Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5725706/

Topic: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-03-29 10:41:12 and read 17982 times.

I've been doing some reading, it would seem that both Bombardier and ATR are planning to build a 90-seat turboprop (with the former being simply a stretched version of the Q400). I was just wondering if there's a place for this type of plane with the Embraer E175 pretty much covering this segment (I'm thinking of Flybe in particular, who would no doubt have went for a 90-seat version of the Q400 had it been available).

Would a 90-seat turboprop generate a lot of interest from potential buyers, does it have potential to compete with regional jets of similar capacity, and is a good or bad idea? Just looking for people's opinions.

I found this leaked design of an ATR 90-seat turboprop. Note 8 prop blades instead of 6:



[Edited 2013-03-29 10:47:27]

[Edited 2013-03-29 10:47:48]

Topic: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: KaiGywer
Posted 2013-03-29 11:22:38 and read 17845 times.

The problem here in the US anyways is the public's perception of turboprops being old, slow and loud... I was looking at some tickets today online, and one even had a bold warning "Operated by turboprop equipment"... Making it sound even worse.

Personally, if it works out, I will gladly book a prop over a jet any day

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: Web
Posted 2013-03-29 11:51:43 and read 17700 times.

Despite the notion of props being old, slow, and unsafe, I think airlines finally using their heads and starting to build their turboprop fleets back up, and I only see this trend continuing. With their inherent efficiencies in short-haul markets, I definitely foresee a 90-110 seat turboprop being offered by ATR, BBD, or both to build on the trend and replace short-haul flying on large RJ (i.e. E-jets, larger CRJs) equipment and even A319/73Gs on short flights. That being said, I wouldn't epxect EIS for a good 5-10 years.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 1):
I was looking at some tickets today online, and one even had a bold warning "Operated by turboprop equipment"

I'm booked with UA on a trip with a YYZ-CLE segment operated with a Q300 and that "warning" is given, although they call it "non-jet equipment". I thought airlines tried to sell flights, not scare people off...

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-03-29 12:05:53 and read 17650 times.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 1):
The problem here in the US anyways is the public's perception of turboprops being old, slow and loud... I was looking at some tickets today online, and one even had a bold warning "Operated by turboprop equipment"... Making it sound even worse.

Ugh, I couldn't agree more. I hate the way people view turboprops. I personally love them. People complain about the noise, what noise? The cabin of the Q400, for example, is the quietest place you can be, certainly it's quieter than any jet I've been on, and its rate of climb is incredible. Not to mention the fuel savings of all turboprops is enormous.

Some airlines like to avoid turboprops because of this stupid perception the public have, giving ridiculous "warning" signs on tickets isn't going to help people's ignorance. I really wish people were more aware of the benefits of a turboprop over a jet. Very glad to see them making a comeback in recent years.

[Edited 2013-03-29 12:10:02]

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: mhkansan
Posted 2013-03-29 12:19:02 and read 17583 times.

I've flown aboard ATR-72, Q300s, and Beech 1900ds and the noise and vibration is comparable to any regional jet. A small plane with thin skin is designed to be light - it isn't the engines any more than it is the fuselage. I've found the ATR to be more comfortable in turbulence and the Qs to be fast - just as good as any jet.

I think the flying public ought to embrace large turbos, because one may have the ability to lower operating costs (and perhaps fares) quite a lot, especially on short, intercity sectors (ORD-IND, DFW-LIT, ATL-JAX) - places that need service with larger aircraft and good frequency. On shorter stage lengths, these aircraft would have a large cost advantage to jet and nearly the same, if not shorter block time of today's mainline jet.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: william
Posted 2013-03-29 12:19:39 and read 17577 times.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 3):
Some airlines like to avoid turboprops because of this stupid perception the public have, giving ridiculous "warning" signs on tickets isn't going to help people's ignorance. I really wish people were more aware of the benefits of a turboprop over a jet. Very glad to see them making a comeback in recent years

Its not the customer's job to ponder the benefits of a turboprop. American Eagle have banished their ATRs from DFW for a while now, but given a choice between flying on a EMB RJ or ATR72, give me EMB RJ anyday. As aviation enthusiasts we appreciate the virtues of turboprops, we appreciate the variety, but the customer could are less, he or she just want a comfortable flight, which means RJ.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-03-29 12:28:50 and read 17535 times.

In my opinion there was a market for a 90 seater a few years ago, but I'm not so convinced any more.

The major advantages of a 70 seat turbo-prop vs a jet are;

Runway performance
Cost of operation
Environmental footprint

But for a 90 seater stretch none of those points stand up against the next generation of 80-120 seat regional jets, with the exception perhaps of very short island hopper routes.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Thread starter):
I was just wondering if there's a place for this type of plane with the Embraer E175 pretty much covering this segment (I'm thinking of Flybe in particular, who would no doubt have went for a 90-seat version of the Q400 had it been available).

I wouldn't say that. The ERJs were purchased for expansion into Europe, which is why they opted for jets.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: BasilFawlty
Posted 2013-03-29 12:30:43 and read 17524 times.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 1):
The problem here in the US anyways is the public's perception of turboprops being old, slow and loud...

And because of that silly perception almost all US regionals now have zillions of loss-making CRJ's...

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2013-03-29 12:41:25 and read 17467 times.

This topic is turning into one of those epic A.net topics discussed ad infinitum every other month  

I would love to see one, and I hope someone does build one that is commercially successful. But I do wonder how well it can sell given how relatively big it is (meanining it won't be cheap) while having such restricting performance (speed). It just sounds to me like a significant investment for what is basically a niche aircraft.

I say this from an airline's perspective, not the OEM.


PS: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...urboprop-jv-with-finmeccanica.html

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2013-03-29 12:44:29 and read 17432 times.

If airlines weren't stupid, thanks to public perception, I would argue dozens of cities and hundreds of markets would still exist today if props weren't ran off to near extinction. I'm hopeful we'll get back there with these new generation props coming out to help bring a lot of the short haul markets back.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-03-29 13:26:18 and read 17289 times.

Quoting william (Reply 5):
he or she just want a comfortable flight, which means RJ.

Are you suggesting you can't have a comfortable flight on a turboprop?

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: william
Posted 2013-03-29 13:38:14 and read 17231 times.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 10):
Quoting william (Reply 5):
he or she just want a comfortable flight, which means RJ.

Are you suggesting you can't have a comfortable flight on a turboprop?

No, I have had many a smooth flights on turboprops when the weather is right. But take off the aviation enthusiast hat for a second, a RJ is smoother and quieter than a turboprop.

And yes, Horizon has successuflly transistioned from RJs to Qs. So I guess its possible for large regionals to transition out of CRJ800s to turboprops. Outside of Horizon, I do not see many regionals racing to change.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-03-29 14:12:59 and read 17138 times.

Quoting william (Reply 11):
But take off the aviation enthusiast hat for a second, a RJ is smoother and quieter than a turboprop.

I disagree, I actually find RJs louder. In RJs the in-flight noise is like a low rumble, in a turboprop it's a faint buzzing sound. In particular, I found the Q400 to be quieter than any jet I've flown on. Prop planes used to be very loud, but that just isn't the case any more. The noisy "image" has stuck, unfortunately, and that impacts the public's perception of turboprops.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: 777ER
Posted 2013-03-29 15:00:16 and read 17010 times.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Thread starter):
I was just wondering if there's a place for this type of plane with the Embraer E175 pretty much covering this segment

E170/175s need to be close to full for the airline to break a profit or have higher fares with less passengers. VA (formally DJ) no longer operates E170s because of the high costs involved and now operates ATR72s and E190s.

Quoting william (Reply 5):
the customer could are less, he or she just want a comfortable flight, which means RJ.

I doubt RJs can only provide comfortable flights. I've had plenty of comfortable flights in NZs Q300s and ATR72s.


NZ is rumored to be interested in the ATR90.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-03-29 15:40:42 and read 16896 times.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 13):
Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Thread starter):
I was just wondering if there's a place for this type of plane with the Embraer E175 pretty much covering this segment

E170/175s need to be close to full for the airline to break a profit or have higher fares with less passengers. VA (formally DJ) no longer operates E170s because of the high costs involved and now operates ATR72s and E190s.

Republic Airways recently ordered 47 E175s (with options for 47 more) to be operated for American Eagle.
Republic Airways Order 47 Embraer E175 (by queb Jan 24 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-03-29 15:54:17 and read 16793 times.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 13):
E170/175s need to be close to full for the airline to break a profit or have higher fares with less passengers.

Such is true of all aircraft, so I really don't see how it's valid to suggest it's unique to the ERJ170/175.

Different aircraft work best on different stages. If you are operating mainly 500km routes then the efficiency of the jet really takes over.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: L1011
Posted 2013-03-29 16:41:57 and read 16374 times.

If they want a turboprop of that size, why not build one similar to the Electra? The Electra was the most comfortable turboprop I've ever flown on.

Bob Bradley

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-03-29 16:44:59 and read 16349 times.

There should definitely be a market for 90 seat turboprops, they will provide almost unbeatable low cost per seat for airlines. However, fuel prices will probably need to go up a bit more for airlines to push for it's launch. GE and PW are targeting 10 to 15% fuel efficiency for the next generation of turboprop engines.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2013-03-29 16:49:01 and read 16309 times.

I haven't flown on the new ATRs or Qs, but the previous generation ATRs are horrid loud and vibrate a lot. There is no way to compare a jet to that thing. It's more comparable to a Cessna 172 in terms of comfort.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: ZuluAlpha
Posted 2013-03-29 17:05:24 and read 16150 times.

I can defiantly see a market for a 90 seat prop service here in Australia. Especially to the remote, regional locations for FIFO work for the mines. It would only work however if the proposed 90 seat aircraft has the same / similar take off and landing capabilities as its 70 seater market.

Some of the remote airport locations (especially in Queensland) do not have the length / strength to handle a jet, and the local councils of these remote regions do not have the monies to strengthen / lengthen the runway. It would also have to have great range as well (like the Q400 already has with its non stop SYD GLT service)

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-03-29 17:08:32 and read 16127 times.

Quoting L1011 (Reply 16):
If they want a turboprop of that size, why not build one similar to the Electra?

Too heavy, and a 4-engine turboprop would be uneconomic with today's costs and deregulated fares.

The empty weight of the Electra was only about 12% less than the maximum takeoff weight of the Q400 and at MTOW the Electra was about 75% heavier.

Interestingly, the Q400 is 3 feet longer than the Electra. Many Electras operated with fewer seats than today's Q400s.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-03-29 17:17:39 and read 16047 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 17):

There should definitely be a market for 90 seat turboprops, they will provide almost unbeatable low cost per seat for airlines.

On some short routes perhaps, but props are about to go up against a new generation of ultra quiet, ultra fuel efficient jet engines. The CS100 brings 20% fuel savings and a 20dB margin to CH4 noise regulations to its class. I expect the MRJ and ERJ-NG to offer similarly game changing economics and environmental benefits. In fact the CS100 will be quieter than an ATR or Q400 - so long as it meets spec, but with Bombardier being very bullish recently I have no reason to doubt this.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-03-29 17:51:22 and read 15791 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 21):
On some short routes perhaps, but props are about to go up against a new generation of ultra quiet, ultra fuel efficient jet engines. The CS100 brings 20% fuel savings and a 20dB margin to CH4 noise regulations to its class.

Indeed, short routes are where turboprobs excel and will keep doing so more efficiently than any jet. As mentioned earlier, GE & PW are looking into turboprop engines aiming for 15% fuel efficiency over the engines of today. In other words, the 90 seat turboprop aircraft will grow in size whilst consuming even less fuel....further reducing it's cost per seat/

Whilst the C-series is bringing improved fuel efficiency, it is still heavier and has more capacity. Thus not making it the most efficient aircraft for routes where tuboprobs are most suited. The C-series is generally targeting a different market to that of the turboprobs and I believe there is definitely a market for larger turboprobs.

Regarding the noise, it is still not a major issue as I can't think of any airports which have excluded current gen turboprops because of noise. Plus I'd expect even further noise reduction with regard to the next gen of turboprobs....looking at the the 90-seat ATR, the 8 bladed prob should enable lower rpm thus reducing noise.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: zotan
Posted 2013-03-29 18:25:00 and read 15578 times.

I work in the aircraft leasing industry and the ATR 72-600 is quickly reshaping how turboprops are viewed. The US is a bit of an exception, but the rest of the world (and especially Asia and Latin America) have fallen in love with the airplane and are making it a key aircraft in their fleet.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-03-29 19:28:42 and read 15214 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 22):
Indeed, short routes are where turboprobs excel and will keep doing so more efficiently than any jet. As mentioned earlier, GE & PW are looking into turboprop engines aiming for 15% fuel efficiency over the engines of today. In other words, the 90 seat turboprop aircraft will grow in size whilst consuming even less fuel....further reducing it's cost per seat/

I wouldn't say that for certain, the short routes are getting shorter. The tipping point for Q400 vs E175 is around 300 miles and shrinking - supposing both next gen engines achieve their targets, the advantage still falls in favor of the jet. The exception here is the ATR 72 which has exceptional economics, but the speed means it doesn't work so well on longer routes.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 22):
Whilst the C-series is bringing improved fuel efficiency, it is still heavier and has more capacity. Thus not making it the most efficient aircraft for routes where tuboprobs are most suited. The C-series is generally targeting a different market to that of the turboprobs and I believe there is definitely a market for larger turboprobs.

The point I was making is that the same advances will be applied to aircraft which compete directly with current 70 seat turboprops. The C Series is only relevant here because it is first to market and appears to be proving the technology.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 22):
Regarding the noise, it is still not a major issue as I can't think of any airports which have excluded current gen turboprops because of noise.

You're looking at it back to front. Many regional airports and the communities around them are opposed to jet aircraft being introduced because they are nosier than turbo-props. Now there is a large regional jet which is quieter than a Q400/ATR72. Imagine the same technology, with de-rated/smaller engines, on a 70-90 seat jet like the smaller E Jets or the MRJ - I'd be highly surprised if they weren't quieter still. I'm sure the next generation of turbo-props will see decreases too, but that's like polishing an apple when the public are interested in having an orange.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: francoflier
Posted 2013-03-29 19:31:25 and read 15749 times.

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 4):
I think the flying public ought to embrace large turbos,

The flying public might well have to.

For all the cons of a Tprop, airlines can't argue with a much lighter fuel bill, especially as fuel is an increasing proportion of the operating cost, even on short flights.

While the price of fuel seems to have stabilized, somewhat, these days, it is really only a matter of time before it starts increasing, likely faster than inflation.

The day the airlines start buying Tprops in large quantities again, I'm guessing they'll be done with these ridiculous warning notices.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: silentbob
Posted 2013-03-29 20:52:29 and read 15338 times.

The regional model is changing, I don't think you'll see many airplanes with less than 90 seats flying for an airline in a decade.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2013-03-29 20:57:39 and read 15607 times.

SCOPE might be a limiting factor. Turboprops can also fall under scope clauses. At AA even the ATRs fell under scope. Usually how this would happen is that regional ASMs can only be a certain % of mainline ASMs. So any regional plane would be limited.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 18):

If you think the older ATR42s were loud and horrid, you obviously never had the pleasure of flying a plane with RR Darts. Shrill high pitched scream. Allison turbo props on the Convairs were more tolerable.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-03-29 22:15:42 and read 15232 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 21):
On some short routes perhaps, but props are about to go up against a new generation of ultra quiet, ultra fuel efficient jet engines.

The next generation of jets will perhaps be as fuel-efficient as the turboprops of today. But the next generation of turboprops will be more efficient still, so the gap between jets and turboprops isn't really going to close.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-03-30 00:48:35 and read 14682 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 24):
I'm sure the next generation of turbo-props will see decreases too, but that's like polishing an apple when the public are interested in having an orange.

I can't comprehend the logic behind that statement, Q400 & ATR (version 500/600) already meet all current noise requirements, the next gen turboprobs will certainly go down as well (I do remember there being a significant decrease in noise levels between the first ATR version and the current version -600 and they use essentially the same core engine) Hence you too can picture the level of improvements regarding sound levels e.g more efficient blade design, lower rpm, quieter core etc)

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 24):
The tipping point for Q400 vs E175 is around 300 miles and shrinking - supposing both next gen engines achieve their targets, the advantage still falls in favor of the jet

Sorry but I disagree, we concluded a fleet planning evaluation a few weeks ago and we compared the Q400 and E175 @ 31" pitch resulting in 76 and 86 seats respectively. The Q400 offered lower costs per seat until 440nm (despite having a 15min slower block time @ that range) and still had a lower fuel burn till roughly 850nm. This of course varies depending on airline configuration and the region involved. I would post the data but I doubt i'm allowed to.
My point is, the 90 seat props being looked at by bombardier and ATR will carry more pax whilst burning even less fuel than the Q400 and the ATR....that will drop the cost per seat to a region even next gen regional jets cannot touch on routes under 500nm.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 28):
The next generation of jets will perhaps be as fuel-efficient as the turboprops of today. But the next generation of turboprops will be more efficient still, so the gap between jets and turboprops isn't really going to close.

Exactly what I was trying to say.....thank you.   

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: Ty134A
Posted 2013-03-30 04:03:00 and read 13857 times.

After flying the Il-18, I am pretty sure there is a great market for something in the size of an Il-18, with options of going a bit bigger and a bit smaller. 2+3 (maybe 3+3) cabin comes to mind. And besides, the comfort on the Il-18 was great, and the plane was not loud at all inside. So I think that on shorter distances (basically all off Europe) the atvantages of a 2 engined 100 seat turboprop would be an argument for it. But I don't see it being a streech of an existing model, not of the ATR nor the Dashs... And as we know, speed is never an argument over economy, or we would have seen more CV880 CV990 ies.

From a plane point of view, the Il-18 is not even bad in terms of todays requirements. It could even do runs up to 6500km and has a quite good performance. And we're talking about a 50's design, just imagine what we can do today. Any aircraft in this category could substitute any Fokker 70/100, classic 733/5 and even the smaller new gens. And I am sure 95% of the flying public would not see a difference between a turboprop and a jet aircraft, espesially if the fares are less...

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-03-30 04:16:31 and read 13806 times.

I just wanted to share this, to show just how quiet the Q400 is (a few comments back we were comparing engine noise between jets and turboprops, so this is relevant). Listen to just how quiet the engines are when fully powered up and speeding along the runway - apart from a light buzzing sound, all you can hear is the wind rushing past:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzVn8UfwDu8

Now just imagine how quiet the next generation of turboprops will be - not to mention being possibly faster and even more fuel efficient. I can say with confidence that many airlines will opt for regional turboprops over regional jets, should ATR or Bombardier produce a 90-seater turboprop. I just love turboprops  

Does anyone notice how fast the Q400 climbs? It's the Ferrari of the sky...

[Edited 2013-03-30 04:19:19]

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-03-30 04:29:55 and read 13690 times.

Well there was a thread recently about ATR studying a 90 seater. They wanted for it to be a new plane but with as much commonality with the current ones as possible, including similar engines (not more powerful and expensive like the ones the Q400 uses).

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: mbm3
Posted 2013-03-30 05:56:43 and read 13238 times.

Quoting Web (Reply 2):
I'm booked with UA on a trip with a YYZ-CLE segment operated with a Q300 and that "warning" is given, although they call it "non-jet equipment". I thought airlines tried to sell flights, not scare people off...

I believe there is some sort of regulation regarding this notice.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 10):
Are you suggesting you can't have a comfortable flight on a turboprop?

I think many Americas equate turboprops to the tiny EMBs and the old ATRs of the 90s that were, in my opinion, awful at best and why the RJ generation was born. I happen to enjoy the new Q4s and in most situation as as PAX prefer them over a ERJ and in any situation prefer them over a CRJ.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 29):
Sorry but I disagree, we concluded a fleet planning evaluation a few weeks ago and we compared the Q400 and E175 @ 31" pitch resulting in 76 and 86 seats respectively. The Q400 offered lower costs per seat until 440nm (despite having a 15min slower block time @ that range) and still had a lower fuel burn till roughly 850nm. This of course varies depending on airline configuration and the region involved. I would post the data but I doubt i'm allowed to.

Great info, thanks for sharing what you could.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: ThePinnacleKid
Posted 2013-03-30 06:48:48 and read 12959 times.

It isn't just the traveling public in the US... and it's not just uneducated that dislike turboprops... I'm an airline pilot.. I certainly know their safety, reliability (or lack there of), and financial performance... but I still dislike and avoid turboprops... I would rather be cramped in a tiny CRJ-200 than a Q400... I hate the Q4 and CR2 with a passion but Q4 is the only plane I make a point to avoid at all cost, even on deadheads. As far as the E145 series.. give me that over any CRJ product and the only RJ I find better is the EMB's.

One random area that most don't touch on here with the never ending TP vs RJ arguments... for a lot of carriers and the demands of route flexibility, the range/time factor becomes a major player because while the Q400 may be more efficient on the IAH-DFW run than say a CRJ-700... the CRJ-700 can continue right on to LAX/SFO without skipping a beat and make it a wash or even outperform the Q400... Sometimes the flexibility of scheduling is more important than the short segment minor victories of a prop (esp. true in the US where distances vary greatly between major markets)

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: BasilFawlty
Posted 2013-03-30 07:02:46 and read 12916 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 32):
Well there was a thread recently about ATR studying a 90 seater. They wanted for it to be a new plane but with as much commonality with the current ones as possible, including similar engines (not more powerful and expensive like the ones the Q400 uses).

Wise choice, the Q400 is a great aircraft but too expensive for many airlines, hence why ATR has a huge order backlog and Bombardier hasn't.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-03-30 07:20:25 and read 12778 times.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 28):
The next generation of jets will perhaps be as fuel-efficient as the turboprops of today. But the next generation of turboprops will be more efficient still, so the gap between jets and turboprops isn't really going to close.

I'm not saying it will close completely, just that it will shrink further. And that's the problem when discussing the viability of a 90 seat turbo-prop - the competitive edge is getting smaller and the market tougher.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 29):
I can't comprehend the logic behind that statement

It's simple, the public generally prefer flying on jets but the communities around airports would rather have turbo-prop services, because they are quieter. This is something I've researched extensively, there is a somewhat hysterical fear of the jet engine which makes people imagine that their local airport is about to turn into a second Heathrow as soon as regional jets are mentioned. But now it seems possible to operate jet services with lower noise footprints, and that is a more significant development than shedding a few EPNdB off turbo-props.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 29):
Sorry but I disagree, we concluded a fleet planning evaluation a few weeks ago and we compared the Q400 and E175 @ 31" pitch resulting in 76 and 86 seats respectively. The Q400 offered lower costs per seat until 440nm (despite having a 15min slower block time @ that range) and still had a lower fuel burn till roughly 850nm. This of course varies depending on airline configuration and the region involved. I would post the data but I doubt i'm allowed to.

The key being the variation - those ranges are significantly more than the figures I have (and no I wouldn't suggest posting them, I'm not about to do so and break my NDAs).

Quoting waly777 (Reply 29):
My point is, the 90 seat props being looked at by bombardier and ATR will carry more pax whilst burning even less fuel than the Q400 and the ATR....that will drop the cost per seat to a region even next gen regional jets cannot touch on routes under 500nm.

And that's what I'm suggesting exercising caution about saying. The details I have point to the economics of turbo-props getting better (~13-15%), but not to the same margin as the next generation of regional jets (~20+%), meaning the gap will narrow. Of course I'd love to be proved wrong and for ATR or Bombardier to pull a rabbit out of the hat, but for now the RJ vs TP pendulum appears to be swinging back again.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: flylku
Posted 2013-03-30 09:25:41 and read 12077 times.

It is my understanding that the more recent turboprops have active noise reduction. Is this correct? Which ones?

I should think a 90 seater would be great for a short high density route. Maybe even a shuttle service that is very short.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: bohica
Posted 2013-03-30 09:39:08 and read 12034 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 27):
If you think the older ATR42s were loud and horrid, you obviously never had the pleasure of flying a plane with RR Darts. Shrill high pitched scream.

I miss the F-27's.   Not taking away from your comment about the RR Darts, but any airplane powered by a Garrett engine is louder than any ATR42. ie SWM, J31/J32, J41.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-03-30 14:16:26 and read 11477 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 27):
If you think the older ATR42s were loud and horrid, you obviously never had the pleasure of flying a plane with RR Darts. Shrill high pitched scream. Allison turbo props on the Convairs were more tolerable.

The Dart's distinctive sound was more noticeable outside than inside. I've flown on quite a few Dart-powered aircraft and always found them quite smooth and not overly loud, especially compared to the piston-engine types they replaced. Even the first Dart-powered type, the Vickers Viscount, was fairly quiet inside.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: ZuluAlpha
Posted 2013-03-30 15:09:39 and read 11408 times.

Quoting flylku (Reply 37):
It is my understanding that the more recent turboprops have active noise reduction. Is this correct? Which ones?

From Bombardier, it started with the Dash 8 - Q200 QF advertised it quite heavily where the Q meant for, yep, quiet. Since then with the -300 and the -400 models they have all be. It works like your 'noise cancelling' headphones where it sends out a signal to help neutralise the sound of the props.

As for the ATR's I have no idea, though I am sure they do have something similar

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: Wingtips56
Posted 2013-03-30 15:29:18 and read 11371 times.

For noise, it would be tough to beat the original Handley Page Jetsteams, HPJ-137, with the Turbomeca Astazsou engines......on the occasion the darn things would start. We could hear them landing from inside the terminal over anything else...one never snuck up on us. We had regular passengers that would wear the ear muff headsets on the flights.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Apoll...d=4297cd921771eb689e6e813937f3e337

But back on subject,
The image in the original post is, I believe, from an older thread that included a stretch of the current ATR 72. But for 90 seats, would it indeed be a stretch, or would it be a whole new frame? Cargo between the cockpit and passenger cabin like the current ATR, under the floor, or aft? And forgive my remedial understanding, but what is more efficient: low or high wing? Is the high wing of the DHC-7 & -8, and ATR 42/72 more efficient than a low wing, or is it necessary for props'ground clearance if you don't want the cabin to be up on long legs with a long stairway up? It was a long way up to the Convair 440-580 series. Would the 8-blade props be shorter, and therefore allow a low wing, again, if it helped efficiency? I'm picturing something like an E190 with props.

[Edited 2013-03-30 15:30:11]

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: Pihero
Posted 2013-03-30 16:02:16 and read 11319 times.

Most of you, busy on the speed and comfort discussion forget one of the most important asets of a turboprop airliner : its capability to fly in and out of much shorter runways - and hence smaller airports .
The proof is in the recent purchase of 50 ATRs for Garuda - CityLink.
The speed argument is also very weak : A jet at FL 350 / .80 Mach and a turboprop at FL 250 / .71 Mach will have sector times of respectively 1 hour 17 minutes and 1 hour 34 minutes (taking climb and descent times into account ).
Those are ballpark figures which show that the difference is not that great .
Now take the simpler / lighter systems needed by a turboprop : for just an instance, the pressurisation won't need the power-greedy bleed architecture of a high flying jet, the flight controls will be also much simpler ( do away with spoilers, simpler flaps due to the straight wing... etc...)
I'mù afraid for the jet lovers, it can't compare on price, costs, capabilities with a prop.

ATR reckons that in the next twenty years, the market is just short of 4000 airplanes, of which 1000 should be in the 90-seat models : there's is a market there... and if the fuel price starts again to climb, I'd be worried by the jet prospects.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-03-30 16:11:18 and read 11279 times.

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 42):
The image in the original post is, I believe, from an older thread that included a stretch of the current ATR 72. But for 90 seats, would it indeed be a stretch, or would it be a whole new frame? Cargo between the cockpit and passenger cabin like the current ATR, under the floor, or aft?

This is an article from flightglobal in January. It looks like it'll be a new frame but with a lot of commonality to current ATR's.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...roval-of-90-seat-turboprop-381418/

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 42):
And forgive my remedial understanding, but what is more efficient: low or high wing? Is the high wing of the DHC-7 & -8, and ATR 42/72 more efficient than a low wing, or is it necessary for props'ground clearance if you don't want the cabin to be up on long legs with a long stairway up?

Ooh the low wing dihedral config is always the most stable but with turboprobs the high wing is preferred for things like prop clearance etc. It's usually easier for ground services too

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: SYDAIRPORTS
Posted 2013-03-30 16:11:25 and read 11275 times.

A 90 seater TP would work on short sectors only or very thin markets.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: zippyjet
Posted 2013-03-30 18:26:57 and read 11183 times.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 1):

Stick the props on aft mounted engines facing rearward. Basically revive the UDF concept. It could fly if it incurred a significant fuel savings without sacrificing speed and comfort. Many passengers would just think it's the newest jet model out there. As long as the Griswalds can get from BWI to MCO in 2 hours with their pooping screaming kids they wouldn't no the difference!

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: Devilfish
Posted 2013-03-30 18:45:28 and read 11163 times.

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 45):
Stick the props on aft mounted engines facing rearward. Basically revive the UDF concept.

Perhaps Embraer should start cracking on a bigger version of this?    .....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ricardo Hebmuller
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ricardo Hebmuller

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: Prost
Posted 2013-03-30 18:54:23 and read 11127 times.

My belief is that the travelling public can easily be manipulated in to embracing advanced turbo props through marketing.

Flight number 123 from XXX-YYY operated by Eco-Greenliner turboprop. You are reducing your carbon footprint X amount by booking this ticket versus an equivalent regional jet.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: blrsea
Posted 2013-03-30 19:07:53 and read 11105 times.

In many places in Asia, people don't care whether it is turboprop or jet. TurboProps open up many routes that would be considered unviable with jets. In India specifically, there are many regional airports in tier-II or tier-III cities which are suitable for turboprops but not jets. And many are happy to have aircraft service and don't care whether it is turboprop or jet. And the prices can be more affordable. ATR-72s is still widely used in India, and now SpiceJet is operating Q400s. Given the government policy of encouraging more air connectivity to smaller citiies, I would see a big market for turboprops in India.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-03-31 02:45:55 and read 10937 times.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 46):

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 45):
Stick the props on aft mounted engines facing rearward. Basically revive the UDF concept.

That's not what UDF is. UDF are open rotor engines. Turboprops facing rearwards are just that - turboprops facing rearwards, similar to the Piaggio Avanti aircraft.

This is UDF:
Big version: Width: 713 Height: 478 File size: 56kb


This is a turboprop facing rearwards:
Big version: Width: 640 Height: 492 File size: 118kb


[Edited 2013-03-31 02:50:41]

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: KarlB737
Posted 2013-03-31 10:31:31 and read 10673 times.

Quoting Web (Reply 2):
Despite the notion of props being old, slow, and unsafe, I think airlines finally using their heads and starting to build their turboprop fleets back up, and I only see this trend continuing. With their inherent efficiencies in short-haul markets,

Many of us agree with what you have stated above. Then Delta dumped their Saab340B+ service to markets. So this action left us scratching our heads.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: zippyjet
Posted 2013-03-31 12:07:53 and read 10553 times.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 49):

With the state of technology couldn't the airliner companies design an extremely fuel efficient short to medium range UDF jet that would eventually replace the current crop of turbo props and RJ's?

I would even hope Boeing and Airbus would seriously consider UDF technology when developing the successors to the 737 and 320/319/318 families. And this could be spun into a smaller RJ bird.

[Edited 2013-03-31 12:11:09]

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-03-31 12:49:16 and read 10475 times.

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 51):
With the state of technology couldn't the airliner companies design an extremely fuel efficient short to medium range UDF jet that would eventually replace the current crop of turbo props and RJ's?

It looks like that will basically be achieved by the MRJ and ERJ-NG models, plus the C Series in the larger sector. I'm not at liberty to post the figures I am told Embraer are aiming for, but suffice to say the official 'double digit' term doesn't do them justice. Significantly better aerodynamics and engines - they are going to be some impressive aircraft.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: KD5MDK
Posted 2013-03-31 19:43:59 and read 10202 times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 42):
The speed argument is also very weak : A jet at FL 350 / .80 Mach and a turboprop at FL 250 / .71 Mach will have sector times of respectively 1 hour 17 minutes and 1 hour 34 minutes (taking climb and descent times into account ).

Maybe I misunderstand the terminology, but is there a distance presumed here?

Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 44):
A 90 seater TP would work on short sectors only or very thin markets.

How short? MAN-LHR? SYD-CBR? Or are those too long?

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-04-01 03:34:22 and read 9999 times.

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 51):
With the state of technology couldn't the airliner companies design an extremely fuel efficient short to medium range UDF jet that would eventually replace the current crop of turbo props and RJ's?

I hope not... I don't think UDFs are as fuel efficient as turboprops though

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: RyanairGuru
Posted 2013-04-01 03:49:15 and read 10022 times.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 13):
VA (formally DJ) no longer operates E170s because of the high costs involved and now operates ATR72s and E190s.
Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 12):
I found the Q400 to be quieter than any jet I've flown on

The AT7 is even quieter, and also has a more spacious cabin.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 18):
the previous generation ATRs are horrid loud and vibrate a lot. There is no way to compare a jet to that thing

Absolutely right, but a lot has changed.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 53):
SYD-CBR?

The perfect aircraft for this route!

This is a route predominantly operated by Q400s (QF) and AT7s (VA) with 737s (QF) and E90s (VA) thrown in at peak time. If you look at the schedules you will see that there is no difference in block time between the props and jets. It is 55 minutes regardless of what the type is.

The props can hold there own up to 300mi pretty well. From NYC that would bring in all of New England, NY State, PA, VA, which are (not coincidentally) the markets that see UA Q200s and Q400s out of EWR.

Having said that, I think the "short sector" point is somewhat overblown. QF use the Q400 on BNE-CBR at 600mi. It is 20 mins longer than the 737, but how many people are really going to notice 20 mins out of their schedule? I obviously prefer the 737 on the route, but have taken the Q if the timings fit my schedule better and will quite happily do so again.

Quoting ZuluAlpha (Reply 19):
I can defiantly see a market for a 90 seat prop service here in Australia. Especially to the remote, regional locations for FIFO work for the mines.

  

Agree 100%

It would be perfect for QF, especially in QLD where it could act as a replacement for both the Q400 and 717.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: r2rho
Posted 2013-04-01 05:15:10 and read 9909 times.

This thread comes up every now and then, my opinion is always the same: yes, there definitely is. The usual pax perception problems in the US that also come up every time are irrelevant - growth is elsewhere and there are plenty of regions that will happily fly props - ATR is being wildly succesful without selling planes in the US.
If you look at the ATR order split, it very clearly favors the -72. If a -92 were available, it would surely be getting orders as well, in a similar proportion to, say, A319-20-21 sales. And even better if a new generation -92 weere available.
Higher fuel prices are making airlines get rid of their 50-seat RJ's as fast as they can, and even 70-seat RJ's - the current "minimum profitable" RJ size - are threatened. Over time, props will be the only way to fly profitable under 100 seats.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 27):
SCOPE might be a limiting factor. Turboprops can also fall under scope clauses. At AA even the ATRs fell under scope.

But it can also be an advantage. IIRC at CO props did not fall under scope (is it still the case with UA?). So depending on individual scope agreements, props may be a way for airlines to bypass scope too.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 32):
there was a thread recently about ATR studying a 90 seater. They wanted for it to be a new plane but with as much commonality with the current ones as possible

Rumor mills say that it is much more than just a "study". Basically the only things holding ATR from an official launch tomorrow are 1) PW or GE launcing an adequate engine and 2) EADS/Alenia shareholder approval

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 36):
the next generation of turboprops will be more efficient still, so the gap between jets and turboprops isn't really going to close.

I'm not saying it will close completely, just that it will shrink further.

We'll see. ATR wants the new prop to maintain the current cost gap versus jets - which will require significant effort from PW or GE. At same technology levels, and with all else equal, props are by physics more fuel-efficient than jets by a comfortable double-digit margin. PW or GE "only" have to bring their prop engines to the latest technology levels.

Quoting Prost (Reply 47):
My belief is that the travelling public can easily be manipulated in to embracing advanced turbo props through marketing.

Exactly. It was airline marketing of the cheap-fuel era that convinced pax that props are old and unsafe. It will be airline marketing in the expensive fuel era that will have to turn that around. In any case, this seems to be more of a problem in the US than elsewhere.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: us330
Posted 2013-04-01 06:08:01 and read 9867 times.

Quoting zotan (Reply 23):
The US is a bit of an exception, but the rest of the world (and especially Asia and Latin America) have fallen in love with the airplane and are making it a key aircraft in their fleet.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 18):
I haven't flown on the new ATRs or Qs, but the previous generation ATRs are horrid loud and vibrate a lot

I've had the pleasure on flying on a couple of ATR-72-500s, and found them much more comfortable and quiet than CRJ 700s or ERJs.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: texl1649
Posted 2013-04-01 08:51:44 and read 9693 times.

The issue for viability is whether a new turboprop will be built. The same technological advances being made for higher bypass ratio turbofans are available to also work for turboprops, the question is whether a suitably sized modern (custom for twin prop) engine will be offered.

As per comparing the airframe weight of a 50's DC4/Electra etc., much has been done there, and can be with a new 90-seater, but you can't just throw an uprated PW120 on a new airframe and compete with the latest CF34's on 1.5-2 hour segments.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-04-01 10:08:06 and read 9614 times.

The Q400 would have had more economic benefits if they had not tried t

Quoting waly777 (Reply 29):
Sorry but I disagree, we concluded a fleet planning evaluation a few weeks ago and we compared the Q400 and E175 @ 31" pitch resulting in 76 and 86 seats respectively.

Folks are already being conditioned to not like turbo props, so why exactly would the number crunchers not want to give the props an additional advantage, never match seat pitch unless it starts at 33".
The Q400 biggest flaw was the numbers game, made for the USA except they failed to accept the distortion bought about by scope clauses. The a/c would have been fine without the fancy tech put in to make the a/c as fast as an RJ flying comparible routes even though they never match speeds.
The dispatch rates of the Q400 suffered and its advantage over the RJ's became marginal at best, the ATR does much better. The only advantage the props have over the RJ's is fuel cost / burn, based on union contracts / rules / Chpt.11 etc. crew cost and ground handling cost are not much different if any from the RJ's, so with such distortion, whats the incentive?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 42):
Most of you, busy on the speed and comfort discussion forget one of the most important asets of a turboprop airliner : its capability to fly in and out of much shorter runways - and hence smaller airports .

The numbers game again, the rest of the world has a huge need for such a/c and at this time, only ATR is catering to the market, here in the Caribbean the Q400 has no traction but ATR's are going stronger and getting stronger.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: joecanuck
Posted 2013-04-01 10:34:35 and read 9547 times.

Some jet aficionados don't realise that a turboprop is basically a double spool, open rotor GTF, with an ultra high bypass ratio. They are already very efficient and both GE and Pratt are working on new generations which will significantly improve that efficiency.

The turboprops will always have a weight advantage, and coupled with more seats and their already advantageous SFC and lower prices, there will always be room for these planes and they will always have points where they will be superior to pure jets, the same way there is room for 737's and A380's in the airline industry.

As for acceptance, except for a very few, airliner choice will remain price focussed, and not prop or jet focussed. Some may grumble but I'm willing to bet few will deplane.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: LH707330
Posted 2013-04-01 20:37:46 and read 9277 times.

Quoting Prost (Reply 47):
My belief is that the travelling public can easily be manipulated in to embracing advanced turbo props through marketing.

Flight number 123 from XXX-YYY operated by Eco-Greenliner turboprop. You are reducing your carbon footprint X amount by booking this ticket versus an equivalent regional jet.

Agreed, I think it'd be fairly easy to to market turboprops. Boeing managed to get the term "Dreamliner" to stick to another widebody twin, so something that actually looks slightly different will be easier to pitch.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: KD5MDK
Posted 2013-04-01 22:18:53 and read 9178 times.

I'm curious why 90 seat and not 99. It seems to me like you'd go for the maximum number of seats with 2 FAs. (Is the 1:50 ratio common worldwide or mostly a US thing?)

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: ZuluAlpha
Posted 2013-04-02 04:43:24 and read 8974 times.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 62):
(Is the 1:50 ratio common worldwide or mostly a US thing?)

In Australia, I am pretty sure (however I am open to correction) that for domestic flights in Australia the ratio is 1:36 flight attendants to passengers

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: seahawk
Posted 2013-04-02 04:52:52 and read 8959 times.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 62):
I'm curious why 90 seat and not 99. It seems to me like you'd go for the maximum number of seats with 2 FAs. (Is the 1:50 ratio common worldwide or mostly a US thing?)

Some say ~90 seats with a stretch to ~110 seats possible.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-04-02 05:34:44 and read 8943 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 59):
The dispatch rates of the Q400 suffered and its advantage over the RJ's became marginal at best

Try telling that to Flybe - (British European) - the world's largest Q400 operator. They could have went for RJ's or ATRs but believed the Q400 to be the best option - and you might say they were proven right by astounding success of their airline, which is now the biggest and most successful regional airline in Europe, and arguably one of the best in the world.

Thank the Q400 for that. They've made much more profit with the Q400, that's why they got rid of their previous RJ's (although they do operate E175's). And, like the E175, it's a perfect aircraft to develop routes as well.

Flybe is a great example of just how successful an airline can become if it invests in a large fleet of turboprops

[Edited 2013-04-02 05:36:58]

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-04-02 06:32:43 and read 8876 times.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 65):
Try telling that to Flybe - (British European) - the world's largest Q400 operator. They could have went for RJ's or ATRs but believed the Q400 to be the best option - and you might say they were proven right by astounding success of their airline, which is now the biggest and most successful regional airline in Europe, and arguably one of the best in the world.

Thank the Q400 for that. They've made much more profit with the Q400, that's why they got rid of their previous RJ's (although they do operate E175's). And, like the E175, it's a perfect aircraft to develop routes as well.

Flybe is a great example of just how successful an airline can become if it invests in a large fleet of turboprops

FlyBe are replacing a large number of their Q400s with ERJ 175s. The Q400 fleet will continue to shrink to 20 units, around a third of what it once was. This is partly due to BE's poor financial situation, partly thanks to their changing route structure, but also partly because the Q400 isn't quite the aircraft many people think it is and going forwards BE didn't find it suitable for expansion into the continent.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: Vhqpa
Posted 2013-04-02 07:33:49 and read 8787 times.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 13):
I doubt RJs can only provide comfortable flights. I've had plenty of comfortable flights in NZs Q300s and ATR72s.

Too right.

In fact the only airliner I have ever fallen asleep on was an ATR 72.

Last November I flew BNE-TSV-CNS-BNE with the TSV-CNS sector on one of Skywest's brand new ATR 72-600's. The other two sectors being 737-800 operated. As far as cabin noise went all three sectors felt the same although the 2-2 configuration felt far more spacious than the 737's 3-3 configuration.

Quoting flylku (Reply 37):
It is my understanding that the more recent turboprops have active noise reduction. Is this correct? Which ones?

Bombardier introduced NVS (Noise & Vibration Suppresion?) Around 1995/1996ish. The Q in Q200/Q300/Q400 stands for "Quiet". ATR introduced it with the introduction of the 500 series. I'm also pretty sure ZL has something similar in their Saab 340B+ fleet.

Quoting ZuluAlpha (Reply 63):
In Australia, I am pretty sure (however I am open to correction) that for domestic flights in Australia the ratio is 1:36 flight attendants to passengers

As far as I'm aware in Australia it is officially 1:36 for aircraft between 15-216 seats. However since 2006 CASA has given exemptions on a case by case basis which allows a 1:50 ratio. Of the top of my head QF (73H), VA (73H), JQ (32S) and Qlink (DH4) have such exemptions. There was a inquiry into raising the cabin crew ratio in 2011. Although I'm not sure of the outcome.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-04-02 08:36:14 and read 8735 times.

Quoting Vhqpa (Reply 67):
Last November I flew BNE-TSV-CNS-BNE with the TSV-CNS sector on one of Skywest's brand new ATR 72-600's. The other two sectors being 737-800 operated. As far as cabin noise went all three sectors felt the same although the 2-2 configuration felt far more spacious than the 737's 3-3 configuration.

I find the modern ATRs to be quieter than a 737NG. Although to put this in perspective the ATRs are not as quiet as an A320.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-04-02 08:43:32 and read 8734 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 66):
FlyBe are replacing a large number of their Q400s with ERJ 175s. The Q400 fleet will continue to shrink to 20 units, around a third of what it once was. This is partly due to BE's poor financial situation, partly thanks to their changing route structure, but also partly because the Q400 isn't quite the aircraft many people think it is and going forwards BE didn't find it suitable for expansion into the continent.

Flybe have no plans to replace any of their Q400s. The E175's were brought in for expansion into other parts of Europe and for places where a jet might be more appealing. They were never meant to replace the Q400, and Flybe's Q400 fleet has not shrunk since they ordered the E175's. They still have the same amount of Q400's, I believe the number is 47. Whereas, they have only ordered 35 E175's in total.

Unless you have a source that says otherwise? This is the first time I've heard anyone say the E175's are replacing the Q400's. The Q400 has proven itself to be the perfect aircraft for Flybe.

[Edited 2013-04-02 08:57:25]

[Edited 2013-04-02 08:58:14]

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: enilria
Posted 2013-04-02 09:06:12 and read 8690 times.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Thread starter):
I was just wondering if there's a place for this type of plane with the Embraer E175 pretty much covering this segment (I'm thinking of Flybe in particular, who would no doubt have went for a 90-seat version of the Q400 had it been available).
Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 1):
The problem here in the US anyways is the public's perception of turboprops being old, slow and loud

All true, but the CASM of this plane at less than 500 miles is probably 30-35% less than the E175. If people want to pay less then this plane should succeed. In fact, I would wager this is the lowest CASM airplane in existence under 500, even compared to an A380 with every possible seat shoved into it.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: STT757
Posted 2013-04-02 09:19:51 and read 8658 times.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 56):
But it can also be an advantage. IIRC at CO props did not fall under scope (is it still the case with UA?). So depending on individual scope agreements, props may be a way for airlines to bypass scope too.

That's changed now with the new pilots contract, the props are counted alongside the Regional Jets. For UA the Q400 should be kept to sub 350 mile routes, there's still plenty of opportunity in that sector.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: BasilFawlty
Posted 2013-04-02 09:34:50 and read 8650 times.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 69):
and Flybe's Q400 fleet has not shrunk since they ordered the E175's. They still have the same amount of Q400's, I believe the number is 47.

Quite a number of Q400's have left the fleet since.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 69):
This is the first time I've heard anyone say the E175's are replacing the Q400's. The Q400 has proven itself to be the perfect aircraft for Flybe.

First time for me as well but I'm not surprised if it's true. It's no secret that BE is unhappy with the Q400's when it comes to dispatch reliability and maintenance costs.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-04-02 10:02:07 and read 8601 times.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 69):
Next time you make a bogus claim, at least make sure you know what you're talking about first. A source would also be helpful.

Just... seriously?  

But, seeing as you asked so nicely...

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 69):
Flybe have no plans to replace any of their Q400s. The E175s they ordered were for expansion into other parts of Europe only, they are not a replacement for the Q400

From BE's 2011/2012 half year report:

Quote:

Fleet

...

The first four 88-seat Embraer 175 regional jets (from our firm order for
35 aircraft placed in July 2010) are due to be delivered by the end of this
calender year, maintaining our two-type fleet model in FlyBe UK. These
firm orders were put in place to largely replace 25 returning aircraft over
the next five years.



From BE's 2011/2012 Anual report:

Quote:
Fleet renewal under way with arrival of first six Embraer E175s,
Quote:
Fleet

We have started rebalancing the fleet towards a combination
of regional jets and turboprop aircraft by introducing the
88-seat Embraer E175 regional jet aircraft into Flybe UK
service. We expect the increased number of regional jets in
our fleet to improve the overall customer product and
experience for Flybe%u2019s passengers, and indeed are encouraged
by the early trends which we are experiencing on UK-European
routes where we have replaced the Q400 turboprop with the
E175 jets.
The six arrivals since November 2011 are the first
since Flybe announced, in July 2010, the purchase of 35
Embraer E175s (for delivery between 2011 and 2016) together
with options and purchase rights over a further 105 E-series
regional jets (for delivery up to 2020). As these regional jets
are of a modern, fuel-efficient design, the E175 aircraft will
have similar economics per flight to the 78-seat Bombardier
Q400 turboprops they are replacing and, therefore, lower seat
costs.
By 2015/16 and based on contracted deliveries and
expected retirements, I expect over half of Flybe UK%u2019s fleet will
be E-series regional jets.


From November 2011 press release:

Quote:
The scheduled delivery dates of the 35 firm aircraft are between November 2011 and October 2016 %u2013 29 of these aircraft will substitute existing aircraft as they exit Flybe%u2019s fleet over that period, and the remaining six are earmarked for growth. The financing announced today covers the first 20 of the 35 aircraft. As of today%u2019s date, no options or purchase rights have been exercised.

So, as clearly stated there by BE, 29 Q400s will be replaced. The expected fleet size once finished will be 20 Q400s. It has been known since the outset and made public in reports that many Q400s would be replaced.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 69):
Flybe's Q400 fleet has not shrunk since they ordered the E175's. They still have the same about of Q400's, I believe the number is 47.

Considering the Q400 fleet stood at around 57 when the ERJ-175s were ordered, that is not correct. A number of Q400s have been sold since with a number more leased out on contract flying. The current total is 45 active and two more stored. Further reductions are forthcoming.

Again, from BE's 2011/2012 annual report:

Quote:
Following the sale of seven Q400 aircraft to Rand Merchant Bank during 2011/12,


The sale of Q400s was conditional on financing the ERJ-175s.

From BE's 2012/2013 half year report:

Quote:
Four Embraer E175 regional jets were acquired by Flybe UK during H1 2012/13; two on operating lease
and two financed using Flybe%u2019s loan facility with BNDES. Two more deliveries are scheduled by
31 March 2013. Two Bombardier Q400 turboprops left the fleet in H1 2012/13, generating a small profit
on disposal

They have additionally leased out four Q400s to Brussels Airlines instead of seeing the frames leave the fleet. There have been other sold/returned to lessors too, but I don't have the time to list sources for them all.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 69):
Whereas, they have only ordered 35 E175's in total.

The total number of firm ERJ-175 orders is 35 but, as stated when the order was placed, the overall deal was for 140 options/purchase rights. Not that I expect any more to be taken up, for the current generation ERJ-175 at least.


So, before accusing others of lying and not having their facts in order, I suggest you verify your own. I await your apology...


Dan  Smile

[Edited 2013-04-02 10:04:51]

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-04-02 13:43:03 and read 8456 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 73):
So, before accusing others of lying and not having their facts in order, I suggest you verify your own. I await your apology...

You're right, I apologise. I didn't mean to come across like I was attacking you. If you scroll up, you'll notice I edited my post since writing that, but obviously I was too late and you were already replying.

So are Flybe planning to keep 20 of their Q400's, or will they eventually be leased or sold off as well? (The Q400 is one of my favourite aircraft, and Flybe is the only British airline that operates them, so the thought of seeing a lot less Q400's at British airports is a depressing one for me as a spotter. I didn't want to believe you).

Thanks for the sources. And sorry again

[Edited 2013-04-02 13:44:08]

[Edited 2013-04-02 13:48:07]

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-04-02 14:08:52 and read 8412 times.

Quoting us330 (Reply 57):
I've had the pleasure on flying on a couple of ATR-72-500s, and found them much more comfortable and quiet than CRJ 700s or ERJs.

One think that makes the Q400 and ATRs less comfortable than jets is their maximum certificated 25,000 ft. altitude due to their lack of drop-down passenger oxygen masks. That often means you're plowing through weather and turbulence that you would be at least 10,000 feet above in any jet.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-04-04 08:20:12 and read 8048 times.

So, does anyone know if Flybe plan to keep their remaining 20 Q400's, or do they plan to sell them or lease them? Perhaps the Q400's will be used for domestic-only routes?

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-04-04 19:04:39 and read 7919 times.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 74):
You're right, I apologise. I didn't mean to come across like I was attacking you. If you scroll up, you'll notice I edited my post since writing that, but obviously I was too late and you were already replying.

Thank you, don't worry about it.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 74):
So are Flybe planning to keep 20 of their Q400's, or will they eventually be leased or sold off as well?

As things stand I believe the intention is to keep them, which makes sense. On short domestic routes (Up to around 300 miles, such as those from BHD, IOM, JER, GCI etc...) the Q400 is going to retain a competitive advantage over the current E175. Even if the next generation of regional jets surpass the Q400's economics on many routes, they are still an efficient aircraft for very short flights, which there are a number of in the UK. I can't see that replacing them with anything other than another more efficient prop would generate significant savings.

What can be deduced from FlyBe's statements and order for the ERJ 175 is that, for them at least, the plan to use the Q400 to expand European flights has failed, despite the aircraft's speed and other abilities. With their experience and, from what I have heard, their success of operating the ATR in Finland, a future ATR-72 order to replace the Q400 can't be completely ruled out in my opinion, because it is the better fit for the remaining network not served by the ERJs.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: saab2000
Posted 2013-04-04 19:47:10 and read 7888 times.

The perception that turboprops are old, slow and dangerous is not only in the US. I flew Saab2000s in Europe for several years and I can remember many people getting them and being upset that it wasn't a jet and that it was 'old junk'. I heard that comment several times. Funny thing was that it was more modern in many ways than the jet I now operate.

Don't blame only the Americans. Europeans don't like them either.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-04-06 09:55:47 and read 7573 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 77):
As things stand I believe the intention is to keep them, which makes sense. On short domestic routes (Up to around 300 miles, such as those from BHD, IOM, JER, GCI etc...) the Q400 is going to retain a competitive advantage over the current E175. Even if the next generation of regional jets surpass the Q400's economics on many routes, they are still an efficient aircraft for very short flights, which there are a number of in the UK. I can't see that replacing them with anything other than another more efficient prop would generate significant savings.

I hope you're right, I would hate for the Q400 to disappear from BE's fleet completely. I've always admired its ability to compete with RJ's, and still hold a significant fuel efficiency advantage over competitors.

When I think of Flybe, the first thing that springs to mind is the Q400 - that aircraft has cemented its place as the representation of Europe's most successful regional airline. Not to mention, Flybe used to be the world's largest Q400 operator.

Quote:
What can be deduced from FlyBe's statements and order for the ERJ 175 is that, for them at least, the plan to use the Q400 to expand European flights has failed, despite the aircraft's speed and other abilities. With their experience and, from what I have heard, their success of operating the ATR in Finland, a future ATR-72 order to replace the Q400 can't be completely ruled out in my opinion, because it is the better fit for the remaining network not served by the ERJs.

I do like the ATR-72, but I'd hate to see the Q400 replaced entirely. Nevertheless, it should be interesting to see what happens over the next few years. It's even plausible that BE will increase their Q400 fleet again once the E175's have replaced most of them. After all, the main reason they're selling most of their units is to fund their E175 purchase. Perhaps in a few years when Flybe is in a good financial position again, they will increase their Q400 fleet, perhaps to 35 units? I believe Flybe have stated that they plan to have a balanced fleet of jets and turboprops. So we'll see...

[Edited 2013-04-06 10:31:35]

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: 777ER
Posted 2013-04-07 00:37:58 and read 7320 times.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 53):
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 44):
A 90 seater TP would work on short sectors only or very thin markets.


How short? MAN-LHR? SYD-CBR? Or are those too long?

QF serves SYD-CBR currently with Q400s, can't remember if VA use the ATR or E190 on the CBR route. NZ currently use Q300s on WLG-IVC which is around 90mins-ish and even a 1900D from WLG on another route which is around 100mins

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 62):
I'm curious why 90 seat and not 99. It seems to me like you'd go for the maximum number of seats with 2 FAs. (Is the 1:50 ratio common worldwide or mostly a US thing?)

New Zealand uses the 1:50 rule. NZ loves the ATR72s because they don't require pax secuirty screening for regional airports. Once an aircraft gets over 90 seats then pax need screening here

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: milesrich
Posted 2013-04-07 07:03:12 and read 7123 times.

Quoting william (Reply 11):
Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 10):
Quoting william (Reply 5):
he or she just want a comfortable flight, which means RJ.

Are you suggesting you can't have a comfortable flight on a turboprop?

No, I have had many a smooth flights on turboprops when the weather is right. But take off the aviation enthusiast hat for a second, a RJ is smoother and quieter than a turboprop.

And yes, Horizon has successuflly transistioned from RJs to Qs. So I guess its possible for large regionals to transition out of CRJ800s to turboprops. Outside of Horizon, I do not see many regionals racing to change.
Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 12):
Quoting william (Reply 11):
But take off the aviation enthusiast hat for a second, a RJ is smoother and quieter than a turboprop.

I disagree, I actually find RJs louder. In RJs the in-flight noise is like a low rumble, in a turboprop it's a faint buzzing sound. In particular, I found the Q400 to be quieter than any jet I've flown on. Prop planes used to be very loud, but that just isn't the case any more. The noisy "image" has stuck, unfortunately, and that impacts the public's perception of turboprops.

I read these posts and as someone stated, it is becoming a regular a.net thing.

1. Are Turboprops quieter than regional jets? Doesn't this depend where you are sitting? If you are sitting forward in the RJ, they are quiet. For that matter, the DC-9 was quiet provided you are not sitting next to the engines. The 737-200 was quiet too, provided you were sitting forward of the engines, as was the 707 and DC-8, and those airplanes were only noisy on take off. At cruise, they were all quiet. When it comes to turboprops and the statements that the Q400's are quieter than jets, I assume you are speaking from a passenger standpoint. Sit in the back of any turboprop and it is quiet, except on takeoff. The Viscount, F-27/FH-227, and the YS-11, all Dart powered, were quiet if you were sitting in the back. Sit near the engines, they were no so quiet, and noisy on takeoff.

2. Smoothness of flights. If the weather is good, the turboprop gives you a relatively smooth flight, but if it is cloudy or or hot out, then they often do not. Turboprops, especially on shorter flights, fly at lower altitudes. They take longer to climb too. Have you ever ridden at 8000 feet for an hour on a 90 degree summer day? With jets, even small ones, they climb quickly so they are out of the updrafts and bad weather much more quickly and they cruise at 25000 or more, the operational ceiling of most turboprops, plus climbing to 20,000 takes a while in many turboprops. The size of the aircraft also matters. Light turbulence affects smaller aircraft more than larger ones, but in bad weather, the jets give a far superior ride, and can often climb quickly above most weather.

3. Safety. I have not looked at the statistics, but it seems to me than as turboprops have become less common, so have accidents. Additionally, older people, anyone over 60 grew up in the transition from props to jets. Airlines, like Piedmont, Ozark, Frontier, Allegheny, Airwest, Southern, North Central and Mohawk, were considered "puddle jumper" airlines when they flew DC-3, and while their first pressurized props were an improvement, I don't think flying on Trans Texas's CV-600 was still considered much less desirable than one of their DC-9 Pamperjets. In fact, it was the jet aircraft, the DC-9, and 737 mostly that elevated these carriers' status from feeder to trunk line. Jets were more modern. It didn't matter than a Martin 404 was built in 1950 and the FH-227 was built in 1968, they were still twin engines props, that were noisy unless in the back, and vibrated alot on takeoff. Yes, the turbo prop Fairchild vibrated a lot less and was quieter than the piston powered Martin, but they were not jets. Allegheny cracked up how many Convair 580's? At least three or four. HVN, and two at Bradford, PA come to mind. By the early 80's, all the majors and former feeders with the exception of Republic had phased out their turboprops. Then these airlines which now operated mainline jet equipment started to pull out of some cities or shorter routes. From ORD to MLI, instead of a United 737 or 727 or Ozark DC-9, passengers were "treated" to an MVA SD-330 or 360, if they were lucky, an F-27. As the 80's turned into the 90's, instead of an DL MD-88 from ATL to AGS or LEX, passengers got to experience the ASA EMB-120, AND THEY DID NOT LIKE AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT.

A Honda Accord or Ford Fusion may deliver a smooth ride, and have quick acceleration, but Lexus sells a lot of ES350's and Audi sells the A6, and people pay more money for them. When it comes to many flights on these smaller prop planes, people paid high fares to fly on those too, and the perceived value was not there.

The American Eagle ATR-72 that crashed over Northern Indiana due to icing conditions in 1994 was operating from IND to ORD. That route was previously flown by AA and DL with mainline jet equipment like 727's and DC-9's and I don't recall any crashes of Boeing or Douglas jets in the USA caused by icing. On the other hand the annals of airline crashes in the 30's, 40's, and 50's are full of accidents in DC-3's and similar twin prop planes caused by icing. Remember the ASA EMB-120 crashes at SSI and out near Carrolton, GA, many Atlanta residents do. Yes, I know that Southern lost a DC-9 out in Paulding County and Delta had accidents with DC-9's, but the perception that smaller turboprops crash more frequently is there, and it is not going away any time soon. The crash near Buffalo of the Q400 of Colgan Air had what contributing factor other than pilot error? ICING! This NYC to BUF flight was once flown by mainline equipment and is still done so by JetBlue, and icing is just a problem on the A320 or EMB-190, nor was in on the AA 727 or MD-82, or BAC-111.

Now I can get flamed. Turboprops are not popular with the flying public. Jets replaced them when fares were fixed, and the only competitive factor between airlines was service including equipment. I loved flying in the Electra, but the majority of flyers preferred jet equipment, and the new turboprops are not anywhere near the substantial aircraft the Burbank born turboprop was.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: joecanuck
Posted 2013-04-07 08:48:03 and read 7053 times.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 81):
Now I can get flamed. Turboprops are not popular with the flying public.

Just like with your other points, this one depends on many things. For example, in Canada, there are Tprops, (in my area, Dash 8 200's and 300's), and 737's flying the same routes. The props tend to have higher frequency and the jets more passengers per flight. All flights tend to have about the same passenger loads...around 80%.

Regardless, I have never met a person who hated props so much they would fly a jet even if that meant a higher ticket price or an inconvenient departure/arrival time.

Both major Canadian airlines are adding Q400's to their fleets and Porter is continuing to grow their all Q400 fleet.

People may moan and whine about those terrible props but they'll do it if they get a couple of bucks off of the ticket price.

Like everything else in the airline business, passengers will get used to almost anything if they get it cheaply enough. Recent history is rife with examples; "Passengers will never settle for 10 abreast in a 777"...wrong, EK. "Passengers will never settle for being treated like cattle for low ticket prices"...wrong, FR. "Passengers will never accept mainline flights on RJ's" ...wrong, (just about every US airline).

Passengers may care if they fly on a prop or a jet but they won't let their philosophical differences get in the way if it means saving a few bucks.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-04-08 07:27:39 and read 6721 times.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 81):
I read these posts and as someone stated, it is becoming a regular a.net thing.

1. Are Turboprops quieter than regional jets? Doesn't this depend where you are sitting? If you are sitting forward in the RJ, they are quiet. For that matter, the DC-9 was quiet provided you are not sitting next to the engines. The 737-200 was quiet too, provided you were sitting forward of the engines, as was the 707 and DC-8, and those airplanes were only noisy on take off. At cruise, they were all quiet. When it comes to turboprops and the statements that the Q400's are quieter than jets, I assume you are speaking from a passenger standpoint. Sit in the back of any turboprop and it is quiet, except on takeoff. The Viscount, F-27/FH-227, and the YS-11, all Dart powered, were quiet if you were sitting in the back. Sit near the engines, they were no so quiet, and noisy on takeoff.

Whenever I'm flying, I always end up sitting just in front of the engine, well most of the time anyway. I've flown on a Q400 twice, next to the prop, and even then I have found them to be the quietest plane I've ever flown on. The noise inside a Q400 cabin during mid-flight is virtually non-existent, and I'm not exaggerating either. I cannot say the same for any jet I have flown on, the engine noise in jets is a loud rumble and very apparent. In the Q400, at least, this is not the case. (I don't know about other props, since it's the only prop I've flown on in recent memory since adulthood).

Quoting milesrich (Reply 81):
They take longer to climb too.

I don't know about other props, but the Q400 climbs like a rocket. I believe it has a faster rate of climb than most jets, at least it certainly seems to climb faster. (Which can be a good or a bad thing, depending how you look at it - when a plane climbs slowly, you get a better view for longer before going above the clouds).

But you're right, their cruising altitude is lower (27,000 feet for the Q400 I think), and the ride is usually bumpier.

I know I probably sound a bit biased in favour of turboprops, if so I apologise. I'm just saying these things from my own personal experience. Others might disagree. (Although I do love turboprops...)

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: william
Posted 2013-04-08 07:50:15 and read 6681 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 75):
One think that makes the Q400 and ATRs less comfortable than jets is their maximum certificated 25,000 ft. altitude due to their lack of drop-down passenger oxygen masks. That often means you're plowing through weather and turbulence that you would be at least 10,000 feet above in any jet.

You might be onto something, the choppier air is at lower levels.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: EaglePower83
Posted 2013-04-08 08:31:40 and read 6641 times.

It's amazing the things people will complain about.
I was on a trip (PVD - IAD) on a Q400 and it was extremely comfortable.
Pretty much the same as an RJ with a modern interior, just different engine sounds.
It wasn't very buzzy or rough. I was impressed.
But other passengers were bemoaning being on an "egg beater."
Are you kidding? It was a comfortable ride, and we got to DC in just over 1hr, so it was pretty quick too.

I'd be all for more turbo-props on sub-90min trips.
They're fun! And just as good as jets.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-08 09:07:33 and read 6594 times.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 85):
But other passengers were bemoaning being on an "egg beater."

...and yet, they still got on the aircraft after knowing ahead of time, (either when buying their ticket, on the printout or in the boarding area), that they were going to be on a turbo prop.

The same whining goes on about Emirates 10 abreast 777's, yet the planes are almost always full. Not only that, the configuration has proven so popular with airlines, (if not passengers), that it's becoming the standard.

Passengers love to complain...it's a free benefit to flying. Planes too slow, too cramped or too crowded, ...crappy food, service, seats or entertainment...no direct flights from One Horse South Dakota to Paris...the list of complaints is endless and quite creative.

...all the while, airlines base their aircraft choices on economics...and like EaglePower83's flight, passengers got efficiently and safely to their destination for, (what I'm assuming), is a reasonable price.

There is only one passenger poll which really indicates the benefits of a particular plane on a particular route; are there enough bums in the seats to make the route pay?

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: FlyingBattery26
Posted 2013-04-08 09:45:18 and read 6548 times.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 85):
But other passengers were bemoaning being on an "egg beater."


Gawd, tell me about it. I've heard similar comments when I've flown on the Q400. One woman with her son referred to it as "that old thing?" and seemed genuinely shocked that prop planes were still flying in this day and age, let alone that she was about to fly on one. I actually had to bite my tongue or I would have gone into a tirade about the fact that it was the most modern turboprop (at the time) and one of the fastest and most efficient turboprops ever built... it really irks me how ignorant people are about turboprops. I know it's not their job to know about them, but this ridiculous stigma that turboprops are "old" is extremely irritating. Looking back on it, I wish I'd said something to educate the daft woman. Other complaints I heard from a passenger sitting behind me that the plane was "too small", and it wasn't even halfway full. People think a plane is only sufficient if it's a large jet like a B777. I've even heard people complain about regional jets being too small as well.

Methinks airlines that fly turboprops should educate passengers about how "green" they are - the world seems to be obsessed with global warming, so how hard can it be to make people feel like they're helping the environment or something by flying on a prop? It would pander to their egos and kill the stigma that turboprops undeservedly receive.

On another note, it sucks that Flybe are replacing more than half of their Q400 fleet with Embraer 175's (not that I have anything against Embraer). I believe one of the reasons for this was that passengers would be more satisfied with jets. *Rolls eyes*.

Quote:
The same whining goes on about Emirates 10 abreast 777's,

What do they have against the 777? Is it perceived as "old"?

[Edited 2013-04-08 09:47:59]

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: skymiler
Posted 2013-04-08 10:00:08 and read 6526 times.

Quoting L1011 (Reply 16):
If they want a turboprop of that size, why not build one similar to the Electra? The Electra was the most comfortable turboprop I've ever flown on.



Amen to that!!

Many years ago the Eastern Air Shuttle had a few Electras for the "second section". If we saw that the first section (727) was about to fill we would duck out of line wait for the Electra -- great ride!

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-08 12:57:48 and read 6436 times.

Part of the problem with turboprops is comfort level. An E75 will have substantially wider seats than a Q400. That only drives complaints when you add in pre-conceived notions about "egg beaters".

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: RyanairGuru
Posted 2013-04-08 22:50:16 and read 6295 times.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 87):
Is it perceived as "old"?

Cramped, we seemingly have a weekly thread on here about how uncomfortable EK (and now KL, AF, EY, NZ etc) 777s are. I don't buy it myself having flown on them many, many times including a middle seat the entire way from MAN to BNE. But don't let that get in the way of good bitch about how terrible the flight was etc etc.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: SCAT15F
Posted 2013-04-08 23:53:00 and read 6272 times.

The Russians built the Tu-114, a 220 seat 6-abreast 4-engine TP with a wider cabin than an A320 that set a record for flying 5000 kilometers at an average speed of 545+ mph (mach .83) while carrying a payload somewhere between 55,000 and 66,000 lbs at a ~165 tonne takeoff weight. That is faster than 737,757,767, and A320/ A330 series cruise speeds.

This was done 53 years ago with an aircraft designed 60 years ago and using early 1950's technology aluminum alloys, non-supercritical airfoils and non-supercritical propellers. Not to mention it was overbuilt as most Russian aircraft of the time were.

It shouldn't be too hard to improve on that by an VERY large margin. Let's say a 90-100 seat turboprop that can cruise at 485 mph minimum with a 2000 nmi range and being 20-25% more efficient than any current/proposed GTF/LEAP powered aircraft.

Hell, even Keesje's TP400 powered 150 seat turboliner would beat the pants off the MAX, NEO, or CSeries for 2000 nmi or less sectors and cruise at 480 mph.

...it's only a matter of time. The era of cheap gas is over and a TP will always be superior to a turbofan, geared turbofan, or ducted fan, especially on distances of 2500 nmi or less. I'll wager most will be willing to pay less even if the trip is a little longer. Businesses will just have to adapt. Tough.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: seahawk
Posted 2013-04-09 00:02:53 and read 6241 times.

Passengers migt prefer a jet, but only few would pay extra to fly in a jet and in the end the first thing people compare when looking for a flight is the ticket price.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: Antoniemey
Posted 2013-04-09 00:50:28 and read 6220 times.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 81):
That route was previously flown by AA and DL with mainline jet equipment like 727's and DC-9's and I don't recall any crashes of Boeing or Douglas jets in the USA caused by icing.

CO had one on a DEN-BOI run many years back. Someone had one taking off from DC, I believe it was, at one point. All aircraft are subject to icing. It's proper handling of the issue before it happens and proper avoidance of weather where it's likely to happen that prevents accidents, not aircraft engine technology.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: EaglePower83
Posted 2013-04-09 06:52:28 and read 6048 times.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 87):
Methinks airlines that fly turboprops should educate passengers about how "green" they are - the world seems to be obsessed with global warming, so how hard can it be to make people feel like they're helping the environment or something by flying on a prop? It would pander to their egos and kill the stigma that turboprops undeservedly receive.

I think you're on to something there!
Good idea.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-09 08:33:10 and read 6003 times.

Quoting FlyingBattery26 (Reply 87):
Methinks airlines that fly turboprops should educate passengers about how "green" they are -

Horizon did just that.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/busin...1/18/horizon-air-plane-goes-green/

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: L1011
Posted 2013-04-09 09:08:39 and read 5967 times.

Quoting skymiler (Reply 88):
Many years ago the Eastern Air Shuttle had a few Electras for the "second section". If we saw that the first section (727) was about to fill we would duck out of line wait for the Electra -- great ride!

I used to do exactly the same thing. By going during peak travel times, they nearly always had a second section.

Bob Bradley

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-04-15 12:28:58 and read 5653 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 21):
In fact the CS100 will be quieter than an ATR or Q400 - so long as it meets spec, but with Bombardier being very bullish recently I have no reason to doubt this.

Ah proof that the CS100 is not as quiet as you think despite being a generation ahead of the Q400, it's actually slighly noiser than the Q400 by .7db. This is a direct quote from http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/AW_04_15_2013_p43-567762.xml&p=2

"The noise footprint of the CS100 will be “very comparable to the Q400,” says the Porter spokesman, adding the average of the twin-turboprop's takeoff, sideline and approach noise is 85 db. Powered by two Pratt & Whitney PW1500G geared turbofans, the CS100 will average 85.7 db, he says, “which is 6% below the [noise limit set by] the tripartite agreement.”

I can only imagine just how much quieter the next gen of props will be considering the difference in sound btw the ATR-600's/Q400's and the older generation of props.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: r2rho
Posted 2013-04-16 05:02:36 and read 5437 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 97):
I can only imagine just how much quieter the next gen of props will be considering the difference in sound btw the ATR-600's/Q400's and the older generation of props.

Exactly - you have to compare equivalent technology levels. No doubt the CS100 will be very quiet, but comparing an all-new turbofan architecture like the GTF to an older-generation prop as some are doing is not fair or correct. Fair comparisons would be PW127/150 vs CF34, or "hypothetical NG-prop" vs GTF. At same technology levels, an all-new prop should still be quieter than a GTF. It is now up to PW or GE to hopefully bring props to that technology level.

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-04-27 12:17:49 and read 4994 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 97):
Ah proof that the CS100 is not as quiet as you think despite being a generation ahead of the Q400, it's actually slighly noiser than the Q400 by .7db. This is a direct quote from http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l&p=2

From my figures, publicly available in EASA noise certification data and on Bombardier's site:

Q400NG = 255.7 EPNdB
ATR 72-500/600 = 255.2 EPNdB
CS100 target = 255 EPNdB

Until we have like for like certification data to look at I am going to stick to what Bombardier say; forgive me, but I'm certainly not about to blow through a bunch of NDAs just to prove a point here.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 98):
Exactly - you have to compare equivalent technology levels.

Until they cease being hypothetical proposals the only logical real world comparison is between the here and now. Going forwards though I really hope that ATR, Bombardier or anyone else who throws their hat into the ring comes up with a stunner that shrinks noise contours further still - it's in everybody's interest for that to be the case.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Is There A Market For A 90 Seat Turboprop?
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-04-27 13:10:58 and read 4906 times.

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 7):

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 1):
The problem here in the US anyways is the public's perception of turboprops being old, slow and loud...

And because of that silly perception almost all US regionals now have zillions of loss-making CRJ's...

If there were zillions of CRJs then that would prove that the CRJ was a great aircraft and at the time it was.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 92):
Passengers migt prefer a jet, but only few would pay extra to fly in a jet and in the end the first thing people compare when looking for a flight is the ticket price.

Yes or they want to go to a certain destination and fly whatever aircraft is flying there. There are very few people who choose flights based on the equipment but mostly they will choose based on a combination of schedule and price. The only people who choose otherwise are A-netters who go on mileage runs and try to fill their logbooks with different types of aircraft.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/