Jetflyer From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 1 hour ago) and read 2627 times:
This may have been discussed many times before but...
I am wondering WHY there seems to be such an obsession with CRJs and such with airlines like Northwest, Delta Connection, etc... when it is simply blatantly obvious that using a turboprop of similar passenger capacity would be far more cost effective and efficient?
Looking at fuel consumption figures, it seems that a Dash 8 turboprop, carrying the same number of passengers as a CRJ-200, actually uses one third of the fuel on a given route. Here are more reasons which I'm sure most are already aware of, that it's so stupid!
1) In a given one hour regional flight, a CRJ will take about half of that to reach its cruising altitude, and only once it's at a high enough altitude will it burn fuel efficiently. A turboprop will spend less time climbing to its lower cruise altitude but is already burning tuns less fuel.
2) Are people "scared" of turboprops?? I know that the airline has to "listen" to the customer, but surely they aren't going to suffer that much of a "hit" if they change all their regional jets for turboprop aircraft?
3) It seems that all these airlines are filing for "chapter 11" protection. Instead of making obvious money saving changes, they are simply stopping serving meals or rubbish like that, when they could be using planes on some routes which burn a third less that CRJ aircraft do!!
What's the problem with them? Don't tell me a CRJ makes more money on a given route than a Dash 8, because I know the figures, etc.. what's more, it doesn't take much longer for the Dash 8 or ATR 42 to complete the same flight as a CRJ anyway. This might seem like a silly question, but it seems like a no-brainer to operate turbo-props and not these silly wanna-be jet CRJ's with sub dash 8 climb performance at least....
Just wondering if anyone has any answers! For that matter, why doesn't someone develop a 150 seater turboprop with similar speeds to jets which could replace the 737? It would burn less fuel for sure. Maybe that's "going backwards" in some peoples mind but so what, the airlines would all benefit from it.
Goldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5785 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 hour ago) and read 2566 times:
Turboprops and regional jets have their niche. Turboprops are more efficient on shorter flights, while regional jets are more efficient on longer flights; however, there are markets where a the opposite occurs, such as: a regional jet will provide the better service with faster enroute times, which means people will have more time to connect at the hubs, and a turboprop will be put on longer flights where an RJ will not be profitable due to horrible load factors, a subsidized market, or the airport not being approved to accept a regional jet—let alone a mainline aircraft.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
Except for Mesaba, of course - although that's mostly because NW stopped delivery of the CRJs after two were delivered (expensive to have only two), and because NW missed a number of payments to Mesaba for the Airlink service. Pinnacle remains out of bk. for now.
FLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 395 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years ago) and read 2520 times:
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 4): When the RJ appeared oil was at a significantly lower price so the RJ pax appeal and the greater productivity made it superior to turboprops at the time.
As the saying goes "every dog has its day" - and it looks like the sub-70 PAX RJ's days have passed their peak. Modern, high-speed turboprops like the DHC-8-400Q or ATR-72 may be coming back into style, soon.