. Every other flight was redirected to Twin Falls due to weather, but the SEA-SUN Alaska flight had no issue flying into Sun Valley. When asked why, the gate agents said it was because it is a prop. Might be wrong, but it seems like the Q400 could be quite the loss for some specific routes.
I'll take a ride on a classic airplane like the Q400 in lieu of a 1.5 hour bus ride to fly on a jet any day!
Regarding your Sun Valley story, yes and no. Horizon Air has a very specific, highly accurate, in-house constructed RNP approach into Sun Valley that can only be flown by their Q400s due to additional avionics upgrades and pilot training. SkyWest does not have the same for their CRJs. However, both airlines could expand their capabilities into other aircraft types if they wanted to... but SkyWest has never had the desire to do that.
SkyWest doesn't fly the CRJ into Sun Valley anymore, and they do utilize the RNP approach at Sun Valley with their ERJ's which has helped with minimums at SUN. They gained RNP authorization back in 2019.
As you stated, the 320s were on their way out, but were held onto a bit longer. The 321 fleet numbers I think 10. A small fleet and AS was using them across the transcon network in markets where the 737 is the right size. They were featured on the JFK routes, but a lot of that has been pulled down (LAX specifically), and I suspect JFK-SFO will get axed soon.
Why? The MAX-9s have the legs to cover it and then some.
AS may just quietly cut all or most routes that AA otherwise serves with the A321T going forward.
Says who? Why? This doesn’t make sense. Why would the airline cut routes served by the 321 that can be flown by other 737 aircraft?
321neo retirement will definitely causes capacity reduction for DCA transcons as 739 and 7M9 can't fly any of the transcon out of DCA due to short runway length at DCA.
Count me among those who love the Q400s. I love boarding from the ramp, walking up the stairs, watching the propellers start, watching the gear retract and come down and the puff of smoke as they hit the runway. Those are, in my opinion, the most fun planes to ride on of any major US carrier.
nicely put. I will miss Q400s and SJC-RNO hops
Why would anyone love the Q400s??? I'm glad i don't need to avoid certain seats anymore for fears of being stabbed by a propeller that breaks lose and penetrates the fuselage. The Embraers are such a huge upgrade.
Oh wow, I guess I never thought or worried about a propeller breaking loose, but I guess here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34TIukLCDec
But then again, non-prop engines have had failures too (remember the Southwest 737 where a woman was partially sucked out and died?).
Imagine sitting in the row adjacent to the MD-80 engines. not only is the nois horrendous but I remember a pax being killed by an engine failure that impacted in the cabin. all during boarding! I believe it was Delta and their old jets.
In my opinion the Embraers are a huge DOWNGRADE. They are not as fuel efficient as the Q400 on some routes like say vancouver to seattle, the E175 takes MUCH longer to deplane, and jets love sucking passengers out of windows!
That fear is less likely to occur than you being hit be lightning in your living room. I've flown the Dash 8 series aircraft and think they're the greatest turboprops out there (unlike the garbage ATR). When the weather is nice, they make for a truly enjoyable ride. That said, when the weather is poor - no turboprop is fun to ride and they're all far more prone to cancellation than a jet (especially a mainline jet).
Agree, Q400 has the worst sound of any turbo props. I felt sick when I hear the turbo prop when Q400 is sitting at a taxi way.
To follow the airliners(.)net narrative, maybe Delta picks up some of Alaska’s 320?
I doubt it. They’re about to place a huge order with Boeing for the Max 10.
I heard that the only reason they still have the Q400 was the MAX grounding
you write that they have 61 B 737-800s then on the next line an additional 91 737-800s. Do they have 152 737-800s, or should the next line say 91 737-900s?
"Airlines Airlines"
"61 Boeing 737-800s
91 Boeing 737-800s"
Makes perfect sense to do this. That said, I will miss the Q400s.