The 400,would be a better choice and if you ever want to know how successful this type of equipment has been....just ask Horizon Airlines out of KSEA/KPDX....they have run this type of euipment for years and are very good at it(flew the 100/200 for them)....their routes cover about the same area as kiwi....and guess what .......THEYRE MAKING MONEY AND KEEPING THEIR CUSTOMER BASE VERY HAPPY.........why,because they are able to be very competitive,and very efficent..........
Horizon also operates a large fleet of CRJ-700s and CRJ-900s (70 seats and 86 seats). These are Regional Jets, in the same fleet as the Q400s.
Regional Jets and TPs do not do the same job. If you are flying Auckland to Napier, then an E-190 with jet speeds and 102 seats is a bad idea for the distance. If you are flying Auckland to Dunedin, and the Q400 adds 30 minutes to the flight time (that is my guess, if anyone know more about the time performance of a Q400 on a 600 mile sector, please advise.) Comparison - DUD-AKL 660 miles, Brisbane to Canberra 593 miles. Qantas schedules shows that the Q400 does this sector in 2 hours 10 minutes, the jet does it in 1 hour 40 minutes.
What data do people use when they say the E-190 is expensive to operate? Are US Airways, Northwest and Air Canada complaining about them? The E-190 (102 seats) is still a fairly new type in worldwide service. The E-195 (118 seats) has similar seating capacity to a 737-200. A written down 732 may be cheaper to operate than a new plane with ownership payments, but the experience over in South Africa suggests that older 737s would be a substantial risk.