The bigger impediment is irrational fear of turboprops by the flying American public.
The fact of the matter is general Americans don't know/care what plane they fly on 99.9999% of the time. Even with searching through Google flights, the only thing that the vast majority of the travelling public cares about is the cost of the ticket.
In the case of 50 seaters, if their only option is going to be flying on a turboprop or driving to the nearest hub, more than likely they will take the turboprop.
While I don't care about the type, a have quite a few relatives who had such bad experiences on turboprops (noise or turbulence) they will not fly one again. One relative will fly in a nearby airport by jet and then has driven as much as 400 miles to avoid a turboprop.
That said, it would depend on the E3s properties. It won't look like prior turboprops and if the noise and turbulence is under control (active control?) they'll do well. The reality is, a slower flying aircraft will always feel turbulence more as well as a smaller aircraft, whose wing is unlikely to have the chord to span across some turbulence vortices as well as less weight, it going to be tossed around more.
Now most Americans haven't flown a turboprop, so they have no bias anymore.
So if the next turboprop lacks the noise and something to help mitigate the turbulence than the resistance will be far less.
If one airline has a turboprop and the other jets, the jet
For me, the turboprop issue is really one of noise, boarding method, interior outfitting/comfort level.
The SAAB 340’s were horrible flying toasters in the South in regards to heat and humidity.
Look at how different an E-175 is compared to an E-145. Not even in the same ballpark for passenger experience.
So the new Embraer has a chance with jetway boarding, great environmental controls and an interior to wow folks.
I’ve seen some snarky comments about the E-175, but I prefer it to most 3x3 mainline jets for under 2 1/2 hr flights.
You describe why turboprops are avoided by some. The E-175 is a very nice plane. I prefer fast loading.
This link goes into what passengers do not like about RJshttps://www.bbc.com/news/10476908
Dragging the bag through puddles... yep, makes it feel less glamorous. Passengers really prefer jetways. Not by a little either.
Passengers do not like the cramped cabins and demand large overhead bins, so here the E3 does have a nice advantage over prior turboprops.
That leaves the engines. I have watched multiple people, multiple times go into panic when they get near a propeller. Those scare people (when they should be just as afraid walking in front of a gas turbine..)
So if the E3 puts the engines in the back, that solves that issue, a noise issue, and personally, it looks more modern.
A prop on a wing will transmit far more vibration to the cabin than an engine on a pylon. Not to mention gas turbines remain better balanced with time than a prop (the greater diameter means any ding or dirt accumulation off balances it more). Engine pylons are designed to have dynamic frequency characteristics so they they cannot transmit along the vibration from the engine to the attach point. It simply cannot be done with a wing mounted engine where the wing is designed for aerodynamics, control surfaces, anti-ice, and fuel carrying. You can change a lot in a pylon for vibration frequency as it is a conduit for wiring, fuel, air pipes (less today), and to hold a structural weight inside of an aerodynamic fairing that may or may not be structural where today's aircraft are getting simple electrical anti-ice that is easier to design for the dynamics.
Passenger have a much higher expectation of NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness) than prior generations. Since several single engine turboprops due well in the business market, I can only assume new propellers and design techniques are far improved over older designs.
We'll see, fuel and labor must both get better. Labor will be improved by maintenance and improved ground handling.