Originally Posted by
aeroengineer
So how do maintenance costs compare from a prop to a jet? I know propellers themselves are pretty maintenance intensive and if you screw it up people can get killed. Not to mention an engine out scenario in a prop aircraft can be a significant emotional event depending on when it occurs.
Marketing issues aside (which are not insignificant), dispatch reliability is an issue. However it is possible a brand new turboprop could have higher dispatch reliability than the 20+ year old 50 seat jet it replaces. It might also have RNP capability that allows it to operate in lower weather at non-CAT-II+ airfields than the 1990s avionics in the current 50 seat jets.
Many issues to consider here. In any case, the current 50 seat jets won't last forever. The manufactures insist they only exist because of U.S. airline scope restrictions and don't exist anywhere else on the planet (that seems absurd, but I am not an airline industry economist) but they certainly exist in abundance here and will need to be replaced sometime in the future.
Originally Posted by
Bahamasflyer
I can't believe all this talk and no one has discussed whether or not the A/C system on props is cool enough to keep it comfortable at the gate and taxiing when it's in the 90's outside.
In the ERJ the packs (off APU bleed at least) do a pretty good job.
I care A LOT more about flight deck temp than whether or not its a TP or TF.
Great point. However this issue has been easily dealt with on business jets with vapor cycle air conditioning systems. Modern variable speed compressors are extremely efficient and not particularly heavy. So this is not an insurmountable engineering problem.