Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Regional Jet Frenzy  
User currently offlineJetflyer From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2731 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.

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2695 times:

It depends on the stage length... ATRs take much longer, partly because they are extremely noisy and vibrate a lot. A Rj on longer flights is more cost-effective than a turboprop.

Quoting Jetflyer (Thread starter):
2) Are people "scared" of turboprops??

Yes.

Quoting Jetflyer (Thread starter):
3) It seems that all these airlines are filing for "chapter 11" protection.

But not their Rj operators.

Cheers



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6003 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2670 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.
User currently offlineAlexPorter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 1):
But not their Rj operators.

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.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6144 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

Quoting Jetflyer (Thread starter):
I am wondering WHY there seems to be such an obsession with CRJs and such with airlines like Northwest, Delta Connection, etc

Don't worry, the "obsession with CRJs" is over. There is already a glut of 50-seaters on the market.

Quoting Jetflyer (Thread starter):
when it is simply blatantly obvious that using a turboprop of similar passenger capacity would be far more cost effective and efficient?

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.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineFLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 462 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2624 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.

That's right!

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.


User currently offlineIlikeyyc From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1373 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2616 times:

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 3):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 1):
But not their Rj operators.

Except for Mesaba, of course

And Comair. Don't forget Comair is eliminating the -200 from their fleet.



Fighting Absurdity with Absurdity!
User currently offlineTinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2602 times:

Quoting Ilikeyyc (Reply 6):
And Comair. Don't forget Comair is eliminating the -200 from their fleet.

Since when? They are eliminating SOME -200's...30 IIRC. They have 100+ -200's and there are not going anywhere en masse anytime soon.



"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AI(R) 70-seat Regional Jet posted Sun Oct 22 2006 10:09:16 by BA
Suppliers Seen Sharing NWA Regional Jet Order posted Tue Oct 3 2006 23:44:00 by KarlB737
F9 Buys 10 Q400's, Seeks Regional Jet Expansion posted Wed Sep 6 2006 15:57:50 by NZblue
New 100-130 Seat Large Regional Jet Design posted Wed Aug 9 2006 14:56:12 by Keesje
Russian Regional Jet, How Will It Fair In The West posted Wed May 24 2006 00:23:23 by Dogfighter2111
United Introduces You To The Regional Jet: Evolved posted Tue May 16 2006 22:17:51 by FlyCMH
European Tour To Showcase CRJ900 Regional Jet posted Wed Mar 8 2006 12:31:03 by Leelaw
Chinese Regional Jet posted Sun Feb 19 2006 21:24:39 by Csturdiv
Lufthansa Near A Regional Jet Decision posted Fri Feb 10 2006 21:42:07 by FCKC
Regional Jet CRJ-200ER Object? posted Mon Nov 21 2005 05:47:00 by CYEGsTankers