When Is Turboprop Better Than Jet?

eielef · Wed May 27, 2015 6:49 am

I've seen in Argentina some long routes like MDZ-NQN-CRD-RGL in Saab 340.
But there are many more Turboprops in the world.
I'm thinking of the ATR72 specifically. A lovely bird.
So: if I'm planning a busy route, as SVO-LED, or say it LAX-SFO, DCA-BOS, BCN-MAD or TXL-FRA, which needs multiple frequencies a day, because people traveling there often go and return on the same day, or is much keen on leaving in a particular time.
Until what point is good to use jet aircraft (as ERJ, A319, B73G...) instead of an ATR72 or maybe a Dash 8 Q400?
Thanks!
Eielef @MOW

waly777 · Wed May 27, 2015 7:21 am

Hello,

Ideally, you would want to use a turboprob for high frequency and short haul due to it's quick turnaround time and speed limitations respectively.

However in reality, other things come into play.

Aircraft & crew availability,

Current fleet mix,

Network type and overall network profitability,

Pax demand on the route (TP's are currently under 86 seats but there are tons of short haul routes with even low season demand in excess of that....placing a turboprop there will spill passengers to your competitors)

Aircraft ops & planning ( aircraft substitutions for whatever reason.

And quite a few more I can't remember this early in the morning.

skyhawkmatthew · Wed May 27, 2015 7:51 am

Turboprops are much cheaper to run, so wherever they can be used without being at a major disadvantage to a jet time- (and experience-) wise, they will often be used. This is normally up to a few hundred miles, at which point the speed advantage of a jet becomes more apparent. This distance can be stretched a bit with the Q400 which cruises around halfway between an ATR and a 737 speed-wise.

Of course, a turboprop is often a much smaller aircraft and so is generally suited to thinner and/or higher frequency routes as Waly777 mentioned.

In Australia we see a lot of short turboprop routes, both on regional sectors and short high-frequency routes, SYD-CBR being the prime example. The Q400 is also used on some relatively long, thin sectors where its speed allows it to remain (just) viable, such as ADL-CBR, BNE-CBR and SYD-GLT.

LTU330 · Wed May 27, 2015 8:01 am

The modern Turboprops are very fast. You don't lose too much time overall on short sectors. The Q400 for example gets to its cruise altitude very fast and just goes flat out until speed restrictions during approach. It is also extremely fuel efficient. In our company we need a load factor of only about 35 percent to break even. The Airbus and Boeings need more like 80 percent load normally. Having said that, if that was the only rule of thumb, we would not be losing money hand over fist ! It does seem that the normal passengers have no problem to fly on a modern Turboprop, with the bonus that you only ever have to climb over one Pax to get to the toilet, and you are always guaranteed a window or aisle seat (although this is the same on smaller jets like Embraers and CRJs also). I remember once at Philadelphia when I was travelling on an ID90 ticket for a window seat if possible. The agent said to me "Sir, every seat is a window seat on this flight". I had no idea I would be on a B1900D for the hop to Washington

kurtverbose · Wed May 27, 2015 9:21 am

There was a thread a while ago about a 150 seater turboprop using Europrop TP400 engines. Given the demand for short haul aircraft I'm surprised the marked hasn't fragmented to support a big turboprop like this.

eielef · Wed May 27, 2015 10:18 am

Could it be technically posible to have a 150 seater turboprop?
I think it would be a goldmine for airlines like Ryanair! Wouldn't it?
I mean, using big aircraft as A320 in short routes like CDG-NCE or MAD-AGP makes for me no sense, unless there are enough passengers to sell all 150+ seats.
Though, if we take into account the operation costs of the aircraft, leasing prices, crews and others:
Would it have more sense to send 2 ATR72 than 1 B738? Call it in a busy route, as SFO-LAX.
The advantage of the ATR (or que Q400) could be that there could be a ATR flight leaving at 0800 and another at 0830, while the B738 would offer just the 0800 flight.
Would it be cheaper 2 ATR72s instead of one B738 or A320?
That's my question!

Marvinhsv · Wed May 27, 2015 10:25 am

Quoting eielef (Reply 5):
makes for me no sense

Check out Ryanair's newest statistics and you'll see they had an average load factor of 89% last year.

If you have some 300+ 737s it might be still cheaper to have rather empty 737s on certain routes than introducing another type to the fleet - especially a turboprop.

It's not that easy to say just because it's a short route there needs to be a small aircraft. At least not within Europe...

eielef · Wed May 27, 2015 10:32 am

I was referring to the proposed 150+ seats turboprop in the Ryanair case. Maybe O'Leary could make them to put some extra rows and get to 170 or so. Cheaper planes, cheaper maintenance, less pollution and so on... Isn't it a win-win situation?

MPadhi · Wed May 27, 2015 10:54 am

Quoting eielef (Reply 7):
I was referring to the proposed 150+ seats turboprop in the Ryanair case

I wonder if it would be possible for them to use an A400M variant? Although, I don't imagine the A400M was designed for efficiency, even if it does use turboprops.

DavidByrne · Wed May 27, 2015 12:10 pm

Quoting eielef (Reply 5):
Could it be technically posible to have a 150 seater turboprop?

Don't see why not. Back in the 1960s the British Vickers Vanguard (operated primarily by BEA and Trans-Canada) came in at 130 seats plus. And the Russian Tupolev TU-114 was the largest aircraft in the world for its time (late 1950s?) at around 220 seats, if I recall. The TU-114 flew long-haul routes at 500 mph plus. Not bad for a turboprop!

bond007 · Wed May 27, 2015 12:24 pm

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 9):
Don't see why not. Back in the 1960s the British Vickers Vanguard (operated primarily by BEA and Trans-Canada) came in at 130 seats plus. And the Russian Tupolev TU-114 was the largest aircraft in the world for its time (late 1950s?) at around 220 seats, if I recall.

Right, but these, and the A400M, all have/had 4 engines, so your aircraft, maintenance, and fuel costs all increase even though you might have more capacity.

Unless, of course, you could build a 200-seat, 2-engine turboprop .....

Jimbo

Dalmd88 · Wed May 27, 2015 12:53 pm

One thing you are all forgetting, The US traveling public hates turboprops. They are perceived as being ancient, noisy, and unsafe. Given a choice between a new Q400 and a 40 year old 737, they will say the 737 has to be newer and safer. A big turboprop will never sell in the US market.

TheSonntag · Wed May 27, 2015 1:06 pm

Quoting bond007 (Reply 10):

The Transall C-160 has two engines and is almost the size of the C-130. So it is possible with 1960s technology to builld large props.

bond007 · Wed May 27, 2015 1:12 pm

Quoting Dalmd88 (Reply 11):
One thing you are all forgetting, The US traveling public hates turboprops. They are perceived as being ancient, noisy, and unsafe. Given a choice between a new Q400 and a 40 year old 737, they will say the 737 has to be newer and safer. A big turboprop will never sell in the US market.

The 'US traveling public' has no clue generally about the aircraft they book, or end up flying on. What they do hate is being on a cramped CRJ for over 2 hours, but even then, it appears to make little difference in what pax book ....they have little choice.

I fly 2-4 times a week, and this perceived negativity against turboprops is mostly just that ...not reality.
99% of those booking flights do not make it based on aircraft type, even if they do know what they are going to be flying on.

Personally, I may make minor schedule changes based on type, but I'm the 1% ...not the average traveller that flies a few times a year for the cheapest price.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 12):
The Transall C-160 has two engines and is almost the size of the C-130. So it is possible with 1960s technology to builld large props.

But AFAIK, you won't get 150 pax and luggage into a C-160. It looks like around 100 troops ..admittedly that probably includes their equipment, but you'd need to find room for suitcases also.

Jimbo

[Edited 2015-05-27 06:18:44]

rlwynn · Wed May 27, 2015 1:18 pm

Quoting Dalmd88 (Reply 11):
One thing you are all forgetting, The US traveling public hates turboprops. They are perceived as being ancient, noisy, and unsafe. Given a choice between a new Q400 and a 40 year old 737, they will say the 737 has to be newer and safer. A big turboprop will never sell in the US market.

People of the USA do not seem to mind Horizon and the Q400.

stburke · Wed May 27, 2015 2:21 pm

Quoting rlwynn (Reply 14):

Quoting Dalmd88 (Reply 11):
One thing you are all forgetting, The US traveling public hates turboprops. They are perceived as being ancient, noisy, and unsafe. Given a choice between a new Q400 and a 40 year old 737, they will say the 737 has to be newer and safer. A big turboprop will never sell in the US market.

People of the USA do not seem to mind Horizon and the Q400.

It's on my desk somewhere but there's a tangible psychological effect and and perceived benefit of jets over turboprops. If a smaller community is served equally by jets over turboprops, both enplanments and satisfaction of air service go up.

Marvinhsv · Wed May 27, 2015 2:26 pm

Quoting Dalmd88 (Reply 11):
One thing you are all forgetting, The US traveling public hates turboprops. They are perceived as being ancient, noisy, and unsafe. Given a choice between a new Q400 and a 40 year old 737, they will say the 737 has to be newer and safer. A big turboprop will never sell in the US market.

Same in Germany. I'm flying between Hamburg and Nuremberg quite often and every time I board my beloved Q400 I can hear people complaining about a 'small shitty prop'. I have to choose between a Germanwings A319 and the Q400 and I always go with the prop. I like the kind of private feeling and the vibration when flying. You only have one neighbor and it's not any tighter than the GWI ones.

TheSonntag · Wed May 27, 2015 3:28 pm

Quoting bond007 (Reply 13):
But AFAIK, you won't get 150 pax and luggage into a C-160. It looks like around 100 troops ..admittedly that probably includes their equipment, but you'd need to find room for suitcases also.

True, I just used this example to show what can be done with just 2 TP engines from the 1960. Of course, developing larger new turboprops is prohibitively expensive.

Maybe the propfan will come in 10-20 years.

eielef · Wed May 27, 2015 3:29 pm

The US Traveling Public wasn't happy being taken away one olive from their meals in AA and they got used to it. Same with luggage charges, fuel surcharge and even food charges.

If its cheaper, easier, and requires less maintenance, I think the airlines might consider this shift. I also think that TurboProps are very safe, and that Civil Aviation Authorities obliges the operators and manufacturers to have similar maintenance, crew training, and all the safety features that has a commercial jet.

Myself, whenever i'm given the chance, I take the ATR72 (UTAir) instead of the A319 (S7), for instance. I don't consider them noisy (well, the Saab 340 is a bit noisy, but is an old version). And speed, is not a big difference, mainly if you are flying on a 800km or less route (maybe in 800km, block time in a Jet will be 50 mins, in a turboprop 1h10

A 2 engine turboprop with around 135 seats would be amazing, and I think technically posible, on a 2/2 configuration, even including a business class with the 1/2 configuration.

DCA-ROCguy · Wed May 27, 2015 4:22 pm

Quoting rlwynn (Reply 14):
People of the USA do not seem to mind Horizon and the Q400.

A few years ago, I flew SJC-SEA / SEA-YVR on Alaska Airlines. The SEA-YVR leg was on a Horizon Q400 (the green one). This is an ideal turboprop route--short flight in area that doesn't have harsh weather. Our flight was fast and comfortable.

These are the kind of routes where modern turboprops can work well. They fly at lower altitudes than jets, so they're best in places where there aren't a lot of storms or bumpy air (the Northwest's regular rain isn't usually stormy). Places where it doesn't get below freezing a lot. I'm not surprised that pax in the Pacific Northwest seem to be fine with Horizon's turboprops--the weather there is well-suited for them.

If turboprops are much lower-CASM than jets, it seems to me that if our consolidated legacies are all about giving every dime to shareholders, they should figure out where props would work well. It seems to me that along the southern couple-hundred miles of the USA, along with our West Coast, turboprops could work well. The Great Lakes, Midwest, and Northeast aren't good places for turboprops because of their harsher weather.

Jim

bond007 · Wed May 27, 2015 4:48 pm

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 16):
I can hear people complaining about a 'small shitty prop'.

...and I hear them complaining about the 'small shitty RJ', from those that do have any idea what they're actually flying on.

Jimbo

speedygonzales · Wed May 27, 2015 5:02 pm

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 19):
They fly at lower altitudes than jets, so they're best in places where there aren't a lot of storms or bumpy air (the Northwest's regular rain isn't usually stormy). Places where it doesn't get below freezing a lot.

If that were the case, WF would have to shut down immediately.

32andBelow · Wed May 27, 2015 5:14 pm

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 19):
Places where it doesn't get below freezing a lot.

You know turboprops fly all around the state of Alaska including Horizon right?

Polot · Wed May 27, 2015 5:18 pm

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 4):
There was a thread a while ago about a 150 seater turboprop using Europrop TP400 engines. Given the demand for short haul aircraft I'm surprised the marked hasn't fragmented to support a big turboprop like this.

The problem is that the two big turboprop manufacturers are Bombardier and ATR. Bombardier has their expensive new C series in the 150ish seat realm, while ATR is 50% owned by the Airbus Group (formerly named EADS) which has its very successful, and profitable, 150 seater in their Airbus subsidiary. So Bombardier has no interest in competing with itself and ATR is pressured by Airbus to stay out of their territory.

Quoting mpadhi (Reply 8):
I wonder if it would be possible for them to use an A400M variant? Although, I don't imagine the A400M was designed for efficiency, even if it does use turboprops.

Efficiency aside, the A400M is way too expensive and capable, it is complete overkill for what most commercial pax operators need. Military designed planes usually suffer in commercial passenger applications.

BostonBeau · Wed May 27, 2015 5:26 pm

I took a trip to DCA from Boston once, on a Delta Connection Saab 340B. I must say I thought it was really cool. The trip didn't take much if any longer than on a jet, and since bags were checked and retrieved at the plane itself, I was out of the airports in a few minutes with my bags. Sure, it's a little cramped on board (I had to duck to use the toilet in the tail), but for a flight of a little over an hour, I didn't mind it. And because it's a relatively small plane, we were able to land/take-off from one of the shorter runways at DCA while the jets were lined up for the main runway. All in all, I enjoyed it and think turboprops are fine for short flights.

Flighty · Wed May 27, 2015 5:38 pm

I think GTF and other jet improvements will shave the prop window of advantage down to nothing.

The other thing is that fleets are not bought for specific routes. Fleets are bought to fly very long flight lines. 30 to 60 days long. There are few such units of work that props do better than jets. Yes, a route here and there. But it is challenging especially given that a q400 and E90 or 737 aren't so different in purchase price.

Classa64 · Wed May 27, 2015 5:45 pm

I would think over a short trip a Jet would have to climb hard and by the time it gets to an efficient altitude is has to descend, higher fuel burn etc....Not sure.

Is a Turbo Prop more efficient at lower altitudes during short trips due to the thicker air thus making it more economical to operate?

C.

Motorhussy · Wed May 27, 2015 5:54 pm

Tahiti to Rarotonga, an international flight of 1,500kms, is flown on an Atr-72. This route used to be flown by NZ (AKL-RAR-PPT-LAX) with a range of aircraft including 763 and 742.

RyanAirB737 · Wed May 27, 2015 8:29 pm

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 19):

I thought it was just the opposite: where turboprops can handle snowy and icy conditions better (wind is still a problem) than a jet. I read that is why the CRJ route from SFO-MMH seems to always be canceled whereas the Q400 route from LAX-MMH is not canceled (assuming conditions at SFO and LAX are the same).

rampbro · Wed May 27, 2015 8:34 pm

Props are always better than jets! Jets are for hot tubs!

delta88 · Wed May 27, 2015 9:53 pm

Props are better for airlines like Cape Air that fly in New England, where you dont need to get alot of people at one particular time to a particular place. I live south of Boston and I hear them fly overhead all the time. Jets would be too noisy and burn too much fuel for so little distance. Props are for when you need frequency, on routes with very short distances (maybe

Rdh3e · Wed May 27, 2015 10:02 pm

Quoting RyanAirB737 (Reply 28):
I thought it was just the opposite: where turboprops can handle snowy and icy conditions better (wind is still a problem) than a jet. I read that is why the CRJ route from SFO-MMH seems to always be canceled whereas the Q400 route from LAX-MMH is not canceled (assuming conditions at SFO and LAX are the same).

Different issues. The service ceiling for many props is often the altitude of storm cells, thus making for a choppy ride which on a jet you could just fly over.

Stratofish · Wed May 27, 2015 10:17 pm

Well. it all depends on the point of view: economical or passenger comfort. As far as I (and many else) am concerned, props don't have any place in todays skies! Absolutely zero! I refuse to fly on a prop "airliner",with reason, period! Props are for general aviation and general aviation only! And yes, I have flown on the Q400 and modern ATR.
Ok, on a less personal note, they do help airlines on short and less crowded sectors. A prop is generally less fuel consuming at lower altitudes than a jet. They work for short(er) flights between second and third grade cities and inter island hops.

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 16):
Same in Germany. I'm flying between Hamburg and Nuremberg quite often and every time I board my beloved Q400 I can hear people complaining about a 'small shitty prop'. I have to choose between a Germanwings A319 and the Q400 and I always go with the prop. I like the kind of private feeling and the vibration when flying. You only have one neighbor and it's not any tighter than the GWI ones.

You can't be flying that often, methinks. These Q400s you are referring to break down so often and pax are rolling eyes and complaining on every single said flight...

Quoting LTU330 (Reply 3):

See above, your company is well advised to get rid of them ASAP!

32andBelow · Wed May 27, 2015 10:29 pm

Quoting Stratofish (Reply 32):
Well. it all depends on the point of view: economical or passenger comfort. As far as I (and many else) am concerned, props don't have any place in todays skies! Absolutely zero!

So do they have zero place on a 4100 foot runway in Alaska?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unalaska_Airport#/media/File:DUT-a.jpg

DCA-ROCguy · Wed May 27, 2015 10:30 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 22):
You know turboprops fly all around the state of Alaska including Horizon right?

Quoting RyanAirB737 (Reply 28):
I thought it was just the opposite: where turboprops can handle snowy and icy conditions better (wind is still a problem) than a jet. I read that is why the CRJ route from SFO-MMH seems to always be canceled whereas the Q400 route from LAX-MMH is not canceled (assuming conditions at SFO and LAX are the same).

I'm thinking of marketing, not capabilities. I'm well aware that turboprops fly all the time in freezing conditions and live in an area that sees lots of them. The thread is asking, where can turboprops have an advantage? It seems to me that where weather is better, people will resist turboprops less, and airlines might find them most profitable. Of course, the hardy souls of Alaska with its long distances and thin population are used to lots of small turboprop planes, so they're not a good sample from which to generalize about the rest of the country.

Jim

n92r03 · Wed May 27, 2015 11:15 pm

With regard to GA, some prefer the prop vs the jet. Compare a King Air 300 and a Lear 31 or small Citation. Of course they are designed for different missions, but often times the King Air is a better fit, think less than 600 miles, smaller airfield, etc. Compare prices and many times the jet is cheaper to buy, but operating costs are another story.

Like others have said, the general public thinks of props as "puddle jumpers" and "old" even if there were on a brand new aircraft.

Frankly I enjoy a prop ride although I am a bit concern about how much experience the PIC and FO have at any given time. Not taking a shot at them, just the nature of the business.

Viscount724 · Wed May 27, 2015 11:47 pm

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 9):
Quoting eielef (Reply 5):
Could it be technically posible to have a 150 seater turboprop?

Don't see why not. Back in the 1960s the British Vickers Vanguard (operated primarily by BEA and Trans-Canada) came in at 130 seats plus.

And what an amazing success that was with only 44 sold to 2 customers. The Vanguard is the only aircraft type where I've flown on one operated by every original operator (both of them).

AC Vanguards had 108 seats (18F and 90Y). When first delivered I think total seating was less than 100 as they had far more F class seats for the first couple of years of service. AC Vanguards had spacious 5-abreast seating in Y while BEA's were 6-abreast and only a few BEA aircraft had a first class cabin.

civetfive · Thu May 28, 2015 12:29 am

Would the Q400 been a good aircraft for HA, AQ or another inter-island operator to use on Hawaii flights? It would seem to fit all of the criteria - high cycle, short stage length flights in mild weather, and offering frequency over capacity.

113312 · Thu May 28, 2015 12:54 am

Setting aside the fuel consumption and other economic issues, the main advantage of a turboprop over a turbojet/fanjet is takeoff, landing, and taxi operations where the surface is icy or very wet.

iflycanadian · Thu May 28, 2015 5:17 am

How many seats were on the BEA Vanguard aircraft?

[Edited 2015-05-27 22:20:06]

warren747sp · Thu May 28, 2015 6:53 am

The problem is the the max altitude of a Turboprop is only FL25000. So many times it can not climb above bad weather and we get rocked around a lot!

bond007 · Thu May 28, 2015 1:11 pm

Quoting Stratofish (Reply 32):
Well. it all depends on the point of view: economical or passenger comfort.

Not really. If the right aircraft is used on the correct mission, then the economics and comfort need not be any different than a small regional jet ....arguably better economically and better comfort depending on what you are comparing to. Small aircraft used on short frequent legs tend to be less comfortable of course ...little to do with whether it's a 'prop' or not ... I quote 'props' since they are both turbine engines of course.

Quoting Stratofish (Reply 32):
As far as I (and many else) am concerned, props don't have any place in todays skies! Absolutely zero! I refuse to fly on a prop "airliner",with reason, period! Props are for general aviation and general aviation only!

Not many folks think this way, as much as we think they might. Most passengers book flights based on price first, then schedule ... and a few may then look at aircraft type - most have no idea what the aircraft code means when they book a ticket, and don't care. In the USA at least, folks that do care would do anything not to fly on a small CRJ ...one of those 'jets' that apparently does have a "place in todays skies".

Jimbo

eaglepower83 · Thu May 28, 2015 2:17 pm

I flew on the Q800 once from BDL to IAD.
The engine noise was different, and a few people were complaining, but otherwise, the 800 was a pretty quiet, nicely equipped and comfortable plane inside!
And the props are cool. It was only an 80min flight, which wasn't that much longer than a jet trip to IAD.
I'm all for more props on shorter routes.

zkncj · Thu May 28, 2015 7:07 pm

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 27):

Tahiti to Rarotonga, an international flight of 1,500kms, is flown on an Atr-72. This route used to be flown by NZ (AKL-RAR-PPT-LAX) with a range of aircraft including 763 and 742.

Qantas Link also operates an Intentional FLight with an Q400 that being CNS-PNG. Which is around 2.5hours.

Viscount724 · Fri May 29, 2015 2:35 am

Quoting iflycanadian (Reply 39):
How many seats were on the BEA Vanguard aircraft?

Originally, the 14 higher gross weight Vanguard 953s were 132 all-Y and the 6 Vanguard 951s with lower gross weight were 30 F and 89 Y, total 119.

In their latter years of service, the 2-class aircraft (down to 5 in 1965 after one crashed at LHR) were 18 F and 108 Y, total 126, and the 14 all-Y aircraft went up to 135 seats.

That info is from BEA timetables which had the seating data.

lightsaber · Fri May 29, 2015 3:42 am

Quoting bond007 (Reply 13):
I fly 2-4 times a week, and this perceived negativity against turboprops is mostly just that ...not reality.
99% of those booking flights do not make it based on aircraft type, even if they do know what they are going to be flying on.

For the general flying public, I agree, they do not care. But most of the 'road warriors' I know dislike turboprops. I enjoy the variety, but the reality is those who fly a lot know a turboprop has higher noise and vibration. They know the turboprop is unlikely to climb above the weather. They also notice the speed difference on any route they wouldn't just drive. Here in the USA, unless there is water, people drive 240 to 300 miles without a 2nd thought.

Quoting warren747sp (Reply 40):

The problem is the the max altitude of a Turboprop is only FL25000. So many times it can not climb above bad weather and we get rocked around a lot!

That is one thing that keeps turboprops off longer routes.

Lightsaber

bond007 · Fri May 29, 2015 12:19 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 45):
But most of the 'road warriors' I know dislike turboprops

I don't disagree, but it's often because it's a small aircraft rather than it's a turboprop. All those FFs I fly with every week, absolutely hate the small RJs. They hate walking out to an RJ, or getting on a bus to board the aircraft ...jet or turboprop.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 45):
They know the turboprop is unlikely to climb above the weather. They also notice the speed difference on any route they wouldn't just drive. Here in the USA, unless there is water, people drive 240 to 300 miles without a 2nd thought.

Yes and no

There is certainly a specific 'mission' for turboprops where the difference would not be significant. In the North-East USA for example, folks actually fly ~200 miles in their thousands every day, between cities such as DC, NY, and Boston. On these legs, it doesn't matter what you're flying - they're usually at 20-25,000 ft max, and the difference in flight time would be insignificant.

Jimbo

bmacleod · Fri May 29, 2015 4:46 pm

Hoping AC Express will order more Q400's to replace remaining CRJ200's, they are way more fuel efficient and 20+ more seats...

[Edited 2015-05-29 09:48:09]

SaschaYHZ · Fri May 29, 2015 5:37 pm

I would imagine on short hops of less than (and even up to) an hour a turboprop would be more efficient (I don't have any data to support what I'm saying so I admit I could be way off the mark) and a jet for most things longer. For example (using local ones) YHZ-YSJ/YQM/YFC are perfectly suited for turboprop flying as they are generally in the 25-30 min flight length. YHZ-YYZ/YUL and even YYT are more suited to jet ops.

Acey559 · Fri May 29, 2015 6:04 pm

I'll throw in my observations, though they're certainly not representative of the flying public as a whole. I fly the Q400 for Horizon and the vast majority of our customers could not care less if they're on a prop or not. Though my assumption is that the vast majority out here also know that Horizon flies props and that's just how it is, so they know it going through the door. Plus I'm sure it doesn't hurt that we offer free beer and wine that might help the nervous types.

As for the economics, they told us in training that the Q400 is unbeatable (versus jets, anyway) on anything under 1000 nautical miles. That doesn't mean much to me because I just fly the thing and don't know all that goes into the figures, but our management loves them (when they're not broken). We burn about 1500-1600 pounds/hour per side at FL250 at around 275 knots. Many factors can influence those numbers, but you get the gist. Down lower where we often operate, we get about 1700-1800 pounds/hour per side burn. On a flight from YVR-SEA, we block at about 48 minutes and can divide that by 76 people to get a decent idea of the costs they're dealing with. I know it's more in-depth than that, but just to give you all some rough numbers.

Here's something that amused me the other day. I had to sit in the jumpseat on one of our planes during my commute and decided not to wear a headset. The flight deck on the Q400 is actually a lot quieter than the Embraer 145 and even the Legacy 650 I used to fly. I'm sure many of you who have ever sat in 1A on the 145 know how loud and cold it gets up there, so I find the Q400 to be a pretty comfortable ride. Though I may be more than slightly biased.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net