Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A New Big Turboprop Era?  
User currently onlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 322 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 25283 times:

As per Flightglobal, Bombardier is offering a 84/86 pax variant of Q400.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-offer-higher-density-q400-392399/

This has been discussed in the past more than once, but the question remains: are we heading to a new era of new/reborn big turboprops? Their cost, fuel consumption, noise levels, short take-off capabilities, new noise-cancelling techniques, etc. play in its favour. Is this move going to force ATR to disclose openly its plans for 90+ pax? Could a kind of new 'turboprop-LCC' model emerge somehow? Are the engine manufacturers ready to fill this, perhaps, not so small niche? Well, herewith the discussion is declared open. By the way, totally anecdotical, but... at BRU I see now a lot of Q400; this was only inimaginable some years ago.

Regards,


A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
90 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6511 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 25148 times:

It might come but this isn't it, just cramming more people into the same aircraft. We'll see if that help sales of the Q400 that are very few and far between at the moment.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDUSint From Germany, joined Apr 2013, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 24902 times:

I remember plans at ATR for a bigger turboprop.

However, I am not sure if we are speaking of a longer version of the existing ATR 72 or of a all-new model?
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_06_20_2013_p0-590236.xml
One sentence in this article leads me to believe that it would be the latter:
"That could open up a niche that can be filled with a newly designed turboprop."
5-abreast, anyone?


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7551 posts, RR: 32
Reply 3, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 24896 times:

I don't believe anything other than cheaper pricing for turboprop flights vs jet flights will ever persuade the flying public to move toward the flights.

The perception against 'slow, noisy, old' prop planes is deeply ingrained in the flying public. On routes with a choice at near the same price - the jet will always win.

I know the perception is false, but it exists.

Turboprops have a niche market in today's flying world, but I don't see it ever growing much.


User currently offlineaviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 24895 times:

Oh the disappointment!

I thought from the title that at the very least the Tu-114 was going back into production or something  



707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3381 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 24748 times:

I think ATR was/is planning a ' 92 ' version a while back.


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently onlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 24645 times:

"I thought from the title that at the very least the Tu-114 was going back into production or something "

Yes, I understand and share your disappointment. Tu-114, what a beast! 150-180 pax!

(And I like very much your signature: lovely things + boring stuff. Yes, indeed this is a "white goods" era).



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 24582 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3):
The perception against 'slow, noisy, old' prop planes is deeply ingrained in the flying public. On routes with a choice at near the same price - the jet will always win.

I know the perception is false, but it exists.

I mostly disagree. I think you are over-exaggerating that perception.

95% of the pax have absolutely no idea what aircraft they are on - certainly not when booking, and most not even when they are on the aircraft (if they do they don't care). IMO Few make decisions based on it, and those that do are the ones that know better anyway.

I have actually heard more complaints about jet RJs (from the 5% that do know), than Dash-8's or Q400s etc.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2473 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 24522 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 4):
I thought from the title that at the very least the Tu-114 was going back into production

Yes! And it regularly flew at "jet" speeds. The fastest propeller-turbine airliner ever! The largest and heaviest civil airplane in existence at the time of it's introduction. Many records still on the books.

  



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineRJNUT From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 24360 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3):
don't believe anything other than cheaper pricing for turboprop flights vs jet flights will ever persuade the flying public to move toward the flights.

The perception against 'slow, noisy, old' prop planes is deeply ingrained in the flying public. On routes with a choice at near the same price - the jet will always win.

the ongoing airline consolidation in the US and contiunal loss of direct services will change that tune in a hurry!


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6511 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 24266 times:

And don't forget the shrinking middle class. The choice is obviously not between a cheap jet and an expensive turboprop flight, but the opposite : a jet flight you can't afford (or doesn't even exist anymore because not enough people could afford it) and a cheaper turboprop flight.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 24167 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 7):
I mostly disagree. I think you are over-exaggerating that perception.

95% of the pax have absolutely no idea what aircraft they are on - certainly not when booking, and most not even when they are on the aircraft (if they do they don't care). IMO Few make decisions based on it, and those that do are the ones that know better anyway.

I have actually heard more complaints about jet RJs (from the 5% that do know), than Dash-8's or Q400s etc.

Put me in that category. I go out of my way on UA to book a Q400 over a -145 when I can. I find it to be so much more comfortable.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 10):
The choice is obviously not between a cheap jet and an expensive turboprop flight, but the opposite : a jet flight you can't afford (or doesn't even exist anymore because not enough people could afford it) and a cheaper turboprop flight.

Huh? Putting aside that, according to US DOT, from 2000 to 2012, inflation-adjusted fares DECLINED 16.7 % while there was an overall increase in consumer prices of 32%, what examples are there of a jet flight that is unaffordable and a cheaper turboprop flight? Fares are set based on market forces, not based on the type of aircraft.


User currently offlineDUSint From Germany, joined Apr 2013, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 23891 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 11):
I go out of my way on UA to book a Q400 over a -145 when I can.

Hm, but then again, if I am seated in the single seat on the -145, I would prefer it over the Q400...

Looks as if we do not really get into talking about the real topic of this thread, do we??


User currently offlinerampbro From Canada, joined Nov 2012, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 22787 times:

Speaking from a Canadian perspective, I would expect to see increased use of large turbo-props in this country over the next 20 years, particularly as the northern part of this country opens up.

Quoting catiii (Reply 11):
Fares are set based on market forces, not based on the type of aircraft.

The type of aircraft has an effect on those market forces. CASM is specifically determined by a/c type, and is a key input into fare decisions.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 22554 times:

Quoting DUSint (Reply 12):
Looks as if we do not really get into talking about the real topic of this thread, do we??

As the OP is talking about a stretch Q400, and as other posts in the thread have debated whether it makes sense given the public's perceptions of turboprop flying vs. regional jet flying, than yes...we are talking about the real topic of this thread.


User currently onlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 22226 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 14):
Looks as if we do not really get into talking about the real topic of this thread, do we??


As the OP is talking about a stretch Q400, and as other posts in the thread have debated whether it makes sense given the public's perceptions of turboprop flying vs. regional jet flying, than yes...we are talking about the real topic of this thread.

Well, I should say that "public perception" is one of many factors. But as somebody said before, with low enough fares this perception can be modified more or less easily. But I personally would prefer to concentrate on pax capacity, engines, fuel consumption, CASM, the ATR/Bombardier approachs, etc. or in questions as "How on Earth it is possible that Antonov, with all his huge experience in this field, is not well present in the world markets for turboprops?"



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlinehh65man From Australia, joined Feb 2013, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 22133 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Slap a second deck and some windows on the A400 and I am in. Nothing beats a massive turbo prop.  

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7042 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 21804 times:

My two cents, Bombardier went for the replacement small RJ market with the Q400 which did not pan out, RJ's are going away not because of fuel cost but due in large part to scope in the USA and the chpt. 11 reorganization and consolidation which has seen the power of the pilots reduced in the number and size of a/c that can be operated on behalf of the legacies.
The Q400 suddenly does not have much of a market in the USA and elsewhere in the world it is a bit too much a/c in terms of seats - yes I know the cost is comparable but if you are not filling the a/c you are dragging around weight - it is fast and technical, in some regions it needs to be a bit more rugged.

If they want a larger turbo they should look 5 or 6 across getting a wider fuse versus longer with 4 across.
I do not see the airlines using the cheaper cost of the turbo to lower their prices and since these are most likely operated by third parties on a fixed cost basis, where is the incentive to switch a/c, only commuter airlines not operating for the legaices maybe able to offer lower fares, I tend to agree with the quote below.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3):
I don't believe anything other than cheaper pricing for turboprop flights vs jet flights will ever persuade the flying public to move toward the flights


User currently offlineplanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3521 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 21227 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 11):
Huh? Putting aside that, according to US DOT, from 2000 to 2012, inflation-adjusted fares DECLINED 16.7 % while there was an overall increase in consumer prices of 32%, what examples are there of a jet flight that is unaffordable and a cheaper turboprop flight? Fares are set based on market forces, not based on the type of aircraft.

I think he is referring to the (future) choice that people will have and the evolution of the industry.

Fares may have declined since 2000, but it's come at the expense of a profitable airline industry. As consolidation continues to decrease competition and the supply of seats, fares will continue to rise as they have in the past two years. At some point, turboprop costs will give-in over jet costs for a certain type of flight (400/500 miles or less between medium-sized business centers and larger cities, such as Indianapolis/Chicago or Oklahoma City/Dallas) to help decrease the cost of high-frequency flights (high frequency is another trend that has really caught on in the last decade). I

So, if people want this type of high frequency, they will pay for turboprops. If they are willing to forgo high frequency, then it's possible turboprop use will stay out of favor.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 21038 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 11):
Put me in that category. I go out of my way on UA to book a Q400 over a -145 when I can. I find it to be so much more comfortable.

From what I have seen I have say your be an exception there. Back when COEX use to fly the Q400 to Dallas, passengers were not happy at all to see it pull up. I was flying DAL-IAH on a weekly basics and I hear people complain about a "old propeller" plane.

Before the Q400 DAL was all ERJs. I will say we really didn't know what hell was until Skywest brought in the CRJ-200. The CRJ-200 is worst plane I have flew on, now I know why it called the Devil's Chariot.

Back to the Q400 they used to breakdown all the time. We thought it was a Colgan problem but it seems to be even worst with Republic operating them. After my experiences with the CRJ-200, Q400, and CRJ-700 vs E-Jets, Bombarider need to get out of the passenger plane business. They make miserable aircraft.

Now a prop plane I love is the ATR-72-600. That is a nice plane. I prefer it 100 times over a Q400. I flew in some new ones at BW and I was impressed how much smoother, quieter, and nice the ride was compared to the Q400.

[Edited 2013-10-31 13:39:34]


Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10642 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 21015 times:

Quoting DUSint (Reply 2):
I remember plans at ATR for a bigger turboprop.

Yes, and they even released an illustration.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...roval-of-90-seat-turboprop-381418/
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_06_20_2013_p0-590236.xml

Quote:
Chief executive Filippo Bagnato showed a slide during the airframer's press conference in Toulouse on 23 January, depicting an outline of the future aircraft.

It featured a wing with upwards-angled winglets and engines with eight-blade propellers.

The illustration also showed a classic T-tail, with the horizontal stabiliser mounted on top of the fin. On current-generation ATR 42 and 72 aircraft, the fin extends above the horizontal stabiliser.

The horizontal stabiliser further featured small winglets, though these were downwards-angled.
http://oi43.tinypic.com/6jmyxz.jpg



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineDUSint From Germany, joined Apr 2013, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 20191 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 14):
As the OP is talking about a stretch Q400, and as other posts in the thread have debated whether it makes sense given the public's perceptions of turboprop flying vs. regional jet flying, than yes...we are talking about the real topic of this thread.

Ok, ok...

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 19):
Now a prop plane I love is the ATR-72-600. That is a nice plane. I prefer it 100 times over a Q400. I flew in some new ones at BW and I was impressed how much smoother, quieter, and nice the ride was compared to the Q400.

From my own - subjective - empiricism:
I tend to believe that the flying experience on both types, the Qseries and the ATR, depends on how modern and advanced the version is. For example:
I once flew an ATR-42-320 by Atlantique Air Assistance and it was a very loud, rattling thing. Nothing to enjoy.
Then, this summer I flew on a AirBaltic Q400 (more or less one year old) and it seemed much smoother.
And I am quite sure you could have the opposite experience with an ATR-72-600 and an old Q100 or even an old Q400.


User currently offlineJFKL1011 From United States of America, joined Oct 2013, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 18727 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3):
I don't believe anything other than cheaper pricing for turboprop flights vs jet flights will ever persuade the flying public to move toward the flights

Unless of course the prop was a Q400 and the jet was a CRJ!!!!



So many places to fly and increasingly so few interesting aircraft to get there on.
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7985 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 18444 times:

Remember Keesje's old Turboliner proposal from five years ago? With modern engineering and using two of the same engines from the Airbus Military A400M transport plane, such an airliner could do economic cruise as high as Mach 0.7 but with way lower fuel burn on a CASM basis than possibly even the Bombardier CS airliners.

User currently offlinebmibaby737 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1796 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 18234 times:

As a frequent flyer on the Q400, I honestly fail to see how it can have an extra two rows of seats placed inside unless the aircraft itself is stretched? Flight global only mentions interior modifications - can someone explain how this would be possible? I can see only the internal forward hold being removed, but that would add only two seats - not two rows?

User currently offlinembk1999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 18413 times:

Quoting RJNUT (Reply 9):

Don't forget the TU-114 is alive and well as the TU-95 which still serves the Russian Air Force in a number of models.


User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2048 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17922 times:

Quoting bmibaby737 (Reply 24):

As a frequent flyer on the Q400, I honestly fail to see how it can have an extra two rows of seats placed inside unless the aircraft itself is stretched? Flight global only mentions interior modifications - can someone explain how this would be possible? I can see only the internal forward hold being removed, but that would add only two seats - not two rows?

Remove the galley or reduce the size of the cargo bin even more? I wouldn't be surprised to see the extra rows come from thinner seats and reduced pitch for an Asian or African carrier. I don't believe that would work in Europe or North America.


User currently onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39671 posts, RR: 75
Reply 27, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 17161 times:

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 4):
I thought from the title that at the very least the Tu-114 was going back into production or something

That's what I was thinking.
A stretched Q400 to cram more people in does not sound appealing at all. It's already a tight fit as it is.

Quoting hh65man (Reply 16):
Slap a second deck and some windows on the A400 and I am in. Nothing beats a massive turbo prop.

  
Agreed! I was really hoping that Boeing would build the Pelican.

This would be neat as a giant seaplane that lands on water. Perhaps these could be for great leisure travel - a flying cruise ship so to speak.
Would look great in Cunard Queen Elizabeth livery,




Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7551 posts, RR: 32
Reply 28, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 16816 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 7):
I think you are over-exaggerating that perception.

It is in marketing surveys. It is why city airport boards cry in public when their service is 'downgraded' from a CRJ/ERJ to an ATR or Dash-8.

Yes most people don't know what plane they are on - but they do know the difference between jet engines and a prop. (They probably don't know the difference between a turbo-prop and a piston engine recip.)

Quoting RJNUT (Reply 9):
contiunal loss of direct services

Turbo-props as the only alternative will eventually over a couple years stabilize the market. However, I've seen several airports complain that going to turbo-prop only service causes their passenger numbers to go down. People seem to prefer to drive to a distant airport with jet service rather than use props.

Quoting bond007 (Reply 7):
I have actually heard more complaints about jet RJs (from the 5% that do know), than Dash-8's or Q400s etc.

I'll take a SF340 over a CRJ or ERJ !!! Of course I'm old school and really liked my past flying on Connies and DC-6s.

I don't mind the CRJ or ERJ cabin for a short regional flight. I can't stand it when the airlines want to put us in one for a two hour or longer flight. I've been stuck on a CRJ-200 for KDFW-KRDU (DL) and a ERJ-145 KDFW-KSAV (AA).

Yuck !!!!


User currently offlineYxwatcherMKE From United States of America, joined May 2007, 967 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 16196 times:

I would love to see the re-birth of the Turboprop a/c. The bigger the better IMHO. But the key to it being successful is.... the better the a/c is for comfort, speed and quite it is for the passenger, the general flying public is less likely to complain about the a/c. You could almost turn any any NB jet fuselage into a turboprop a/c, an most passenger would not care as long as the plane got them from point A to point B on time and without extra time added to the flight. A while back I remember a DC9 of some type with a Turboprop on the left side of the a/c and a normal JD power plant on the right side as test a/c. I bet if the a/c would have both sides were Turboprop and operated a normal commercial flight the passengers would have never notice the difference with exception of the passengers at the rear of the a/c.


I miss the 60's & 70's when you felt like a guest on the plane not cattle like today
User currently offline727200LR From Canada, joined Oct 2013, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 15758 times:

Tu114NG anyone?
I'd book the first available ticket if it was to happen


User currently offlineatp50 From United States of America, joined Jul 2013, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 14528 times:

As a Global Services member with UA, I hope that they notice that they noticed my recent EWR-BUF booking for Jan-2014. Rather than taking a direct flight on a Q200, Q300, and Q400 flights offered, I chose two legs on ERJ-145s via IAD. I'd rather not fly through the weather during the month of January around the Great Lakes, one of the largest snow-making machines in the world.

I've had harrowing EWR-BUF-EWR flights on Dash 8s with United Express, in some cases wondering how the minimums were safe for flights (or the minimums otherwise deterioted en-route).

Archaic de-icing technology on the wings (less the electrically operating propeller de-icers on the Q400) coupled with low-time pilots (improving with new regulations) flying directly through "lake-effect central" is not a relaxing experience.


User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2473 posts, RR: 23
Reply 32, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14136 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 23):
Keesje's old Turboliner proposal

Yes. That was kool. Sure do miss Keesje.

Quoting 727200LR (Reply 30):
Tu114NG anyone?

Oh yeah!

Or a wide-body CL-44J type with propulsion systems from the A400M.

I agree that pax will grumble when they see propellers, yet, the bigger the aircraft the less they grumble.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 259 posts, RR: 9
Reply 33, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14036 times:

One could say that a PW1100 (GTF) engined A321 NEO is in fact a big turboprop.

There is no significant conceptual difference (although some may take issue with the gear ratio) between the architecture of a turboprop and the GTF


User currently offlinewashingtonflyer From Bouvet Island, joined Sep 2013, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 13683 times:

Here's a question for the bean counters....Can a 70 or 80 seat turboprop effectively replace a 50 seat CRJ?

You've got more dollar costs with a larger turbo? One more FA; likely a higher payscale for the flight deck crew; etc.

Can capacity stimulate demand sufficient to cover the additional cost?


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2570 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 13463 times:

A higher density Q400, likely with slim seats at 30" pitch, is not what I would call a big turboprop, which for me starts at 100+ seats. This move by BBD is an attempt to counteract ATR's dominance - as the Q400 has higher operating costs, you try to offset that by adding more seats to reduce CASM. IMO the move comes too late, as ATR has domintated turboprop deliveries for the past 2-3 years and sits on another few years of backlog.

As for a real big turboprop, IMO it will come soon, starting at 90 seats, from ATR, all-new, not a stretch. They have talked about it countless times, IMO they have a preliminary design done and are just waiting for PW or GE to launch a suitable engine.   


User currently offlineCPHFF From Sweden, joined Aug 2011, 140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13312 times:

Quoting spantax (Thread starter):
new noise-cancelling techniques,

I'm still curious as to the difinition of this. Had the misfortune to fly on a lot of SK's Q400's, and it felt very noisy irregardless of where I sat. I also have flown a lot in ATR42's, and I can't say they are any noisier than Q400.

Maybe it really is time to look at the prop-fan idea again?



Detroit is bankrupt. Don't forget to thank UAW folks!
User currently offlinewashingtonflyer From Bouvet Island, joined Sep 2013, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13340 times:

Quoting CPHFF (Reply 36):
I'm still curious as to the difinition of this. Had the misfortune to fly on a lot of SK's Q400's, and it felt very noisy irregardless of where I sat. I also have flown a lot in ATR42's, and I can't say they are any noisier than Q400.

Maybe it really is time to look at the prop-fan idea again?

I was amused to see one passenger on a recent Q400 flight.....she had her fingers in her ears the entire flight.


User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 8
Reply 38, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13256 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 28):
It is why city airport boards cry in public when their service is 'downgraded' from a CRJ/ERJ to an ATR or Dash-8.

Airport boards are not passengers, even though a few 'passengers' might be on it.

If you ask folks in a survey they will likely say they would prefer a jet to a prop of course ...now ask them when they last did, and if they knew what the aircraft type was, and did it affect their travel decisions at the time. All depends on the question you ask.

I have flown every week for the past 20 years almost, on all types, and I guarantee very few of those folks give a damn about getting on a Q400, and if they do, they are not changing their schedule over it.

We will agree to disagree  


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineflight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3388 posts, RR: 6
Reply 39, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13236 times:

Quoting atp50 (Reply 31):
in some cases wondering how the minimums were safe for flights (or the minimums otherwise deterioted en-route).

What are you even talking about?

...gotta love when non-pilots try to get technical.


User currently offlineUnited885 From Germany, joined Apr 2011, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13091 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3):

Turboprops have a niche market in today's flying world, but I don't see it ever growing much.

Sorry, that´s wrong.
If we´re discussing about routes, shorter than 550 km, a ATR would be much more profitable than a jet. On those short flights, the higher speed of a jet doesn´t matter. A turboprop burns up to 50 percent less fuel than a jet. So the advantage of the turborpop over a jet on short-haul flights, less than 500 or 600 km long is apparently.
ATR and Bombardier are expecting a demand of 3000 Turboprops in the next 20 years. Currently, about 80 percent of all 50 - 90 seat aircrafts are Turborpos. So I guess, there is and willl be a market.



I haven´t been everywhere, but it´s on my list.
User currently offlinecobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1009 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13060 times:

Maybe 4 engine 200-300 seat variant with like 10000 hp engines?

User currently offlinewashingtonflyer From Bouvet Island, joined Sep 2013, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13013 times:

The AN22 in passenger configuration!

User currently onlinesassiciai From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2013, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12892 times:

Time again to show my age! I remember in the early 1970s shuttling up and down frequently between Glasgow (where I was educated) and London (where I was job-hunting) on BEA Vickers Vanguards, 4-engined turboprops, seating 139 passengers. BEA had a fleet of about 25, and they served well for quite a few years. Also able to carry a large volume of freight due to its double-bubble cross section. It had limited export success, mainly to Canada, I think.

However, it was for its day quite an impressive aircraft, and was equipped with its own retractable stairs and could operate to airports that provided it with little service (no air bridge, no steps, no ground power, ....)

I wonder how a current day turboprop seating 140 passengers would fair, designed for relatively short distance flights, and would it benefit from an economic advantage over the current and planned 320/737 models

bit academic, with the many 1000s of orders for the NEO and MAX models!

[Edited 2013-11-01 09:30:23]

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 959 posts, RR: 51
Reply 44, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12872 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 10):
And don't forget the shrinking middle class. The choice is obviously not between a cheap jet and an expensive turboprop flight, but the opposite : a jet flight you can't afford (or doesn't even exist anymore because not enough people could afford it) and a cheaper turboprop flight.

That's factually incorrect. The global middle class with purchasing power for commercial aviation is increasingly steadily.


User currently onlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11632 times:

A good example of the jet/turboprop contest:

Since last Monday Air Europa is offering 4 return flights Asturias (OVD)-Madrid (MAD) with ATR-72 in competition with Iberia (A32O family). Distance: 398 km. Difference in flight duration: 10 minutes. The ATR-72 belong to Swiftair and it seems that Air Europa is relying more and more on them for these short routes. It will be a good case-study of the pax perception of turboprops. But I am totally convinced that if Air Europa fares are somehow lower this 10 minutes will be forgiven by most passengers.

Links in Spanish:

http://www.eleconomista.es/economia/...y-Asturias-con-una-nueva-ruta.html

http://www.elcomercio.es/20131104/as...onectar-asturias-201311041451.html



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 647 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11498 times:

Quoting YxwatcherMKE (Reply 29):
A while back I remember a DC9 of some type with a Turboprop on the left side of the a/c and a normal JD power plant on the right side as test a/c.

I think you are referring to the UDF demonstrator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BMNaXc1rL8


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24786 posts, RR: 22
Reply 47, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11130 times:

Quoting washingtonflyer (Reply 34):
Here's a question for the bean counters....Can a 70 or 80 seat turboprop effectively replace a 50 seat CRJ?

You've got more dollar costs with a larger turbo? One more FA; likely a higher payscale for the flight deck crew; etc.

Can capacity stimulate demand sufficient to cover the additional cost?

Breakeven load factor on the Q400 is much lower than the 50-seat regional jets. AC (Jazz) has been replacing 50-seat CRJs with Q400s over the past couple of years and reports say the economics are much better.


User currently offlinefreeze3192 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11097 times:

Quoting atp50 (Reply 31):
As a Global Services member with UA, I hope that they notice that they noticed my recent EWR-BUF booking for Jan-2014. Rather than taking a direct flight on a Q200, Q300, and Q400 flights offered, I chose two legs on ERJ-145s via IAD. I'd rather not fly through the weather during the month of January around the Great Lakes, one of the largest snow-making machines in the world.

I've had harrowing EWR-BUF-EWR flights on Dash 8s with United Express, in some cases wondering how the minimums were safe for flights (or the minimums otherwise deterioted en-route).

Archaic de-icing technology on the wings (less the electrically operating propeller de-icers on the Q400) coupled with low-time pilots (improving with new regulations) flying directly through "lake-effect central" is not a relaxing experience.

Hahahahah

Wow.

First of all, the Dash 8 is one of the best airplanes to be flying in around the "largest snow-making machines in the world." It was built and designed in Canada, conveniently located near the "largest snow-making machines in the world."

Harrowing flights? The minimums are the exact same for Dash 8 flights as they are for RJ flights. If you don't have the minimums to go, you can't. Period. End of story. It's not an option. If you don't have the minimums to the shoot the approach, you can't. It's regulatory. If a crew shot an approach that was below minimums prior to the final approach fix and landed, the FAA would be tripping all over themselves to have the pilots' certificates, and their jobs.

Archaic de-icing technology? It's called proven technology because it works. And electrically heated propellers have been around nearly as long as boots have and they aren't just limited to the Q400. All of the other Dash 8 series airplanes have them. Plus, it's not snow you have to be afraid of. It's ice, and just because there's snow doesn't mean there's ice and vice versa. Icing is a concern in all airplanes - not just turboprops.

Low time pilots? Not anymore, everyone in the cockpit has a minimum of 1500 hours, and the Captain has a minimum of 1500 hours, plus a minimum of 1000 hours in a Part 121 airline cockpit. Plus, turboprop pilots are likely more in tune with their machine versus a RJ pilot in a cockpit where everything is either "Auto" or "Off". Turboprop pilots have likely seen more weather, more ice and more turbulence than an RJ pilot with the same amount of flight time.

It's called twice the pilot for half the pay.

Sounds like you're just afraid of props. Enjoy your flight in your cramped lawn dart.



"A passenger bets his life that his pilot is a worthy heir to an ancient tradition of excellence and professionalism."
User currently onlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10561 times:

Quoting freeze3192 (Reply 48):
Turboprop pilots have likely seen more weather, more ice and more turbulence than an RJ pilot with the same amount of flight time.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Another point in favour of turboprops.



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6511 posts, RR: 9
Reply 50, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10216 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 44):
That's factually incorrect. The global middle class with purchasing power for commercial aviation is increasingly steadily.

The shrinking middle class is of course not a global concept, but one that applies to developed countries only, where the middle class still flies 10 times more than the middle class of developing countries. And one that can hopefully be reversed at some point when politicians realize the 1% are just that, 1%, can't get elected by them alone.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineCRJ 900 From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 592 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9378 times:

Well we have a few Q4s at Jazz. IMHO it was a sad sad day when they chose to order that thing. I have flown on the ATR many times and far prefer it. It's true that it rides better, is quieter and just an all around better aircraft ( and spare me the whole icing bs....that was corrected a long time ago). I know that ATR brought one to YHZ to show the company and trust me there were a few of us praying that they would get the order. I avoid the Q4 unless it does layovers in cities that I prefer...thankfully it doesn't at the moment. I understand that AC just luvs the Q4...so I guess we are stuck with it.

[Edited 2013-11-11 16:38:52]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24786 posts, RR: 22
Reply 52, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9273 times:

Quoting CRJ 900 (Reply 51):
Well we have a few Q4s at Jazz. IMHO it was a sad sad day when they chose to order that thing. I have flown on the ATR many times and far prefer it. It's true that it rides better, is quieter and just an all around better aircraft

ATR is also significantly slower than the Q400 which would be a factor on some of the longer AC Q400 nonstops like YZF-YYC (Q400 block time 2:24) and YQM-YYZ (Q400 block time 2:40). ATR would likely increase the block time on both of those routes by about 30 minutes, or about 50 min. slower than the CRJs that were replaced by the Q400. AC still has one CRJ on YQM-YYZ with block time of 2:19, 21 minutes faster than the 4 Q400 flights.

If you combiine all the extra ATR flight time it would mean fewer sectors per day and worse connectivity at the hubs.


User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 655 posts, RR: 3
Reply 53, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9099 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 52):
If you combiine all the extra ATR flight time it would mean fewer sectors per day and worse connectivity at the hubs.

...and 4-6 fewer seats per a/c.


User currently offlineCRJ 900 From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 592 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8927 times:

I wasnt suggesting putting the ATR on those routes. TBH the Q shouldnt be running those trips either..the passengers hate them especially when you fly from YQM-YYZ in winter with awful headwinds and the flight time is 3 hrs. No IFE, no power for ipads or laptops, no running water... if there is a bump in the sky the Q4 will find it....god help us if they stretch that damn thing. Jets should be on sectors that distance. Jetprops should be on shorter sectors. Regardless my preference is for the ATR...

User currently offlineKD5MDK From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8774 times:

I wonder how well a 200 seat ATR would sell for short hops within Europe and Asia.

User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 655 posts, RR: 3
Reply 56, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8503 times:

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 55):
I wonder how well a 200 seat ATR would sell for short hops within Europe and Asia.

ATR is too small to launch a 200 seats aircraft. If it happens, it will be an Airbus. They do not even have the engineers (and money) to launch a 90 seats aircraft...


User currently offlinerlwynn From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 1075 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8123 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 56):
They do not even have the engineers (and money) to launch a 90 seats aircraft...

That is not true. It is an EADS and Alenia company 50/50. They would have all the resources of both.

[Edited 2013-11-12 12:53:16]


I can drive faster than you
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24786 posts, RR: 22
Reply 58, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8112 times:

Quoting CRJ 900 (Reply 54):
Jetprops should be on shorter sectors.

But it lets them operate 5 daily flights YQM-YYZ (currently 4 Q400s and 1 CRJ) much more economically than the same number of jets. I expect most business travellers would rather have the frequency.


User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 655 posts, RR: 3
Reply 59, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7966 times:

Quoting rlwynn (Reply 57):
They would have all the resources of both.

it's a little bit more complicated, otherwise it would be already launched.


User currently offlineKD5MDK From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7725 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 59):
Quoting rlwynn (Reply 57):
They would have all the resources of both.

it's a little bit more complicated, otherwise it would be already launched.

I think the market for the product would also have an effect.


User currently onlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7357 times:

I found a very interesting article comparing ATR/Q400

http://theflyingengineer.files.wordp...ss.com/2011/11/q400_atr72usage.jpg


Quote: "The average sector distance in the regionally dense portion of India, the south, is 300NM. Considering that at high speed cruise the Q400 takes an average 1hr02min of flying time, and the ATR 72 takes 1hr15min, and that both aircraft start operations at 6:00am local, and wrap up by 11:30pm local, the Q400 can easily fit one extra flight in that 17.5 hour period".

And I was wondering that in Europe a lot of interesting city pairs are withing this 300 miles range. For instance: Rome-Milano, Barcelona-Madrid, Berlin-Munich.

And quote again: "The ATR72s in India may break even with a passenger load of around 20-25 passengers. As per Bombardier, considering a low cost carrier’s cost and fare structure, the Q400 in the US and European 300Nm environment breaks even at 45 seats. This means that the Q400 operator must sell significantly more seats per flight just to break even"



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2570 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6904 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 56):

ATR is too small to launch a 200 seats aircraft. If it happens, it will be an Airbus. They do not even have the engineers (and money) to launch a 90 seats aircraft...

The main issue IMO is that Airbus would never allow them to get into A319 territory and compete with their own product line. As for resources, ATR may not have them, but if Airbus/Alenia were to support a new large prop, they could likely tap those resources.


User currently onlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 63, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6861 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 62):
The main issue IMO is that Airbus would never allow them to get into A319 territory and compete with their own product line

Yes, but....well A319 is a jet, ATR are turboprops; quite a different market, isn't it? Besides, between the 70 pax of ATR-72 and the 124 (minimun, but up to 156, as in Easyjet) there is a big gap. You can see it the other way round: a 100 pax ATR could also compete with the CSeries (110 pax) and the SSJ (around 90-100 pax).

And while reading the article I mentioned before (quite interesting, worth reading) I was wondering if it would be possible for ATR offering a P&W 150 version of the ATR-72-600 in order to compete with Q400. Or are there technical issues that don't allow this option apart from the obvious new nacelle? Wouldn't be possible, for instance, to have an operator using the normal ATR-72-600 for short legs (up to, say, 300 miles, where flight time difference is minimum) and some ATR-72-600-PW150 for the longer legs?



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10642 posts, RR: 30
Reply 64, posted (8 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6401 times:

News update from the Dubai air show: ATR is still awaiting shareholder approval to launch a 90-seat turboprop, which is planned to enter service towards the end of the decade.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...launch-90-seater-turboprop-393209/

Quote:
“We’ve spent quite a bit of time looking at this market, we’ve got a lot of feedback from our customers and airlines who believe that there is a need for this product,” he says.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2283 posts, RR: 13
Reply 65, posted (8 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6284 times:

What is the current fuel efficiency of a turboprop compared to a turbofan, assumed the A/C equipped with turbofans and turboprops would have the same range and the same payload?


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6511 posts, RR: 9
Reply 66, posted (8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6148 times:

I doubt you'll get a straight answer but I'd like to have it too. Even when you take the same aircraft with turboprops and put turbofans instead (Dornier 328) you get such a capability difference that it's difficult to compare.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 67, posted (8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6023 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 65):
What is the current fuel efficiency of a turboprop compared to a turbofan, assumed the A/C equipped with turbofans and turboprops would have the same range and the same payload?

Difficult answer. But here two tips:

"On a typical short route of 300nm the fuel consumption of an ATR 72 is roughly half that of a regional jet"

(http://airinsight.com/2011/08/19/jet-vs-turboprop-a-debate-that-dates-from-the-early-1950s/)

And:

"un avion de plus grande capacité [i.e. 90 pax] et qui offrirait une consommation réduite de 15 % par siège" [a bigger plane with a minus 15% fuel consumption]

(http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20120503trib000696866/atr-craint-la-menace-des-chinois-prets-a-lancer-un-appareil-de-90-places.html)

Quoting Aesma (Reply 66):
Even when you take the same aircraft with turboprops and put turbofans instead (Dornier 328) you get such a capability difference that it's difficult to compare.

Sadly, AFAIK, there is no operator with 328-prop AND 328-jet in its fleet. It should be quite enlightening.



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlineKuja From Bermuda, joined Aug 2013, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (8 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5888 times:

Quoting spantax (Reply 67):
Sadly, AFAIK, there is no operator with 328-prop AND 328-jet in its fleet. It should be quite enlightening.

Sun Air of Scandinavia operate both. Trip reports have been made on both the 328 prop and the 328JET.


User currently offlineTy134A From Austria, joined Apr 2008, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (8 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5593 times:

Quoting spantax (Reply 67):
Sadly, AFAIK, there is no operator with 328-prop AND 328-jet in its fleet. It should be quite enlightening.

Welcome Air had. I talked to some crews and they all said that the prop is by far better than the jet. For the routes the operated at the time (it was something like Innsbruck - Hannover - Sweden - Norway - Stavanger and back) the Jet was a pure horror. They flew only the props for schedule and had the jet leased out to vips, bands and medicals and so on. I don't remember any figures, but only that the jet hour was roughly double the prop ones on a cost basis, with nearly identical flight times on their legs.



flown on:TU3,TU5,IL8,IL6,ILW,IL9,I14,A40,YK4,YK2,AN4,A26,A28,A81,L11,D1C,M11,AB4,313,342,345,703,722,732,741,74L,J31,F50
User currently onlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 70, posted (8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5259 times:

According to Aviation Week, there are five possible competitors for the "big" turboprop

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/AW_08_05_2013_p38-601644.xml&p=4

I have summarized the most important features, but the status of each project is not clear, besides the confirmation of ATR and Bombardier being "considering" the move. Thus, it would be useful if some A.netters from China, India and Korea could bring us some recent information (even rumours...) about these projects. And, of course, also about the astonishing absent: Embraer.

TYPE: INITIAL PAX - MAX PAX - FUSELAGE WIDTH (m) - CARGO UNDER FLOOR - MAX CRUISE (km/h)

MA700 (China): 78 - 90 aprox. - 3,0 - yes - 650
RTA (India): 70 - 90 - 2,8 - yes - 550
ATR: 90 - 90 - 3,4 - yes - 550
Q400 stretch: 90 - 100 - 2,7 - no - no data
DRA (Korea): 72 - 88 - 3,0 - yes - 680

Quoting Ty134A (Reply 69):
but only that the jet hour was roughly double the prop ones on a cost basis

Yes, that's it. In the long term, nothing, call it public perception or pilot unions, will be able to counter this real fact. That's why I used the word "era", meaning a rather big change.

Regards



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 655 posts, RR: 3
Reply 71, posted (8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5119 times:

BBD launch the 86 seats Q400 with Nok Air of Thailand

http://www.bombardier.com/en/media-c...rdierandnokairofthailandsignp.html


User currently onlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5071 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 71):
BBD launch the 86 seats Q400 with Nok Air of Thailand

Wonderful news. I assume this puts even more pressure on ATR.

But I was wondering where the hell are they going to put these 6 extra seats? If you look at their standard configuration, with 80 pax at pitch 29, everything looks already cramped. Thus, the extra 6? Or it is possible less than 29?

http://q400nextgen.com/en/#/q400/fle...modularinterior/adaptableinterior/



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently onlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 73, posted (8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5052 times:

Found the answer to my question (quote from Flightglobal)

"The new high capacity version of the Q400 will seat 86 passengers in a single-class configuration with a 29in seat pitch. The additional seating is made possible through the removal of a forward baggage cabin and the conversion of the forward cargo door into a passenger door. Another version with 84 seats at a 29in pitch with a larger baggage area will also be offered"


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...aunches-high-capacity-q400-393273/



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2570 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4978 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 65):
What is the current fuel efficiency of a turboprop compared to a turbofan, assumed the A/C equipped with turbofans and turboprops would have the same range and the same payload?

For equal technology level, etc, it's in the comfortable double-digit figures. 15% is a good guesstimate; ATR probably being higher than that, Q400 lower. On overall operating costs, ATR usually claims 20-25% better.

Quoting spantax (Reply 72):
BBD launch the 86 seats Q400 with Nok Air of Thailand

Wonderful news. I assume this puts even more pressure on ATR.

Pressure on ATR? Have you seen the turboprop orders & deliveries of the past 4 years? ATR is hammering BBD. Their backlog is growing faster than they can ramp up. The pressure is on BBD actually, and this high capacity version is an low-risk/investment move by them to reduce CASM in order to try to compete better with the ATR through higher capacity.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 64):
News update from the Dubai air show: ATR is still awaiting shareholder approval to launch a 90-seat turboprop, which is planned to enter service towards the end of the decade.

It's such a no-brainer. I hope EADS stops hesitating and gives them the go-ahead (that Alenia wants to go forward should be clear...as long as it doesn't hurt the SSJ I guess).


User currently onlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 75, posted (8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4930 times:

Well, it's not only me who thinks this could bring some pressure. Quote from Le Journal de l'Aviation:

http://www.journal-aviation.com/actu...-le-q400-nextgen-a-capacite-accrue

"La disponibilité de cette option de Q400 à capacité accrue va peut-être encourager les actionnaires d’ATR à revoir leur position sur le projet d’ATR de 90 places. D’autant qu’elle a détourné son premier client de l’avionneur franco-italien : Nok exploitait jusqu’alors quatre ATR 72 sur son réseau régional (2 ATR 72-210 en provenance de Thai Airways et deux ATR 72-500 en provenance de Kingfisher)".

[And thanks to Google Trans:

"The availability of this option Q400 increased capacity will perhaps encourage shareholders ATR to reconsider their position on the 90-seat ATR project. Especially as it has diverted its first customer of the Franco-Italian manufacturer: Nok operated until four ATR 72 of its regional network (2 ATR 72-210 from Thai Airways and two ATR 72-500 from Kingfisher)"]



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2048 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4828 times:

Quoting spantax (Reply 73):
"The new high capacity version of the Q400 will seat 86 passengers in a single-class configuration with a 29in seat pitch. The additional seating is made possible through the removal of a forward baggage cabin and the conversion of the forward cargo door into a passenger door. Another version with 84 seats at a 29in pitch with a larger baggage area will also be offered"

So it's not a new airplane, just jamming more people into the existing Q400 airframe.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2283 posts, RR: 13
Reply 77, posted (8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4902 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 66):
Quoting spantax (Reply 67):
Quoting r2rho (Reply 74):

Thank you all!  

If those such flights were offered, and came with a considerable fare reduction, I'd take turboprops on longhaul. One man's low and slow plane is another man's opportunity to read books, sleep, and read books...


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10642 posts, RR: 30
Reply 78, posted (8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4524 times:

ATR will also apply the engine technology of its proposed 90-seat turboprop to its existing ATR 42-600 and ATR 72-600 variants via a new engine family.

http://m.atwonline.com/engines/atr-r...ircraft-if-90-seater-gets-go-ahead



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2570 posts, RR: 1
Reply 79, posted (8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4139 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 78):
ATR will also apply the engine technology of its proposed 90-seat turboprop to its existing ATR 42-600 and ATR 72-600 variants via a new engine family.

Now this is getting interesting. So we could see an ATR-72NEO alongside an all-new ATR-9x... but this doesn't depend as much on ATR as on the engine makers really. In fact, the whole 90 seat prop project depends on the engine makers and ATR's shareholders - ATR themselves have been seriously talking about it for the past 2 years, and can certainly develop an airframe - if given the right engine.


User currently offlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3959 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From a 2008 thread on anet:

MMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted Tue Jul 8 2008 00:11:09 your local time I'm not sure of the weight of Jet fuel per gallon but gasoline is around 6lbs/gallon. So assuming:

6/lbs gallon
$3/gallon (roughly the price most US majors paid last quarter)
85% LF on 50 seats.

The cost per revenue passenger for fuel would be

RJ: 2200/lbs / 6 x $3 / 43 (50 * 85%) = $25.58 per person
Q400 1650/lbs / 6 X $3 / 43 = $19.19 per person
(if we figure 85% of 76 seats in Q400 the cost drops to $12.69 per person.)

Either way the Q400 looks a lot cheaper on fuel burn basis, and if an airline could replace 2 RJ runs with one full Q400 then the savings really start to add up. Over a year if each aircraft made 6 roundtrips per day carrying 43 passengers with a delta of $6.39/passenger:

$6.39 x 43 x 12 (segments) x 330 days (allow for maintenance/down days) = $1,088,089 PER AIRCRAFT more expensive per year.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I too would choose a Q400 over the E145 on flights in the "not over 500 miles" range. On longer flights, the slightly slower cruise speed of the prop would tack on a lot of extra time. As an ATCer, the props are great for helping reduce airspace congestion as the props normally operate in the lower altitudes and don't delay as many longer-haulers.


User currently offlineAzure From France, joined Dec 2012, 609 posts, RR: 16
Reply 81, posted (8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3941 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 79):
the whole 90 seat prop project depends on the engine makers and ATR's shareholders

This is a key point.

Airbus certainly know there is a market for a new big turboprop despite their veto on the ATR project last june. At least they cannot ignore that a market for a 90 seat turboprop is developing.

Airbus may be hesitating between two options :
(a) let ATR build the aircraft
(b) use their own resources to build it.
Airbus acquired some experience in the turboprop technology with the A400M project. They may have more ambition than a simple stretch of the ATR 72. If they believe the market is there and will be there for a long time, they may consider developing a brand new 90-130 seater turboprop with the latest technologies.
I assume they have the finances for such a project. The HR might be the issue though.
We'll see !

Just my   



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things - A. de Saint Exupery
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2570 posts, RR: 1
Reply 82, posted (7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

Quoting Azure (Reply 81):
Airbus may be hesitating between two options :
(a) let ATR build the aircraft
(b) use their own resources to build it.
Airbus acquired some experience in the turboprop technology with the A400M project. They may have more ambition than a simple stretch of the ATR 72. If they believe the market is there and will be there for a long time, they may consider developing a brand new 90-130 seater turboprop with the latest technologies.
I assume they have the finances for such a project. The HR might be the issue though.

Interesting thought. Actually, Airbus may be having an excess of engineering capacity in the next years since they won't be building anything new for the foreseeable future, just derivative aircraft. So they could use some of that to develop the ATR - once again, assuming they even support a new ATR as so far they have been hesitant to give their shareholder approval. And I agree the best would be to develop the 90-seater with a future stretch in mind.


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3381 posts, RR: 2
Reply 83, posted (7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3295 times:

What makes the Q more expensive to operate than the 72? Is it solely the more powerful engine?


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 327 posts, RR: 3
Reply 84, posted (7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3134 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 83):
What makes the Q more expensive to operate than the 72? Is it solely the more powerful engine?

Yes indeed, that extra power comes with the price of a significant increase in fuel burn & higher maintenance costs. In addition, the pw150 on the Q400 weigh quite a bit vs the pw127 on the ATR. This brings up it's OEW, a combination of the engine and it's higher weight brings up total trip cost.

Then again, the Q400 was designed to compete against regional jets, which it does quite superbly but is quite a niche market.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3381 posts, RR: 2
Reply 85, posted (7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2991 times:

Thanks, Waly

I've heard that the ATR is more of a hub feeder and the Q is more P2P. Too bad rhe ATR is almost a 100kts slower.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineGrisee08 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 353 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (7 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

Regardless of public perception, I would feel just as safe getting on a 1985 EMB-120 as I would a 2006 Boeing 717. It's not the airplane I ever worry about. It is the pilots skills, maintenance procedures, etc. If all of those are up to par, an airplane, can, theoretically fly forever.

To put it another way, I would rather board a 1985 Embraer 120 Brasilia that has had top notch maintenance over a 2006 Boeing 717 that has had sub-par or shoddy maintenance.

That is what the public needs to know, and is what they don't know. They think that the older a plane is, the more unsafe it is. We, in this community, have all seen and heard about airliners that have crashed on their test/delivery flights, and it was (correct me if I'm wrong) Pilot Error.

Put Sully (and other pilots with his skill and wit) at the controls of Colgan 3407, and those passengers might still be alive today. (I apologize if this strikes a nerve or two, but it's the truth.) Nothing against Marvin Renslow, or Rebecca Shaw either, as if the documentary I watched on Frontline is correct, it is more Colgan's fault for improperly training their pilots. A pilot is only as good as his/her teacher, and his/her willingness to learn.



You're Losing The Game!
User currently onlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2407 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 84):
Yes indeed, that extra power comes with the price of a significant increase in fuel burn & higher maintenance costs. In addition, the pw150 on the Q400 weigh quite a bit vs the pw127 on the ATR. This brings up it's OEW, a combination of the engine and it's higher weight brings up total trip cost. Then again, the Q400 was designed to compete against regional jets, which it does quite superbly but is quite a niche market.

I was wondering... just for the sake of theoretical speculation. Would it be possible an ATR-72-600 with the PW150? Would it be enough with only a 'minor' nacelle modification or should it be necessary to modify also wing, landing gear, etc?



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3381 posts, RR: 2
Reply 88, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

And to add to Spantax's speculation what about doing it to a 42-600?


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 89, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2271 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting spantax (Reply 87):
I was wondering... just for the sake of theoretical speculation. Would it be possible an ATR-72-600 with the PW150? Would it be enough with only a 'minor' nacelle modification or should it be necessary to modify also wing, landing gear, etc?

The Q400 looks like the other Dash 8s, but the wing is quite different (along with a lot of other stuff) and it gets the extra speed not just from the power but the wing design. Putting the 150 on an ATR would not make it as fast as the Q400 -- unless you redesigned the wing on that too.

Recommended read: The Secrets of the Spitfire. This is an intriguing book that chronicles the development of the near-perfect aerodynamic shape of the Spitfire's elliptical wing that allowed it to go from a 330 mph fighter in 1939 to a 450 mph fighter in 1945 simply by boosting the Merlin's power output and incorporating a few aerodynamic tweaks. By contrast, the Hurricane would never go faster than 350 mph no matter how many horses you used to pull it.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 327 posts, RR: 3
Reply 90, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2157 times:

Quoting spantax (Reply 87):
I was wondering... just for the sake of theoretical speculation. Would it be possible an ATR-72-600 with the PW150? Would it be enough with only a 'minor' nacelle modification or should it be necessary to modify also wing, landing gear, etc?

I would be guessing it's poasible, although I doubt it will bring the same speed benefits. Each pw127 weighs about 1000lbs vs 1500lbs for each pw150...so some modifications to handle the weight and very significant power increase will be necessary.
The propellers are also longer which would require they be positioned further along the wing. It would definitely gain quite some weight due to required changes.

One thing is for sure, the field performance will be phenomenal!



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
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...
New 'Big Boss' posted Tue Jan 8 2002 08:23:35 by TR
The New Big 3: Alaska, Southwest, JetBlue posted Wed Sep 19 2001 23:33:52 by Woodsboy
A New BIG Partner For KLM posted Wed Jul 11 2001 14:05:22 by Emile
5 New ATRs How Big Can Hawaii Island Air Get? posted Mon Sep 10 2012 19:56:06 by Canflight
ATL-New Intl Terminal-Big Enough For Future? posted Tue Nov 17 2009 05:46:12 by DeltaDAWG
TUI Belgium: A New Era In Exterior Liveries posted Sun Nov 1 2009 10:15:19 by OwlEye
Baja Scores Big - New ESE Const Prog 2Q 08 posted Sat Feb 16 2008 02:12:49 by MayaviaERJ190
New Era Begins Today At IWA posted Thu Oct 25 2007 09:28:38 by AirCop
Big "Global Tourism" Announcement For New York? posted Fri Aug 24 2007 17:02:27 by Drgmobile
Big Sky 1900 In New Delta Livery posted Fri Jul 20 2007 14:47:29 by AviationAddict
Big "Global Tourism" Announcement For New York? posted Fri Aug 24 2007 17:02:27 by Drgmobile
SAS With New Big Cuts posted Tue Mar 25 2008 14:00:52 by Mortyman
New 'Big Boss' posted Tue Jan 8 2002 08:23:35 by TR
The New Big 3: Alaska, Southwest, JetBlue posted Wed Sep 19 2001 23:33:52 by Woodsboy
A New BIG Partner For KLM posted Wed Jul 11 2001 14:05:22 by Emile
5 New ATRs How Big Can Hawaii Island Air Get? posted Mon Sep 10 2012 19:56:06 by Canflight
ATL-New Intl Terminal-Big Enough For Future? posted Tue Nov 17 2009 05:46:12 by DeltaDAWG
TUI Belgium: A New Era In Exterior Liveries posted Sun Nov 1 2009 10:15:19 by OwlEye
Baja Scores Big - New ESE Const Prog 2Q 08 posted Sat Feb 16 2008 02:12:49 by MayaviaERJ190
New Era Begins Today At IWA posted Thu Oct 25 2007 09:28:38 by AirCop
Big "Global Tourism" Announcement For New York? posted Fri Aug 24 2007 17:02:27 by Drgmobile