Re-introducing the turboprop
- Thread starter meritflyer
- Start date
caliginousface
Frank N. Beans
EatSleepFly said:
how about those sweet ole jetstream 3100's! we opened a few at kingman in az the 'owner'/dealer wasn't happy.
Timbuff10
Well-Known Member
Kingairer said:
If I could fly a DC-3 or a CRJ, I would be all over that DC-3! Connie over an E-170, B-17 over a ERJ, and so on. Not that it's going to happen but I just think those planes are cool.
Maybe it has more to do with the fact that, Jets will be around for a long time where as props are, for the most part, going away.
Whatever happened to the Dornier 328? I thought that thing was the new hottness and now they are all gone from the airlines. I see them used as business planes now though.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
tonyw said:
Huh? While yes, it may have not technically disappeared, its numbers have dramatically been reduced by huge amounts in the airline industry. Several manufacturers of TPs were forced to stop production of such aircraft such as the Saab 340 and 2000 due to sluggish sales.
Jan 1999 - Turboprops accounted for 1 in 4 regional commercial flights in the US. July 2005 - Turboprops accounted for 1 in 11 regional commercial flights in the US.
So, the facts are that TPs have declined rapidly due to the production and sucess of the RJs. Turboprops are loud, slow, and generally uncomfortable (as reported by St. Petersburg Time, Tampa, FL). They quoted them as "the planes people hate to fly".
TPs obviously serve a great need for shorter routes and airports that can not support jet service however, with the industry in its current condition would a re-introduction of TPs be a feasible idea?
tonyw
Well-Known Member
meritflyer said:
Reintroduce implies that turboprops went away. Bombardier would beg to differ with you.
They're running ads that say wake up and smell the profits for their Q400, which means someone's buying them.
Turboprops never went away. What you're saying is like saying that since McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed and Fokker went away, jets went away, too.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
tonyw said:
Riigghht.. Like I already said, while it may have not technically disappeared, its number have been dramatically reduced. And no, its not like saying the MD, Lockheed, and Fokker went away. Re-read what I said very carefully... Maybe I should have re-worded it for your ease and understanding.
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
Maybe if the regionals weren't so quick to jump to the RJ's they wouldn't be in the poor financial shape they are now. A while back my former company pulled a Saab off a 30 minute flight and put a rj on it. They found out the jet didn't save them any time and burned significantly more fuel. Suddenly, they put the TP back on the route.
There is a definate TP market and if the technology keeps improving you may see a small come back and 50 seat RJ market declines. I wonder how the Saab 2000 would have done if it would have beat the RJ to market?
The general public is stupid though. They some how believe a prop = unsafe.
There is a definate TP market and if the technology keeps improving you may see a small come back and 50 seat RJ market declines. I wonder how the Saab 2000 would have done if it would have beat the RJ to market?
The general public is stupid though. They some how believe a prop = unsafe.
tonyw
Well-Known Member
meritflyer said:
Yeah, so?
So by your logic, since there are 737s parked in the desert and the number of them flying is lower than it used to be, Boeing ought to be talking about bringing them back?
Your premise is based on a flawed assumption -- that turboprops ever went away. They didn't. They're used where they make sense.
Ain't nothing wrong with that.
As of last July, there were 6,564 turboprops in operation around the world, with 163 more on order. I don't call that disappearing.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
Are you talking just to talk?
Minnesota_Flyer
New Member
Are you?meritflyer said:
Chris_Ford
Well-Known Member
Minnesota_Flyer said:
Are YOU? (We can play this game all night!
)
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Thats a really good point Alchemy. In the US Airways system the service provider has no say in what roots are being flown. AWAC, CHQ, Mesa, PDT, PSA, RAH and TSA are all given the routes they are flying by the mother hen. As to how many seats to fly it at? I'm not sure. I know here that is decided locally, although mainline can request at 700 on certain routes (ie, CLT-PIT). The only exception to this is actually the prop provider (besides Airmidwest and PDT), Colgan. I think they are given some routes and fly some routes on their own "renting" the Airways paint scheme... but I'm not sure about that.
I believe, and hope, that Turboprops will make a comeback. ATRs orders have increased, and wasn't it Mike Boyd who recently said the days of RJs turning a profit are over(or something to that effect?). As far as passengers are concerned, how come public opinion on TPs doesn't seem to be a problem in Europe? Been to Europe 3 times, each time was put on ATRs(2x Czech airlines, 1x Eurolot). The ATR is a wonderful airplane, and from what I remember, A LOT more comfortable than a CRJ.
Isn't Mesa starting a new JFK based operation using Dash-8s to go to places like Philly and Hartford? Heck on climbout from JFK on a clear day you could probably see Hartford. Imagine using a jet?
Isn't Mesa starting a new JFK based operation using Dash-8s to go to places like Philly and Hartford? Heck on climbout from JFK on a clear day you could probably see Hartford. Imagine using a jet?
Bandit_Driver said:
Ummmm - name an independant regional airline (i.e. a fee for departure regional) that is in poor financial shape?
The wholly owneds are a mess, but they have the problems of the mother ship dragging them down and the true independant operators (Independance Air) didn't make it for reasons that may or may not have had to do with the equipment. But regionals who fly planes in the motherships colors but are financial independant are doing perfectly fine thank you - you don't see THEM in bankruptcy......
In your example I very much doubt your former company a) chose to fly a Saab on the route, b) chose to change it to a jet and c) chose to change it back. They did what they were told to do by their customer, the mainline.