He related turboprops to profit and efficiency, so I related profit to codeshare agreements, not efficiency of a/c.

alot has to do with operations as well. To the average joe, it makes ALOT of difference if someone has to walk on the ramp to board the aircraft versus walking down a jetway. I know that Mesaba boards their SAABS in MSP with a jetway. Passengers remember the small things when they fly. You can make a turboprop flight alot like a jet flight with a little imagination though. Maby start offering headphones to passengers on turboprops to reduce the noise. Or start negotiating with our friends over in engineering to make them quitier.

I did fly on the avro when Mesaba still operated them though. Doesn't even compare to the comfort or engine noise of an ERJ or CRJ. I have actually had a connection on a CRJ immediatly after, which is like riding in a cadillac compared to the AVRO.

It's all about customer experience.

Uh oh, any Avro/146 drivers care to comment on this?

Well I don't think any of us would disagree with what you're saying, but that wasn't really the topic that the professor was covering.

Any aircraft can be profitable provided the codeshare covers costs + X%. That's a no-brainer.

The Saab about 1000lbs per/hr at 17,000ft

The Emb will burn about 950 lbs per hour in cruise @ 12,000 and about 840 Lbs/hr @ FL240. I've seen it as low as 800 at FL270.

Well I would like to say that the B-190 is less than 1000 lbs an hour, but we tend to run them a little hotter than the company's recommended settings in cruise so I usually flight plan 1000 an hour. If you did set the company's settings at say 210 or 230 Im sure it would be less than 800 an hour....but that is still only moving 19 ppl...and much slower than a jet...at least above 10K that is. I hate getting behind those RJ's on an approach, they almost jam things up as bad as those Dash 8's :)

Whatever...Approach made me slow down today for a 757 doing 150 on a 12 mile final in VFR...geez...:D

Turboprops are more effecient on fuel consumption (most of the air mass moved is cold air, so you're not wasting gas heating up the flight levels)

Turbofans (the big fan moves a lot of cold air) are more effecient than pure turbojets (ALL the thrust is 800 degrees C, lots of wasted heat).

Turboprops are more effecient on short routes, but this advantage drops off as the leg length increases...the turboprop takes more time to fly the route than an RJ:
1) You have to pay the crews a longer block
2) You have to pay the mortgage on the airplane, but you get to use it on fewer legs each day


Passenger preference was the reason the RJ was introduced...the PAX don't like noisy props, and they like shorter flight times. Oil was a lot cheaper when this decision was made. The Q400 is a great airplane: very quiet and very fast, and the interior is the same as a CRJ.

The explosive growth of the RJ post-911 was driven not by airplane effeciency but by lower labor costs and the ability of the RJ to cover mainline routes. Most RJ flying today could not be done by t-props (SLC to ORD in a typical Tprop would take 5+ hours and require a fuel stop)

That is the key. Only one carrier - Independence - has been flying RJ's without a cost plus agreement, and that did not work out. Turboprops have superior economics, and consumer seem more price sensitive than anything these days.