Why are Turboprops so much more widely accepted on regional routes over Regionaljets in Canada verses the USA where it is almost exclusively regionaljets.

Canadians are smarter.

Turboprops are cheaper and the engine is essentially the same as a jet. The only real difference is noise/vibration.

Plenty of QX Q400s banging around the Pacific Northwest. Penair has thrown in some Saab 340s to the mix as well, people don't seem to mind too much! On the contrary, the smaller EAS towns are happy to have the service.

If you're particularly savvy, you'll know that the quietest seats are at the back of the prop aircraft. As of the moment, no Canadian airlines have decided to charge a premium for that, so I look at it as a point in favour of flying a prop versus an RJ.

As to the OP's question… having relatively few airlines in Canada has meant a lack of competition, over the years. So, airlines simply never went down the path of creating and boasting about their all-jet fleets.

In the US scope is the primary reason turbo props did not gain wider traction.
True regional airlines in the US went the way of the DoDo years ago, what they have now and regionals who fly for mainline, not regionals looking to serve regional regions within the country. If a regional flies a prop at 20% less than an RJ the price to the consumer is the same since it is set via their mainline contract.
Now if someone had the brass to set up a true regional with props undercutting the mainline regionals.......where would they get the pilots and would they be allowed to pay them less than jet pilots....unions would not allow such to happen.

par13del wrote:

Now if someone had the brass to set up a true regional with props undercutting the mainline regionals.......where would they get the pilots and would they be allowed to pay them less than jet pilots....unions would not allow such to happen.

They would promptly fail because they would lack the marketing, brand, and network reach of the mainline regionals.

Most "true" regionals in the US are on shaky financial ground at best.

enilria wrote:

Canadians are smarter.

Turboprops are cheaper and the engine is essentially the same as a jet. The only real difference is noise/vibration.

Au contraire: The U.S. market has more competition and competition drove out props. Americans can complain about having only four real national airlines but the count in Canada is 1 1/2, and has been for a long time.

If they are regional they would not need network reach, a regional in Florida for example would mostly serve that state, and maybe few border airports in neighbouring states. No one would be looking to take that regional to Atlanta for example.
Call it the small mom and pop airline.

Given the choice of a CRJ-200 or E-145 versus a Q400 or ATR72, I'll take the prop any day.

par13del wrote:

In the US scope is the primary reason turbo props did not gain wider traction.
True regional airlines in the US went the way of the DoDo years ago, what they have now and regionals who fly for mainline, not regionals looking to serve regional regions within the country. If a regional flies a prop at 20% less than an RJ the price to the consumer is the same since it is set via their mainline contract.
Now if someone had the brass to set up a true regional with props undercutting the mainline regionals.......where would they get the pilots and would they be allowed to pay them less than jet pilots....unions would not allow such to happen.

par13del wrote:

If they are regional they would not need network reach, a regional in Florida for example would mostly serve that state, and maybe few border airports in neighbouring states. No one would be looking to take that regional to Atlanta for example.
Call it the small mom and pop airline.

Funny you should mention "true regional" and Florida because that is exactly what we have here in Florida with Silver Airway. I can't speak for how successful their business has been, but they fly their Saab 340Bs all over the state, to the Bahamas, and to Cuba. They are also a partner of UA, although not a true regional carrier for them.

MIflyer12 wrote:

enilria wrote:

Canadians are smarter.

Turboprops are cheaper and the engine is essentially the same as a jet. The only real difference is noise/vibration.

Au contraire: The U.S. market has more competition and competition drove out props. Americans can complain about having only four real national airlines but the count in Canada is 1 1/2, and has been for a long time.

The results of that "competition" are based on unfounded misconceptions about turboprops by the flying public. For regional stage lengths, (modern) turboprops are almost always more efficient than RJ's. If people want to spend more to be on a jet all I can say is burn your money if you want but don't force me to burn mine.

I'll take a Q400 any day over an RJ for regional flights.

klm617 wrote:

Why are Turboprops so much more widely accepted on regional routes over Regionaljets in Canada verses the USA where it is almost exclusively regionaljets.

Honestly I think it's due to several factors:
(1) There's far less competition in the domestic market once you get to airports out of the top 20 or so; consequently your choice is a prop or not flying.
(2) Distances from the smaller markets served by turboprops to larger airports are typically quite a lot further on smaller roads (i.e. two-lane rural highways vs. multi-lane divided highways) than one typically finds in the U.S.
(3) Air service extends down to far smaller markets in Canada owing to the distances and weather conditions which can make ground travel more problematic; these markets would be especially uneconomical with regional jets.
(4) There may be more acceptance due to one of the major manufacturers of turboprop aircraft being a Canadian company.

SCAT15F wrote:

The results of that "competition" are based on unfounded misconceptions about turboprops by the flying public. For regional stage lengths, (modern) turboprops are almost always more efficient than RJ's. If people want to spend more to be on a jet all I can say is burn your money if you want but don't force me to burn mine.

Turboprops ended up getting a bad reputation in the U.S. due to a string of well-publicized incidents in the 1990s. But your argument about turboprops being more efficient than regional jets is immaterial because the fare you pay has little dependence on the actual cost of operating the flight. You basically pay what the airline's revenue management software/analysts think you'd be willing to pay for your flight(s).

par13del wrote:

In the US scope is the primary reason turbo props did not gain wider traction.
True regional airlines in the US went the way of the DoDo years ago, what they have now and regionals who fly for mainline, not regionals looking to serve regional regions within the country. If a regional flies a prop at 20% less than an RJ the price to the consumer is the same since it is set via their mainline contract.

Nah, scope isn't the reason why turboprops have mostly gone away. The fact is that consumers showed a preference for regional jets over turboprops in markets where both were offered. US's PIT hub died in part because DL, NW, AA, UA, and CO were able to steal traffic from the smaller markets in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic using RJs to CVG/ATL/DTW/ORD/EWR/CLE. The passenger experience was better because the RJs were faster, quieter, and could fly above the bad weather. Anyone who complains about a CRJ being uncomfortable has never been on a J31 for two hours or bumped around in thunderstorms in an ATR (and I've done both!).

The mainline carriers ended up buying their regional partners and/or moving to fee-for-departure back in the late 1990s and early 2000s because those regionals were making enormous profits in the existing at-risk flying using the mainline carrier's code. If you go back and look at Comair's old SEC filings, they were making 25% operating margins in the last fiscal year before Delta bought them. They were bought because they were making big profits which DL wanted to keep for themselves, since it was done for service under the Delta Connection brand. The carriers which either couldn't afford to buy their regionals, contractually weren't permitted to do so, or chose not to use their capital moved to fee-for-departure arrangements in most markets in order to capture operating margin which would have otherwise gone to the regional carrier -- accepting the risk that they were on the hook for the cost of every flight whether or not the seats were sold.

IMO SkyWest stayed independent mostly because they were operating for both DL & UA. Neither would have accepted a competitor owning a key regional carrier operating under their own brand, and much of the value of the carrier would have been destroyed if half of it would have to be sold off in a fire sale.

CRJ900 wrote:

Are there any ATR's in service in Canada?

I consider the Q400 more a hybrid turboprop/jet than simply a turboprop and it is perfect for Canada. I see that Porter, Air Canada Express and WestJet Encore use the Q400 on routes up to 2hrs30mins (same with Widerøe in Norway and flybe in the UK), showing off the capabilities of this aircraft.

Only if you wanna fly around the arctic with 7F. They fly 42-300/320/500 and until recently 72's as well.

I think you answered OP's question about why Tprops are more accepted in Canada...when your options are a PD Q400, WS Encore Q400, or AC Jazz Q400, well, you don't have much choice to accept it. Plus, the Q has been marketed heavily as being quiet, environmentally friendly etc. by Porter and the others(Porter really has to hype it, without the Q400 PD wouldn't exist, unless they flew -300s) and most of all, it's built in Toronto. Canadians are a nationalistic bunch. Bring up the Avro Arrow and people still get upset.

CRJ900 wrote:

Are there any ATR's in service in Canada?

I consider the Q400 more a hybrid turboprop/jet than simply a turboprop and it is perfect for Canada. I see that Porter, Air Canada Express and WestJet Encore use the Q400 on routes up to 2hrs30mins (same with Widerøe in Norway and flybe in the UK), showing off the capabilities of this aircraft.

QX runs some longer flights around the western US with Q400s, some approaching 2 hours.

They're accepted because its whats offered - there is nothing more to it. You want to fly with AC from YLW to YVR or YYC? The Dash 8 is your only option. Even WS is switching more and more regional routes to the Q400 out West, so if you were avoiding AC to try and get on a 737, thats slowly changing now as well.

I would love to see the prop fan used with the specially designed propellers.

ScottB wrote:

The passenger experience was better because the RJs were faster, quieter, and could fly above the bad weather. Anyone who complains about a CRJ being uncomfortable has never been on a J31 for two hours or bumped around in thunderstorms in an ATR (and I've done both!).

And this is where I see your point about the Q400 being more like a jet/turboprop hybrid. It does have the ability to fly above the weather that other props are not as capable of. Of course, the average flyer doesn't know the difference between a Q400 (or any other DH8) and the rest of the props out there.

I have to say, though, I love the props just fine. One of my all time favourite flights was a beautiful, clear-skies trip from YVR to YQZ on a B1900D. Absolutely gorgeous! Plus, every seat is both a window and an aisle seat, there's no cockpit door (and they welcomed visitors), and the FO did the safety briefing.

aerolimani wrote:

ScottB wrote:

The passenger experience was better because the RJs were faster, quieter, and could fly above the bad weather. Anyone who complains about a CRJ being uncomfortable has never been on a J31 for two hours or bumped around in thunderstorms in an ATR (and I've done both!).

And this is where I see your point about the Q400 being more like a jet/turboprop hybrid. It does have the ability to fly above the weather that other props are not as capable of. Of course, the average flyer doesn't know the difference between a Q400 (or any other DH8) and the rest of the props out there.

I have to say, though, I love the props just fine. One of my all time favourite flights was a beautiful, clear-skies trip from YVR to YQZ on a B1900D. Absolutely gorgeous! Plus, every seat is both a window and an aisle seat, there's no cockpit door (and they welcomed visitors), and the FO did the safety briefing.

Service ceiling for all Dash 8 models are 25000 feet. Around these parts, thats barely above the weather going over the Rockies during the winter months.

aerolimani wrote:

Of course, the average flyer doesn't know the difference between a Q400 (or any other DH8) and the rest of the props out there.

Honestly though, how many passengers actually look and see what aircraft they are booked on? Maybe 10 percent? Even then, of those, how many know what a Bombardier Q400 (or however each airline references it) is, or whether or not it is prop vs jet.

The Q400 certainly has a market and would be great in many markets.

It's all about competition and lack thereof in Canada.

In the US at both airlines I worked at, customer satisfaction scores on the Dash 8, E-120, and S-340 were worse than scores on the same routes on the CRJ and E-145.

Add in the fact that the CRJ and E-145 are simply much more capable planes, capable of flying 1000+ mile stage lengths without breaking a sweat, and you understand why there are so few turboprops in the US. The operating cost advantage of the turboprop basically evaporates when you get over 400 mile stage length.

CRJ900 wrote:

Are there any ATR's in service in Canada?

I consider the Q400 more a hybrid turboprop/jet than simply a turboprop and it is perfect for Canada. I see that Porter, Air Canada Express and WestJet Encore use the Q400 on routes up to 2hrs30mins (same with Widerøe in Norway and flybe in the UK), showing off the capabilities of this aircraft.

There are lots of ATRs in service in Canada, but they're all with the true regional airlines (i.e. First Air, Calm Air, Pascan, Westwind Aviation, Air North + Morningstar/FedEx), whereas the AC & WS subsidiaries' turboprops are dominated by the Dash 8/Q400.

I guess Canadians are just better educated when it comes to props vs. the U.S.

ACDC8 wrote:

Service ceiling for all Dash 8 models are 25000 feet. Around these parts, thats barely above the weather going over the Rockies during the winter months.

Hmm… yes, I suppose that's true. I guess I'm just remembering this article I read some time ago. The interesting quote I remember is this:

"The Q400 can, in all conditions, easily reach FL250 (25,000ft), while the ATR72-500 cannot easily reach this altitude in most conditions. The result is the Q400 clearing more weather than the ATR72, allowing for a smoother, less turbulent ride."

I wonder how true this is.

This graphic, pulled from the article, is interesting:



Also in the article, the author says some interesting things regarding one-engine-out performance on the Q400 (17,500 ft) versus the ATR72 (11,000 ft). I wonder if that played into the Westjet decision to purchase the Q400. Would there be any issues with an ATR crossing the Rockies?

Article: Proud to fly a Turboprop: Q400 vs ATR72

Some of the stage lengths WS uses the Q on would be 3hours+ on the ATR I think that was also a consideration since with the added speed the Q400 could do additional flights.

aerolimani wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

Service ceiling for all Dash 8 models are 25000 feet. Around these parts, thats barely above the weather going over the Rockies during the winter months.

Hmm… yes, I suppose that's true. I guess I'm just remembering this article I read some time ago. The interesting quote I remember is this:

"The Q400 can, in all conditions, easily reach FL250 (25,000ft), while the ATR72-500 cannot easily reach this altitude in most conditions. The result is the Q400 clearing more weather than the ATR72, allowing for a smoother, less turbulent ride."

I wonder how true this is.

This graphic, pulled from the article, is interesting:



Also in the article, the author says some interesting things regarding one-engine-out performance on the Q400 (17,500 ft) versus the ATR72 (11,000 ft). I wonder if that played into the Westjet decision to purchase the Q400. Would there be any issues with an ATR crossing the Rockies?

Article: Proud to fly a Turboprop: Q400 vs ATR72

aerolimani wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

Service ceiling for all Dash 8 models are 25000 feet. Around these parts, thats barely above the weather going over the Rockies during the winter months.

Hmm… yes, I suppose that's true. I guess I'm just remembering this article I read some time ago. The interesting quote I remember is this:

"The Q400 can, in all conditions, easily reach FL250 (25,000ft), while the ATR72-500 cannot easily reach this altitude in most conditions. The result is the Q400 clearing more weather than the ATR72, allowing for a smoother, less turbulent ride."

I wonder how true this is.

This graphic, pulled from the article, is interesting:



Also in the article, the author says some interesting things regarding one-engine-out performance on the Q400 (17,500 ft) versus the ATR72 (11,000 ft). I wonder if that played into the Westjet decision to purchase the Q400. Would there be any issues with an ATR crossing the Rockies?

Article: Proud to fly a Turboprop: Q400 vs ATR72

Yes this is very much the case, but many discussions on this site has led to needless debate over which is better. Quite frankly I have a difficult time comparing them since they are two completely different aircraft with different capabilities. The Q400 is a larger and more powerful aircraft with better performance for operations in rugged terrain. The larger engines on the 400s come at the expense of have a higher a fuel burn compare to the ATR. So it all depends on the needs of your operations.

WestJet for examples, has much of their operations in western Canada where terrain can be a big issue. Obviously there's much more that goes into the "final decision". This is just one among many reasons.

enilria wrote:

Canadians are smarter.

Well ok... I take that has a complement, but it's not that simple. There are many reasons as to why props work better in Canada. Loom at Norway as well.
I'll just simply resort to the fact that it is what it is.

enilria wrote:

Turboprops are cheaper and the engine is essentially the same as a jet. The only real difference is noise/vibration.

That's a very big difference. Passengers (well at least most) want to feel safe when they travel. The additional noise and vibrations certainly does not help!

The Q400 is almost as fast as a CRJ.

1900Driver wrote:

That's a very big difference. Passengers (well at least most) want to feel safe when they travel. The additional noise and vibrations certainly does not help!

Is there really any change in terms of noise directly from the aircraft? I think the vibration is the biggest difference (obviously the vibrations produce additional noise)

I will always choose a turbo prop than a jet on short sectors because of the shorter queues at the boarding gate and faster boarding and disembarking. Turbo props are more convenient in the current travelling situation where airports are crowded and processes are longer because of security requirements. Equally i will prefer 787 or A350 size of aircraft over the super jumbos for long haul flights because of the same reasons.

alasizon wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

Of course, the average flyer doesn't know the difference between a Q400 (or any other DH8) and the rest of the props out there.

Honestly though, how many passengers actually look and see what aircraft they are booked on? Maybe 10 percent? Even then, of those, how many know what a Bombardier Q400 (or however each airline references it) is, or whether or not it is prop vs jet.

The Q400 certainly has a market and would be great in many markets.

Most people don't have a clue what aircraft type they fly, but I do think pax in the U. S. do carry preconceived notions that a plane with propellers is unsafe and undesirable.

Quick question for you guys/ladies. Is the Q400 still a STOP "Short Takeoff & Landing aircraft like the Dash-8 models before it?

Thank you,
Desmond

Beatyair wrote:

The Q400 is almost as fast as a CRJ.

No. It's not even close.

eraugrad02 wrote:

Quick question for you guys/ladies. Is the Q400 still a STOP "Short Takeoff & Landing aircraft like the Dash-8 models before it?

Thank you,
Desmond

*STOL

Short answer, no. For that matter, the other DH8 models are also not considered STOL.

There's more info here: viewtopic.php?t=759849

[quote="par13del"]If they are regional they would not need network reach, a regional in Florida for example would mostly serve that state, and maybe few border airports in neighbouring states. No one would be looking to take that regional to Atlanta for example.
Call it the small mom and pop airline.[/quote


They have one it's called Silver Airlines. Flys florida, Bahamas & now Cuba.

In New Zealand, there is zero security to get on a regional jet flight, but the NZCAA state that jets need security, and any props over 90 seats do, so very quick from entering the airport to boarding. That, and the better economics of the props are why they are used in NZ (AT75, AT76, Q300).

Beatyair wrote:

The Q400 is almost as fast as a CRJ.

Out to around 400 miles it is just as fast. A turboprop doesn't have to slow down from it's cruise speed till it's a lot closer to the airport. The Q has a pair of 13 ft diamter discs that slow it down quick.

aerolimani wrote:

eraugrad02 wrote:

Quick question for you guys/ladies. Is the Q400 still a STOP "Short Takeoff & Landing aircraft like the Dash-8 models before it?

Thank you,
Desmond

*STOL

Short answer, no. For that matter, the other DH8 models are also not considered STOL.

There's more info here: viewtopic.php?t=759849

Pretty much the only STOL airliner still in production is the Viking DHC-6 (I'm not counting 9-seaters as airliners).

It'll be interesting to see if the Tecnam P2012 will be able to operate everywhere the Cessna 402 does for Cape Air. The shortest/most difficult fields they currently fly to are Provincetown (3,500 ft), Culebra (2,600 ft), and Virgin Gorda (3,100 ft. with rising terrain at one end). Luckily the stage lengths for all three of those airports are VERY short (PVC-BOS 39 nm, VIJ-SJU 90 nm, CPX-SJU 41 nm).

Dominion301 wrote:

CRJ900 wrote:

Are there any ATR's in service in Canada?

I consider the Q400 more a hybrid turboprop/jet than simply a turboprop and it is perfect for Canada. I see that Porter, Air Canada Express and WestJet Encore use the Q400 on routes up to 2hrs30mins (same with Widerøe in Norway and flybe in the UK), showing off the capabilities of this aircraft.

There are lots of ATRs in service in Canada, but they're all with the true regional airlines (i.e. First Air, Calm Air, Pascan, Westwind Aviation, Air North + Morningstar/FedEx), whereas the AC & WS subsidiaries' turboprops are dominated by the Dash 8/Q400.

I guess Canadians are just better educated when it comes to props vs. the U.S.

Air Saint-Pierre also flies ATR-42s from the small island to Canadian cities like Montreal, Halifax, and St. John's. I've flown them before, it's a neat trip!

ScottB wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Why are Turboprops so much more widely accepted on regional routes over Regionaljets in Canada verses the USA where it is almost exclusively regionaljets.

Honestly I think it's due to several factors:
(1) There's far less competition in the domestic market once you get to airports out of the top 20 or so; consequently your choice is a prop or not flying.
(2) Distances from the smaller markets served by turboprops to larger airports are typically quite a lot further on smaller roads (i.e. two-lane rural highways vs. multi-lane divided highways) than one typically finds in the U.S.
(3) Air service extends down to far smaller markets in Canada owing to the distances and weather conditions which can make ground travel more problematic; these markets would be especially uneconomical with regional jets.
(4) There may be more acceptance due to one of the major manufacturers of turboprop aircraft being a Canadian company.

SCAT15F wrote:

The results of that "competition" are based on unfounded misconceptions about turboprops by the flying public. For regional stage lengths, (modern) turboprops are almost always more efficient than RJ's. If people want to spend more to be on a jet all I can say is burn your money if you want but don't force me to burn mine.

Turboprops ended up getting a bad reputation in the U.S. due to a string of well-publicized incidents in the 1990s. But your argument about turboprops being more efficient than regional jets is immaterial because the fare you pay has little dependence on the actual cost of operating the flight. You basically pay what the airline's revenue management software/analysts think you'd be willing to pay for your flight(s).

par13del wrote:

In the US scope is the primary reason turbo props did not gain wider traction.
True regional airlines in the US went the way of the DoDo years ago, what they have now and regionals who fly for mainline, not regionals looking to serve regional regions within the country. If a regional flies a prop at 20% less than an RJ the price to the consumer is the same since it is set via their mainline contract.

Nah, scope isn't the reason why turboprops have mostly gone away. The fact is that consumers showed a preference for regional jets over turboprops in markets where both were offered. US's PIT hub died in part because DL, NW, AA, UA, and CO were able to steal traffic from the smaller markets in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic using RJs to CVG/ATL/DTW/ORD/EWR/CLE. The passenger experience was better because the RJs were faster, quieter, and could fly above the bad weather. Anyone who complains about a CRJ being uncomfortable has never been on a J31 for two hours or bumped around in thunderstorms in an ATR (and I've done both!).

The mainline carriers ended up buying their regional partners and/or moving to fee-for-departure back in the late 1990s and early 2000s because those regionals were making enormous profits in the existing at-risk flying using the mainline carrier's code. If you go back and look at Comair's old SEC filings, they were making 25% operating margins in the last fiscal year before Delta bought them. They were bought because they were making big profits which DL wanted to keep for themselves, since it was done for service under the Delta Connection brand. The carriers which either couldn't afford to buy their regionals, contractually weren't permitted to do so, or chose not to use their capital moved to fee-for-departure arrangements in most markets in order to capture operating margin which would have otherwise gone to the regional carrier -- accepting the risk that they were on the hook for the cost of every flight whether or not the seats were sold.

IMO SkyWest stayed independent mostly because they were operating for both DL & UA. Neither would have accepted a competitor owning a key regional carrier operating under their own brand, and much of the value of the carrier would have been destroyed if half of it would have to be sold off in a fire sale.

That is one truly excellent analysis you have provided for us. Thank you.

aerolimani wrote:

If you're particularly savvy, you'll know that the quietest seats are at the back of the prop aircraft. As of the moment, no Canadian airlines have decided to charge a premium for that, so I look at it as a point in favour of flying a prop versus an RJ.

Westjet and Porter haven't figured it out yet either. Their premium seats (Economy Plus on Westjet Encore and Premium on Porter) are in the front of the Q400 where it is the noisiest!

For those who have flown on the Q400 how is it? I have flown on the ATR72-600 which was quiet but I found it to be a very shaky when handling turbulence as compared to the Q300.

aerolimani wrote:

eraugrad02 wrote:

Quick question for you guys/ladies. Is the Q400 still a STOP "Short Takeoff & Landing aircraft like the Dash-8 models before it?

Thank you,
Desmond

*STOL

Short answer, no. For that matter, the other DH8 models are also not considered STOL.

There's more info here: viewtopic.php?t=759849

As always a question off definitions. I agree that you can not call the Dash8-Q400 a STOL Aircraft.

De Havilland Canada was building the Dash 7 defined as a STOL aircraft to operate out of airstrips with a length of less than 950m, using an approach speed of less than 85 kn and being able to do steep approach, not fully loaded you can use it on runways 800 m and below.
The Dash 8-100 or -Q200, though slightly smaller, does the short take off and landing nearly as well as the Dash 7 and is far less expensive to operate. I would call the -100 and Q200 a STOL airplane, not by design, but operational capabilities. While the Q300 and Q400 do not fit that description needing runways of over 1,000 m length.

Wideröe uses the Dash8-Q400 regularly in and out of airports with runways of around 1,050 m, of course not at MTOW, while they use the -100 and Q200 out of airports with around 800 m runways.

So to compare the runway use of a Dash8-Q400 to a 737 or even a CRJ is just pure nonsense as somebody in that thread you refer to is doing.

So were does STOL airplanes and operations begin and end. I define that different for an Fieseler Storch than a small airliner.

lostsound wrote:

Air Saint-Pierre also flies ATR-42s from the small island to Canadian cities like Montreal, Halifax, and St. John's. I've flown them before, it's a neat trip!

True they do, but they're not Canadian, which was the original question.

diverted wrote:

Plus, the Q has been marketed heavily as being quiet, environmentally friendly etc. by Porter and the others(Porter really has to hype it, without the Q400 PD wouldn't exist, unless they flew -300s)

Completely true.

diverted wrote:

and most of all, it's built in Toronto. Canadians are a nationalistic bunch.

Patently false. Decisions related to aircraft in Canada for at least the past 25 years have been made solely on an economics / business level. There has been no room for nationalistic sentiment.

- CRJ is also a Bombardier product
- Bombarider doesn't really have a good name in Canada
- I think the situation of some runway in Canada also unfavour the use of Jets?

Props have always been around. There has never been a time in Canadian aviation where props have not been a significant proportion of Canadian airliners, so the flying public never got prop shy.

Canada is unique in that it is the second largest country in the world in land area, some of the harshest weather and one of the smallest in population. As well, while concentrated mostly within a few hundred miles along the US border, most of that population is in a handful of cities.

That leaves thousands of smaller communities scattered very widely around the full length and breadth of the country...most of which are within a couple of hours from a regional airport. As it turns out, these are conditions in which the versatility of turboprops come in particularly handy.

The small population means we can only afford to have a few larger airlines, and they can only afford to have so many aircraft types in a fleet, so versatility is a real selling point.

It's no coincidence that WestJet, AC and Porter all use Q400's, and nationalism has nothing to do with it. The Q400 is simply the best plane for the job. Sure, the ATR is cheaper to buy and fly, though the Q can get within single digit percentage points of the ATR fuel burn if it flies as ATR speeds but the ATR will never have the range, single engine ceiling, time to climb, payload or speed of the Q...all of which are very useful for Canadian conditions.

Airlines need to be able to operate the same plane over long and short distances, light loads and heavy, under extreme weather conditions and for them, the Q suits the bill. It's not like AC doesn't have RJ's...but for a large number of routes, props are a better choice.