dhhornet
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 4:01 am

Turboprops The Renaissance?

Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:53 pm

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.
 
User avatar
JBo
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:23 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:08 am

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.
 
bravogolf
Posts: 360
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:18 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:53 am

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.
 
OV735
Posts: 832
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:49 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:57 pm

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
 
PavlovsDog
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:28 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:30 pm

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.
 
dhhornet
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 4:01 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:48 pm

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!
 
Flying-Tiger
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 1999 5:35 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:18 pm

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
 
atct
Posts: 2472
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:42 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:57 am

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 )
Trikes are for kids!
 
JayDavis
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:08 am

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!
 
NWDC10
Posts: 904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:15 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:29 pm

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
 
visakow
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 9:20 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:45 pm

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
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:57 pm

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
 
NZ8800
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:29 pm

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
 
Flying-Tiger
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 1999 5:35 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:58 pm

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
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:37 pm

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
 
T prop
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 4:33 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:22 pm

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.
 
IndyCanuck
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:38 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:20 pm

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.
 
nzrich
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:51 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:36 pm

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"
 
DesertAir
Posts: 1277
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:34 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:25 pm

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.
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:27 pm

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.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:22 pm

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]
 
dhhornet
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 4:01 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:16 am

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?
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:54 am

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
 
md90fan
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:15 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:51 pm

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/
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:14 pm

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.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8030
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:32 pm

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 serious studies on more fuel efficient planes.

One of their studies--code-named Fozzie--essentially uses two modern-design propfan engines mounted high up on the tail, with what amounts a fuselage design that is aimed more or less as a 737 successor. With 2006-design propfan engines, the latest aerodynamic design and using 787 structural materials, we maybe seeing a plane with about the same cruise speed as the 737-300 but with 25+ percent lower fuel burn rate. In short, the age of the propfan airliner could happen as early as 2014-2015 time frame.  Smile
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:24 pm

I consider American Eagle as part of AA, but not American Connection partners and such which are totally separate airlines simply flying under contract.

If you look at American Eagle for example, they are not buyin turboprops. For the most part they are aging them out of the fleet.

Major Network carriers will still not operate them directly for the most part. Subsidiaries and connection partners at best.

Of course, there is little debate that for short lenghts, low altitude missions Turboprops are more economical. But that is just one of the considerations.

For example, I fly regularly on a 777-200 from GRU to GIG and back - 200 nm - flight gets only to 29K feet - at most 50 passengers on each flight. But it is the right thing to do because it is an extension of an international route, repositions aircraft for hub opps and gets two more flights during the day for that asset. I know it is an apples to oranges, but just to show that major network carriers do all sorts of unatural things with their aircraft. American will never ever put a turboprop on that route, even though the trip costs maybe 1/10th of the 777 cost.

Southwest flies mostly short hop secondary market routes with just one type of aircraft, and no Turboprops. Do they have routes like Dallas Houston that are perhaps better suited to turboprops? Perhaps. Are they likely to buy/operate any? No.

Why do you think companies like Embraer have stopped all investment on their turboprops and are now on second generation RJs and making a killing? Don't you think they talk to their customers and try to anticipate their demand?
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:00 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 26):
Major Network carriers will still not operate them directly for the most part. Subsidiaries and connection partners at best.

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 product structure.

As I stated:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 20):
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 26):
Why do you think companies like Embraer have stopped all investment on their turboprops and are now on second generation RJs and making a killing?

Obviously you know zero history on Embraer. They put their eggs in the RJ basket vs. develop a 70 seat or even 50 seat turboprop because "at the time" there was little demand. Now they have no response, the ERJ is dead and the only aircraft viable for sale is the 170/190. BBD made the right choice, and it's clearly paying dividends. They have a more cost effective product in the turboprop line and in the above 70 seater RJ line.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 26):
Southwest flies mostly short hop secondary market routes with just one type of aircraft, and no Turboprops. Do they have routes like Dallas Houston that are perhaps better suited to turboprops? Perhaps. Are they likely to buy/operate any? No.

Southwest isn't a network carrier, they serve large markets that can support such aircraft. Network carriers serve small markets that require, yes require turboprop service.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 26):
Of course, there is little debate that for short lenghts, low altitude missions Turboprops are more economical. But that is just one of the considerations.

No, it's all of the consideration.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:35 pm

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 and replacing them with RJs as fast as they can... EVEN post 9/11 and Iraq war. take a look:

American Eagle Fleet in 2003 (from AA presentation http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu...iation03downloads/gerencher03.pdf)

95 Saab 340
25 ATR42
42 Super ATR
47 Embraer 145
47 Embraer 140
40 Embraer 135
10 CRJ 701

American Eagle Fleet March/2006 (Wikipedia)

25 Bombardier CRJ 700-701ER
39 Embraer ERJ-135LR
59 Embraer ERJ-140LR
108 Embraer ERJ-145LR (further 8 on order)
38 Saab 340B (American Eagle is phasing this aircraft out of its fleet; Abilene Regional Airport serves as the storage facility for the retired aircraft)

And these are the bad RJs. Wait till they get money to spend on E170/E190 family.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:44 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 27):
BBD made the right choice, and it's clearly paying dividends.

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 government.

And the Dash 8-400 was already on the drawing boards back when Boeing owned de Havilland (before DH was eventually gifted to BBD by the government of the Province of Ontario).

As for paying "dividends", the Commercial Aircraft division was barely profitable (a miniscule paper profit). It is the Biz Aircraft division that is doing the heavy lifting.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:20 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 28):
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 and replacing them with RJs as fast as they can... EVEN post 9/11 and Iraq war. take a look:

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 looks for them. Your analysis of the industry using a 10 year old now expired and failed philosophy for the regional market is rather amusing.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 29):
And the Dash 8-400 was already on the drawing boards back when Boeing owned de Havilland (before DH was eventually gifted to BBD by the government of the Province of Ontario).

And could just have easily been dumped like other TP programs.

[Edited 2006-06-07 10:41:43]
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:37 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 28):
American Eagle Fleet March/2006 (Wikipedia)

Wikipedia? Please.

http://www.aa.com/content/amrcorp/co...orateInformation/facts/fleet.jhtml

American Eagle
Saab 340 26
Super ATR 41
Embraer 145 108
Embraer 140 59
Embraer 135 39
CRJ 700 25

22% of the fleet is TP. RJ's are NOT the answer.
 
dhhornet
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 4:01 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:19 pm

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?

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 is a fine product. But TPs on the shorter sectors are still more cost effective. What about TPs excellent field performance that really come into play in Europe, and other regions?
I still think you are not looking at the global picture.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 22):
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.

If they don't I'll eat my words with curry powder!

Quoting MD90fan (Reply 23):
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...

Baron95 Read the list.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 25):
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 serious studies on more fuel efficient planes.

Very interesting. I bet more will follow?
 
parapente
Posts: 1350
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:29 pm

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 has a model of the RJ (146) reworked with twin turbo props. As someone noted earlier the A400 now provides the perfect powerplant. I guess all the tooling has now been destroyed. Shame. With its high wing and T tail it would have worked a treat for a 120 seater "fasf" turboprop
 
mandala499
Posts: 6460
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:02 pm

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 with the CBA123 Vector... I dunno how many are sold though, and it probably paved the way for the ERJ145 family thanks to the config.

Please, look at the CASM for the E70-E195 family (that is an RJ done right) compared to the Q400. You'll be surprised.

Well, E170 is probably the first jet that is specifically designed to meet the 70 - 120 seat market and therefore has the numbers that is suitable for it... The Q400 is a stretch with modification... The numbers are good because its a stretch.

I agree that when you look at the numbers, those 50 seater jets look bloody awful. I would prefer a 50 seater prop for that thanks.

But, another that needs to be looked at is the revenue potential, that is the payload/range performance. The 50 seater props that are out there can't carry much more than the 50 pax and fuel for a 250NM trip with a 150NM alternate... Well, perhaps about 300kgs worth of cargo on a 15 tonner. Now if you look at those 50 seater jets, it's probably a little more but on an aircraft with higher weight. For the 70 seaters, well only the E170 seems comes up with the right extra revenue potential... again, that's because it is an airframe designed for that market.

Now, for jets, fuel prices can eat into its margin pretty quickly but for props, for short sectors, it's not that relevant... for longer sectors, the trip time will start negating those benefits.

One thing I'd like to know is the relative difference in cycle costs per available seat for props vs jets operating a 250NM sector...

All this bulltalk I'm writing... well, I'm one of those "get the right plane for the right route first, then think about commonality benefits" school of thought kind of person.

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Flying-Tiger
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 1999 5:35 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:21 pm

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 26,200
 Block Time min 66 65 74 85 61
 Block Fuel kg 1,028 1,470 1,449 1,052 1,856

Operating Costs per Trip
 Investment related costs $ 1,505 1,825 1,436 1,426 1,528
 Maintenance $ 364 467 376 334 461
 Crew $ 227 254 204 236 240
 Charges $ 111 151 135 109 163
 Cash DOC $ 1,118 1,465 1,299 1,104 1,614
 DOC $ 2,623 3,290 2,735 2,530 3,142
 DOC per ASM ¢/Nm 14.99 13.43 10.56 9.8 12.82
 Relative DOC per trip % 104% 130% 108 100% Ref. 124%
 Relative DOC per ASM % 153% 137% 108 100% Ref. 131%
 TOC per trip $/trip 3,126 3,949 3,320 3,027 3,868
 TOC per ASM ¢/Nm 17.86 (+53%) 16.12 (+38%) 12.84 (+10%) 11.68 (Ref.) 15.79 (+35%)
 Fare for break-even $/pax 78.2 70.5 56.1 51.3 69.1
 Load factor % 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%

http://www.atraircraft.com/downl/Fiche%20low-cost%202005.pdf

From one of ATR's brochures. So take it with a grain of salt, but it basically shows where props are standing.

Most relevant ones: the ATR is about 20 minutes slower compared to the Embraer 170, and about 10 minutes compared to the Q400. However, that is only an advantage if you are acutally able to get more segments out of the Q400 or Embraer 170. For the Q400 it already gets difficult, the Embraer should be able to get at least one additional flight in per day.

Interesting however the fare difference - 18$ on that low fares is already quite a bit.
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
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:25 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 22):
Please, look at the CASM for the E70-E195 family (that is an RJ done right) compared to the Q400. You'll be surprised.

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 you get it now?
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:27 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 30):

And could just have easily been dumped like other TP programs.

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 development.

2. There was only one competitor in the 50+ pax TP market with an older, slower design.

4. BBD needed the Q400 for DH to compete with ATR (and apart from ATR, there was no other TP manufacturer with a family of TP's).

5. The Q400 was a relatively simple stretch and update on the Dash 8-300.

6. There was virtually no financial risk to BBD since BBD inherited the program from Boeing (at no cost) and:

- MHI was the risk-sharing partner for the entire fuselage and V-stab;
- AIDC was the risk-sharing partner for the H-stab;
- PWC was the risk-sharing partner for the PWC-150 (which was funded by the Canadian Government's TIPS program).
- Thales was the risk-sharing partner for the glass cockpit (which was partially funded by the Canadian Government).
- DH's program share (the cockpit and wings) was funded by the Canadian Government and the Province of Ontario Government.

And given all of the reasons enummerated above, BBD was in fact heavily criticized for waffling and taking such a very long time for the Q400's EIS... 8 years after inheriting the program from Boeing! Not good decision making nor execution!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:55 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 37):
The Q400 was a relatively simple stretch and update on the Dash 8-300.

I thought it required a significant wing re-design to get the additional speed out of it.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6460
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:59 am

A redesigned wing or a pumped up engine for the speed?  Smile

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:31 am

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 39):
A redesigned wing or a pumped up engine for the speed?

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 rating: Thermo ESHP 2950 - Mechanical SHP 2500

PW150A
Take-off rating: Thermo ESHP 6576 - Mechanical SHP 5071
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:56 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 36):
Not surprised at all:

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 Q400 - did you use fuel at $1.20?

I think most airlines can charge that bit more for providing "jet" service vs "prop" service.

Now, take into account that an E170 can be configured and successfully marketd with premium class seating (8 first class seats are typical) which will likely more than make up for the seat cost difference.

Further add the fact that the E170 can take a bit of paying cargo.

Further add the fact that an E170 has the flexibility to fly missions of up to 1500 miles, white the Q400 will max out at 400-500.

Further add the fact that you can mix E170, 175, 190, 195 plus the ER versions with a single type certificate and likely great residual value for resale.

Well, you get the picture - E170 is just a better asset for most airlines - and likely to make them more money overall, while, as you pointed out, being a bit less efficient on short routes.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
JayDavis
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:08 am

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 Convairs and Dash 7's !!  Smile

Don't miss the Twin Otter or Metro though............
 
SuperDash
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 1:52 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:29 pm

Well Baron, I hate to say this but Boeing 7E7 is spot on.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 41):
I am actually surprised that it is that close $2.37 difference in seat cost between E170 and Q400 - did you use fuel at $1.20?

Where is fuel a buck twenty these days? Try closer to two bucks!

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 41):
I think most airlines can charge that bit more for providing "jet" service vs "prop" service.

False! Schedules and fares are virtually the only factors in deciding a ticket purchase. Equipment is below frequent flyer program in importantance.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 41):
Now, take into account that an E170 can be configured and successfully marketd with premium class seating (8 first class seats are typical) which will likely more than make up for the seat cost difference.

False! Again! The 170 as much as people like to say it is different, has roughly the same trip cost as the CRJ-700. Which means you only have hope of making money on it at 2:30 or less (1000 miles). People don't buy premium class on regional routes. They are upgrades and it is a waste of space. Put in coach seats and you will make more revenue. The Q400 is cheaper to operate, by a lot, than the CRJ-700 and E170 up to the point when it runs out of fuel. Even at 750 miles the Q400 is a better machine.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 41):
Further add the fact that the E170 can take a bit of paying cargo.

False! The 170 has a great zero fuel weight but has teenie weenie cargo bins. As long as the bags are normal weight, the Q400 can actually haul as many or more bags than the 170. If the bags are all heavy bags, you are correct the 170 is pretty good. The 170 bulks out way before it weights out.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 41):
Further add the fact that an E170 has the flexibility to fly missions of up to 1500 miles, white the Q400 will max out at 400-500.

Already answered. Q400 is good out to 750+ and better than the 170. And you won't make money in most markets over 1000 miles with the 170 or CRJ-700, so the 1500 miles is pretty much a moot point.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 41):
Further add the fact that you can mix E170, 175, 190, 195 plus the ER versions with a single type certificate and likely great residual value for resale.


The line in the sand is the 190. Mainline pilot unions want to fly it. If mainline flies it, it really won't make money (JetBlue is a small exception on shorter routes). So that leaves you the 170/175. Q400 is still better and the Q400 Mega will whoop up on the 170/175. Mainline pilot unions have also scoped the number of jets, but they generally don't care about the planes with props. Meaning mainline airlines can add Q400s at almost any rate they want, pay a CRJ200 cost and get a huge number of extra "profit seats."

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 41):
Well, you get the picture - E170 is just a better asset for most airlines - and likely to make them more money overall, while, as you pointed out, being a bit less efficient on short routes.

Well, you get the picture. Delta just awarded Mesa with a turboprop contract. Apparently Continental is looking for large turboprops and if you didn't notice above, American Eagle has reduced the fleet of small turbos, but large turbo props have stayed pretty stable. I wonder why that is? And by the way, how come Bombardier and ATR are pretty much sold out on large turboprops but Bombardier and Embraer are not producing (many) 50 seat jets.

Are Turboprops Dead? No, especially the large ones and I wouldn't be suprised to see more airline embrace the plane in North America.

Boeing 7E7 welcome to my respected users list!

SuperDash
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:41 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 41):
I am actually surprised that it is that close $2.37 difference in seat cost between E170 and Q400 - did you use fuel at $1.20?

First Quarter 2006 Form-41 data. $1.20 fuel? I wish...

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 41):
Now, take into account that an E170 can be configured and successfully marketd with premium class seating (8 first class seats are typical) which will likely more than make up for the seat cost difference.

So too can the Q400.

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/dash8/

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 41):
Further add the fact that the E170 can take a bit of paying cargo.

So too can the Q400.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 41):
Further add the fact that an E170 has the flexibility to fly missions of up to 1500 miles, white the Q400 will max out at 400-500.

If an airline choses an aircraft based on commonality vs. mission, then they are dead. Even SkyWest is shopping Q400/ATR-72 service to carriers. This came out of the recent RAA conference.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 41):
Well, you get the picture - E170 is just a better asset for most airlines - and likely to make them more money overall, while, as you pointed out, being a bit less efficient on short routes.

Any you can't make money burning fuel on routes that dictate a prop over a jet. A bit less efficient? The small cost difference equates to a financial loss of nearly $500K a year per aircraft. If you have 100 aircraft and 20% should be props, then you've given up $9 million a year in increased operating costs, per year. If fuel goes up or down, you're still throwing that much or more out the window.

[Edited 2006-06-08 08:47:22]
 
BR715-A1-30
Posts: 6525
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 9:30 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:04 pm

Quoting Visakow (Reply 10):
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.

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" was not contained in the engine, but was instead in propeller form. It actually consumed a lot of fuel, and the project was scrapped. This was used on the MD-80 testbed, and the 727 testbed.
Puhdiddle
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:21 am

Quoting SuperDash (Reply 43):
And by the way, how come Bombardier and ATR are pretty much sold out on large turboprops but Bombardier and Embraer are not producing (many) 50 seat jets.

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 the bottom size for Jets that makes sense. Maybe the same is true for TPs - that there is minimum viable size for the main market.

I think Turboprops will increasingly be operated only on contract to regionals by the majors.

And I do expect that over time union rules will come to an accomodation on E190 sized planes - I think Northwest pilot's agreement was a step in the right direction and will open the door (a bit) for those planes to be put into service by the majors.

7e7 and SuperDash - thanks for presenting the other size of the coin.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:47 am

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 46):
I think Turboprops will increasingly be operated only on contract to regionals by the majors.

Same thing with just about every other aircraft under 100 seats.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 46):
Maybe the same is true for TPs - that there is minimum viable size for the main market.

64 seats - Jet or Prop - It's a sweet spot of cost v. profitability. Always has been always will be. Airlines forgot this in the 80's and 90's.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:01 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 47):
64 seats - Jet or Prop - It's a sweet spot of cost v. profitability. Always has been always will be. Airlines forgot this in the 80's and 90's.

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, 73G or the like that has about 128 seats?

Or is it more related to aircraft design factors?

I'd think that I'd either want to have 50 (1 FA) or 100 (2FA). And if I had to choose, I'd choose 100 and deploy them on routes that can generate at least that much traffic for 4 frequencies/day.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Turboprops The Renaissance?

Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:20 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 48):
Why 64 as the magic number?

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 was being done years ago with one stops, the market would be better served by 4, 5 or even 6 - 64 seaters in a non-stop arrangement. The market then grows from there. Honestly I can't explain why, it's an old rule of thumb one of my proffs suggested which was long before the RJ. As the profitability problem of the 50 seater rears it's ugly head, it's sliding back to what my prof called the 64 rule.

"If it can't support 64 seats, don't run the route."

I think he was on to something.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos