400X, It already looks like its dragging its rear on take off and landing and now they want to make it longer. COOL Thanks for the info Sarge on the 100/200

 

I want something like the EMB120 again. What is it with these turboprops and their high wings (referring to Dashs and ATRs)? Perhaps they could have some kind of 50-pax EMB120 2.0.

 

There is. It's called the Q300.

But there is also an argument to be made that with the operating economics of the Q400, an operator is just as well off with that airplane, rather than having the Q300 and being limited to 56 seats.

 

The "flying public" couldn't care less what propulsion system the aircraft uses, as long as they can get $29 fares.

 

referring to the saab, and an older female passenger... "oh my its one of these airplanes, these things must be older than I am" and I sit silently and think to myself, we'll ma'am, enjoy your connecting flight on a DC9

 

Last I heard it would sit close to 7 inches higher than the normal 400.

 

Actually, they do and quite a bit at that. In fact, that's one of the reasons we ended up with RJs in the first place. Some of you would be surprised to know how many pax are very afraid of flying and in their minds a jet is "safer" than a prop -- the "big" airlines used to fly props, but now they fly jets, ergo jets MUST be safer, plus all jets must be new and all prop jobs must be old. It's not smart reasoning, but just watch any news story about aviation and you'll see how clueless the public is about aviation.

 

To add to this I'll tell a little story (one of the only one's I have so far in this industry).

We had a quick turn in PVD from gate 1, or well more like pad 1 since there is no actual gate there. Next to us was a Colgan (I think, it doesn't matter which company actually) S340 in the USAE livery. While we had just shut down and were waiting to deplane our PAX the gate agents had sent out the Saab PAX to board that flight. Since there is no sign pointing to the right airplane about 20 people tried to board our airplane (E-145). When the F/A told them that this was not their airplane and they should go to the Saab their faces turned to "Oh my God, how old is this thing?" Between that look and just the look of utter disappointment it was a fun moment for me!

The point I think I might be trying to get at is that PAX will be scared of a turboprop no matter how new it is!

Story time over!

 

They'd do the same thing if your E-145 was sitting next to a 737. The difference? They be on the 73 looking disappoint about your E-145.

My point, Jow Public wants to fly a 747 between MEM and ATL.

 

Everthing else aside.....the "RJ" revolution was brought on by at the least two things.. one... the desire of mainline mgt to fly small jets on the cheaper AND the perception of TProps to the general public. My sister for one will not fly a tprop... and I HAVE nearly 3000 hours in them.... she doesnt like them...never has... she flies jets 20-25 times a year. Personally I think more care than not.