LOWS
Topic Author
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:16 am

Spantax posed an excellent question in another thread about why in Europe we don't have an LCC or ULCC running props on popular routes at lower prices than the majors. His original post is below:

Quoting spantax:

ATR-72-600 = 23 Million = 74 PAX
CRJ-700NG = 37 Million = 75 PAX
Difference = 14 Million

And 14 Millions is a lot-lot of money! Then, on sectors up to 800 km (and there are a lot of them, at least in Europe) the difference in flight duration is what? 20? maximum 30? minutes? And the question, why there are no more carriers using turboprops instead of regional jets? The price, as we see, is a clear factor, but fuel and maintenance also. And, on the other part of the equation, experience has showed (think Ryanair, the most conspicuous case) that people are willing to give up a little/some/... comfort in exchange of saving money. Pure turboprop operators with low fares should be blockbusters (at least in Europe), but the reality is that this is not happening. What I am missing here?


I thought it was an interesting enough question to post a new thread with his original post.
Any thoughts?
 
LGWflyer
Posts: 2233
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:38 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:19 am

Well there is Flybe who have a fleet of 49 Dash-8's, I suppose they do do more regional UK routes with them but still.
3 words... I Love Aviation!!!
 
Clydenairways
Posts: 1116
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:27 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:21 am

Quoting LGWflyer (Reply 1):
Well there is Flybe who have a fleet of 49 Dash-8's, I suppose they do do more regional UK routes with them but still.

And also Air Berlin
 
GIANCAVIA
Posts: 906
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:45 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:19 pm

Quoting LOWS (Thread starter):


Spantax posed an excellent question in another thread about why in Europe we don't have an LCC or ULCC running props on popular routes at lower prices than the majors. His original post is below:

Limited Range?
 
LOWS
Topic Author
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:27 pm

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 3):
Limited Range?

On routes that are ca. 800km per the OP.
 
traveler_7
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 12:45 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:18 pm

When using LCC one usually have to pay for the checked luggage at the same time nearly all LCC allow more or less reasonable weight and size for carry on. Usually overhead luggage compartment in turboprops relatively small compared to those in jet aircraft popular among LCCs. Actually it would be nice to see some 70- seat turboprop with larger cabin and consequently more space for carry on.

Another point: 30 min late one way means that round trip will take one hour more. This means that to serve same number of airports you need more time, read more aircraft leads rising crew salary costs, most probably more fees as well. One may clime that turboprop operating costs may be much lower, ok at this point one need to seat and do the math on the basis of more precise information.
 
PezySPU
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:27 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:30 pm

Quoting LOWS (Reply 4):
Quoting Giancavia (Reply 3):
Limited Range?

On routes that are ca. 800km per the OP.


I think this is the reason. Most LCCs still apply fleet commonality policy, they operate only one aircraft type. Turboprops are economical, but only on short range. This means that an airline can't assign them to a lot of routes, or in other words, can't order enough of turboprops to make operating two types justifiable.
 
spantax
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:44 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:04 pm

Quoting PezySPU (Reply 6):
This means that an airline can't assign them to a lot of routes, or in other words, can't order enough of turboprops to make operating two types justifiable

Ok, but let's assume we are talking about a one-type (turboprop) airline, which simplifies still more the operations. BTW, I've checked this, as example of my point:

Copenhague CPH/Stockolm ARN (550 km)
Flybe = 90-95 minutes - Q400 - 42 kg CO2 (as far as I can read the data)
SAS = 70-80 minutes - 737 - 61 kg CO2

You see the point? Even from the point of view of greenery/public relations, turboprops should have an advantage.

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
 
traveler_7
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 12:45 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:13 pm

Quoting spantax (Reply 7):
You see the point? Even from the point of view of greenery/public relations, turboprops should have an advantage.

Well ecological factor is definitely a good point. But what a bout operating costs and more important profit? Which flight will generate more money?

Regards,
 
User avatar
yellowtail
Posts: 3749
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:46 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:31 pm

Not just in Europe, but there are places in the world where IMHO a Turboprop LCC operation would make sense....like the DFW-HOU-SAT triangle with basically hourly flights.

Or maybe out of LatAmerican hub like PTY or LIM
When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
 
r2rho
Posts: 2475
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:41 pm

I think current props are simply too small for a decent LCC operation. I'd like to know what the CASM difference between a Q400 and a 738 or A319 is. Despite the better fuel efficiency of props, the larger size of the jets may make up for it and result in similar costs per seat in the end. If 100 seat (or even larger props) were available, I could imagine a LCC operation with them, but we'll have to wait a few years for that.
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3553
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:04 pm

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 9):
a Turboprop LCC operation would make sense....like the DFW-HOU-SAT triangle with basically hourly flights.

Texans have become addicted to their 737s on these routes. The price would have to be compelling to make that move.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:59 pm

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 9):
Not just in Europe, but there are places in the world where IMHO a Turboprop LCC operation would make sense....like the DFW-HOU-SAT triangle with basically hourly flights.

Or the inter-island flights in Hawai'i. ATR-72s are all that one gets within the Canary Islands, and they work very well.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3995
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:13 pm

Westjet has decided it needs turboprops to exploit markets too small for the 737's. It can then use the 737's to expand operations into the US.

They also plan of using them for supplementing current markets during off peak hours.

They'll either go with the Q400 or ATR.
What the...?
 
spantax
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:44 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:50 pm

Quoting r2rho (Reply 10):
If 100 seat (or even larger props) were available, I could imagine a LCC operation with them, but we'll have to wait a few years for that.

That would help, of course. IIRC Bombardier was considering the Q400X, a 90 PAX version. Does somebody knows the status of the project?

And adding to the list of advantages of turboprops: short take-off and landing capacities and, I presume, noise.

But the problem is CASM, as you say. I've been checking this but couldn't find reliable data. It would be very enlightening to compare CRJ-700 and ATR-72-600 or Q400 in this respect.
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
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:33 pm

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 11):
Texans have become addicted to their 737s on these routes.

Those routes need HSR before turboprops.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 12):
Or the inter-island flights in Hawai'i.

The DC-9 and now the 717 are really perfect for those markets. Unfortunately, neither is built anymore.

Quoting spantax (Reply 14):
It would be very enlightening to compare CRJ-700 and ATR-72-600 or Q400 in this respect.

The props murder the CR7.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:05 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
The DC-9 and now the 717 are really perfect for those markets. Unfortunately, neither is built anymore.

Why is the 717 better than the AT7 for those 30-minute flights between, say, HNL and LIH?
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:13 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 16):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
The DC-9 and now the 717 are really perfect for those markets. Unfortunately, neither is built anymore.

Why is the 717 better than the AT7 for those 30-minute flights between, say, HNL and LIH?

More seats to sell, meaning more revenue. To operate the same capacity in such high-frequency markets you'd need more turboprops and more crews, meaning higher operating costs. Fuel isn't a major issue on such shorthaul routes.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:19 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
To operate the same capacity in such high-frequency markets you'd need more turboprops and more crews, meaning higher operating costs.

Why? Acquisition cost per seat is much lower for an AT7 than for an Embraer 195, say (a possible replacement for the 717).

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
Fuel isn't a major issue on such shorthaul routes.

Actually, it is. If your statements were true, there would be no business case whatsoever for turboprops (because, clearly, long routes is not their strength...), which is clearly not true.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
PezySPU
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:27 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:27 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
Westjet has decided it needs turboprops to exploit markets too small for the 737's. It can then use the 737's to expand operations into the US.

They also plan of using them for supplementing current markets during off peak hours.

They'll either go with the Q400 or ATR.

Correct, but this is WS finding a niche where only turboprop can be profitable, not replacing jet.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:32 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 18):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
Fuel isn't a major issue on such shorthaul routes.

Actually, it is. If your statements were true, there would be no business case whatsoever for turboprops (because, clearly, long routes is not their strength...), which is clearly not true.

Very few turboprop routes are as short as the Hawaii inter-island routes, and almost none operate at such high frequency. HNL-OGG and HNL-LIH are only 87 and 88 nm, respectively.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:12 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
Very few turboprop routes are as short as the Hawaii inter-island routes,

There are two companies providing inter-island flights in the Canary Islands, Binter and Islas. The both operate only AT7s.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
HNL-OGG and HNL-LIH are only 87 and 88 nm, respectively.

TFN-LPA is 60 nm, TFN-SPC is 75 nm.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
9252fly
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:34 pm

If Bombardier could build a turbo-prop version of the CS110,then it would be interesting to compare the economics of that variant against the P&W GTF jet model. My guess is that the turbo-prop version would have a superior efficiency up to 500nm unless they could figure out how to make it fly faster than today's propeller driven aircraft.
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3553
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:10 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
The DC-9 and now the 717 are really perfect for those markets. Unfortunately, neither is built
anymore.

I'd say the E190 is even better for these routes.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
The props murder the CR7.

I've heard the E175 and Q400 are about dead even in terms of operational economics.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
L1011
Posts: 2141
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:02 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:11 pm

I think a turboprop the size of the Electra or Viscount would be very popular. They would be MUCH more comfortable than current turboprops and have ample room for carry-on luggage.

Bob Bradley
Fly Eastern's Golden Falcon DC-7B
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:23 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 21):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
Very few turboprop routes are as short as the Hawaii inter-island routes,

There are two companies providing inter-island flights in the Canary Islands, Binter and Islas. The both operate only AT7s.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
HNL-OGG and HNL-LIH are only 87 and 88 nm, respectively.

TFN-LPA is 60 nm, TFN-SPC is 75 nm.

Frequency on those routes appear to be around 16 to 18 flights a day. HA alone on HNL-OGG has close to 30 daily 717s (plus another 10 or so Go! CRJs, operated by Mesa Airlines). To meet that demand with ATRs or Q400s would require many more aircraft and crews. Those additional costs would almost certainly exceed whatever the additional fuel cost may be for the current 717s on such short sectors. HA 717s have 123 seats (8 F and 115 Y).
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:31 pm

I still wish ATR would have the balls to build a 130-150 seat turboprop with two GE38 engines instead of tinkering with their 90-seater plans...
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:14 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25):
To meet that demand with ATRs or Q400s would require many more aircraft and crews. Those additional costs would almost certainly exceed whatever the additional fuel cost may be for the current 717s on such short sectors. HA 717s have 123 seats (8 F and 115 Y).

I doubt it. Not only the AT7s consume much less fuel, but their price (per seat) is much lower.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
User avatar
Pohakuloa
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:28 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:19 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
Quoting UALWN (Reply 18):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
Fuel isn't a major issue on such shorthaul routes.

Actually, it is. If your statements were true, there would be no business case whatsoever for turboprops (because, clearly, long routes is not their strength...), which is clearly not true.

Very few turboprop routes are as short as the Hawaii inter-island routes, and almost none operate at such high frequency. HNL-OGG and HNL-LIH are only 87 and 88 nm, respectively.

Many of these 717 flights also climb and descend to FL110 - 210 (listening to clearance and ATC around here) all in a matter of 20 to 35 minutes wheels up to touchdown. Add to that the high cycle/day per aircraft and I dont think the Ejets would measure up (though I dont know for sure, will admit otherwise if I am wrong). That's a lot of fuel used to climb and descend with little to no cruise time. Hawaii passengers are very fond of jet aircraft service and are tentative when it comes to props.

Although the prop service via WP and other grand caravan operators are available, perhaps there is something in economics of the props as ticket prices still are around the same cost regardless of airline choice. Either that or prices are marked way up to remain competitive while turning a profit.

In Europe, perhaps it is far different though as I haven't yet the ability to travel there.
Fast cars and 'Jet A' - such a sweet smell!
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:26 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25):
plus another 10 or so Go! CRJs, operated by Mesa Airlines

Current list prices (per another thread):
ATR-72-600 = 23 Million = 74 PAX
CRJ-700NG = 37 Million = 75 PAX
Why does Go! operate CRJs instead of AT7s??
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3995
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:19 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 29):

Current list prices (per another thread):
ATR-72-600 = 23 Million = 74 PAX
CRJ-700NG = 37 Million = 75 PAX
Why does Go! operate CRJs instead of AT7s??

I think this may give a better idea about what airlines are actually paying;

---------------------------------------------------------

www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/ge..._aviation/read.main/5229355#menu27

Quote:
Back by popular request, here is an update on industry aircraft valuations and market lease rates.

Below are estimated current market value (in USD) based on oldest to newest airframes, along with sample monthly lease rates in (USD,000) based on oldest to newest airframes for many common models.


A319 – $11.8-31.1M, $125-265,000
A320 – $5.0 - 39.3M, $70-320,000
A321 – $19.3 - 43.4M, $195-365,000
A330-200 – $43.0 - 83.4M, $440-775,000
A340-300 – $20.0 -59.7M, $275-580,000
B737-300 – $2.5 – 6.5M, $105-145,000
B737-700 - $15.3 - 31.2M, $160-280,000
B737-800 - $19.7 - 40.7M, $235-350,000
B737-900ER - $32.9 - 44.4M, $310-375,000
B747-400 – $18.0 – 59.3M, $350-670,000
B757-200 – $6.5 – 20.6M, $120-225,000
B767-300ER – $9.5 – 58.9M, $205-520,000
B777-200ER – $42.0 – 107.8M, $560-995,000
B777-300ER – $86.0 – 147.0M, $860-1,285,000
MD-11 - $10 – 12.5M , $150-190,000
MD-82 - $1.0 - 2.9M, $25-60,000
CRJ200 – $2.8 - 7.1M, $40-80,000
CRJ700 – $10.0 – 21.2M, $110-220,000
CRJ900 - $13.8 – 23.6M, $150-245,000
Q400 – $8.5 – 18.8M, $130-210,000
ERJ145 – $4.8 – 8.7M, $60-90,000
EMB170 – $14 – 23.3M, $150-230,000
EMB190 – $19.5 – 29.0M, $210-260,000
ATR-72 – $5.6 – 18.5M, $70-180,000

Information is derived from transactions and valuation and is current as of June 2011
What the...?
 
BMI727
Posts: 11176
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:39 am

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 3):
Limited Range?

And even less practical range. Over a certain distance, jets really begin to widen the gap.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
Those routes need HSR before turboprops.

Buy a 737 for mid 8 figures or a railroad for billions? Not too hard of a decision.

Quoting Pohakuloa (Reply 28):
That's a lot of fuel used to climb and descend with little to no cruise time.

A parabolic profile is actually the most efficient way to complete a flight.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
jetsetter629
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:07 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:53 am

There is SpiceJet in India which is a true LCC operating Q400s to smaller Indian cities along side 738s
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:48 am

Quoting jetsetter629 (Reply 32):
There is SpiceJet in India which is a true LCC operating Q400s to smaller Indian cities along side 738s

One reason may be the following:
http://theflyingengineer.com/aircraf...-to-fly-a-turboprop-q400-vs-atr72/

Quote:
The biggest boon to regional turboprop aircraft operators in India is that their turbine fuel is under the declared goods category, attracting a sales tax of only 4% as compared to 28% for other aircraft weighing above 40,000kgs. Topping that is the exemption from landing charges for aircraft with less than 80 seats. Since both aircraft fall into these categories, the economics of a turboprop start making immediate sense.
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:26 am

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 23):
I've heard the E175 and Q400 are about dead even in terms of operational economics.

Well apparently Virgin Blue/Australia didn't think so, especially on short flights such as SYD-CBR (147mi) where they have replaced the E70 with AT7s



Something which people have missed: crew costs per seat are higher on smaller aircraft. Therefore they are automatically less attractive to LCCs.

As a REALLY crude example lets just say that the following positions earn these amounts:

Captain $75,000
First Officer $50,000
CSD: $20,000
Flight Attendant: $15,000

737-800: 1 C, 1 FO, 1 CSD & 3 FA = $190,000 (/180 = $1055 per seat)

AT7: 1 C, 1 FO, 1 CSD & 1 FA = $160,000 (/70 = $2285 per seat)
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
BMI727
Posts: 11176
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:31 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
As a REALLY crude example lets just say that the following positions earn these amounts:

What airline in the world pays ATR pilots and 737 pilots the same? That's a big part of why regionals have become huge in the US: crews are so much cheaper. Granted low cost carriers are never going to have as big a difference between crews as legacies outsourcing flying will, but the difference isn't going to be as great as you show.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3553
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:40 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
Well apparently Virgin Blue/Australia didn't think so, especially on short flights such as SYD-CBR (147mi) where they have replaced the E70 with AT7s

They are replacing E70s not E75s which can give you typically up to 20 more seats than an ATR or Q400.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
raffik
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:50 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:46 am

Air Baltic also operate Dash 8s . I saw one at DME last night being de iced.
- Alec
 
Viper911
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:29 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:34 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 27):
I doubt it. Not only the AT7s consume much less fuel, but their price (per seat) is much lower.

Exactly how much less fuel the AT7s consume than the 717s?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1594
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:40 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
A parabolic profile is actually the most efficient way to complete a flight.

LOL, do they use the elastic band or air cannon method for this?

Fred
Image
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:10 pm

Quoting Viper911 (Reply 38):
Exactly how much less fuel the AT7s consume than the 717s?

I've looked around on the PPRUNE and found about 2100 kg/h for a 717 vs. 700 kg/h for an AT7. But, honestly, I don't know if these numbers are reliable.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
rampart
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:36 pm

I while back I suggested a revival of an aircraft the size and range of the L-188 Electra, or Vickers Vanguard. Vanguard is the better for cappacity, Electra better for range. It need not be literally an NG Electra or Vanguard as some in TechOps thought when my thread was transfered there. I know, Vickers and Lockheed are long out of the civil airliner business. But, same idea. Short-medium range, ~110 passengers +/-15, good short field performance, probably do it on 2 engines, maybe ducted props to minimize noise. Revive the late 50s and retake the jets. In a good way. Don't know of ATR or Q400 is capable of expanding that large, probably needs a wider fuselage. EADS CASA 295 might be a candidate.

-Rampart
 
spantax
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:44 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:31 pm

Quoting rampart (Reply 41):
while back I suggested a revival of an aircraft the size and range of the L-188 Electra, or Vickers Vanguard. Vanguard is the better for cappacity, Electra better for range. It need not be literally an NG Electra or Vanguard as some in TechOps thought when my thread was transfered there. I know, Vickers and Lockheed are long out of the civil airliner business. But, same idea. Short-medium range, ~110 passengers /-15, good short field performance, probably do it on 2 engines, maybe ducted props to minimize noise. Revive the late 50s and retake the jets. In a good way. Don't know of ATR or Q400 is capable of expanding that large, probably needs a wider fuselage. EADS CASA 295 might be a candidate.


Dear Rampart, this idea is really exciting!! Let me summarize my view of the situation:

Bombardier Q400. Could stretch to 90? PAX. There was an idea of Q400X or something like that. Plus: established AC, speed, cabin noise. Minus: price.

ATR. There was an ATR-82 project IIRC = 82 PAX? Plus: established AC, price, good STOL performance. Minus: speed, cabin noise? But a big margin of improvement in order to catch Q400 speed-wise. Maybe, could offer "fast" and "slow" (i.e. normal) versions?

Embraer. Not a player yet. But a good record of taking advantage of yet-to-fulfil niches (ERJ 170/90).

EADS/CASA. Good platform (C295), although more military oriented. But the smaller brother or the family (C235) well established in some places (Indonesia) as civil AC. BIG minus: C295 cannibalising ATR (i.e. EADS) products.

Ilyushin. Interesting IL-114 as platform (albeit smaller: 64 PAX), not in production anymore. Plus: price, robustness. Minus: finance, maintenance worldwide, image in West.

Antonov. An-140 (very small as platform: 52 PAX) but, obviously, an outstanding "savoir faire". Plus: tradition, brand? (I don't know...), price, robustness. Minus: finance?, maintenance worldwide.

Others: China: no idea, but probably they will try sooner or later. Japan? Indonesia?

(By the way, I remember adds in 'Interavia' in the 80's for an Hercules derivative, L-400, a twin for passengers. Crazy, isn't it?)

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
 
migair54
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:24 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:45 pm

Quoting Viper911 (Reply 38):
Exactly how much less fuel the AT7s consume than the 717s?
Quoting UALWN (Reply 40):
I've looked around on the PPRUNE and found about 2100 kg/h for a 717 vs. 700 kg/h for an AT7. But, honestly, I don't know if these numbers are reliable.

I´m not sure about the B717 but the ATR is 600-700Kgs per hour.... it depends on the weight of the plane.... Actually it´s excellent.... for routes of 1 hour nobody can beat that....


ATR is developing a version for 90 pax... So who know... maybe in the future we can see some routes going again to turboprops... specially with the fuel going up and up....
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3553
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:54 pm

Quoting migair54 (Reply 43):
the ATR is 600-700Kgs per hour.... it depends on the weight of the plane.... Actually it´s excellent....

So I can assume the fuel burn for the ATR42-600 will be even less since it has the same PW127M engine as the 72 does.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
migair54
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:24 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:16 pm

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 44):
So I can assume the fuel burn for the ATR42-600 will be even less since it has the same PW127M engine as the 72 does.

Not less but I think it will uplift more weight (payload) because of the new composite materials.... and I think it will be a little bit faster... close to the 42-500.... also more expensive.....
 
rampart
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:45 pm

Quoting spantax (Reply 42):
(By the way, I remember adds in 'Interavia' in the 80's for an Hercules derivative, L-400, a twin for passengers. Crazy, isn't it?)

That I would like to see if you or anyone has an image of it! I was able to find reference to it in FlightGlobal, but no pictures.

THanks for your summary of potential aircraft. Regarding China's manufacturers, the MA-600 (similar to an An-24 or F-27) is possible for expansion, but currently has a really limited range. MA-700 may be that expansion, anyone know more about it? It has some interesting departures from the original design, including a T-tail; looks less like an Antonov. http://www.cannews.com.cn/2011/1201/163820.html

-Rampart
 
JQflightie
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:18 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:14 am

Wings Air in Indonesia is LCC and has a fleet of just ATR's, they are owned by Lion Air, and also have just placed a big order for more ATR's.
Next Trip: PER-DPS-KUL-BKK-HKT-CNX-BKK-SIN-PER
 
spantax
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:44 pm

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:30 am

In this week The Economist, there is an article about turboprops which comes in handy. Here is an excerpt. As you can read they summarize more or less all we have said so far. Very interesting the data about China and India. Also that "synchronisation of propellers", which I was unware. Regards


IN THE early 2000s Embraer stopped making its EMB-120 Brasília and went over entirely to producing jets.
ATR had a record year last year, winning firm orders for 157 planes and options for a further 79. It is ramping up its output to meet the demand: in 2005, the turboprop’s darkest hour and in 2014 it wants to turn out 85.
ATR’s big order from Kingfisher seems to have gone pear-shaped in recent weeks as the Indian airline’s financial troubles have worsened. But this week the planemaker signed a big deal with Wings Air of Indonesia, which will eventually have a fleet of 60 ATR turboprops.
Bombardier of Canada also has a new, high-tech turboprop, the Q400. It struggled to win orders last year but has high hopes that 2012 will be much better. The Teal Group, an aviation consultancy, forecasts a market of around $2 billion a year for turboprops from now into the 2020 though still a fraction of the market for jets.
As in most industries these days, it is important to ask: what about the Chinese? The answer, as usual, is that they are determined to get in the game. Xi’an Aircraft, a subsidiary of AVIC, the Chinese state aerospace giant, had a big presence at the Dubai air show in November, showing off its new MA600 turboprop, a 50-seat upgrade of its MA60 plane.
In December a bunch of orders from African airlines brought combined orders for the MA60 and MA600 to over 200. Shuyu Zhai, an executive at Xi’an Aircraft, says its parent company has set it the target of overtaking its European and Canadian rivals to become the world’s number-one turboprop-maker by 2020. An Indian government agency is also working on a “national” turboprop.
The reason for the turboprop revival is simple: the oil price. Filippo Bagnato, ATR’s boss, explains that the turnaround began when crude rose above $35 a barrel in the years following the Iraq war. Planes powered by jets are faster, but for flights of less than around 500 nautical miles, the shorter time spent in the air is insignificant compared with the fuel savings to be made by flying a slower turboprop.
There’s just one problem: “turbo aversion”, as a Bombardier spokesman describes it. Passengers, especially those who have flown in the earlier generations of turboprops, regard them as noisy, uncomfortable, and less safe than jets. As Xi’an Aircraft’s Mr Zhai notes, this aversion varies considerably by region: in South America, for instance, it is hardly a problem.
As for the question of noise and discomfort, the turboprop-makers have put a lot of effort into improving the quality of their planes’ cabins, and in particular in reducing noise and vibration. Bombardier uses noise-cancellation technology, whereas ATR uses insulation, and fancy electronics to synchronise the propellers. To try to persuade travellers to think again about their turbo aversion, Bombardier is advertising their green credentials.
Makers of big jet engines, such as CFM, are also beginning to take an interest in developing fuel-efficient open-rotor engines. Airlines, under pressure to cut their emissions, could be persuaded to equip their planes with such engines if it spares them some of the cost of buying emissions permits.
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
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10022
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Turboprops For A LCC

Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:02 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 23):
I've heard the E175 and Q400 are about dead even in terms of operational economics.

Well apparently Virgin Blue/Australia didn't think so, especially on short flights such as SYD-CBR (147mi) where they have replaced the E70 with AT7s

The ATR 72 and the Q400 are different beasts though with significantly different economics, there really is no comparison in this respect. For very short routes in that seat range either prop is going to be more efficient than an ERJ 170/175, but the efficiency tipping point for the small E-jets against the Q400 is impressively low.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...

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