Turboprop Resurgence

[BoeingBoy]

Air Transport

Regional Airlines Rediscover Turboprop Efficiencies

Aviation Week & Space Technology
05/23/2005, page 46

James Ott
Cincinnati

Regional airlines rediscover the good economics of operating fuel-efficient propjets

Turboprop Turnabout

Turboprop-powered aircraft, the most fuel-efficient and low-cost tool in regional manufacturers' arsenal, are making a comeback.

Bombardier, ATR, Saab Leasing, Raytheon and BAE Systems each confirm a surge of acquisitions and a scarcity of available used turboprop aircraft. The aircraft are being selected for operations in short-haul markets where their economics cannot be beat.

Fuel at $1.50 and more per gallon is the catalyst reviving demand for these aircraft. In the tight-squeeze cost zone of the 200/300/400-mi. flight segment, the high price of fuel is making the small jet the hands-down first choice of executives and perhaps even cost-conscious passengers.

Austrian arrows Bombardier Q400 (shown here) is one of 40 Q series aircraft ordered by the former Tyrolean Airways.

"Turboprops are a hedge against the high fuel costs," says Steven A. Ridolfi, president of Bombardier Regional Aircraft. Adds Michael Magnusson, president/CEO of Saab Aircraft Leasing, "It's very hard to disregard the economics of turboprops when you are paying $1.50 a gallon." Comair President Fred Buttrell observes turboprops should not be counted out. In the short-haul segment, they use "30-40% less gas."

The turboprop revival served as a sideshow at last week's Regional Airline Assn. 2005 Annual Convention. Manufacturers predict interest in turboprops will continue as long as forecasts for fuel prices remain dim. Intense competition and poor yields in the short-haul segment are turning jet operations unprofitable. Bombardier released data showing that in a 200-naut.-mi. sector with fares at $55, only a Q400 could produce a profit.

Turboprops have found their niche, says David W. Carter, marketing manager of Raytheon Airline Aviation Services. The services unit added nine new customers in 2004. The inventory of 280 aircraft has dropped to the lowest level since the company was formed.

Thus far this year, ATR--the Alenia Aeronautica and EADS joint venture--has taken 31 new orders for ATR 42 and ATR 72 aircraft, compared to last year's 12. More sales are expected by the Paris air show.

During the same five-month period, Bombardier has taken orders for 33 Q Series aircraft, compared with a total of 20 orders in 2004.

Turboprops are replacing small jet aircraft. Approximately 67% of 29,500 Q400 departures each month are supplementing or replacing jet service at 10 airlines in Europe, Asia and North America. When Continental Airlines selected Colgan Air from among 10 competitors, Colgan's five Saab A340Bs replaced small-jet feeder service at Houston.

Magnusson says his company placed 16 Saab aircraft thus far this year. A total of 30 Saab aircraft have changed hands.

Ron Hutter, GE Transportation's general manager, marketing, in the Small Commercial Engine division, confirmed the turboprop revival but said it "was not eroding other parts of the business."

This circumstance is a total reversal of a decade-long trend in which regional carriers turned to all small jet fleets, a strategy to raise the industry out of the "puddle-jumper" era. Even as turboprop aircraft were refined by a new generation of aircraft, they still had a hard time competing with the small jets. Manufacturers such as Fokker and Fairchild closed down turboprop production lines, while others launched remarketing efforts that are now paying off.

Turboprop/Jet Cost Comparison

(200 n.m. Sector)
.........................Q400......Network......Network......Low-Cost Carrier
......................................737-700.......CRJ200...........737-700
Revenue...........$2,750.....$4,822.........$1,760............$4,348
Expenses............2,026......5,713...........2,031..............4,42

Operating Income..724.......(891)...........(271)...............(80)
Margin..................26%.....(18%)..........(15%)..............(2%)
CASM* (cents)....11.57.......18.10...........17.60.............12.90
Break-Even
Passengers............36..........104..............37.................
81
Break-Even LF.......46%........76%............74%...............59%

*Cost per available seat-mile

Source: Bombardier

 

[Rico]

There was nothing ever really wrong with turboprops, just the stupid way they were handled. No businessman liked walking out in the rain and glycol in his 300$ shoes.

Manufacturers were to blame as well, forcing decades old designs upon the marketplace that were too small, too noisy, and customer adverse. You ever ridden in a J-41...?

Only in recent times with the Q series Dashes, new series ATR's, and the Do-328's did you finally see worthwhile airframes...

Only in recent times did you see an effort to utilize jetbridges and better facilities for "express passengers" and the turboprops rather than the "steerage-class" accomidations that they were forced to use before.

No wonder passengers said they hated turbprop flying. It was not so much the planes, as the overall poor experience.

Put it this way, part of the current problem with the CRJ and ERJ is that the very same mistakes have been repeated, and a "second tier" approach used in terms of service quality, just like with the turboprops... And soon enough you hear the term "puddle jumper jets" used by pax... And little (to any) real customer preference on short routes for a RJ over a decent Turboprop.

Rather than buying those CRJ's for PSA, investing in DHC-8/400's would have been paying off big time right now for Airways if they had followed the example of Alaska/Horizon rather than buying CRJ's like everyone else already had...

I can think of many short routes in the NE were the Q400 Dash would have ate RJ's for breakfast, and even been able to hold it's own against the LCC competitors...

Oh well.

 

[dashflyer]

Financially they've always made sense. Europe is ahead of the game.

But paying passengers don't want to ride on them. They're noisy and scary (perception).

So the question is, if you lower the ticket price enough to entice people to ride on a turboprop, can you still make money????

 

[Rico]

The Alaska/Horizon passengers seem to like the Dash-8/400's just fine...

It is a bigger cabin than, and a far more quiet cabin than a CRJ or ERJ.

It is FAR more chaeper than a CRJ or ERJ as well, meaning lower fares, which passengers seem to like too...


The turboprop "adversion" of passengers IMO came from bad experiences passengers had with Express facilites, service, and outdated equipment like the B-1900, J-32/41, Saabs, and Brasillias... All designs that left much to be desired comfort-wise.

And it is bad that those designs, we still see them in use even today for US Airways...

Have you rode on a Q400...? I have, and let me tell you that it was a world's difference between what people think of when they think of a "turboprop", and that machine...

But why argue over opinons, just look at the success Horizon has had with theirs and that should settle this.

 

[FWAAA]

I don't mind ATRs at all, but the constant griping from other passengers about it "not being a jet engine" and "why can't this crappy airline get real planes" is tiring. When AA implemented jetbridge boarding of the ATRs - that was terrific. And if you got row 16 or 17 (at the very back) on the SuperATR (64-66 pax), you could board last and disembark first every time. 2 by 2 seating and overheads large enough to hold a carryon bag. Nothing wrong with them at all, and more economical than RJs.

 

[OldpropGuy]

It's a shame that this airline's leaders are always behind the power curve. It only took them ten years to jump on the Regional Jet bandwagon, after every other airline had discovered their need, at the time.

Management has been made aware of the Q400's in the past. Apparently the low operating cost, excellent performance, and ease of intergration into the current Dash-8 fleet (same type rating, only differences training needed), were not attractive. I guess it would be silly to expect much now!

Take a look: http://www.q400.com/q400/en/home.jsp

 

[Light Years]

Can anyone tell which is a CRJ700 and which is a DH8Q400?

Rico is correct about passenger perception... it's not so much the props as it is the general product associated with Express. The Express name alone is an apology, it implies it's something you have to suffer through to get the real product, or your money wasn't good enough for the whole shebang.

Facilities and appearance is a big factor too. Exceptions were made for the Express product that haven't been changed as the operations grew both route scope and aircraft wise. Companies have allowed for dreadful facilities, appalling levels of customer service and professionalism, and little consistency or standardization while so-called Express operations become large, if not larger than the mainline. This is what contributes to the negative perception, not a prop as opposed to a jet engine. I've heard RJs referred to as "puddle jumpers" lately- they are no longer a novelty as they are still a part of mass chaos second class operations.

I've been on a Dash 8Q400 and it feels and sounds like a jet. Clever marketing tools like jetways and a consistent classy image go a long way. The cabin is vastly superior to the ERJ145 cabin (which is the same as the outdated EMB120). It's the same if not larger than the CRJ. US Airways, specifically, could use an upgraded turboprop aircraft. I'd even say that the number of 50 seat jets at PSA is all they need, with the addition of some more 700s and a small amount of 900s. What they need is a slew of DH8-300s (the 50 seater) for the short haul markets, and the 400 (70 seats).

I'm always harping about a standardized fleet, and I know this would leave the comapny with three 70 seat airplanes. But they would have specific missions- the E170 is the baby of the 170/175/190/195 family. A route that supports 70-100 seats throughout the day would have the EMBs, just for an example, PHL-ATL. Some frequencies would have 72 seats, others 100, while offering a consistent product in the market, limiting the amount of types serving stations, and providing tons of flexibility in aircraft and crew scheduling. (Although I wouldn't market this aircraft as anything but mainline with a single cabin).

The Dash 8s and CRJs of various size would offer a defined, consistent product over the whole Express system (I would ditch the Express branding for something more contemporary). The DH8s of various sizes (37, 50, 70) would again offer flexibility but consistency. The CRJs would be better suited for longer, thin routes, in US's case new routes in the midwest and deep south. RJs are considerably more expensive than turboprops on short stage lenghs. The larger RJs (700, 900) would offer more capacity on DH8/CRJ markets. From a customer standpoint, you're eliminating the product confusion of a DH8, A319, E170, ERJ, and CRJ on a single route. From a cost and efficiency standpoint, you're not flying 5 types and 5 carriers with different procedures and standards into one station, and you are offering flexibility in scheduling aircraft and crews. All of this ability to right-size your capacity to a science while offering a competitive, quality product would be accomplished with basically two fleet types.

 

[ringmaruf]

I think I want to marry Light Years.

 

[ngneer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but another reason to like turboprops is that they can use a shorter runway than RJs and so can help de-congest some airports by making better use of available runways.

I've always kind of liked turboprops myself. I like flying low and getting a good view of the scenery. My main objection has been the noise; the Saabs in particular seem noisy. I've been a little surprised that the 'Q' series turboprops haven't sold better. I'm glad to hear that that's changing.

 

[whlinder]

It's sad really, US was behind the curve with RJs, so they rushed to catch up and wanted tons of them. Had they been smart and looked at their service and markets and ordered the Q400 along with RJs where appropriate, they would be a hell of a lot better off. How many flights under 400 miles are flown by an RJ?

Express fleet should be:
19 seat 1900D for Air Midwest/Colgan
37 seat Q200
50 seat Q300
70 seat Q400

50 seat E145 (with some of the extended ranges ones too)
70 seat E170
90 seat E190 (future)

Just think, instead of getting destroyed by B6 out of NYC to upstate New York, think how competitive Q400 service from LGA to BUF/ROC/SYR would be, and with low costs... oh well, we've never accused US management of being smart.

 

[smfav8r]

I'd rather fly on a Q than an RJ any day of the week.....Problem is not only the second tier of service perception....but also the perception of safety....

10 to 15 years ago, several turbo-props crashed including an Eagle ATR...one of the bigger and modern turbo-props...

Well, leave it to the media and Scary Mary Schiavo from the FAA (or NTSB, I can't remember) to influence the public's perception of turbo-props......

The image portrayed was the props are dangerous, they crash more, pilots aren't trained as well....blah, blah, blah, blah!!!

ALL BS, but still, the perception of safety is a major factor!

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Well, leave it to the media and Scary Mary Schiavo from the FAA (or NTSB, I can't remember) to influence the public's perception of turbo-props......

[post="273190"][/post]​

Neither..... DOT Inspector General.

 

[AtlanticBeach]

Add me to the Dash 8 fans. Comfortable and predictable is a great combination. Which also means that the B1900 in the Florida afternoons made for some bumpy, delayed or cancelled flights.

I'll take props over cars any day of the week. And also over most seats on a CRJ or ERJ.

P.S. - I miss the Florida Shuttle.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

I like WHs fleet plan, but I would just cooperate with 1900 operators, but not brand them USAirways anything. Just handle the res/marketing and leave the rest to the operator.

 

[Art at ISP]

To be frank, US was ahead of the curve--for about a week. PDT had or has 3 Dash8 Q200's--N996 or 999HA, N997HA, N998HA.

These have the new interiors, and are 200's so they have more power as well. My last ride on one was ISP-PHL, but I took it last year HHH-DCA (long leg for a Dash). My first ride on 997 was MIA-TPA LONG ago--when the noise cancelling system was still activated. It has been disabled since no one knows how to maintain it--another foolhardy attempt at cost savings.

The Q400 is much more comfortable than a jungle jet, and just about as fast too!!!! Much lower costs on short stage lengths. I would welcome the Q400's--my complaint with the old dash's are they are getting ratty and VERY noisy as they NEVER tighten the interior panels.