Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

Prop Jobs Coming Back?

Old 12-11-2020, 08:27 AM
  #131  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,090
Default

Originally Posted by Hedley View Post
I remember when CAL put the Q400 on the BOS-EWR run. It was the perfect stage length for that type of plane, but bookings tanked and we lost high revenue business travelers to Delta. The public preferred to ride in an old 737-500 than a brand new turboprop. Gate agents told me that the jet service filled to max capacity, while the turboprops went out light.
BOS-EWR is a premium route, capable of filling a 737, and thus a poor deployment of that plane.

MHT-EWR on the other hand, would be a good deployment.
threeighteen is offline  
Old 12-11-2020, 09:45 AM
  #132  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,206
Default

Originally Posted by threeighteen View Post
BOS-EWR is a premium route, capable of filling a 737, and thus a poor deployment of that plane.

MHT-EWR on the other hand, would be a good deployment.
The point is that people avoided the plane. They’d fly on them if that was their only choice, but they will be given a choice due to competition. As others have mentioned, the airlines really promoted the all jet service as a premium product. People look at a plane with 4 or 5 visible blades, and they see an inferior product. They see 30 fan blades inside a shroud and think that it is a more modern and safe aircraft. With the 50 seaters becoming old and unpopular, I’m pretty sure the fleet mix between the legacies and regionals will change over the next few years, but I’d be shocked if turboprops were involved.
Hedley is offline  
Old 12-11-2020, 03:31 PM
  #133  
Gets Everyday Off
 
TransWorld's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,880
Default

Agreed. You can argue cost, fuel efficiency, and the sky is blue. You still will not dislodge the strong opinion of most PAX.

Remember the customer is always right.
TransWorld is offline  
Old 12-12-2020, 05:42 AM
  #134  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 445
Default

Originally Posted by TransWorld View Post
Agreed. You can argue cost, fuel efficiency, and the sky is blue. You still will not dislodge the strong opinion of most PAX.

Remember the customer is always right.
You underestimate the power of good marketing.
kevin18 is offline  
Old 12-12-2020, 09:03 AM
  #135  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 1,277
Default

Originally Posted by TransWorld View Post
Agreed. You can argue cost, fuel efficiency, and the sky is blue. You still will not dislodge the strong opinion of most PAX.

Remember the customer is always right.
I think it has been long enough that if a pleasant roomy product with amenities is offered people will forget their last flight in a prop that was noisy bumpy and for some reason 2.5 hours long flight from SFO to LAX they took in 2003.

The CRJ 200 and to the lesser extent the ERJ 145 has shown the public that a jet is not always the better option. Now if you configure the Props like a 200 then forget about it, you lost even before you started.
LoneStar32 is offline  
Old 12-12-2020, 12:15 PM
  #136  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,206
Default

Originally Posted by LoneStar32 View Post
I think it has been long enough that if a pleasant roomy product with amenities is offered people will forget their last flight in a prop that was noisy bumpy and for some reason 2.5 hours long flight from SFO to LAX they took in 2003.

The CRJ 200 and to the lesser extent the ERJ 145 has shown the public that a jet is not always the better option. Now if you configure the Props like a 200 then forget about it, you lost even before you started.
My thinking is that people want to ride on a 175 or bigger plane, and they want it to be a jet. I can see United eventually following Delta with the 220. If they bought 100 or so, UAX could get about 70 more 175’s. Depending on how many 550’s that they can convert (if that’s still the plan?), they could park all of the 145’s and 200’s and end up with a pretty good product. The 550 is a nice ride for the few places that actually need a 50 seat jet, the rest would be better served by larger jets. It should be interesting to see what the legacies do with the fleets once we get to the point of sustainability. Will they go back to more of the same old thing, or use this as an opportunity to update the fleet?
Hedley is offline  
Old 12-12-2020, 12:21 PM
  #137  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,130
Default

The places that need a 50 seater typically don’t need 10 first class seats.

It’s called a JETbridge.
captive apple is offline  
Old 12-12-2020, 05:28 PM
  #138  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Posts: 527
Default

Originally Posted by deadstick35 View Post
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.
This might the first time I've seen the word "energy" used correctly around the airlines, instead of as a sophisticated-looking substitute for "speed."
vessbot is offline  
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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices