tpersuit

Many flaws with that theory. Turboprops fly slower, thus taking it longer to get to the destination. Lets say at FL250 a Turboprop burns 2000 gal/hr and at FL250 a TurboJet burns 3000 gal/hr. Lets say it takes the TurboJet 1 hour to reach the destination but the TurboProp takes 1.5 hrs. They both burned 3000 gallons. But it took the TurboProp .5 hrs longer. This isn't 100% correct but do you see where I'm coming from?

I think on longer routes the turbojet would outperform the turboprop, because it would climb to higher altitudes, fly much faster, and burn the same amount gal/hr, thus having a cheaper gas bill.

ChickenFlight

Thats the point...we fly for REGIONAL AIRLINES. I am not supposed to be flying DFW-PIT or ORD-NAS. I am supposed to be flying ORD-PIA or DFW-TXK so on and so forth. The economics for short haul goes to T-props, long haul to mainliners. The consumer says that they want jets and options but in truth they want low fares, so give them what they want!

coldpilot

There is a flaw in your theory. Most turboprops don't burn 2000 gal/hr and turbojets don't burn 3000 gal/hr. Now, the CRJ-200 burns about 3000 lb/hr at cruise. The Saab burns about 1000 lb/hr at cruise.

Where the inefficiencies are is flying CRJs on routes like MEM-JAN where you only get up to 16000' and do 300 KIAS. Put a Saab on it burning 1/3 the gas at 200 KIAS then you have a much more efficient and profitable route.

mmaviator

this might work....have you heard of this---

From the Shell Press Release:
Students from the across the U.S. and Canada competed today at the first Shell Eco-marathon(TM) Americas. Shell challenged the engineering students to drive their vehicles the farthest distance using the least amount of fuel, either conventional or alternative. While all of the teams accomplished impressive fuel economy figures, team Cal Poly San Luis Obispo won the challenge with an astonishing 1902.7 miles per gallon.

I think they turn the engine off after getting to a certain speed and coast. This is repeated over and over.

This would work in the worst case scenario.....just kidding.
http://engineering.curiouscatblog.ne...t-competition/

surreal1221

Man - all these guys that agree with my thinking that all these companies have to do is charge an appropriate fare for the services rendered.

We've got a couple jackasses at another forum that just think that's the worst thing in the world to do. . .going to bat defending the pricers.

While I understand it'll be a tough pill for customers to swallow. . .but ****. . .all aviation employees are tired of allowing these customers to get off with their $99 round trip tickets, while the employees are taking it on the chin.

If the cost of your raw goods increases, you have to either increase the cost of your services, or reduce costs elsewhere (labor). Labor is done taking it on the chin.

1998 my grandparents did a trip from Chicago to Oslo Norway, United and Lufthansa.

$3500.

This year, $3000.

I don't get it.

Jetjock65

We went to San Fran, CA. in 1997-98 the ticket price was around $500 p/person round trip. My Mom n Dad just went out there a couple of months ago for about $500 round trip for both of them. How has everything in this country gone up in $$ except for airline tickets.

People in this country are going to continue to fly even if fares go up.
Just take gas for the car as an example, it takes double the amount of money as it used to in order to fill up your tank, yet peoples driving habits have not changed one bit. People have also gotten very used to going from Coast to Coast in 4-5hrs compared to 4-5 days. With the amount of time that people in this country actualy get off work for vacation(avg. of about 2 weeks), they are not going to spend half of it in a car traveling.

The other thing to consider is the fact that most of the people flying day to day are probally not going on vacation, but are traveling for some type of buisness where time equals money requiring them to be some where quickly. Also with alot of companys cutting their own budgets you are going to start seeing alot of people who were riding on corprate jets back on airliners. I know of 5 very large companys just here in S. Florida that are going back to airline travel and are selling their company jets.

Bottom line is that some how some way, everyone in the buisness including the LCC need to get together and raise ticket prices in order to keep this industry at least wings .

JetJock16

Sorry man and regardless of what you think I’m not trying to flame you, but your numbers are a pretty far off. Just look at the Q400 and compare it to the CR9 which DAL flies between ATL and GSP. It’s a 30 minute flight (1 hour block) in the CR9 (burns around 3500 lbs/hr in cruise and during TO burns are well over double that) and you burn around 3600 lbs. If you flew the Q400 the flight might be 3-5 minutes longer seeing that most of the flight is below 10K or with ATL speed restrictions (meaning they both will be flying the majority of the flight at the same speeds). If you fly the Q you will still push the same number of seats in almost the same amount of time, but you will only burn (from what I’ve been told) about 1500 lbs of fuel or around half; that’s an enormous savings. 1500 lbs is about 225 gallons at around $3/gal saves you around $675 per leg and multiply that by how many legs per day/week/month/year/decade!

Just look at the below links and you’ll see that the Q400 is competitive in 60 minute performance, it’s almost equal in miles due to its climb and high cruise capability and IMO all airlines should be utilizing the increasable economics of this machine.

http://www.q400.com/q400/en/turbo.jsp
http://www.q400.com/q400/en/performance.jsp

One more thing, does anyone know how much the Q400's are going for? I understand that the number of frames ordered can reduce the price but give me a ballpark figure. I think SKW is getting their CR9's for around $25M (+/-) a piece. There might be some real saving there as well.

The EMB-120 averages less than 800 lbs/hr total and I've seen cruise burns down around 700 lbs/per hr TOTAL.

Senior Skipper

Yeah JetJock, but remember, the customer's don't want those "little puddle jumpers", they want jets. And the customer is always right, so the customer gets the jets.

FWIW, I have a friend who refuses to fly on turboprops, so I found her a flight on a CRJ200- that was still too small for her! Unless it's an A320 or larger, it's "one of those little planes".

JetJock16

And that's fine but they should be paying a premium (at least higher fuel surcharges) to fly in the "jet" in order to cover the higher operating cost. Otherwise, shut up and climb on board, you get what you’re willing to pay for and the Q400 is a very nice bird.

What's amazing is that SKW has never had a flameout on their EMB's in almost 30 years of operation due to moisture, turbulence or wind; can't say that about the RJ's. The public perceptions are incorrect but unfortunately we'll never be able to change them.

The Sherwin-Williams Co. (the world largest, most profitable and one of the world’s most successful companies who's been around since 1865) has a twist on that saying:

"The customer is not always right but they are always served!"

After all what do our customes actually know about our business...................very little; but if you always serve them the way a customer should be served then they will always return. 143+ years later their approach is still "Covering the Earth."

BTW, I worked for them as a sales rep for over 5 years.

ebl14

The Q400 compared to the CR9 is a good match. At some point the CRJ will pull out ahead if the distance is long enough. Props are the most economical at the shorter routes >400NM cause that is still well over an hour flight for them. Compairing a SAAB to any RJ doesn't work cause they can't take as many bodies.

A 747 gets better fuel economy than a toyota prius per passenger if it is full. Thats burning 4000 PPH x 4 engines!!!

The only good prop plane for creating a more economical route structure would be like the Q400 with over 50 pax seats.