Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Turboprops The Renaissance?  
User currently offlineDHHornet From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 252 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4489 times:

As fuel prices go up,are we about to see a major renaissance in the turboprop?

ATR for example are leading the way with a good order book. This is after a time it was looking very empty at one point.

I think ATRs & -8s will grab a large part of the market back from Regional Jets of all types on the shorter sectors. Q400s almost match RJs for speed/Climb, and the ATR -500 series are almost as nippy.

It has been mentioned before about passengers preferring regional jets to props. Is this a bit of corporate verbal poop from RJ manufacturers?
I think 90% of Joe Public (apart from us aircraft anoraks/people in the industry) don't give a toss or notice what is powering the aircraft, or even outside the window. Just as long as the price is right and they have a seat.

54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4399 times:

A major swing into the favor of regional jets were inaccurate media campaigns questioning the safety of turboprops and such, especially after AA4184 and some other incidents that followed.

As for preference...I could be some corporate PR spin...but in general, most RJs were more comfortable than props in regards to noise.

The Q400 changes this some with all the sound-canceling technology involved.

Unless jet technology improves to where we can have economical regional jets in the 30 seat and smaller segment, there will always be a market for turboprops.

Given that most of the current generation of props in that segment (EMB-120, Saab 340, Do-328, Beech 1900, et al) are out-of-production and getting up there in age.

Eventually there will be a need for yet a new class of props to replace these airframes.

Bombardier could easily take the advantage and further apply the Q400 technology to the smaller Dash-8s to build the new class.

For the smaller sizes...the Beech 1900 isn't going to last forever. The technology is out there now with lightweight materials and such that there could be a new-build 19-seater that has a slightly larger, more typical cabin and still be an economic airframe.

Who will build the new bird I have no idea...I'm not sure if Raytheon would want to reeenter the market, and BBD and Embraer are probably not interested in building aircraft for that size.

We'll see what happens, though. Only time can tell where the industry goes.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineBravoGolf From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4311 times:

Quoting JBo (Reply 1):
A major swing into the favor of regional jets were inaccurate media campaigns questioning the safety of turboprops and such, especially after AA4184 and some other incidents that followed.

In addition to AA4184, another ATR in the South Bend area at the same time, also had iceing problems and the pilot almost lost it. There was a major problem with the ATRs and the public reacted by assuming all turboprops were bad. To be safe, the airlines moved their SAABS north and their ATRs south. The result is turboprops are DEAD DEAD DEAD in the US.


User currently offlineOV735 From Estonia, joined Jan 2004, 920 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4218 times:

I kind of think it's the same with turboprops as it is with Russian-built aircraft. People who know them, know that they are perfectly safe and reliable. But uninformed Joe Average, on the other hand, sees a propeller on an aircraft, and thinks that this plane must have been built some time before WWII and thus he's not very eager to board it.

But of course, for smaller sizes (up to 40 seats), the economic and operational aspect will probably prevail over the public opinion and I think the props will have a good future in that segment.

Cheers
OV735


User currently offlinePavlovsDog From Norway, joined Sep 2005, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4137 times:

I started a similar topic a couple of months back.

Is There A Market For A 90-160 Seat Props? (by PavlovsDog Mar 16 2006 in Civil Aviation)#ID2661672

I'm really surprised no manufacturer is coming up with any new aircraft in the 70-140 seat range. The engines, brand new Europrop TP400-D6 are ready to go.


User currently offlineDHHornet From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4067 times:

Quoting BravoGolf (Reply 2):
In addition to AA4184, another ATR in the South Bend area at the same time, also had iceing problems and the pilot almost lost it. There was a major problem with the ATRs and the public reacted by assuming all turboprops were bad. To be safe, the airlines moved their SAABS north and their ATRs south. The result is turboprops are DEAD DEAD DEAD in the US

Bravogolf - This maybe is just the view of Turboprops in the US. Not in the rest of the world.

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 4):
started a similar topic a couple of months back.

Is There A Market For A 90-160 Seat Props? (by PavlovsDog Mar 16 2006 in Civil Aviation)#ID2661672

I'm really surprised no manufacturer is coming up with any new aircraft in the 70-140 seat range. The engines, brand new Europrop TP400-D6 are ready to go

Yep I agree totally.

Quoting JBo (Reply 1):
Bombardier could easily take the advantage and further apply the Q400 technology to the smaller Dash-8s to build the new class.

You are right. Bombardier should do this.

Quoting OV735 (Reply 3):
I kind of think it's the same with turboprops as it is with Russian-built aircraft. People who know them, know that they are perfectly safe and reliable.

The An-140 a tidy aircraft.
www.an140.com/
A low cost version of the ATR & -8. A P&W powered version is on the cards. You never know with the right backing and orders it could do well.
Russian made and a turboprop. Maybe not a seller in the USA!


User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4166 posts, RR: 36
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4038 times:

Well, a 100-seat turboprop for infra-Europe and a couple of Asian, Australiaasian and North-American routes could be indeed attractive. I'm thinking about things like MEL-CBR, AKL-WLG, BRE-STR etc.

However, the larger your plane the more likely it is that you need to transport people over longer distances - and the longer the distance the higher the need for higher speed. Means: as soon as you move into the category above 100 seats you are in territory where you need to have the range and especially the speed to be a competitive alternative.

IMO the only real activity in the prop scene will be in the area 50 seats and above, in the 19/30 seat segment it is unlikely that we will see much activity for the foreseeable future. There are simply too many young second-hand frames out in a cost-driven market.

That said I think that there is some latent demand building for a new family spanning 19/30/45 seats. Probably from 2015 onwards the youngest frames will be 15 years old, and then you need to restart thinking how to replace these ones.

The Q400 has its merits, but only when you are able to squeez out a couple of additional segments every day due to its higher speed. Otherwise you are likely to be better off with the cheaper but slower ATR 72-500. I don't see much improvement here in the pipeline for the next 5 years. For ATR it might be very interesting to track the developments of the A400M and the A350 in terms of technology development and actual performance in service - I think here are a couple of interesting ideas in which would trickle town further down the line.

However, a full-composite or full-AL/LI ATR or Q is something I don't see at the moment. Too expensive for too little return.



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2349 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3922 times:

I believe in the next 5 years, you will see a full circle story with turboprops. On runs around 300 miles or less, a turboprop can make it in relatively the same timeframe as an RJ, with less fuel consumption. (Relatively speaking...not saying stick a Convair 580 against an ERJ-145XR  Wink )

I see ATR taking a pretty far out lead on this market, as well as DHC (Bombardier). No one else out there is really marketing a 30-50 seat turboprop. On NE Corridor runs, a turboprop (ATR-42/72, Q400/300) will keep up with any RJ or Mainline and cut fuel costs at the same time.

I know the public thinks "Prop Planes" are old, but thats the fault of the airlines marketing departments. Let the public know the safety and efficiency of a turboprop and they will shine.

ATCT

(Mind as well jump on the bandwagon and say they run on E85 :P )



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3915 times:

One thing that would be cool to do, if possible, is to move the props to the back of the plane, similar to a DC-9, MD-80 or 727. That way the flying public won't see them out the windows.

I think a lot of the nervousness comes from looking out a Dash 8 or Saab 340 window and seeing this HUGE object just spinning like crazy........

Maybe do a design like Raytheon did on that cool aircraft that had the prop engines in the back. Now that was a SWEET aircraft!


User currently offlineNWDC10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3823 times:

Take QX for example. They have very nice planes. Q200/Q400. But what really matters is "Service In The Sky" and QX has very good if not excellent service. They use the Q400 to compete very effectively againts WN and QX is the dominant carrier of most of their routes. Soon the new Q400's come in. I really would like to see exclusive Q400 service between cities like PSC-SEA and YKM-SEA. And i'm hoping to see EAT-SEA be served by the Q400. Turbo props are great aircraft but it is service that means most to pax's. Robert NWDC10

User currently offlineVisakow From United States of America, joined May 2006, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3807 times:

Quoting JayDavis (Reply 8):
One thing that would be cool to do, if possible, is to move the props to the back of the plane, similar to a DC-9, MD-80 or 727. That way the flying public won't see them out the windows.

I believe McDonnell Douglas played with that on the MD-90/95 series and had a couple of working testbeds using RR engines but they never came to fruition. Dual or counter-rotating propellers per engine. Did a search but could find nothing on www. Do have a couple books that mention but those are back home in WA, sorry.

Vadim


User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3794 times:

Turbopros are for the most part dead except in very niche applications.

Among the reasons:

1 - Airlines have recognized that any route that can't reliably load 50 passangers/plane is a money loser. Those routes require 70-seat planes and up. The days of the 45 seat regional jets are gone. And the days of the 45 seat turboprops are gone as well. 70-110 seats with 500-2500 nm stage lengths is where the action is.

2 - Higher operational and maintenance costs of turboprops vs turbofans - you have to maintain a jet engine plus a multiblade prop. Props have TBO and maintenance intervals much shorter than turbofans.

3 - Higher weight of powerplants (though this is somewhat offset because of lower fuel burns).

4 - Inability to get above some nasty weather. The difference between flying at 20-25K vs 35K feet can have a substantial impact on comfort.

5 - Safety and increased ground handling of turboprops - you have to secure the free-turbine propeller on turboprops as the wind can turn the blade and whack Joe Smoe on the head as he tries to board the plane (assuming no jet bridge).

6 - Joe Q Public can tell very few things about an airplane - one of which is if it is a "jet" or a "prop plane". And they don't like to fly props.

7 - Noise level. Use all the sound dumping technique you want, the level and frequency of a turboprop is much more intrusive than a turbofan's.

8 - Lack of flexibility. An E170/190 turbofan can work well on 500 and 2000 mile stage lengths. A turboprop would make the 2000 mile route just too long.

9 - Icing. Turboprops fly slower than turbofans, climb slower, fly lower, therefore fly longer in icing conditions and adverse weather. In addition when antiicing is used, big chunks of ice shed from the propeller and slam into the airframe startling passengers.

10 - Image. Like it or not, an all "jet" fleet is considered a modern/progressive thing.

Put it all together and turboprops are dead for all practical purposes.

[Edited 2006-06-06 07:58:22]


Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineNZ8800 From New Zealand, joined May 2006, 425 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3771 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
Turbopros are for the most part dead except in very niche applications.

I don't agree.

It has been shown again and again that turboprops are more economical to run than turbofan aircraft on shorter hops.
For example, some mainline jet services in New Zealand (often 400nm or less) have been replaced or supplemented by 70 (ish!) seater turboprops due to greater economy. (WLG-CHC, DUD-CHC, AKL-PMR, HLZ-WLG, CHC-IVC, CHC-ZQN, ROT-CHC.)
As to what the public would like - in a market that can barely sustain three carriers (Air New Zealand, Qantas, and Origin Pacific) - whether you like it or not, on the whole it is like it or lump it!
Higher operational costs may be offset by much lower fuel costs... and it might be lower operational costs considering the average turboprop is made for taking off and landing every 300nm or less, and the average jet isn't.
And if you are flying that sort of length - is even a jet going to climb above the weather to 35000 feet?

I would agree in the USA, turboprops would be of more limited use, as you have a lot of ground to cover. But smaller countries (geographically) such as the UK, NZ, and even Australia to a point (due to settlement patterns), turboprops remain economical and reliable workhorses. QantasLink and Air New Zealand are but two airlines buying Q300s etc, and intend to continue running turboprops. FlyBE also find them very useful for their routes around the UK and to/from France. That's only a few markets, and I would not call them niche. In addition, not all countries can fund the long runways that jets require... most NZ regional airports have runways around the 1200-1350m mark, which is rather sketchy for a 100 seat jet!



MDZWTA ~ Mobile Disaster Zone When Travelling Abroad
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4166 posts, RR: 36
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3738 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
1 - Airlines have recognized that any route that can't reliably load 50 passangers/plane is a money loser. Those routes require 70-seat planes and up. The days of the 45 seat regional jets are gone. And the days of the 45 seat turboprops are gone as well. 70-110 seats with 500-2500 nm stage lengths is where the action is.

Then please explain why Northwest is using a 50+ frames strong Saab SF340 fleet. Or how a carrier such as Regional Express in Australia with a large fleet of SWM/SF3 can exist. Maybe we should re-phrase what you have written: "Airlines have recognized that any route with competition that can't reliably load 50 passengers/plane is a money loser."

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
4 - Inability to get above some nasty weather. The difference between flying at 20-25K vs 35K feet can have a substantial impact on comfort.

On a 300 nm hop you barely get at altitude before you need to be back at descent. Little difference if you are flying at 25K 10 minutes longer or not.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
5 - Safety and increased ground handling of turboprops - you have to secure the free-turbine propeller on turboprops as the wind can turn the blade and whack Joe Smoe on the head as he tries to board the plane (assuming no jet bridge).

Don't know how this is handled in the US, but here in Europe most of the time you are nowhere getting near the blades when entering/exiting the plane. I don't think that this argument holds up.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
8 - Lack of flexibility. An E170/190 turbofan can work well on 500 and 2000 mile stage lengths. A turboprop would make the 2000 mile route just too long.

Goes basically back to your argument #1, and to what I said in my previous post. The longer the distance the lesser the competition from other modes of transport and the higher the potential passenger number. However, the longer the route the higher the demand for high speed - albeit there will always be a restriction: price. If somebody is offering a slower but far cheaper journey, one has to expect that very price contious traveller spill over from the jet to the prop service.



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3708 times:

NZ8800 and Flying-Tiger, I don't necessarily disagree with any of your comments.

My statements are forward looking statements.

For example, I could say that 3-engined airliners are dead, and you could say, but look at all the 727 and MD11 in operation as cargo and passanger planes. Yes, but they are left overs from an old era. They won't be scrapped overnight, but it is very unlikely that new 3-engine airliners will be designed and placed in service going forward.

Same with Turboprops - yes there are lots of holdover applications. But going forward they'll be (mostly, every rule has exceptions) used on niche routes.

With all due respect, 300nm hops in New Zeland to 1000m runways and channel hopping from UK to France can be considered niche applications, no?

Oh, and most Jets do get to 30K feet even for short hops like NY to DC for example.

I like Turboprops and their short hop efficiency, but I'm afraid the (larger) market has spoken againt them.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineT prop From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1029 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3675 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
Put it all together and turboprops are dead for all practical purposes.

I disagree, ten years ago and $25 dollar-a- barrel oil would make the above statement a little more beleiveable.

And it looks like Continenetal wants to get rid of some ERJ's and replace them with turboprops. I hear they like the Q400's.  wink 

http://www.atwonline.com/channels/aircraftEquipment/

T prop.


User currently offlineIndyCanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3641 times:

Quote:
Oh, and most Jets do get to 30K feet even for short hops like NY to DC for example.



I took a look at ten RJ flights from LGW to IAD on flightaware and none of them got above 21,000 feet.

Also from IND to CVG, ORD, STL, and DTW no RJ gets above 21,000 feet. These are the types of routes that are perfectly suited to prop flying. High capacity, short distance hub flying. There are probably hundreds of these city pairs that make more sense to fly with and Dash or ATR.

I understand the public reception to props, but isn't it time the airlines started flying for the bottom line again. Just don't give the option of jets on these types of routes and see what happens.


User currently offlineNzrich From New Zealand, joined Dec 2005, 1524 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

Well lets be honest for short flying distances Turbo props are cheaper to run .. Are usually within 5 mins flying time compared to jets !!!!! In the end it makes financial common sence to operate prop aircraft ... I bet with most american airlines not in the best financial shape these must planes must look good in the minds of the executives ..Also lets be honest when i book a ticket i dont look at the aircraft operating , my first look is which airline operates the flight and the second is the price!!!


"Pride of the pacific"
User currently offlineDesertAir From Mexico, joined Jan 2006, 1480 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3554 times:

It seems to me that turboprops might enable service to smaller markets that have lost air service. Take for instance, Stockton, CA. Since deregulation they have lost all service with the exception of the newly begun Allegiant Service to Las Vegas three times a week. For trips to SF-under 30 minutes and to LAX-about an hour-these planes would be a gift from heaven. As I read the thead, not all markets are appropriate, not all climates wil work, I would fly them. The example of Horizon is a good one. They use the Q series very effectively.

User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3547 times:

I doubt it, too few manufacturer to push this technology forward and offer financial help to airlines to swap old jet planes to newer turbo-props.

User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3488 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
Higher operational and maintenance costs of turboprops vs turbofans - you have to maintain a jet engine plus a multiblade prop. Props have TBO and maintenance intervals much shorter than turbofans.

There is not evidence of this. A 50 seat RJ has just as high a maintenance cost as the Q400. Overall, the Q400 is opearted for the same trip cost out to 350 miles than a CRJ-200 is, and it carries 30% more pax.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
Higher weight of powerplants (though this is somewhat offset because of lower fuel burns).

Higherweight? What?

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
Inability to get above some nasty weather. The difference between flying at 20-25K vs 35K feet can have a substantial impact on comfort.

On the types of routes that Turboprops are used on, RJ's don't get any higher in altitude. On a 300 mile trip, you'd spend your entire time climbing then you'd start desending to achieve such altitudes.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
Safety and increased ground handling of turboprops - you have to secure the free-turbine propeller on turboprops as the wind can turn the blade and whack Joe Smoe on the head as he tries to board the plane (assuming no jet bridge).

Whatever.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
Joe Q Public can tell very few things about an airplane - one of which is if it is a "jet" or a "prop plane". And they don't like to fly props.

People don't care, they want a new aircraft and a cheap seat.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
Noise level. Use all the sound dumping technique you want, the level and frequency of a turboprop is much more intrusive than a turbofan's.

I supposed you haven't been on a Q400 then.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
Lack of flexibility. An E170/190 turbofan can work well on 500 and 2000 mile stage lengths. A turboprop would make the 2000 mile route just too long.

And what do you do under 500 miles? 40% of Comairs flights are under 300 miles from CVG. That right there is demand for about 50 aircraft. Same thing is in play in Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, Minnepolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Houston and the list goes on. Airlines jumped on hte RJ bandwagon, and are chockign on that decision.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
Icing. Turboprops fly slower than turbofans, climb slower, fly lower, therefore fly longer in icing conditions and adverse weather. In addition when antiicing is used, big chunks of ice shed from the propeller and slam into the airframe startling passengers.

Bull. The Q400 kicks the CRJs ass in climb performance.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
Image. Like it or not, an all "jet" fleet is considered a modern/progressive thing.

Like it or not, and all jet fleet for a major carrier will land you in bankrupsty faster than you can turn your head.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
Put it all together and turboprops are dead for all practical purposes.

Put it all together and ignoring the use of Turboprops because the WSJ says they're dead and you might as well pack it in.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 14):
My statements are forward looking statements.

Forward looking? With $70-80 oil??? Please.

[Edited 2006-06-06 15:26:29]

User currently offlineDHHornet From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3334 times:

Thanks all. Some good points raised from my original questions:

Quoting ATCT (Reply 7):
I believe in the next 5 years, you will see a full circle story with turboprops. On runs around 300 miles or less, a turboprop can make it in relatively the same timeframe as an RJ, with less fuel consumption. (Relatively speaking...not saying stick a Convair 580 against an ERJ-145XR )

Spot on  thumbsup 

Quoting JayDavis (Reply 8):
think a lot of the nervousness comes from looking out a Dash 8 or Saab 340 window and seeing this HUGE object just spinning like crazy........

I still don't go with this  no  ... Is this just a USA Passenger thing?

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11):
Turbopros are for the most part dead except in very niche applications.

Baron95. What are you going on about?  irked  TPs fly outside the USA (the world is a big niche place) and operate well and make money. RJs for eg. in the USA and the longer distances, are more efficient. But airlines operate on profits not on how an aircraft looks.

Boeing7E7/Flying-Tger you both said it all in replies to Baron95's comments!

When the Q400 was launched I was silly enough to think it was dead in the water with all the new RJs coming out at the time-WRONG!! How the industry and market changes?

I live in the Southwest of England and I can't see Turboprops being dead in anyway!
Flybe, Air Southwest, Aer Arann in my small part of the world are all operating profitable and viable services.


The future as I see it. This is from a european viewpoint.
Majors carrier will switch or start using TPs more on shorter sectors. One of the big manufactures will develop a new 70-100 Turboprop aircraft, the market will demand it. Bombardier and ATR will be rich happy bunnies!
A new large pan-european low cost airline With -8s or ATRs will start up. Using smaller local airports as they are pushed out of the majors.

 cloudnine  Maybe?


User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3196 times:

Quoting DHHornet (Reply 21):
The future as I see it. This is from a european viewpoint.
Majors carrier will switch or start using TPs more on shorter sectors.

Major carriers (I assume you mean network carriers like BA, LH, AF in Europe and AA, DL, CO, UA in the US) will start buying and operating turboprops????? Are you serious? Do you really think that will happen?

Have you not noticed the movement towards fewer aircraft types in the fleets? Why would I introduce a new type that is only better on stage lengths up to 300 miles or so, when I can have a plane like an E170 that can do pretty good on 300 mile runs, but also do 1500 mile runs?

I think the problem is that you are comparing the optimum turboprop Q400 with the low-seat-count-louzy first generation RJs (e.g. ERJ145). Please, look at the CASM for the E70-E195 family (that is an RJ done right) compared to the Q400. You'll be surprised.

It is not that TPs are dead. It is that anything less than 70 seats is dead except for niches.

Of course, the minute I see BA, LH, AF, AA, UA, CO, DL starting to order and operate turboprops mainline, I'll gladly eat my words with ketchup.

Cheers.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineMD90fan From Bahamas, joined Jul 2005, 2931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3160 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 22):
Major carriers (I assume you mean network carriers like BA, LH, AF in Europe and AA, DL, CO, UA in the US) will start buying and operating turboprops????? Are you serious? Do you really think that will happen?

They don't have too, as they already do operate T.P's here's a list I made off the top of my head...

BA-DASH-8, FD 328. SF-340

LH-ATR-42/500, ATR-72/500, Q-400

AF/KL- E-120, Saab 2000, ATR-42/500, ATR-72/500, F-50

OS- DASH-8 Q300, Q400,

LOT-ATR-42, ATR-72

CSA- ATR-42, ATR-72

AZ-ATR-42, ATR-72

OA-ATR-72, DASH-8

AA-SF-340, ATR-72, ATR-72/500,

CO-SF-340, B1900D

DL-ATR-72

UA-E-120,

US-B1900D, DASH-8, SF-340,

AS-DASH-8, Q-400



http://www.devanwells.blogspot.com/
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 22):
Major carriers (I assume you mean network carriers like BA, LH, AF in Europe and AA, DL, CO, UA in the US) will start buying and operating turboprops????? Are you serious? Do you really think that will happen?

Ummm... Yes. They can't afford to not have their connection carriers do so. Or are you one of those that thinks a regional carriers isn't part of the major carrier so it doesn't count?

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 22):
Have you not noticed the movement towards fewer aircraft types in the fleets? Why would I introduce a new type that is only better on stage lengths up to 300 miles or so, when I can have a plane like an E170 that can do pretty good on 300 mile runs, but also do 1500 mile runs?

Have you noticed the gas prices lately?

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 22):
I think the problem is that you are comparing the optimum turboprop Q400 with the low-seat-count-louzy first generation RJs (e.g. ERJ145). Please, look at the CASM for the E70-E195 family (that is an RJ done right) compared to the Q400. You'll be surprised.

Nope. Wrong again and on routes the prop is designed for, not even close in terms of ASM cost.


25 Post contains images RayChuang : What I find interesting is that if you read the article from the Arizona Daily Star I just referred to from a posting on this forum, Boeing IS doing s
26 Baron95 : I consider American Eagle as part of AA, but not American Connection partners and such which are totally separate airlines simply flying under contrac
27 Boeing7E7 : The regional partners are a part of the mainline carrier - contracted or not. If you think there is a difference, you don't understand the pricing or
28 Post contains links Baron95 : Well Boeing7e7, the boys and gals at American Eagle, may have a different opinion from yours as they have been kicking turboprops out of their fleet a
29 Planemaker : I would just like to point out that BBD didn't make any choice. The CRJ100 was already in development before BBD was gifted Canadair by the Canadian
30 Boeing7E7 : In an environment where they can't off load the RJ's or afford to re-fleet. Take a look at the order books for 50 seaters and tell me how the future
31 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : Wikipedia? Please. http://www.aa.com/content/amrcorp/co...orateInformation/facts/fleet.jhtml American Eagle Saab 340 26 Super ATR 41 Embraer 145 108
32 DHHornet : Yes I do. Again it is all just about cost. Yes I do mean network carriers along with regional partners and commuter divisions. The E170/E190 family i
33 Parapente : I know its fat too late but does anyone remember seeing the following. I was at the Farnbrough air show many years ago (10?). At the BAE stand they ha
34 Mandala499 : Maybe do a design like Raytheon did on that cool aircraft that had the prop engines in the back. Now that was a SWEET aircraft! Well Embraer did that
35 Post contains links Flying-Tiger : Stage length 350 Nm European Environment CRJ-200ER CRJ-700 Dash8-Q400 ATR72-500 Emb170  Seats 50 70 74 74 70  MTOW kg 23,133 32,995 29,250 22,500 26
36 Boeing7E7 : Not surprised at all: 300 Mile Trip Cost- Q400 - $2277 - Seat Cost $31.63 E-170 - $2448 - Seat Cost $34.00 Fuel Cost: Q400 - $746 E170 - $1,063 Do yo
37 Planemaker : No, the Q400 could not "have easily been dumped like other TP programs" for several reasons given below: 1. There was no competing 70-78 TP in develo
38 Arrow : I thought it required a significant wing re-design to get the additional speed out of it.
39 Post contains images Mandala499 : A redesigned wing or a pumped up engine for the speed? Mandala499
40 Planemaker : It did not require a "significant" wing re-design compared to the Q300 but the Q400's "pumped up engine" compared to the Q300... PW123B Take-off rati
41 Baron95 : Thanks for taking the time to get the info Boeing7E7. I am actually surprised that it is that close $2.37 difference in seat cost between E170 and Q4
42 Post contains images JayDavis : What an interesting and informative thread, guys. I still think turbo-props are going to make a comeback, even in the US. Goodness, I miss the Convair
43 SuperDash : Well Baron, I hate to say this but Boeing 7E7 is spot on. Where is fuel a buck twenty these days? Try closer to two bucks! False! Schedules and fares
44 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : First Quarter 2006 Form-41 data. $1.20 fuel? I wish... So too can the Q400. http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/dash8/ So too can the Q400.
45 BR715-A1-30 : You are actually thinking of the UHB Engine that GE made. It was designated the GE-36, and was basically a jet engine, with a jet core, but the "fan"
46 Baron95 : Well, on that I agree. I think 50-seat Jets were and are a bad, bad idea. I think 70 seats with decent overhead bins and aisle width (like E170) is t
47 Boeing7E7 : Same thing with just about every other aircraft under 100 seats. 64 seats - Jet or Prop - It's a sweet spot of cost v. profitability. Always has been
48 Baron95 : Why 64 as the magic number? Is the theory that on average you can fly 2 regional planes with 64 people into a hub and combine them into a single MD8,
49 Boeing7E7 : Good question, but it's held true for 30+ years. Ran across it in College, and it holds true today. If you send 3 - 737's to a regional market, which
50 Post contains images Baron95 : Smart man your professor - he was ahead of his time Since this is a Turboprop thread, I have another question. Does anyone have an opinion as to sing
51 Visakow : Have to go on faith on this one. It's been a few years, many, thanks though-your correct. Vadim
52 Dhhornet : Bearskin in Canada is only one I can think of off the top of my head. Isn't the issue about singe engine safety that restricts this sort of aircraft
53 Baron95 : I'd take the PC-12 over a C90 or B200 King Air. However, Beech finally made some upgrades to the king air. the B200 and 350 got Collins Proline 21 gl
54 DeltaRules : Delta also has (or will have) Dash-8s in their fleet operated by Freedom out of JFK. DeltaRules
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...
Turboprops On The Shuttle? posted Sun Feb 5 2006 20:01:27 by KDCA
Have Turboprops Gone The Way Of The Dodo? posted Sat Feb 4 2006 20:24:47 by AviationAddict
Will Turboprops Displace RJ's In The Future? posted Sat Jul 17 2004 20:38:58 by Cumulonimbus
The Latest Turboprops posted Mon Aug 18 2003 20:53:39 by OverseasBHX
Where Are All Of The Regional Turboprops? posted Sat Apr 19 2003 00:29:55 by Dutchjet
What Are The Advantages Of Turboprops posted Tue Jun 11 2002 17:04:39 by MCOtoATL
The Future Of Regional Turboprops posted Thu May 2 2002 19:35:37 by Dutchjet
Are The Turboprops Dying Out? posted Thu Apr 11 2002 08:15:11 by KAUSpilot
The Future Of Turboprops: Dark? posted Thu Oct 25 2001 12:38:12 by Airbus Lover
What Will Become Of The Turboprops? posted Sun Jul 22 2001 23:36:45 by Co LITE