baje427
Topic Author
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:42 am

Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:06 pm

I know this topic has been broached before but things have changed a bit since then. With the current trend in oil prices could we see the reintroduction of props on a larger scale in the US I know financing new planes has been the issue but would BBD or ATR not be able to offer a good deal if the order is large enough?
 
DashTrash
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:44 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:27 pm

Not until there are new designs available. The two choices right now are the ATRs and the Q400. I'm not real familiar with ATRs, and from what I understand the 400 has reliability issues. The 400 is also takes up a lot of ramp space and has high acquisition costs. Until someone builds an economic 50 seater I don't think you'll see much in the way of new turboprops.

Not to mention the stigma which isn't going to be easy to overcome.
 
DesertAir
Posts: 1265
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:34 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:47 pm

Horizon is an example of turboprop resurgence. They discontinued their RJs in favor of the Q400. They seem to be doing well and have entered a lot of new markets.
 
penguins
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:52 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:54 pm

I do not think so. First off, there are not really many options avaliable. DashTrash stated what was wrong with the Q400, so I will now to the ATR. The ATR is slow for such a large country and has been already been redired or is being retired by DL and BQ. Second of all, there are too many RJs in the sky right now. According to flighare there are over 600 in the air currently. This is too great a number to replace and because turboprops are much slower, even more would be needed to keep the same frequeinces.
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 2761
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:19 pm

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 1):
Until someone builds an economic 50 seater I don't think you'll see much in the way of new turboprops

Something like a Q300NG.
 
baje427
Topic Author
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:42 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:27 pm

From previous threads on the Q400 it has been suggested those reliability issues have been reduced could we see Colgan picking up some more Q's ? Also has anyone tried the J class on the Q400 ?
 
flightsimer
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:22 pm

Quoting baje427 (Reply 5):

I believe United Express (might not have been them) retrofitted at least one last year with a two class cabin. I remember seeing the announcement because it was the first carrier to have the two classes on the Q400.
Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
 
Dash8Driver16
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:07 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:22 pm

It is an interesting issue. The Q also has the problem of violating some scope clauses which make a no go as well as the ATR-72. The ATR-42 Seater is a viable option but with the lake of APU and some of the stigma of Roslyn(Its not a good Ice plane) it makes it tough for airlines to buy into it for the NE corridor(where a lot of these turboprops would be going. The lack of a good 35 seat turboprop is another detriment to the whole resurgence argument. There was a recent interview with Dion Flannery where he talked about the difficulty in acquiring Dash-8's. He said that they even put the Mainline Acquisition team on the job and they were not able to secure one lease for either a -100 or a -300. Now i do not know if they were actually being competitive in their bargaining but it does say something about the market. Most free airframes are being snapped up. I have heard rumors that the Air Force is trying to pick up Dash's as well whether this is intended to replace the sherpa's or to try and take the flying that Presidential/Dynamic is doing overseas we will see. All this means for a turbo prop resurgence is that the market has more customers for less airframes. Also there are a lack of readily available airframes out there.

What is the backlog at BBD and ATR?
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 2761
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:28 pm

Quoting Dash8Driver16 (Reply 7):
some of the stigma of Roslyn(Its not a good Ice plane) it makes it tough for airlines to buy into it for the NE corridor(where a lot of these turboprops would be going

I don't think this is an issue. We've hashed that out so many times on here I can't even count.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 6):
I believe United Express (might not have been them) retrofitted at least one last year with a two class cabin. I remember seeing the announcement because it was the first carrier to have the two classes on the Q400.
Quoting Dash8Driver16 (Reply 7):
There was a recent interview with Dion Flannery where he talked about the difficulty in acquiring Dash-8's. He said that they even put the Mainline Acquisition team on the job and they were not able to secure one lease for either a -100 or a -300.

The Q300 is an interesting aircraft. Only 267 were produced, and I'm not sure how many are still in service which helps explain why they're having a tough time.

Quoting Dash8Driver16 (Reply 7):
The lack of a good 35 seat turboprop is another detriment to the whole resurgence argument.

Saab 340B+ is a decent aircraft.
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:46 pm

Quoting Dash8Driver16 (Reply 7):
What is the backlog at BBD and ATR?

I heard not too many at BBD but ATR has a backlog of about 175 frames for the 72-600 ( a few may be -500s) and about 20 for the 42-600. IIRC

Turboprops were never meant for near transcon flying. They were meant for 200-500nm segments which can compete with the RJs.

Quoting Dash8Driver16 (Reply 7):
The lack of a good 35 seat turboprop is another detriment to the whole resurgence argument

I used to think this too but upon further evaluation the operating cost would almost be identical to 45-50 seater turboprop. A little higher acquisition cost but those 10-15 extra seats would pay for it over the life of the a/c not to mention greater flexibilty.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
93Sierra
Posts: 354
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:01 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:09 pm

What about the 328? Dornier had a nice product yet all operators of the type in the us don't fly anymore. What about the SAAb 2000, right size plane for the us yet never a success
 
doug_or
Posts: 3122
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 9:55 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:12 pm

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 10):
What about the 328? Dornier had a nice product yet all operators of the type in the us don't fly anymore. What about the SAAb 2000

Both of these airplanes were killed by cheap oil and an RJ obsession. The DO 328 also suffered from horrible customer support, at least when it was initially introduced with Horizon.
When in doubt, one B pump off
 
LOWS
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:02 pm

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 10):
What about the 328?

There are still some 328s flying, at least here in Europe. In fact, OS just started a new, high frequency mainly 328 shuttle between LNZ and VIE operated by 2W (Welcome Air).

Until they went bankrupt, C9 had a number of 328 flights, including a potentially (for me) very handy SZG-ZRH that I never got to try.
 
scarebus03
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:14 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:21 pm

I think if oil costs continue to rise then TP's will become more popular in the U.S. The market is extremely good for the ATR at the moment with even old frames (both 42's and 72's) being snapped up almost immediately. As for the Dash 8-300 they are extremely popular and don't stay on the market for long either once one or more become available. The Q400 although having a rocky start will probably become a little more popular particularly in former Soviet countries where speed and range are important due to the lack of infrastructure and unavailability of ATR's. Despite the Buffalo crash the Q400 is still a good TP in icing conditions thanks to where it's built.

Cheaper fuel in the states has allowed the RJ's to flourish but that picnic is coming to an end meaning that very short sectors will no longer be viable for the older generation RJ's and although new models are available there will be a delay until availability catches up with demand allowing the TP to gain a foothold and probably remain there to some degree as prices go higher. It is unlikely that smaller TP's will continue to meet demand so I expect that the Q400 and ATR72 will be the only candidates as smaller frames just can't cut it on established/mature routes. As the RJ's are also getting bigger the gap will increase and the TP will most probably be there to stay.

Brgds
No faults found......................
 
PezySPU
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:27 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:41 pm

Quoting penguins (Reply 3):
This is too great a number to replace and because turboprops are much slower, even more would be needed to keep the same frequeinces.

I don't buy that one. Unless those RJ's have veeery tight schedules where every minute counts, then there would be no difference at all. And frankly, with hub&spoke system of legacies, that's usually not the case.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 9):
Quoting Dash8Driver16 (Reply 7):
What is the backlog at BBD and ATR?

I heard not too many at BBD

Yes, not much at all! But WS is very likely to order 40 of them soon.
 
flight152
Posts: 3211
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:04 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:21 pm

Quoting PezySPU (Reply 14):
I don't buy that one. Unless those RJ's have veeery tight schedules where every minute counts, then there would be no difference at all. And frankly, with hub&spoke system of legacies, that's usually not the case.

United schedules 25 minute turns and quite frankly the longer segments that are flown with the E145, turboprop useage isn't pratical on many of the flights.
 
futureualpilot
Posts: 2402
Joined: Thu May 25, 2000 10:52 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:21 pm

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 1):
Not to mention the stigma which isn't going to be easy to overcome.

This is the single largest issue, IMO with turboprops. I was deadheading on a Q400 a few weeks ago that was a handful fo months old, and had yet to hit 1000hrs on the airframe but I heard several passengers joking that it must be a WWII relic. One person flat out told me I was lying when they asked me how old the airplane was, and I told them. Evene DL dropped the TP flying in favor of jets in a lot of markets, even though the Saabs were profitable to be "all jet." My understanding is a lot of the EAS routes that were kept are being flown with 50 seaters at a loss now. I have people ask me all the time if the turboprop I fly is actually safe. They look at me like I'm from a different planet when I tell them it has a better safety record than most mainline airplanes.

Quoting baje427 (Reply 5):
From previous threads on the Q400 it has been suggested those reliability issues have been reduced could we see Colgan picking up some more Q's ? Also has anyone tried the J class on the Q400 ?

Reliability is still an issue with the Q, although it is slowly improving. Some of the metrics I've seen have them keeping up with older 50 seat RJs now, but with so few flying, one delay or cancellation makes a larger impact on performance figures than if one RJ cancels or delays.

Quoting Dash8Driver16 (Reply 7):
The Q also has the problem of violating some scope clauses

Most scope clauses specify jets. CO used this to allow the Q, since it is a turboprop.
Life is better when you surf.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18971
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:22 pm

Quoting PezySPU (Reply 14):
Quoting penguins (Reply 3):
This is too great a number to replace and because turboprops are much slower, even more would be needed to keep the same frequeinces.

I don't buy that one. Unless those RJ's have veeery tight schedules where every minute counts, then there would be no difference at all. And frankly, with hub&spoke system of legacies, that's usually not the case.

The speed difference is only notable for the ATR. There's not much difference between block times for the much faster Q400 and jets on typical routes.

One example: YUL-YHZ (435 nm) where AC uses the E-190 and Porter the Q400. Block time is 1:26 for the E-190 and 1:35 for the Q400. Nine minutes longer is not "much slower" on a 435 mile sector. Westbound difference is 10 to 14 minutes.
 
irelayer
Posts: 929
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:58 pm

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 16):
This is the single largest issue, IMO with turboprops. I was deadheading on a Q400 a few weeks ago that was a handful fo months old, and had yet to hit 1000hrs on the airframe but I heard several passengers joking that it must be a WWII relic. One person flat out told me I was lying when they asked me how old the airplane was, and I told them. Evene DL dropped the TP flying in favor of jets in a lot of markets, even though the Saabs were profitable to be "all jet." My understanding is a lot of the EAS routes that were kept are being flown with 50 seaters at a loss now. I have people ask me all the time if the turboprop I fly is actually safe. They look at me like I'm from a different planet when I tell them it has a better safety record than most mainline airplanes.

I don't think it's necessarily the stigma of a turboprop. I think it's mainly the "smallness". People seem to equate big with "safe".

To back this up I'll offer up a few examples recently where I was on RJs and people were either on the phone or talking amongst themselves referring to it as a "puddle jumper".

I'll admit that an additional issue with turboprops is noise, and perceived "oldness", but both of these can be overcome.

The first issue can be overcome with active noise cancellation. Doesn't the Q400 have this? Surely the noise level in the cabin can't be too bad. Additionally, each seat can have an attached noise cancelling headset.

The second issue can be overcome with IFE, and nicer interiors. One thing people equate with "modernity" is in flight entertainment. The noise cancelling headsets can be wired in to XM radio. So people will put them on to listen to some music and forget all about the noise, and be impressed that they can hear sat radio on a "puddle jumper" and forget about how small or ancient it is.

The Q400NG has a pretty modern looking interior doesn't it?

-IR
 
LOWS
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:08 pm

Quoting irelayer (Reply 18):
The Q400NG has a pretty modern looking interior doesn't it?

It's not too bad. I've been on the new 9L Q400s 7 times or so now and they look nice.

This is a PD Q400:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Porte...d=d7c31a56af64c52a42c0f1ad9d6961ca
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:08 pm

Quoting irelayer (Reply 18):
I'll admit that an additional issue with turboprops is noise, and perceived "oldness", but both of these can be overcome.

The Q is a very quiet aircraft. I fly it often between IAH and DFW and actually prefer it to a CRJ or a 737. If only those had the range to get from DFW to LAX   

I would love to see a revamped, faster ATR enter the US market. Also, since demand of turboprops may skyrocket soon, is there a chance Embraer may jump on this?
Beauty is watching a 787 bank to make a short final. Bliss is watching that 787 with a good beer. Nirvana is all of that with a beautiful woman on your side.
 
greaser
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:21 pm

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 16):
This is the single largest issue, IMO with turboprops. I was deadheading on a Q400 a few weeks ago that was a handful fo months old, and had yet to hit 1000hrs on the airframe but I heard several passengers joking that it must be a WWII relic. One person flat out told me I was lying when they asked me how old the airplane was, and I told them. Evene DL dropped the TP flying in favor of jets in a lot of markets, even though the Saabs were profitable to be "all jet." My understanding is a lot of the EAS routes that were kept are being flown with 50 seaters at a loss now. I have people ask me all the time if the turboprop I fly is actually safe. They look at me like I'm from a different planet when I tell them it has a better safety record than most mainline airplanes.

I dont understand why this is an issue anymore. The fact of the matter is that most passengers who end up flying on an RJ route are connecting or have connected from a mainline flight. CO had no problem with their Q200s, which I have personally flown on and found to have been near capacity each time.

If airlines like DL would rather fly jets at a much lower profit margin or loss than TPs when TPs are a viable and competitive option, then it serves them right to be in the terrible financial positions that they were in during the oil spikes.

Since one cannot use alternative transportation methods to connect on a plane in a hub, the airlines can, and should decide which aircraft passengers fly in based on which would result in the lowest cost and therefore lowest fares for the passenger. Assuming that a TP plane is as safe, as reliable, and as equipped as a comparable jet of equal size, the airline should not have any qualms assigning a TP plane to an RJ route. I bet there are few passengers out there actually willing to pay the full cost of an RJ flight than pay a cheaper TP fare.
Now you're really flying
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:26 pm

The ATR42-600 is a fully revamped plane and just launched.

Its an extraordinarily economical 50 seater.

NS
 
irelayer
Posts: 929
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:49 pm

Quoting greaser (Reply 21):
Since one cannot use alternative transportation methods to connect on a plane in a hub, the airlines can, and should decide which aircraft passengers fly in based on which would result in the lowest cost and therefore lowest fares for the passenger. Assuming that a TP plane is as safe, as reliable, and as equipped as a comparable jet of equal size, the airline should not have any qualms assigning a TP plane to an RJ route. I bet there are few passengers out there actually willing to pay the full cost of an RJ flight than pay a cheaper TP fare.

I agree. The problem is one of perception. If you go all prop and your competitor goes all jet they can use that as a competitive advantage. I'm not sure if it will ever happen that way, but in hub markets with 2 or more carriers it is a possibility. The degree to which it really matters? Probably not a whole lot. The lost revenue from a few people swayed by arguments like that will probably be made up by the cost savings of a TP.

-IR
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:20 am

Quoting irelayer (Reply 18):
active noise cancellation

Active noise cancellation means more wiring and equipment = more weight.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:30 am

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 10):
What about the SAAb 2000, right size plane for the us yet never a success

This is going to sound a lot like the "could the 757 line be started again" threads, but I wish this was the case for the Saab 2000. This thing was the right aircraft at the wrong time. It's almost jet speeds at turboprop economics would have been a serious contender today, IMHO.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:52 am

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 24):
Active noise cancellation means more wiring and equipment = more weight.

True, but in this case it's worth it since you have happier passengers after the flight. Besides, on the props, it shouldn't make that much of a dent. Don't know if any comparisons could be made since I'm not sure if there are any Q's flying without the system already installed.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:05 am

Turboprops won't start to really gain ground again until the tiny piles like the saab's are well out of the collective memory of US passengers. A Q400 is a totaly different experience than that, being larger and quieter.
 
L1011
Posts: 2133
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:02 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:45 am

Why not an updated Lockheed Electra, not necessarily built by Lockheed, but the same size as the Electra. The Electra was the most comfortable turboprop I've ever flown on.

Bob Bradley
Fly Eastern's Golden Falcon DC-7B
 
avroarrow
Posts: 804
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2001 10:40 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:15 am

I think I've heard the idea of a ~ 100 seat Q400 concept being kicked around in fantasy land, not sure if it'll ever amount to anything. A little over a year ago I was flying back from LAS to BUF and intentionally booked a segment from CLE to BUF on the Q400 to see what it was like. While taxiing and descending, it was very smooth and quiet, but during climb and cruise I found the prop noise to be quite loud, almost uncomfortably so, and I fly piston GA aircraft for fun. Admittedly I was seated right next to the props, but I was expecting better based on what I'd heard. Despite this, I am most definitely in favour of airlines using whatever aircraft is the most efficient for a particular route and I would have no qualms about flying the Q400 again, I just might make sure I had some earplugs handy.  
Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
 
baje427
Topic Author
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:42 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:19 am

Q400's come with noise suppression in fact all Dash 8's delivered after 1997 come with the system.
 
93Sierra
Posts: 354
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:01 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:29 am

How does the Saab 2000 compare to the q400?

While most of the posts on here are talking about larger tprops, what about the likes of a beech 1900 or emb 120 replacement?
 
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:35 am

Turbo prop are a great aircraft for the short to medium length stage length flights. The added flight time over a jet is usually very small. Even though they have a propeller, they are quit modern and more fuel efficient than a pure jet.
The only thing I do not like about turbo prop aircraft is that most, if not all, do not have hot air or bleed air being used for deicing on the leading edge of the main wing. They use rubber boots to break the ice off the wing after it forms.   
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
Kent350787
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:47 am

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 31):
How does the Saab 2000 compare to the q400?

2000 was a little faster, but only 58 seats. No idea about CASM or reliability comparison.

Will scope clauses have much of an impact on the even larger TPs being floated by ATR and Bombardier?
 
DashTrash
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:44 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:53 am

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 16):
Most scope clauses specify jets. CO used this to allow the Q, since it is a turboprop.

UASSAirways has scoped out the 400.

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 24):

Active noise cancellation means more wiring and equipment = more weight.

and more suck. It stayed on the MEL so often at Piedmont they finally deactivated the whole shooting match. It was also unique to the 200s.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 31):
While most of the posts on here are talking about larger tprops, what about the likes of a beech 1900 or emb 120 replacement?

Smaller turboprops suffer from the same fuel burn to pax ratio that 50 seat RJs do. Also the frames are more weight restricted. I can't think of a time I ever flew a Dash 8-100 that I wasn't restricted to 34 pax at most. Less if there were lots of bags or no kids. If newer aircraft were developed they'd need to be able to tank 2 hours of fuel, full seats and max bags out of most East Coast airports.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 32):
The only thing I do not like about turbo prop aircraft is that most, if not all, do not have hot air or bleed air being used for deicing on the leading edge of the main wing. They use rubber boots to break the ice off the wing after it forms.

Turboprop engines don't put out enough bleed air to run a bleed anti-ice system (there are some exceptions). The boots work just fine.
 
luvtrains
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:56 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:28 am

The argument for a resurgence of turbo-props can be supported by $160+/bbl oil and the choice in which smaller regional airports will face with retiring 50seat RJs. Will a flier, chose between a turbo-prop city pair? or driving to the next larger cities' airport? As the decade progresses, the business case for replacing the 50 seat RJ with the ~75 seat turbo-prop becomes stronger. The business case for buying a 50 seat RJ becomes less attractive.

Add to the argument that KAI (korea) will likely bring a competitive product to market, and you can almost hear the marketing folks at the regional airlines touting the innovation in "green" flying.
 
suisjes
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:26 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:11 am

Yea totally untrue I have worked on turbo props Do-328 Dash-8 SF340's & ATR's they have anti-ice ducts that run through the leading edge
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:16 am

Quoting baje427 (Reply 30):
Q400's come with noise suppression in fact all Dash 8's delivered after 1997 come with the system.

And on every plane but the Q400 it got inop'ed right away for sucking.

Quoting suisjes (Reply 36):
Yea totally untrue I have worked on turbo props Do-328 Dash-8 SF340's & ATR's they have anti-ice ducts that run through the leading edge

The ATR might, but its primary anti ice method is a (brand new and totally redesigned) boot.

NS
 
flightsimer
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:48 am

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 31):
While most of the posts on here are talking about larger tprops, what about the likes of a beech 1900 or emb 120 replacement?


Well for the 1900 at least, you can still get them new... however, you have to order a fleet of them for Beechcraft to restart production (that's coming directly from Beech from about 3 years ago). Also, you have the DHC-6-400 being produced now.

As for EMB's, i don't think there is anything in the 30 seat market being produced.
Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
 
Context
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:49 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:32 am

I absolutely agree that stigma remains an important barrier for BDD & ATR to realize their market potential.

I've never bordered a Q without hearing some comment about the prop. QX has a start with their "Comfortably Greener" special livery Q400. Its the right thinking but a few Qs painted green aren't going to make anyone who calls a Q a "puddle jumper" any more excited to book a seat on one. What we need is a committed, well run ad campaign that tells the truth about the modern turboprop (and shows off that stunning cabin over at Porter  Wow! ).

The green (pun intended) is in it for the airlines, the airframers, and ultimately the pax.

I smell some big co-op ad dollars...   

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 34):
It was also unique to the 200s.

Oh, and if you were referring to the the noise canceling system (ANVS) it's still available on the NextGen, part of their "comfort" pitch.  
http://q400nextgen.com/en/#/q400/technology/anvs/
 
QXatFAT
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:40 am

The turboprop will not make a resurgence in the US. The airlines that are currently using them will continue but no one will jump into the prop market, IMO. Companies like AS/QX who love their turboprops will stick with them. I fly frequently between PDX and FAT on the Q400 for QX. Although I find the decent to suck sometimes coming into Portland, it is a pretty smooth flight and not that noisy. I might just be used to it, but the noise that people complain about is mainly due to being used to 6 abreast flying. Flying this route also gets a lot of complaints I hear due to it being 2h 20m flight when it used to be about 1h 50m on the CRJ's. My parents also fly up to visit me quite often from FAT and this is their major complaint.
Don't Tread On Me!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:10 am

Oh, IDK. I think United is going to probably continue to add turboprops.

They have so many markets that the Q400 works well from.

NS
 
boeingorbust
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:44 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:21 am

Quoting penguins (Reply 3):
because turboprops are much slower, even more would be needed to keep the same frequeinces.

You sure about that? The Q400 is pretty speedy... 360KT cruise speed and has proven to compete with jets like the RJ and even 737 on similar or same routes. Use the Horizon Q400 for SEA to YYC for example. Alaska uses the 73G for the route as well and flight times don't vary much at all.
 
columba
Posts: 5044
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:35 am

A new build aircraft in the size of the Lockheed Electra with two engines that seats could be a good aircraft for the US market
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:54 am

Quoting doug_Or (Reply 11):
What about the 328? Dornier had a nice product yet all operators of the type in the us don't fly anymore. What about the SAAb 2000
Both of these airplanes were killed by cheap oil and an RJ obsession. The DO 328 also suffered from horrible customer support, at least when it was initially introduced with Horizon.

From a passenger standpoint, the 328 was an awesome plane to fly in, I'm bummed that I have had exactly 1 experience, with QX flying PDX-GEG, better than other planes QX had in their fleet at the time. IMO. I think the NW has the least amount of RJ flying in the country, most shorter flights in the region are Q400's or EMB's.
Next Flights: PDX-HNL-OGG-LIH-PDX On AS, WP & HA
 
EY460
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:25 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:55 am

I remember flying several times on Crossair's SAAB 2000 many years ago. They had the Italian nickname "Concordino" (little Concorde). It was a very nice and quiet plane and, if I remember correctly, it had 50 seats.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:17 am

I could see a new low cost carrier utilizing ATR 600s on large markets. BUR or LGB to airports in the SAN, SFO, LAS, PDX and SEA area could work. Boston/New York/Washington area down to Florida could work. Crowded areas with a large enough submarket for very cheap travel.

They could also operate city pairs that don't have non stop flights yet, or just 1-2 daily flights operated by larger, more expensive airlines.

Apparently the 70 seater ATR72-600 burns only half as much fuel as the 50 seater E145. I would assume there are plenty enough markets in the USA, where such a business model would earn a lot of money. Maybe JetBlue should look into opening a subsidiary PropGreen.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
r2rho
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:33 am

Anti-prop prejudices or not, eventually TPs will have to make a "comeback" into the US market, dictated by oil price which will be back at 150$ eventually. Many smaller communities currently served by 50-seat RJs will have to face the choice of TP service or no air service at all. Which one do you prefer?

The current stigma placed on TPs was created exclusively by the US airlines themselves, through their all-jet marketing campaigns in an age of dirt-cheap oil. Therefore, it is exclusively up to the airlines themselves to turn that impression around with pro-TP marketing in the current era of expensive oil. In the name of profitability, they will eventually have no choice.
 
GCT64
Posts: 1269
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:52 am

Quoting r2rho (Reply 47):
Many smaller communities currently served by 50-seat RJs will have to face the choice of TP service or no air service at all. Which one do you prefer?

This is the key issue, and I'm surprised it has taken so long to reach it. There are active threads elsewhere on a.net about communities likely to lose (jet) air service entirely. The choice will not be airline A's E145 versus airline B's ATR 600 but taking the ATR 600 versus driving two hours to another city.

I'm also not convinced that the higher yielding business pax are that bothered (as they ought to be better informed about their mode of travel), frankly if Granny Smith, travelling on the deepest discounted low-yield fare, doesn't want travel on a "WW 2 era" ATR 600 then I doubt the airline will be that affected. Meanwhile, Bobby Smith, the CEO, will want to avoid the two hours extra driving time each way and will take the ATR.

Because of economics, I can't see how TPs can't make a come back on the sub-400 mile routes - and if one visits EWR and looks out of the window, they clearly already are.
Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,(..53 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
User avatar
JBo
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:23 am

RE: Turboprop Resurgence In The US?

Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:42 pm

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 38):
Well for the 1900 at least, you can still get them new... however, you have to order a fleet of them for Beechcraft to restart production (that's coming directly from Beech from about 3 years ago). Also, you have the DHC-6-400 being produced now.

As for EMB's, i don't think there is anything in the 30 seat market being produced.

Interesting that the 1900 is still technically available, that's the first I've heard of that. It makes sense, however, seeing as it shares so much in common with the King Air line. I would say that if someone does order a new fleet, however, that Beech could offer an improved-performance "1900E" using more modern avionics.

As for Embraer, the EMB-120 is also still technically available since it shares much in common with the ERJ line. They produced a one-off new model just a few years ago, well after mass production had ceased. If the demand was there, Embraer would likely offer the 120 again.
I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.