Looks like turboprops are back on menu, boys!

alaskadrifter

alaskadrifter

Landing gear operator
I for one would love to see a turboprop renaissance. And apparently we were close to getting a Boeing flight deck with center stick and tray tables. What a tragedy that the world missed out on that!


9BFFF73B-653F-4787-87E0-400E519FEF34.jpeg
 
Honestly, given how vast the US is and how we have so many more markets for air service than most countries with so many connecting hubs, I don't understand how the ATR 72-600 and the like are still popular aircraft in many parts of the globe being delivered new and yet the major US airlines deem even the Q400 obsolete. Basically, US scheduled airline flights now either operate with 9 seats or 50-70 with no real "in-between" as 19-seaters like the Metro and B1900 and 30-40 seaters like the EMB-120, Saab 340, and smaller DHC-8s are also mostly gone. Except for Silver Airways and Key Lime Air's Denver Air Connection operation, I don't recall anyone else operating in that category now in the lower 48. It seems like a rather big void in tools to get the job done, and I'd have to imagine the economics of an ATR42\72 or Q400 far outweigh those of a CRJ-200\700 or ERJ-145 on shorter routes, which is why all the major airlines began to drop cities when the sub-50-seaters went bye-bye at the respective carriers in the 2010s.

If there was money to be made on routes like MOD/CIC-SFO, STC-MSP, TYR-IAH, PDL-SEA etc for decades, I don't buy that today with worse road traffic and more urban sprawl that it isn't worth the time of the major airlines to keep serving those communities with props.
 
Last edited:
ChasenSFO said:
Honestly, given how vast the US is and how we have so many more markets for air service than most countries with so many connecting hubs, I don't understand how the ATR 72-600 and the like are still popular aircraft in many parts of the globe being delivered new and yet the major US airlines deem even the Q400 obsolete. Basically, US scheduled airline flights now either operate with 9 seats or 50-70 with no real "in-between" as 19-seaters like the Metro and B1900 and 30-40 seaters like the EMB-120, Saab 340, and smaller DHC-8s are also mostly gone. Except for Silver Airways and Key Lime Air's Denver Air Connection operation, I don't recall anyone else operating in that category now in the lower 48. It seems like a rather big void in tools to get the job done, and I'd have to imagine the economics of an ATR42\72 or Q400 far outweigh those of a CRJ-200\700 or ERJ-145 on shorter routes, which is why all the major airlines began to drop cities when the sub-50-seaters went bye-bye at the respective carriers in the 2010s.

If there was money to be made on routes like MOD/CIC-SFO, STC-MSP, TYR-IAH, etc for decades, I don't buy that today with worse road traffic and more urban sprawl that it isn't worth the time of the major airlines to keep serving those communities with props.
Click to expand...
Don't forget Cape Air Cape Air's Fleet | Cessna 402, Britten-Norman Islander, Tecnam P2012 Traveller
 
Roger Roger said:
I’m gonna assume that the peeps that run airlines understand the economics better than we do, and my guess is it has to do with the overhead of running a 121 operation. It probably just doesn’t pay at less than 50 seats.
Click to expand...
Acquisition, mx, and crew costs are probably all similar. But with fewer seats to spread the costs over it leaves fuel burn to make up the difference. It sounds like with the new technology they might be able to make up that difference, but I don’t think we will see a return of the 30-40 seat turboprops on a large scale.
 
It's just another instantiation of the eternal battle between infrastructure and immediate market economics. The top line costs of subsidizing (in essence) easy travel to and from lower-population markets are obviously a net loser. But the true bottom line of *not* doing so is much harder to calculate, at least in terms of socio-political cohesion and, what, "culture"? I submit to you that it is no mere correlation that as infrastructure (including, but not limited to, air travel) has been "deregulated" (scare quotes because it's obviously still entirely regulated by any rational measure), we've seen an ever-increasing wave of political Balkanization in the US.

Obviously, this is just one example of a MUCH bigger problem, but IMHO a nation of juuuuuust shy of 10,000,000 sq kilometers doesn't survive as a political entity for very long if the (let's say) 50% who don't live in the largest urban centers don't have relatively easy access to the other 50% (and vice versa)

And, again, it's just one piece of the puzzle, but I further submit that while all but the most radical of the fringes tends to agree to bemoan the fact that our various political tribes do an increasingly poor job of talking to one another, it seems to me to be probable that that's largely because we increasingly don't *see* one another.

TL;DR: Moar Turboprops Yes Yay!
 
Damn ... I remember turboprops of various kinds (from FH-227 to DHC6 Twin Otters) into many places decades ago (and, frankly, the occasional DC9, too): ORH, EWB, EEN, LEW, and a few more. The world was a whole different place.
 
Last edited:
Can you use fine pitch to slow the plane down?
Is there a prop lever?

If either is no, then it's not a "turbo prop"
 
Roger Roger said:
I’m gonna assume that the peeps that run airlines understand the economics better than we do, and my guess is it has to do with the overhead of running a 121 operation. It probably just doesn’t pay at less than 50 seats.
Click to expand...
Airlines in Canada must operate under totally different economic rules and principles given the number of props Air Canada and Westjet both have and how an all-Q400 fleet has helped Porter sneak into position as Canada's newest trans-border jet carrier as the first North American operator of the EMB-195E2s lol. I think it's more the airlines decided "eff that noise" than there is no money to be made or business to be had.

Do you disagree that whatever the demand was for air travel out of a place like Chico, CA was between 1980 and 2015, which is a 1.5+ hour drive to the nearest airport with decent service, is probably even higher now given urban sprawl and the affordability and popularity of travel right now? Just because the airlines aren't doing something doesn't mean there is no demand there...or Avelo and Breeze wouldn't exist. 737-800s on ACV/RDD/STS etc to BUR with no connections and yet, they're growing and not dying. SBD build an airline terminal over a decade ago hoping to attract airlines, it took them until 2022 to get one; Breeze. It's doing very well from everything I've read even though SBD-SFO-PVU is the only route for now. Would those same people have not booked a United flight with connectivity added if it was an option? Someone is always the first to go against the grain.

Flyinthrew said:
I’d say the other thing hamstringing this 25 seat mental masturbation (you can say that here?) as much as the CASM issue is probably ATC volume constraints as well as gating. Where are we going to put them all?
Click to expand...
That was a big reason for UA to dump the bros other than age, SFO and LAX became better on bad days with minimal intervals between arrivals instantaneously without dozens of EMB-120s to squeeze in and out. But again, that doesn't mean the market and numbers aren't there and that someone won't eventually tap into this stuff and get signed flying ATRs or something for a major airline. As for where to put them all; anywhere. They don't need jetways, and the pax volume is smaller so bussing to remote stands is easy. Making turboprop gates is stupid easy compared to finding a gate for an E175 lol. Ideally, you'd want to use jetways with some of them if possible, but normally 3-4 turboprops can fit into the standard aircraft design category 3 group aircraft envelope (757 and smaller).

I've spent my whole life researching the history of commercial aviation, so I don't mean any of this disrespectfully, I just find it so bizarre. Gas is more expensive than almost ever minus a few points in time like 2007/08 and some other crisis years...and yet this is the first time since commuter carriers were invented that they basically no longer exist unless it's a 50-70 seat RJ or a sub-9-seat prop lol. It's not some edgy theory, it's just weird. I wonder if it has to do with the fact that dozens and dozens of pax each day used to write to airlines after flying on Saabs, EMB-120s, etc, and complain about how scary it was. I gather that only the UK and US airlines deal with that kind of Karen flying public when it comes to mass complaints about aircraft size haha. Hell, I used to fairly often as a gate agent have people come off a CRJ-200 for any flight over an hour and demand to know how to complain to United about their (on time) experience haha. "THIS PLANE IS WAY TOO SMALL TO BE USED ON GEG-SFO".
 
Last edited:
ChasenSFO said:
Airlines in Canada must operate under totally different economic rules and principles given the number of props Air Canada and Westjet both have and how an all-Q400 fleet has helped Porter sneak into position as Canada's newest trans-border jet carrier as the first North American operator of the EMB-195E2s lol. I think it's more the airlines decided "eff that noise" than there is no money to be made or business to be had.

Do you disagree that whatever the demand was for air travel out of a place like Chico, CA was between 1980 and 2015, which is a 1.5+ hour drive to the nearest airport with decent service, is probably even higher now given urban sprawl and the affordability and popularity of travel right now? Just because the airlines aren't doing something doesn't mean there is no demand there...or Avelo and Breeze wouldn't exist. 737-800s on ACV/RDD/STS etc to BUR with no connections and yet, they're growing and not dying. SBD build an airline terminal over a decade ago hoping to attract airlines, it took them until 2022 to get one; Breeze. It's doing very well from everything I've read even though SBD-SFO-PVU is the only route for now. Would those same people have not booked a United flight with connectivity added if it was an option? Someone is always the first to go against the grain.


That was a big reason for UA to dump the bros other than age, SFO and LAX became better on bad days with minimal intervals between arrivals instantaneously without dozens of EMB-120s to squeeze in and out. But again, that doesn't mean the market and numbers aren't there and that someone will eventually tap into this stuff. As for where to put them all; anywhere. They don't need jetways. Making turboprop gates is stupid easy compared to finding a gate for an E175 lol.
Click to expand...
I’d wager Canada’s Aviation industry is more analogous to Alaska’s, where turboprops are much more prevalent, due to smaller population centers thinly spread out that simply don’t support larger jets. But that’s just slightly educated guess on my part.
 
alaskadrifter said:
I’d wager Canada’s Aviation industry is more analogous to Alaska’s, where turboprops are much more prevalent, due to smaller population centers thinly spread out that simply don’t support larger jets. But that’s just slightly educated guess on my part.
Click to expand...
I'd agree when it comes to the up North crap...but not when you look it up and see how many US cities Air Canada and Westjet's regionals or Porter are flying props on in direct competition with mainline and regional jets often lol. YVR-SJC was even a Q400 route for a short time lol.
 
So these turboprop redux, since they're so efficient, apparently moreso than current high bypass ratio turbofans. Are they also talking about putting them on say narrowbody and widebody jets? Are they going to be replacing current gen turbofans?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top