Seeing as Bombardier has done preliminary investigations already for a proper 90 seater Q400(not the reduced seat pitch product they offer at the moment) assuming finance was available and firm orders in the bag how long do you think it would take to reach customer? 30 months? 36months? more? Supposedly the current engines and wing section doesn't need to be reworked.

When was the last order for more than a dozen Q400s?

That's not the question.
An seventy to eighty something passenger Q400 with higher fuel burn than an ATR72 is not what the market wants.
A Q400 with near 100 seats has a Unique Selling point at the moment despite higher fuel burn than other turboprops.

It's not like the ATRs are selling like hotcakes... plus, im pretty sure bomb's priority is the cseries, its been, what, almost 12 months since the last order by AC

While I see a market for a 100 seat TP, with current engines, it's too late. Already, the Q400 does not offer enough of a cost advantage vs E175 for many airlines. A proper 90-seat Q400X (94-98 seats in ULCC mode) would have to compete against the E175-E2... against which the cost advantage would be even worse... likely even turned into a disadvantage.

The next TP, whether from BBD or ATR, must have new engines to maintain the same cost advantage versus GTFs that current generation TP's have versus the CF34.

It didn't stop Ryanair ordering 737NG even though they knew 737max was on the way.
They could use those older technology planes profitably for years before the new technology arrived.
If they have long term plans to re-engine they might as well get the stretch out of the way first as one isn't heavily dependent on the other.

leghorn wrote:

It didn't stop Ryanair ordering 737NG even though they knew 737max was on the way.
They could use those older technology planes profitably for years before the new technology arrived.
If they have long term plans to re-engine they might as well get the stretch out of the way first as one isn't heavily dependent on the other.

Two problems with that comparison:

1) Ryanair can get 737NGs (in bulk) much sooner than 737MAXs. A Q400X stretch wouldn't be arriving much sooner than any E175-E2 (if ever built)/E190-E2 considering BBD hasn't designed, built, and certified any such stretch yet.
2) Boeing has built ~6,400 737NGs since the mid to late 90s, meaning its development costs have long been paid off and Boeing can afford to be aggressive with its pricing. Again BBD has yet to design, build, and certify a Q400X stretch, meaning obviously it has sold zero of them and would still need to recuperate their investment.

A more apt comparison would be suggesting that Boeing develop the 737-10 not off the 737MAX, but off the 737NG. Which is ridiculous.

downdata wrote:

It's not like the ATRs are selling like hotcakes... plus, im pretty sure bomb's priority is the cseries, its been, what, almost 12 months since the last order by AC

So the near-official 50 ATRs for IndiGo and 20 firm for Iran Air in the past few weeks aren't your definition of 'hotcakes'?

I have trouble imagining a Q400 stretch. The Q-400 is a really long prop as is and stretching it would create some balance problems I would imagine. Plus as a poster mentioned before, the ATR is selling well and the 90-100 seat market is already covered by the E-175/190 CS-100 and CRJ900/1000.

It wouldn't be practical for the US market either because it would be well above the regional scope clause.

peterj324 wrote:

I have trouble imagining a Q400 stretch. The Q-400 is a really long prop as is and stretching it would create some balance problems I would imagine. Plus as a poster mentioned before, the ATR is selling well and the 90-100 seat market is already covered by the E-175/190 CS-100 and CRJ900/1000.

It wouldn't be practical for the US market either because it would be well above the regional scope clause.

The Q and CRJ cross-section are quite similar and the CRJ could be extended to 100 pax so I don't see why the Q400 couldn't. Plus the Q has center engines while the CRJ are at the back, creating even more balance and stress issues. IMO stretching the Q400 to add 3-4 rows wouldn't be such a big deal from en engineering perspective. But from a market and financial perspective, not sure how that would work out.

IMHO, the best bet for Bombardier would be to wait for a new generation of turboprop engines. The current generation of engines is positively antiquated. The ATRs PW127 is more or less a late 70s/early 80s design, which also forms the basis for the Q400s engine. Both types would benefit a lot from newer and more efficient engines, utilizing some of the latest technologies as seen in the LeapX, GenX and GTF etc.

Dash9 wrote:

The Q and CRJ cross-section are quite similar and the CRJ could be extended to 100 pax so I don't see why the Q400 couldn't. Plus the Q has center engines while the CRJ are at the back, creating even more balance and stress issues. IMO stretching the Q400 to add 3-4 rows wouldn't be such a big deal from en engineering perspective. But from a market and financial perspective, not sure how that would work out.

The Q400 has its landing gear further forward than the CRJ. The geometry during rotation would be a bigger issue for a stretched Q400 than with a CRJ1000.

The smarter move would be to get the Q400 more fuel efficient while simultaneously reducing the selling price BBD has not had a major order for the Q since Westjet.

downdata wrote:

It's not like the ATRs are selling like hotcakes...

ATR certainly doing better than BBD

ATR sold 80 frames in 2016 and 70(50 pending Indigo MOU) so far in 2017.
BBD sold 22 Q400s in 2016 and 00 in 2017 so far

ATR backlog is 292, while Q400 is 26 as of end of Q1.

Depends on how far the market is.

So, if one day, let say in year 2025, when bombardier have freed their hand from whatever they were developing and decided to release a new q400x, how long would it take from the moment they started to actually invest and work on it, to the moment it get delivered and EIS?

VSMUT wrote:

The Q400 has its landing gear further forward than the CRJ. The geometry during rotation would be a bigger issue for a stretched Q400 than with a CRJ1000.

Totally forgot about the rotation angle.... indeed quite an issue. Hopefully they won't make the landing gear even longer!

peterj324 wrote:

It wouldn't be practical for the US market either because it would be well above the regional scope clause.

Which is the problem with the Q400, the rest of the world did not need an a/c that fast and that large. The a/c was aimed squarely at the US market and scope killed it, just wonder why they did not know that when they designed the thing.

Dash-8's are still popular but getting up there in age, no replacement is available other than the ATR so...........

Rotation angle not the only issue, pitch angle at landing might be an even bigger one. Two ways to overcome that: revised flap system or higher speeds. The first is probably out of the question, the second would mean relatively long landing distances becoming even longer. Not what you want in a propjob.

If anything BBD should figure out how to make the Q400 cheaper to operate and more reliable along with being able to sell it at lower cost.

In many cases the Q400 is simply too much airplane for many customers. Its has overpowered engines, and the speed benefit is not many customers need or want. Its hourly operating cost are higher than the ATR and so it also its maintenance burden.

In many ways, the ATR is like a durable economy car that just keeps running, while the Q400 is more a pricey and temperamental faux luxury model that requires more attention.

peterj324 wrote:

I have trouble imagining a Q400 stretch. The Q-400 is a really long prop as is and stretching it would create some balance problems I would imagine. Plus as a poster mentioned before, the ATR is selling well and the 90-100 seat market is already covered by the E-175/190 CS-100 and CRJ900/1000.

It wouldn't be practical for the US market either because it would be well above the regional scope clause.

Plus, at how many airfields are 80-100 seat turboprops needed that cannot handle jet aircraft? Just order an E175-E2 or an E190-E2.

What about Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (YTZ). Porter already uses the Q400 and unless the Liberals have a change of face the CS-100 will not be flying out of YTZ.

1FlyingSquirrel wrote:

What about Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (YTZ). Porter already uses the Q400 and unless the Liberals have a change of face the CS-100 will not be flying out of YTZ.

PD only put 74 seats in their Q400s vs. the usual 78 in 'regular' configuration as those 4 extra pax would weight restrict their longer non-seasonal routes like YQT. Anything bigger wouldn't work at YTZ. Remember, PD started out at 70 seats.

AC Express Q400s, including those serving YTZ are all 78 seats, but the short hop to YUL is not long enough to weight restrict...and AC rarely fill up those YTZ-YUL flights as it is.

The market for turboprops between 90-120 seats, compatible with engines in development, seems to be interesting but not too large. Thus, it would be reasonable to be occupied by existing aircraft derivatives, reducing the investment:

A) ATR-72: Probably Airbus has already realized that the current platform can not grow significantly. Starting from a great customer base, but they need to invest a lot;

B) BBD-400: It is much more robust, but a derivative will have great difficulties with the characteristics of the landing and takeoff, which are fundamental to be the leader in this market. It will be coadjuvant, prolonging the life of the production line;

C) EMB-180: Proposal for a larger and heavier low wing turboprop aircraft using 175 E2 elements to serve the 100-115 passenger segment, diluting the aircraft's highest cost. External dimensions respecting the 35 meters of wingspan.

The Q400 could quite easily be stretched to 100 seats. It has plenty of power to trade range for seats, gaining an extra 20 seats with a range of around 1000nm...and keeping all of the current performance of the Q.

It would be a pretty much unbeatable sub 1000nm, 100 seater.

To my way of thinking, the current Q, has always been the 'shrink'...too much aircraft for the average 75 seat turbo prop role.

As for the rotation angle, changing the length of the gear wouldn't be that much of an issue since the gear is retracted into the engine nacelles, and modifying them would be a lot easier than the job Boeing has with the 737.

JoeCanuck wrote:

The Q400 could quite easily be stretched to 100 seats. It has plenty of power to trade range for seats, gaining an extra 20 seats with a range of around 1000nm...and keeping all of the current performance of the Q.

It would be a pretty much unbeatable sub 1000nm, 100 seater.

To my way of thinking, the current Q, has always been the 'shrink'...too much aircraft for the average 75 seat turbo prop role.

As for the rotation angle, changing the length of the gear wouldn't be that much of an issue since the gear is retracted into the engine nacelles, and modifying them would be a lot easier than the job Boeing has with the 737.

Let me disagree with your analysis. If technically it was easy and the economic results so spectacular then the hypothesis for non-concretization would be a lack of attention of the BBD board. I admit that their leaders are not the brightest but certainly the technical challenge exceeds your expectation.

Nean1 wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

The Q400 could quite easily be stretched to 100 seats. It has plenty of power to trade range for seats, gaining an extra 20 seats with a range of around 1000nm...and keeping all of the current performance of the Q.

It would be a pretty much unbeatable sub 1000nm, 100 seater.

To my way of thinking, the current Q, has always been the 'shrink'...too much aircraft for the average 75 seat turbo prop role.

As for the rotation angle, changing the length of the gear wouldn't be that much of an issue since the gear is retracted into the engine nacelles, and modifying them would be a lot easier than the job Boeing has with the 737.

Let me disagree with your analysis. If technically it was easy and the economic results so spectacular then the hypothesis for non-concretization would be a lack of attention of the BBD board. I admit that their leaders are not the brightest but certainly the technical challenge exceeds your expectation.

BBD has talked about stretching the Q400 to a 90 - 100 seat aircraft and the technical challenges were never cited as the problem; the lack of resources is the problem...as it has been for years. BBD basically has the resources for one project at a time, and for a time, they had too many that had to go exactly right, for any of them to survive. Some didn't, like the Lear 85, a billion dollar write off. The Global 7/8000 pair were promised a couple of years ago, and the 8 has been shelved and the 7 is another year away from EIS.

They only managed to survive with the two big programs due to cash injections. They need a bunch more CSeries deliveries before they can take on any more projects.