Turboprop Resurgence

[ngneer]

I, for one until reading the recent articles and looking at the Q400 website, was on the opinion that "jet" always meant better, "prop" meant "not jet" and therefore something I don't want to ride.

[post="273285"][/post]​

Back when turboprops were something new, airlines often called them jets. For instance, the late Capital Airlines advertised its Vickers Viscounts as jets.

Sample Capital Airlines advertisement

 

[jimcfs]

Here it is. This should help to explain.

http://www.q400.com/q400/en/quiet.jsp

[post="273295"][/post]​

Thank you very much! That explains it well... with pictures too!!!

 

[ITRADE]

For years, I've advocated the Q300 and Q400 - from an operational standpoint. The speeds of a ERJ on short runs (i.e., less than 150 miles) yield negligible time savings in comparison to a RJ. CLT AVL is about 45-50 minutes on a -200 or -300 DH8 and about 42-48 minutes in the ERJ. Fuel savings will be much greater.

That being said, a lot of business passengers WILL NOT fly in turbos. I was in DAY last week with one of the partners. We had a choice of flying UA from IAD to DAY or US from DCA to DAY. IAD is closer to both the partner's home and my home. But, because the UA flights were SF340s, the partner would NOT fly out of IAD. And he is a UA Premier Exec.

 

[Art at ISP]

For years, I've advocated the Q300 and Q400 - from an operational standpoint. The speeds of a ERJ on short runs (i.e., less than 150 miles) yield negligible time savings in comparison to a RJ. CLT AVL is about 45-50 minutes on a -200 or -300 DH8 and about 42-48 minutes in the ERJ. Fuel savings will be much greater.

That being said, a lot of business passengers WILL NOT fly in turbos. I was in DAY last week with one of the partners. We had a choice of flying UA from IAD to DAY or US from DCA to DAY. IAD is closer to both the partner's home and my home. But, because the UA flights were SF340s, the partner would NOT fly out of IAD. And he is a UA Premier Exec.

[post="273328"][/post]​

ITRADE,

The reason that he probably woudn't fly the 340 is that it is small, noisy and uncomfortable. The Q series Dash has a larger interior than the jungle jet or the CRJ, and is quiet and efficient. You'd never know there were propellers outside.

What this comes down to is a failure of marketing departments to EDUCATE the customers. Most FF's think of turboprops as B-1900's or the OLD Dash 8's. If you promote the Q series properly, and explain things (like was done to Jim herein), you could eliminate much of the negative sentiment. Unfortunately this has not been done.

 

[FM2436]

What many do not realize, is that in many cases, the Q400 is faster than a RJ or large jet being able to keep a more direct routing down low. When that advantage is not there, the Q 400 arrives only a few minutes after a jet would on the majority of the routes flown around the NE.

Great Idea, but I will be surprised to see it.

[post="273251"][/post]​

I don't know what the longest route is that Piedmont flies their Dash-8s but I have flown on the SBY to CLT flight several times without any complaints. Maybe is just me but I'm certain the 300s are quieter than the 100s and 200s. Does the engine set any further out on the wing than the 100s, 200s? When they use the 100s flight time is around 1:40-50, but when they use the 300s flight time is around 1:10-20. And each time I've flown the flight, the aircraft is packed.

 

[jimcfs]

What this comes down to is a failure of marketing departments to EDUCATE the customers. Most FF's think of turboprops as B-1900's or the OLD Dash 8's. If you promote the Q series properly, and explain things (like was done to Jim herein), you could eliminate much of the negative sentiment. Unfortunately this has not been done.

[post="273334"][/post]​

Or the old J31s. Now you know why I don't often fly out of my home markets BLF/BKW. I'd rather drive to CRW, ROA, GSO or TRI to avoid the little turboprops.

Then again, the main reason I fly from elsewhere is Art's sig line (It's the fares, stupid!!).

 

[TBONEJ4J]

Most FF's think of turboprops as B-1900's or the OLD Dash 8's. If you promote the Q series properly, and explain things (like was done to Jim herein), you could eliminate much of the negative sentiment. Unfortunately this has not been done.

[post="273334"][/post]​

Exactly right, Art. Marketing is the problem, not the Q series product.

Bottom line - if it's roomy, fast and quiet, what passenger cares about the powerplant? It's all about the fares then.

 

[dasher]

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.

[post="273197"][/post]​

PDT has about 10 DH8-200s. It is true that the "Q" system was disabled. For what its worth, it was and is a misguided attempt at standardization. Not for maintenance though.... It was to keep the passengers from wondering why and what was wrong with the other DH8s that they were so loud!

Go figure. They were actually trying to provided a standardized product.

 

[FWAAA]

It was to keep the passengers from wondering why and what was wrong with the other DH8s that they were so loud!

Go figure. They were actually trying to provided a standardized product.

[post="273443"][/post]​

If some must be loud, then all loud must be.

 

[Art at ISP]

PDT has about 10 DH8-200s. It is true that the "Q" system was disabled. For what its worth, it was and is a misguided attempt at standardization. Not for maintenance though.... It was to keep the passengers from wondering why and what was wrong with the other DH8s that they were so loud!

Go figure. They were actually trying to provided a standardized product.

[post="273443"][/post]​

Then let them standardize on the BETTER product not the inferior one.

Oh right..it's CCY--and that's a GOOD idea.

 

[flyin2low]

Oh right..it's CCY--and that's a GOOD idea.

No, it's just Salisbury.

 

[JS]

For years, I've advocated the Q300 and Q400 - from an operational standpoint. The speeds of a ERJ on short runs (i.e., less than 150 miles) yield negligible time savings in comparison to a RJ. CLT AVL is about 45-50 minutes on a -200 or -300 DH8 and about 42-48 minutes in the ERJ. Fuel savings will be much greater.

That being said, a lot of business passengers WILL NOT fly in turbos. I was in DAY last week with one of the partners. We had a choice of flying UA from IAD to DAY or US from DCA to DAY. IAD is closer to both the partner's home and my home. But, because the UA flights were SF340s, the partner would NOT fly out of IAD. And he is a UA Premier Exec.

[post="273328"][/post]​

Well, you can't please everyone. Besides, for every person who drives 50 miles out of the way to avoid airline A, there is another person who drives 50 miles out of the way in the other direction to avoid airline B.

People will #### and moan but after a certain point, economics will force them to fly on a turboprop, just as economics is finally making the SUV too expensive to drive, bringing back the fuel-efficient car from the brink of extinction.

 

[FM2436]

Nothing new but an interesting quote from Michael Boyd in his July 5 Hot Flash about a possible interest in turboprops.

Turboprops: Some New Interest In Old Airplanes. There is the possibility that skyrocketing prices for fuel might kindle interest in a return of 30 - 50 seat turboprops within mega-carrier systems. (That's fully code-shared, and not independently-branded operators, a concept that a few sleazy consultants are trying to sell to some small airports.) On the plus side: mega carriers will need increased feed revenues, and the traffic from a fleet of well-run turboprops could be of value. On the downside: these airplanes are getting old, and maintenance is an issue. Also, higher jet-A costs could shortstop the concept, even with better fuel efficiency. Finally, the consumer might not buy into all this, still preferring to avoid anything with a propeller.

http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm

 

[ringmaruf]

One thing I do think US has done well recently is in standardizing the turboprop product.

In the last few years, US turboprop operators have included Piedmont, Allegheny, PSA, Colgan, Air Midwest, Mesa, CCAir, Chautauqua, Trans States, Shuttle America. That's 10 airlines, and I probably missed one or two. And they flew the Beech 1900, Jetstream 31, Jetstream 41, Saab 340, Dornier 328, Dash 8-100/200, Dash 8-300. That's 7 different types of aircraft, 2 in the 19-seat category, 4 in the 30-to-37 seat, and 1 in the 50-seat category.

Now, they've got it down to just Piedmont operating the Dash, Air Midwest operating the Beech, and Colgan operating the Beech and the Saab.

I think this helps customers who were never really sure what turboprop product to expect.

Of course, they then went out and hired 47 different RJ operators, operating every type known to man.

 

[a320av8r]

I depend on Piedmont and the DH8 to get to work.
I like both very much and, frankly, would rather ride the Dash than the ERJ any time. (Especially the -300.)