Search

Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

Prop Jobs Coming Back?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-08-2020 | 11:32 PM
  #111  
TransWorld's Avatar
Gets Everyday Off
 
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 1
From: Fully Retired
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
Now you are talking! But I like the open cockpit.
Reply
Old 12-08-2020 | 11:53 PM
  #112  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by terks43
On point B, market it to my generation and the zoomers with pointing out the reduction in per seat fuel usage vs an RJ. That will 100% work with the younger generations. Older ones just do it with the price savings, however minimal, on the ticket.
Riding on a turboprop is like driving to the airport in a 1980 diesel VW Rabbit. Slow and noisy!
Reply
Old 12-09-2020 | 12:39 AM
  #113  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by howdyclub
Riding on a turboprop is like driving to the airport in a 1980 diesel VW Rabbit. Slow and noisy!
Slow doesn't matter on short stage lengths, and noise can be fixed. The last turboprop I flew was probably on par with the CRJ for noise.
Reply
Old 12-09-2020 | 10:44 AM
  #114  
rickair7777's Avatar
Thread Starter
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,127
Likes: 796
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Originally Posted by DarkSideMoon
Slow doesn't matter on short stage lengths, and noise can be fixed. The last turboprop I flew was probably on par with the CRJ for noise.
Yes. If a significant portion of the flight time is below 10K, or spent on an arrival/departure with published speeds the flight time difference gets negligible pretty quickly. New prop designs are quite fast by old standards, and can be quiet as well.
Reply
Old 12-09-2020 | 10:52 AM
  #115  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
Yes. If a significant portion of the flight time is below 10K, or spent on an arrival/departure with published speeds the flight time difference gets negligible pretty quickly. New prop designs are quite fast by old standards, and can be quiet as well.

I’d think anything below 400nm is better in a turboprop. In the terminal area, ATC loved turboprops because they could keep the speed up longer than jets because they bleed energy easier.
Reply
Old 12-09-2020 | 01:31 PM
  #116  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by deadstick35
I’d think anything below 400nm is better in a turboprop. In the terminal area, ATC loved turboprops because they could keep the speed up longer than jets because they bleed energy easier.
Plus they don't need to get up high to be efficient, so you can hang out in less congested airspace without eating up gas, and on shorter flights you don't waste time climbing. Flights like ORD-CVG or ORD-IND, in a CRJ you waste all this time climbing up at 290 to get a few extra knots and fuel efficiency just to come back down after 20 minutes of cruise flight. A turboprop could level off at 20, cruise a few knots slower, and still get there in roughly the same amount of time while using way less fuel.
Reply
Old 12-09-2020 | 02:48 PM
  #117  
alaskadrifter's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by highfarfast
If it's cheaper, people will buy the ticket. They will make clever to them jokes about it as they board or will make disparaging remarks on facebook about having to ride on an "old prop". But the consumer has shown price point is really all they think about when booking a fight.
I tend to agree, plus if it has WiFi, craft coffee, and the whole “props are lofi cool, you wouldn’t understand” appeal Millennials might even pay moooore to fly on a prop .
Reply
Old 12-09-2020 | 08:20 PM
  #118  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
From: FO
Default

Originally Posted by DarkSideMoon
Plus they don't need to get up high to be efficient, so you can hang out in less congested airspace without eating up gas, and on shorter flights you don't waste time climbing. Flights like ORD-CVG or ORD-IND, in a CRJ you waste all this time climbing up at 290 to get a few extra knots and fuel efficiency just to come back down after 20 minutes of cruise flight. A turboprop could level off at 20, cruise a few knots slower, and still get there in roughly the same amount of time while using way less fuel.
The new ATR 42 and 72 -600 have a modern glass cockpit, burn half the gas of a CRJ, and with the 6 blade prop they are quieter than a CRJ. You can get them with Enhanced Vision System and wi-if. Most US regionals have a route structure that would be well suited to the new ATR.

Since Airbus owns ATR, the 72-600 sim is located at the Airbus Center in Miami, the PFD/MFD/FMS, and systems are similar to what’s in an A320. ATR training is the Airbus method, which might make the transition to an Airbus a little easier when the opportunity to move up arrives.
Reply
Old 12-10-2020 | 04:55 AM
  #119  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,128
Likes: 35
Default

I think you’re all crazy; props SUCK as a passenger. Stay lower? It’s more bumpy. They’re loud (if it’s not the outright noise, it’s the drone from the props being out of sync). They smell (you don’t get that gas smell in a jet). They’re small (having little to no overhead storage is one of the greatest sins for pax). They’re dumpy (in a pax mind, jet = sleek, modern, safe. Prop = old, slow, unsafe).

I lived for several years in an area that was only served by props, and I hated it. I would routinely drive 2.5 hours or 3.5 hours to the two closest larger airports so that I didn’t have to ride on a piece of crap prop.

You may be nostalgic for props or like them for whatever other reason, but most pax HATE them.
Reply
Old 12-10-2020 | 08:57 AM
  #120  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by jaxsurf
I think you’re all crazy; props SUCK as a passenger. Stay lower? It’s more bumpy. They’re loud (if it’s not the outright noise, it’s the drone from the props being out of sync). They smell (you don’t get that gas smell in a jet). They’re small (having little to no overhead storage is one of the greatest sins for pax). They’re dumpy (in a pax mind, jet = sleek, modern, safe. Prop = old, slow, unsafe).

I lived for several years in an area that was only served by props, and I hated it. I would routinely drive 2.5 hours or 3.5 hours to the two closest larger airports so that I didn’t have to ride on a piece of crap prop.

You may be nostalgic for props or like them for whatever other reason, but most pax HATE them.
You completely missed what people on here are saying. Technology has changed since the days of the Brasília and the Slaab. You can make a larger cabin prop with new noise reduction technology and an APU.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
throwaway14
Republic Airways
39
06-07-2020 08:32 PM
johnmiller
Career Questions
4
01-22-2020 08:43 AM
ayecarumba
Pilot Health
7
03-27-2013 03:45 PM
joel payne
Hangar Talk
4
04-27-2007 04:49 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices