spantax
Topic Author
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:44 pm

A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:08 pm

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

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

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

Regards,
A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7702
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:43 pm

It might come but this isn't it, just cramming more people into the same aircraft. We'll see if that help sales of the Q400 that are very few and far between at the moment.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
DUSint
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:30 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:39 pm

I remember plans at ATR for a bigger turboprop.

However, I am not sure if we are speaking of a longer version of the existing ATR 72 or of a all-new model?
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_06_20_2013_p0-590236.xml
One sentence in this article leads me to believe that it would be the latter:
"That could open up a niche that can be filled with a newly designed turboprop."
5-abreast, anyone?
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5645
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:40 pm

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

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

I know the perception is false, but it exists.

Turboprops have a niche market in today's flying world, but I don't see it ever growing much.
 
aviatorcraig
Posts: 423
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:14 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:41 pm

Oh the disappointment!

I thought from the title that at the very least the Tu-114 was going back into production or something  
707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:11 pm

I think ATR was/is planning a ' 92 ' version a while back.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
spantax
Topic Author
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:44 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:24 pm

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

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

(And I like very much your signature: lovely things + boring stuff. Yes, indeed this is a "white goods" era).
A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:37 pm

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

I know the perception is false, but it exists.

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

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

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


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
ImperialEagle
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:53 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:45 pm

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

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

  
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
 
RJNUT
Posts: 1182
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 1999 1:58 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:18 pm

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

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

the ongoing airline consolidation in the US and contiunal loss of direct services will change that tune in a hurry!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7702
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:26 pm

And don't forget the shrinking middle class. The choice is obviously not between a cheap jet and an expensive turboprop flight, but the opposite : a jet flight you can't afford (or doesn't even exist anymore because not enough people could afford it) and a cheaper turboprop flight.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
catiii
Posts: 2394
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:41 pm

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

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

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

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

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

Huh? Putting aside that, according to US DOT, from 2000 to 2012, inflation-adjusted fares DECLINED 16.7 % while there was an overall increase in consumer prices of 32%, what examples are there of a jet flight that is unaffordable and a cheaper turboprop flight? Fares are set based on market forces, not based on the type of aircraft.
 
DUSint
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:30 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:47 pm

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

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

Looks as if we do not really get into talking about the real topic of this thread, do we??
 
rampbro
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:00 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:57 pm

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

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

The type of aircraft has an effect on those market forces. CASM is specifically determined by a/c type, and is a key input into fare decisions.
 
catiii
Posts: 2394
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:10 pm

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

As the OP is talking about a stretch Q400, and as other posts in the thread have debated whether it makes sense given the public's perceptions of turboprop flying vs. regional jet flying, than yes...we are talking about the real topic of this thread.
 
spantax
Topic Author
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:44 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:26 pm

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


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

Well, I should say that "public perception" is one of many factors. But as somebody said before, with low enough fares this perception can be modified more or less easily. But I personally would prefer to concentrate on pax capacity, engines, fuel consumption, CASM, the ATR/Bombardier approachs, etc. or in questions as "How on Earth it is possible that Antonov, with all his huge experience in this field, is not well present in the world markets for turboprops?"
A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
 
hh65man
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:52 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:30 pm

Slap a second deck and some windows on the A400 and I am in. Nothing beats a massive turbo prop.  
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:49 pm

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

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

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3):
I don't believe anything other than cheaper pricing for turboprop flights vs jet flights will ever persuade the flying public to move toward the flights
 
planespotting
Posts: 3026
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:54 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:20 pm

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

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

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

So, if people want this type of high frequency, they will pay for turboprops. If they are willing to forgo high frequency, then it's possible turboprop use will stay out of favor.
Do you like movies about gladiators?
 
CO777DAL
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:01 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:30 pm

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited 2013-10-31 13:39:34]
Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 20209
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:32 pm

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

Yes, and they even released an illustration.

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

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

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

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

The horizontal stabiliser further featured small winglets, though these were downwards-angled.
http://oi43.tinypic.com/6jmyxz.jpg
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
DUSint
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:30 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:27 pm

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

Ok, ok...

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

From my own - subjective - empiricism:
I tend to believe that the flying experience on both types, the Qseries and the ATR, depends on how modern and advanced the version is. For example:
I once flew an ATR-42-320 by Atlantique Air Assistance and it was a very loud, rattling thing. Nothing to enjoy.
Then, this summer I flew on a AirBaltic Q400 (more or less one year old) and it seemed much smoother.
And I am quite sure you could have the opposite experience with an ATR-72-600 and an old Q100 or even an old Q400.
 
JFKL1011
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:16 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:24 pm

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

Unless of course the prop was a Q400 and the jet was a CRJ!!!!
So many places to fly and increasingly so few interesting aircraft to get there on.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:46 pm

Remember Keesje's old Turboliner proposal from five years ago? With modern engineering and using two of the same engines from the Airbus Military A400M transport plane, such an airliner could do economic cruise as high as Mach 0.7 but with way lower fuel burn on a CASM basis than possibly even the Bombardier CS airliners.
 
bmibaby737
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:07 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:05 am

As a frequent flyer on the Q400, I honestly fail to see how it can have an extra two rows of seats placed inside unless the aircraft itself is stretched? Flight global only mentions interior modifications - can someone explain how this would be possible? I can see only the internal forward hold being removed, but that would add only two seats - not two rows?
 
mbk1999
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:57 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:01 am

Quoting RJNUT (Reply 9):

Don't forget the TU-114 is alive and well as the TU-95 which still serves the Russian Air Force in a number of models.
 
silentbob
Posts: 1540
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:26 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:46 am

Quoting bmibaby737 (Reply 24):

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

Remove the galley or reduce the size of the cargo bin even more? I wouldn't be surprised to see the extra rows come from thinner seats and reduced pitch for an Asian or African carrier. I don't believe that would work in Europe or North America.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:06 am

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

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

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

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

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

Bring back the Concorde
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5645
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:54 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yuck !!!!
 
YXwatcherMKE
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 3:06 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:40 am

I would love to see the re-birth of the Turboprop a/c. The bigger the better IMHO. But the key to it being successful is.... the better the a/c is for comfort, speed and quite it is for the passenger, the general flying public is less likely to complain about the a/c. You could almost turn any any NB jet fuselage into a turboprop a/c, an most passenger would not care as long as the plane got them from point A to point B on time and without extra time added to the flight. A while back I remember a DC9 of some type with a Turboprop on the left side of the a/c and a normal JD power plant on the right side as test a/c. I bet if the a/c would have both sides were Turboprop and operated a normal commercial flight the passengers would have never notice the difference with exception of the passengers at the rear of the a/c.
I miss the 60's & 70's when you felt like a guest on the plane not cattle like today
 
727200LR
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:00 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:57 am

Tu114NG anyone?
I'd book the first available ticket if it was to happen
 
atp50
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:46 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 10:44 am

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

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

Archaic de-icing technology on the wings (less the electrically operating propeller de-icers on the Q400) coupled with low-time pilots (improving with new regulations) flying directly through "lake-effect central" is not a relaxing experience.
 
ImperialEagle
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:53 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:21 am

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

Yes. That was kool. Sure do miss Keesje.

Quoting 727200LR (Reply 30):
Tu114NG anyone?

Oh yeah!

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

I agree that pax will grumble when they see propellers, yet, the bigger the aircraft the less they grumble.
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
 
TP313
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:32 am

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

There is no significant conceptual difference (although some may take issue with the gear ratio) between the architecture of a turboprop and the GTF
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 940
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:01 pm

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

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

Can capacity stimulate demand sufficient to cover the additional cost?
 
r2rho
Posts: 2442
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:49 pm

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

As for a real big turboprop, IMO it will come soon, starting at 90 seats, from ATR, all-new, not a stretch. They have talked about it countless times, IMO they have a preliminary design done and are just waiting for PW or GE to launch a suitable engine.   
 
CPHFF
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:03 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:30 pm

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

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

Maybe it really is time to look at the prop-fan idea again?
Detroit is bankrupt. Don't forget to thank UAW folks!
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 940
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:34 pm

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

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

I was amused to see one passenger on a recent Q400 flight.....she had her fingers in her ears the entire flight.
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:50 pm

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

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

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

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

We will agree to disagree  


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
flight152
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:04 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:56 pm

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

What are you even talking about?

...gotta love when non-pilots try to get technical.
 
United885
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:18 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:11 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3):

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

Sorry, that´s wrong.
If we´re discussing about routes, shorter than 550 km, a ATR would be much more profitable than a jet. On those short flights, the higher speed of a jet doesn´t matter. A turboprop burns up to 50 percent less fuel than a jet. So the advantage of the turborpop over a jet on short-haul flights, less than 500 or 600 km long is apparently.
ATR and Bombardier are expecting a demand of 3000 Turboprops in the next 20 years. Currently, about 80 percent of all 50 - 90 seat aircrafts are Turborpos. So I guess, there is and willl be a market.
I haven´t been everywhere, but it´s on my list.
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:22 pm

Maybe 4 engine 200-300 seat variant with like 10000 hp engines?
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 940
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:36 pm

The AN22 in passenger configuration!
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:24 pm

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

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

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

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

[Edited 2013-11-01 09:30:23]
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:26 pm

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

That's factually incorrect. The global middle class with purchasing power for commercial aviation is increasingly steadily.
 
spantax
Topic Author
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:44 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Nov 07, 2013 3:59 pm

A good example of the jet/turboprop contest:

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

Links in Spanish:

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

http://www.elcomercio.es/20131104/as...onectar-asturias-201311041451.html
A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
 
yeelep
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:53 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Nov 07, 2013 4:41 pm

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

I think you are referring to the UDF demonstrator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BMNaXc1rL8
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19056
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:41 pm

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

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

Can capacity stimulate demand sufficient to cover the additional cost?

Breakeven load factor on the Q400 is much lower than the 50-seat regional jets. AC (Jazz) has been replacing 50-seat CRJs with Q400s over the past couple of years and reports say the economics are much better.
 
freeze3192
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:04 am

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:04 pm

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

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

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

Hahahahah

Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds like you're just afraid of props. Enjoy your flight in your cramped lawn dart.
"A passenger bets his life that his pilot is a worthy heir to an ancient tradition of excellence and professionalism."
 
spantax
Topic Author
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:44 pm

RE: A New Big Turboprop Era?

Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:09 pm

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

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Another point in favour of turboprops.
A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27