YIMBY wrote:Because most, essentially all modern turbprop powered airliners are small, and often cramped (configured for short flight time), have small overhead lockers, serve only snacks if even that, lack IFE, and are loaded by bus.
Were there an uncramped 150-seater, 3+3 abreast, using jet... - sorry, propbridges - people might consider it like 737 or 320.
Small. Is there a problem with small? Some of my most enjoyable flights were in small aircraft. Smaller queues at the gate. Quicker to board. Quicker to disembark. Less competition for checked bags at the carousel. But then I'm an a.nut, so these things might not impress the masses.
Often cramped. You have just described
every single flight I have taken in the last fifteen years, except they were all on jet aircraft. Except one. (737, 747, 757, 767, 777, A320, MD-80, and Dash-8)
True, I wasn't flying business class, and I accept that the average turboprop fails to pamper elite flyers to the level they think they deserve.
Small overhead lockers Yeah the overhead lockers on a 2+2 Dash 8 are smaller than those on a 737, but don't forget you only have to share them with three other people in your row instead of five. Is there something else special about large lockers?
Serve only snacks Again, you have just described
every short haul flight I have taken in the last fifteen years, all but one of them on jet aircraft.
But I do agree, it's a real pain when you have gone specifically out of your way to book a lunchtime flight, only to find there's no lunch. If only the departure airport had some eating facility to make up for this.....
Lack IFE That's such a killer. I despair at the thought of spending a whole 1½ hours with nothing to do except read a newspaper, a book, crack a few sudokus, a crossword, talk to the person next to you, or just chill out. Then again, I have children who cannot believe that when they leave school, they might end up in a job where the management are so cruel that they will not be able to access their phone or other entertainment for as much as 8 hours, day after day. That's like pure Charles Dickens Victorian cruelty, and shouldn't be tolerated in the 21st Century.
Somebody should tell the United Nations.
Loaded by bus Buses are for peasants and poor folk, not people like us!
Were there an uncramped 150-seater, 3+3 abreast, using jet... - sorry, propbridges - people might consider it like 737 or 320.
Pfft - I challenge you to show me an
uncramped 737 or 320 first.
And what is so special about 3+3? I didn't realise being stuck in the middle seat with two strangers was so desirable? Or getting a window seat, and having to squeeze past two others to reach it? I'll take 2+2 every time, thankyou.
I'm beginning to wonder if your post should have carried a sarcasm warning, because I've been treating it at face value.
To the original question, given the (justified) shame for climate pollution, it would make sense to change the turboprop name (for the next generation planes) to something more environmentally appealing, 'ecothruster' or whoever more creative comes with a nice name that is technically not too wrong. That may make people to prefer those over jets.
I think you might have nailed it there.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
