Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

Return of Props

Old 02-16-2006, 09:22 PM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Posts: 185
Default Return of Props

So now that the industry is saturated with RJ's do you see a return to props as fuel costs climb higher and higher? Say - props like the SAAB 2000 and DH8 400 or possibly new models yet to be designed and introduced?

Last edited by flyerNy; 02-16-2006 at 10:08 PM.
flyerNy is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 05:15 AM
  #2  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 40
Default

There seems to be this ego driven goal of becoming an "all jet airline." See Comair, Coex, etc. I just want to work for an "all profitable" airline. Some markets will only be profitable with props. The flying public would prefer jets but also refuses to pay the ticket prices that would be required to support a CRJ on a 400 nm twice a day route. bombardier has reported increased sales for their Q series props after last summer so it looks like that trend is happening a little bit.
sarcasticspasti is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 09:34 AM
  #3  
Qbicle seat warmer
 
ASpilot2be's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: SAAB FO
Posts: 1,177
Default

Didnt QX convert some CRJ orders to Q400 orders?
ASpilot2be is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 10:10 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Laxrox43's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: A320/321 FO
Posts: 1,114
Default

Yes they did...I want to say 8 orders or so...

And the DHC-Q400's are sweet
Laxrox43 is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 11:12 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ryane946's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: FO, looking left
Posts: 1,057
Default

I flew on a Skywest EMB-120 for the first time in a while and I forgot how loud they were. I should have brought my ANR headsets!!

I agree with sarcasticpasti. There is an advantage to having an "all jet" airline from the perspective of a customer. They see turboprops as old, slow, loud, and unreliable. Now we all know that these turboprops (Saab, EMB, Dash) are somewhat new, faster than they are perceived, reliable, and workhourses for the airline. In terms of fuel burn, they would be good for an airline business plan. But lets not forget that:
The best business plan is the one that best appeals to the customers.
And that seems to be having an all jet fleet.

Now there are some markets that would be better served by turboprops.
1. Hawaii. "How long will an RJ last in the salt with 15 twenty minute segments a day, full blast to 16K, accel to 320 knots, and idle to landing."-HSLD
2. Tiny cities that just can't produce enough traffic for 50 seat RJ's, and are real close to the hub. Maybe the ERJ-135 can serve these cities, but 19 and 30 seat turboprops work well here.

All in all, I think you will see the big regionals phase out these turboprops over the next few years. The only exception I can think for this is Horizon who apparently likes turboprops.
My opinion.
ryane946 is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 11:25 AM
  #6  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
Default

I think the fuel costs and the Q400 will save the turboprop in the long term. The 400 is huge and almost as smooth and quiet as an RJ.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 12:58 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Posts: 185
Default

I agree with you rickair7777. I think that we may just see props return. Props have many more advantages that jets. And with aircraft like the Q400 leading the way into a new market of props we have yet to see and may give rjs a run for thier money. Lets face it a 37 seat rj doesnt make sense when pax are not willing to pay. Ultimately gas prices will go up as time goes on - thought there may be some "lower priced" times. Oil is not forever.
flyerNy is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 05:42 PM
  #8  
Line Holder
 
CitationJason's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: CRJ-700 FO
Posts: 83
Default

I think you'll see some folks stay with or go to turboprops on certain routes. The RJ's are affordable to operate, but with 35 to 50 seats the cost per available seat mile is very high. If you don't have a profitable load factor on a consistent basis, you would lose a bunch of money, even on a subsidised route. If you could get a fast and efficient turboprop like a Q400, then you can provide a sightly lower number of seats (which is fine if you weren't filling all 50 anyways), and lower your cost per available seat mile, therefore, load factor percentage increases and cost decreases, it's an ideal situation.


CJ
CitationJason is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 08:42 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: 7ER B...whatever that means.
Posts: 3,964
Default

Originally Posted by CitationJason
I think you'll see some folks stay with or go to turboprops on certain routes. The RJ's are affordable to operate, but with 35 to 50 seats the cost per available seat mile is very high. If you don't have a profitable load factor on a consistent basis, you would lose a bunch of money, even on a subsidised route. If you could get a fast and efficient turboprop like a Q400, then you can provide a sightly lower number of seats (which is fine if you weren't filling all 50 anyways), and lower your cost per available seat mile, therefore, load factor percentage increases and cost decreases, it's an ideal situation.


CJ
Not entirely correct CJ. I do agree with most on here, the props are by no means done and as gas prices continue to increase I think there will be a resurgence of orders for props and a lot more RJs in the desert. Now to clear up some misconceptions about airline economics (yes, I studied this stuff).
Load factor - more or less a meaningless number by itself. I could offer $1 coast to coast fares and fill 747s every day of the week and have a 100% load factor but I would lose my shirt! Load factor has to be looked at with yield. Yield is what airline managers spend all their time trying to maximize. Basically means selling the right seat to the right person at the right price (read getting the most you can out of each customers pocket).
Reducing the number of seats on a route usually (there are exceptions) does very little for yield or profitability. Suppose I fly a route 4 times a day with 50-seat E145s but I am only filling 120 seats a day. That means my load factor is only 60%. If I decide to pull the 145s and put 37-seat 135s on it (an aircraft with only slightly lower costs per available seat mile, depending on the distance flown) what I've basically done is raise my cost per available seat (CASM) mile because now that cost is spread over fewer seats. Yes, my load factor increased to 81% but so what? It still costs me about the same but I now have 52 fewer seats per day in that market to spread that cost around so my CASM has increased. Where the Q400 kicks the RJ's a$$ is that I can put 70 seats on an aircraft that goes about the same speed as that 50-seat RJ at significantly lower costs. So Ive reduced both my direct cost and my CASM which will increase my yield. Hope I cleared up some misconceptions.
freezingflyboy is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 08:45 PM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: 7ER B...whatever that means.
Posts: 3,964
Default

I guess I should add that this only looks at one route in a whole complex of routes. When you look at the airline as a whole, it is possible to increase revenue by reducing the size of an aircraft on an unprofitable route because now instead of those 52 seats flying empty, they can be put to use on a route where they are needed and where they can produce more revenue for the airline. I just wanted to illustrate how little load factor has to do with profitability. Ask jetBlue Airline economics is all kinds of fun black magic
freezingflyboy is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
pilotdilemma
Flight Schools and Training
13
01-21-2007 11:55 PM
Was That For Us?
Major
0
10-20-2005 09:55 PM
SWAjet
Major
0
09-04-2005 02:38 AM

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