atpwannabe

I know that this subject may have been discussed in the professional forum, however what do you guys think? Do you believe that some airlines may hold on to or even resurrect some of their turboprop a/c? Also, with hiring mins as low as 300TT and 45ME, do you think that possibly bringing in these type a/c will keep hiring levels where they are now. For example, Airline ABC whose fleet consists of all turboprop a/c is looking to hire 250 new pilots.

Given the price of a barrel of oil and the cost of JetA, it would seem to be the smart thing to do.


atp

Squawk_5543

Good question. I know I feel good being in one right now.

the King

It will also depend on how passengers respond. Although there is no logical connection, I believe passengers often balk at ticket prices, especially if they think they'll be on a "little" plane.

I was talking to my parents the other day and they mentioned "puddle-jumpers." They meant turboprops, but it took the better part of 30 minutes to convince them (hopefully) that as a flight instructor, I fly puddle-jumpers. They've both flown with me and I try to keep them up to date with what I'm doing, but yet they have this deeply ingrained idea of what is a small plane. Unfortunately, that is the mentality we run into. It is hard to convince the average passenger that a turboprop might be a better option, that it is as safe as a jet, and that it is no toy airplane.

TheGreatChecko

Hate to say it, but I do to. There is no such thing as job security in this industry, but it's as close as it gets.

Pilotpip

Nope. Passengers don't like those "old, dangerous puddle jumpers". Park a brand new Q-400 next to a 727 and ask the average American which aircraft is newer and the majority will point at the 72.

HoboPilot

The turboprop airlines should do what Mohawk Airlines used to do back when they were flying F-27s and write on them "propJETS"

I really doubt it would work today though. I've heard people complain about RJs too, for the flying public if it's not a 747 then there's something to complain about.

I haven't flown on any of the new generation turboprops like the Q400 or ATR 72, but from what I've heard they're more comfortable than the older versions. I would be a bad one to judge however. If I had it my way there would still be Beech 99s flying passengers.

But if I was in charge of a regional airline operating a large number of turboprops I would make a push to generate publicity highlighting the comforts these turboprops offer as well as the cost benefits that translate to lower fares for passengers. Just an idea, maybe it makes too much sense for airline management to grasp.

Sbaker1595

i know this is a very narrow, one sided way to look at it, but look at the regionals that are doing well right now and still growing, ex mesaba, eagle, colgan......they all have t-props and im not hearing any of them speak of parking more aircraft because they cant afford to fly em.... (ps i said more aircraft)

i think the q400 should have been designed more like the p180 piaggio.....have pusher props with a big inlet on the front of the wing to "hide" the prop and make it less noticeable (lol that proably wouldnt work unless it was a 2 blade) oh well just a thought

Cubdriver

Converting chemical energy to kinetic energy is what produces thrust of course, and the basic task is to get the wasted kinetic energy as low as possible. For air leaving a powerplant, K.E. = m*(v^2)/2, so we see that velocity being a power of square is more sensitive than mass. Taking advantage of this, turboprops move a huge mass at a lower velocity which reduces kinetic energy waste.

So... are turboprops like the MD-80 with twin GE UDF unducted pusher fans a good idea if we are getting really soaked for a barrel of oil? Absolutely. Will any airline want to go buy them? Not likely, because the design-to-production cycle (3.5 years minimum) is so long that the change in oil prices is mostly unpredictable at that interval. In addition, the airplane has to stick around for another 20 years before it will go to scrap. Buying airplanes is a longterm commitment, is very expensive, has high initial cost, and specialized airplanes like an MD-80 UDF are generally not worth it until fuel is known to be high for the long haul.

GauleyPilot

On the corporate side however...

I would say that Hawker-Beechcraft can sell a few B200GTs or 350s to people who would have only wanted a jet a year ago. The same for the P180.

If average stage lengths are 500NM or less, then a strong argument could be made for a 300 plus KTAS turboprop. Especially if shorter runways are ever involved.

GetErDun

Spruce Goose