For the smart people in the room. Do the props add to maintenance costs compared to jets? Also how do insurance costs compare? Thinking engine out in a multi jet versus a multi prop.

It’s a combination of things. US is too large of an area for props to make sense, it’s a niche aircraft for short distances. Regional flights have only gotten longer and less frequent. Also props used at the regionals had gotten old, even the Q400. They needed a lot more maintenance. The pilot shortage didn’t help either. Even when when there were props, they usually went very junior compared to the jets in new hire classes. They’re just not as desirable. With the push for hybrid aircraft in the future, I think props will make a comeback though.

Oh Ya!

Lots of fun, especially when one quits on takeoff--its a real BOSS time!

Yes MX cost is just a bit higher... same turbine core, plus a gearbox, prop hub, and associated gadgets. It's not a huge deal though, fuel savings still gives you a net win. All else being equal on a route that's suitable for props.

I'd assume insurance has to be a bit higher, but no first-hand knowledge...

Engine Thrust Failure: Prop needs to auto-feather. If it doesn't, pilots need to verify it and manually feather. If the feather just doesn't work at all, that can be bad. Although I know about an EMB-120 that had an engine fail with feather fail and they were able to do a pattern, come back and land fine, at a high altitude airport. It might have been cold, and don't recall if they were heavy at all.

Engine Structural Failure: We've seen a few spectacular fan failures in recent years. Dramatic news footage, but the planes did not seem to be in any more danger than a routine engine failure. When a turboprop hub comes apart, the plane is often lost.

they used to be a lot cheaper

19 & 30 seat turboprops had different (cheaper) regulatory requirements from larger 121 aircraft. FAA had a “one level of safety” initiative that killed that.

also new hires often paid the company $$$$ for training after which they would make under $20k as an FO working to the max of pre-117 regs

Yes the commuter prop airline model was a whole different animal. I think I caught the tail end of that, with the duty limits still 135. Ten leg days were legal and it happened occasionally. I never had the pleasure but did plenty of eight leggers.

Yes Sir,

It was military mishap but Yanky 72 is a good example of how bad it can get.

Lax/waived inspections. Props keep the government maintenance folks up at night. I believe the engineer who waived the inspection is being prosecuted for lying to investigators. Even after he was retired. That said of course he wouldn't be the first to feel the pressure from higher ups to waive a time consuming inspection to make production and those who were applying the pressure "never heard of him" now that it all went sideways.

Lots of lessons here for all to learn from.

Turboprops sucked. I flew the SAAB and Metro for 10 years and they sucked . Loud , slow , picked up tons of ice and always battling build ups and thunderstorms. Passengers hated them . Ironically the airlines that still have quote, "regional" feed , are raking in billions in profit using 70/76 seat jets all the while feeding us a line of BS for years that they couldn't afford to pay "mainline" rates . 🥸🙈

The EMB-120 had a couple of similar prop catastrophes, IIRC those were due to design issues which cropped up early in the fleet service life and were subsequently fixed.

121 airlines at least did seem to take prop maintenance seriously, and looking out for indications of trouble was heavily emphasized to the pilots. Skywest, to their credit, shut down their profitable EMB fleet very quickly after a rash of unexplained serious prop hub issues in 2014. It wasn't initially apparent what had changed to suddenly cause new problems, so they decided not to fool with it anymore.

There are many reasons why Turboprops have gone away. I think one of the biggest was the change to security after 9/11. Way back in the day there were no less than 11 flights a day between Portland Maine and Boston (on 4 different code share partners, TWA, USAir, Delta and NWA plus 2 Mainline Delta 757's that overnighted in PWM). Today there are no direct flights at all. Many other cities were the same. You could have someone drop you off at the airport in PWM 15 minutes before the flight left and comfortably make it to the gate in time for the departure and be in BOS in 35 minutes, on your way to your connection to downtown. Now it is much faster to just drive the 2 plus hours than to deal with security, the lines, self check in and what not plus showing an hour early to do all that stuff.

People did love to whine about the size of the planes, especially the 19 passenger ones. But when those planes disapeared many cities lost the only air connections they had or their options drastically shrank. Many third tier cities in the Northeast like Elmira, Ithica, Wilkes Barre, Albany, Harrisburgh and the like had service to all three NY airports, PHL, BOS, IAD and a few other hubs. All gone and the leaders of those cities have spent millions trying to lure airlines back. Usually without much success or they are left holding th bag when some start up goes out of buisness. Whole cities in the West have no air service at all and haven't for 25 years now.

I don't ever see it going back to the way it was. It's just to much of a hasle for the short flights. People just drive to a hub or bigger city to catch a flight.