Cumulonimbus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 3770 times:
I was wondering with fuel prices as high as they are and Turboprop performance such as the Dash 400 and saab 2000 being comparable to RJ's will they ever have a chance of returning to Airline Regional fleets in large numbers? I know that many turboprops are cheaper to operate than RJ's especially in routes under 400 miles. I think that really the only thing holding them back is those passengers that say they are old and unsafe. I do however think that 70 to 100 seat RJ's would be a great Complement on the longer range Routes for both Turboprops and Mainline Aircraft. Strangely enough I have heard people complain about RJ's, especially the CRJ and even heard one Customer say that they wish the props were still in service! I was just wondering if the Props will ever return. Thank you for your opinions.
Frugalqxnwa From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 3729 times:
Maybe, but turboprops have lost a lot of ground to RJs. The complaints about the CRJ-100/200 are valid, I can personnaly attest to them. However, I have heard that the ERJs, CRJ-700/900, and EMB-170/175/190/195 are vast improvements (have yet to fly on an RJ other than CRJ-100/200s). If the Saab 2000s come back, they will be used aircraft as Saab no longer produces airliners. The Q400 might displace some RJs on shorter routes, but only where it makes sense. Airlines are trying to keep the number of fleet types to a minimum these days, so why buy a turboprop that can't serve the longer, lighter routes when an RJ meets both short and long range needs?
Ssides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3629 times:
Frugalqxnwa is correct -- except for the CRJ-100/200, regional jets are such a comfort-improvement that I doubt you'll see turboprops really make a comeback.
And Frugalqxnwa -- it's a shame that you've only flown on the CRJ-100/200. I've flown on the ERJ-135, the ERJ-140, the ERJ-145, the CRJ-700/900, and the CRJ-100/200, and there is absolutely no comparison. It's amazing how much better the CRJ-700/900 is when compared to the 100/200. More space, smoother ride, just a great plane. Hard to tell, however, if I like it more than the ERJs (which are almost exactly alike -- sometimes it's hard to remember which series you're on!)
7LBAC111 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 2566 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3628 times:
The Props are still very active within Europe, for example FlyBE operate a decent sized fleet of the Dash8-300/Q400.
BA Citiexpress operate the Dash8-300/ATP/ATR on a number of domestic routes, having opted for the props on domestic service over the 146 and ERJs (which operate the trunk business routes mainly). Don't get me wrong, I love the RJs but being a regular flyer to BHD with BA, I actually prefer the props.
Debate is what you put on de hook when you want to catch de fish.
Elwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3536 times:
except for the CRJ-100/200, regional jets are such a comfort-improvement
I don't know why you'd say this. I'd rather fly in a CRJ, where I can stand while walking down the aisle. In an ERJ-135/145, I have to duck or I hit my head...
Props have a place on ultra-short routes like CLT-ILM or STL-SGF, or MAD-PMI in Europe. But on routes more than about 250-300 miles, RJs and other jets have a serious advantage in the ability generate more lift, or the same lift with fewer aircraft, even though the RJ might be the same size or smaller than the prop.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3512 times:
Never. RJ's are the future. If anything turboprops are the dying breed and they will be gone in the near future. Replacing RJ's with turboprops is just taking a step backwards- doesn't make any sense at all.
L410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5775 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3418 times:
I think that aviation has its clearly defined limits and trains are the way of the future, especially for cargo and distances covered by short-haul passenger flights right now. If they wouldn't be so often paralyzed with unbusinesslike attitude they could compete with airlines already.
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3341 times:
Public perception is also a major consideration. Despite the economics of turboprops they are unjustly seen as being 'less safe' than the RJs. I guess people equate the spinning prop to old technology despite the fact that it's still a turbine engine and many of the turboprops out there are better equipped than older 737s flying around out there.
Ouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4644 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3211 times:
Follow very closely what Delta does in the near future. Their new reorganization plan should be ready in August and the future of the RJ will be spelled out. Remember, Delta - more specifically Comair - pretty muched paved the way for the RJ movement. Their new CEO doesn't care much for the RJs on routes over 2 hours and also in situations where a prop - specifically the Dash 8 Q400 was mentioned - are more effecient than a CRJ.