Turboprops: Making a Comeback?

Reply Subscribe

Page 3 of 4

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

11-09-2014 | 12:41 PM

#21

MaxQ

Line Holder

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 1,154

Likes: 192

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBreezy

I have to believe it's far more complicated than unit cost to operate. For instance, is customer demand low in a certain market for turboprops? I have flown with many passengers who claim to refuse to fly on them. Of course, I don't know how a price drop would affect that rationale. I'm sure it's possible that certain regionals offer to fly certain routes at risk versus FFD.

They will book on the cheapest flight available, within schedule limits. Eventually they will have nothing to book on at all.(except maybe a bus)
Most of their neighbors won't be booking anything, because they have zero discretional income.

11-09-2014 | 01:27 PM

#22

noplanenogain

On Reserve

Joined: Nov 2013

Posts: 14

Likes: 0

From: Light Twin FO

I agree with most of your statements.

Especially this one...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxQ

1. Putting big engines that burn a lot of fuel for an extra 50 to 75 knots is a mistake on a turboprop. The laws of diminishing returns enters in and the fuel burns to go from a 270 ktas to 330 ktas defeat much of the reason to operate a turboprop.

The Q400 is a nice aircraft from a pilots perspective, being fast and all. However, if you want fast, why not operate a jet? Is a comparable RJ that much thirstier?

The Q300 uses very little fuel and gets 50 people to the hub. No 50 seat jet can compete with it economically on short sectors. I would not say the same about the Q400.

The Q400 is not a comparable replacement for the Q300/Saab 340/ATR and the respective markets.

I guess the trend will go towards larger regional jets (Embraer, Cseries) to keep unit costs low. Markets that do not support these planes will probably not support a Q400 as well.

11-09-2014 | 02:09 PM

#23

Aquaticus

Line Holder

Joined: Jul 2014

Posts: 874

Likes: 45

The casm of an Airbus or Boeing product is becoming more and more of a factor. You could throw a regional on it for .14 casm or do it with a "big" used to be "regional" sized a320 for .08 casm and just focus on filling the damn thing vs providing a flight every hour. Regionals aren't going away but they are going to be a smaller segment of the industry. The pilot pool is drying up and it is going to be mainline or nothing going forward.

11-09-2014 | 02:29 PM

#24

Cruz5350

Respek

Joined: Jul 2010

Posts: 2,938

Likes: 76

Not sure what a Q300 burns but we used to cruise the Q400 at 1150 a side and that would give you about 330 TAS IIRC. I'd have to imagine a Q300 is not much less than that and significantly slower. Horizon Q400's hold 76 people on top of it so there's no doubt that Alaska is making loads of money off these things.

11-09-2014 | 02:35 PM

#25

billyho

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Sep 2013

Posts: 2,450

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cruz5350

Yes a Q300 burns that on take off. At cruise at about 260 TAS we burn around 700 a side.

ATR decided to not make there 600 series fast like the q400. They felt there plane was for 1-1.5 segments and the extra fuel wasn't worth it.

11-09-2014 | 02:35 PM

#26

freeze3192

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jun 2008

Posts: 108

Likes: 0

From: Just a city boy, born and raised in south Detroit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cruz5350

750 lbs/side for the 300. Or 120 gal/hr less than the Q400.

11-09-2014 | 03:18 PM

#27

Cruz5350

Respek

Joined: Jul 2010

Posts: 2,938

Likes: 76

It's been a minute since I flew the Q but I think the fuel burn wasn't much more when pulled back to similar speeds as the Q300.

11-09-2014 | 04:44 PM

#28

Duke990

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 156

Likes: 0

From: F/O

A CRJ-200 burns about 3,000lb/hr in cruise and a Q300 burns about 1,600lb/hr. On shorter segments the Q300 is a clear winner. And they both carry 50 pax.