I question what the article is posing as linear thinking. Toward the end, it suggests (as do the interviewees) that regional airlines can return to profitability by operating these same routes with turboprops or whatever as independent airlines.
I'm all for that - changing the business model to adapt to conditions is a smart thing - but what airframe would they use? Saabs? 1900s? (both of which have been pretty much phased out, right?) Q400s? EMB-120s? And, most importantly, are the economics of a turboprop operation feasible where a 50-seater RJ are not?
Do you legitimately think we could see a return to t-prop dominance in the tier-3 markets?
I could actually see a growth market for twin piston aircraft.
Eh, I think that's an approach that would only work in a few markets like the Northeast or maybe some parts of California or Florida. 30+ seat turboprops are probably the way to go.Yup, the operators like Cape Air are going to have a massive opportunity to grow into flying that's abandoned by the big guys.
Heh, it kills me when they always want us to hook up ground power and PC air to their planes and half the time they just leave the APU running anyway. Glad to have the extra hassle for nothing.UAL747400 said:Air Wisky's fuel savings program
Here in Canuckistan, Jazz which is the regional feeder for Air Canada, has dramatically changed their routes/aircraft types. What used to be exclusively CRJ100/200 and 700/900 are being replaced by more frequent Q400 segments. The RJ's are still in use however, but as said above, on longer "thin" routes.
With routes like CYQM-CYYZ which is almost 500NM, it makes the previous business trip to Toronto go from 1.7-2.0 flights to sometimes 2.6 or .8 hour flights bounding around in the clouds. I love the Dash, but as a passenger the comfort level of being stuck in the "20's" sucks, not to mention the relative to jet low groundspeeds.
I dont think passengers who have been used to some type of jet service will get into an airplane like a C402. Even though its just as safe, they wont see it that way. How many times a day do you hear "ahhh man, this is one of them little planes"
No.
I think what we'll see soon is a dissolution of routes like DTW-FNT, which is 56 miles and has 3 daily flights. Or DTW-LAN, which is 74 miles and has six daily flights. How about SBN-ORD, where I'm fairly certain it's quicker to drive to ORD than it is to get on the plane in SBN.
On routes where it's quicker to drive to the hub than it is to clear security, wait for your plane, and then FLY to the hub, you won't be seeing these flights for much longer.
The places you'll continue to see RJ's is where there are long, thin routes that are too far for a turboprop, but without enough people to justify a mainline jet. As an example, Bakersfield, CA to Houston, TX is serviced twice a day by RJ's. That is, for the most part, a perfect route for an RJ.
Air Wisky's fuel savings program or whatever has their ground speeds even closer to being in-line with a Q400 as far as I know.
That has nothing to do with fuel savings probably an OE tripI was wondering about that! They dropped the boat anchor ahead of us on an ILS not too long ago. Not too often you see a widebody tearing up an RJ on approach, and we weren't really trying.
I dont think passengers who have been used to some type of jet service will get into an airplane like a C402. Even though its just as safe, they wont see it that way. How many times a day do you hear "ahhh man, this is one of them little planes"
You burn much less gas with power and air hooked up and the APU unhindered.Eh, I think that's an approach that would only work in a few markets like the Northeast or maybe some parts of California or Florida. 30+ seat turboprops are probably the way to go.
Heh, it kills me when they always want us to hook up ground power and PC air to their planes and half the time they just leave the APU running anyway. Glad to have the extra hassle for nothing.
FWIW, my company flies a lot of routes in 402s formerly flown by Beech 1900s. Ridership is consistently up. The pax notice, but it doesn't stop them from buying a ticket. In a couple of our midwest stations, we're on track to carry 10,000 passengers this year, a goal the turboprop operators never hit.
I don't know if jet passengers would get on twin pistons, but I'm certain they'd take one step down, for example jet -> turboprop or turboprop -> twin piston.