Turboprop vs RJ

[George Tower]

I like this thread so far...lots of thought provoking stuff

Yeah, but with an A320 you'd have only one departure instead of two!

Which may not be a disadvantage at busy airports where slots are at a premium.....this doesn't of course invalidate the argument for increased frequency, just another point to ponder into the mix

[Fat Clemenza]

Having visited some other threads dealing with the Q400, I came to notice that the latter does not seem to be very convincing reliabilty wise. Many drivers complained about it as a fragile machine eben though it offers good performance....

To make a comparison with the ATR 72 which of ocurse does not cruise as fast but offers the possibility of being operated as a full cargo cargo aircraft with the Quick Change kit, does that give it an advantage on 300 to 400NM over the Q400 and RJ's (CRJ 75)??

[FougaMagister]

Some routes may be too short to be financially rewarding using a jet (A319/320 or 737-300/700/800 or 717) due to low cruising FL; it may also only justify a smaller capacity aircraft (in the -72 to -78 seat range, such as ATR 72 or Dash8Q-400); a half-full A319 or 737-800 would not be profitable even if operated by FR or EZ. Last but not least, some of these regional routes link smaller regional airports where navaids, runways or facilities are limiting for heavy jets.

The recent high price of fuel seems to have effectively killed the 50-seater regional jet (EMB-135/145/CRJ-200) market and given a shot in the arm to modern turboprops like the Dash8Q and -500 series ATR. Bombardier themselves reckon that the Dash8Q-400's fuel burn is 28% lower than their own CRJ-700 on the same route.

Cheers

[nugpot]

Originally Posted by George Tower

Nugpot,
I'm surprised to hear the Q400 is limited at RCB - I know it gets rather warm there, but still I thought she would have been capable of hauling a load to JNB. How much runway does she use on a hot highveld day when dpearting for GRJ?

Sorry GT, I should have been clearer. The problem at RCB is two-fold. The parking area is too small for the Q400 and SAX did not buy the narrow runway supplement. The Q should be able to operate from there performance-wise.

[Fat Clemenza]

As no one showed up lately on the forum to answer me, I had a question concerning operational matters with the Q400....
Having visited some other threads dealing with the Q400, I came to notice that the latter does not seem to be very convincing reliabilty wise. Many drivers complained about it as a fragile machine even though it offers great performance. Surely, with a $21.9M list price you could expect it to be reliable...Can it be compared to a Formula 1 machine racing in a rally competition?

FC

[Dani]

Originally Posted by Crossunder

Yeah, but with an A320 you'd have only one departure instead of two! There's an advantage to offering high frequency, which is possible with the Q400.

Correct. That's why I say it's not a question of size but of yield, or market. As a network carrier, you need optimized schedules, which fit mainly for C-class pax. They pay the big money, Y-class is just to fill up the remaining seats.

LCC need volume, so minimal costs per seat. This is done by relative big aircraft. For a LCC customer, ticket price is king, departure time not so important.

That's why they would choose an Airbus/Boeing, while the network carrier would subcontract an "Express" with a turboprop or an RJ.

Concerning reliability, I think it's common that new tech has more snags than old one. Those turboprops with very powerful engines will always suffer more problems, caused also by vibration. I don't know the Q400 very well but have long experience on Saab 2000, were we had exactly the same problem.

Dani

[chornedsnorkack]

Originally Posted by Dani

Correct. That's why I say it's not a question of size but of yield, or market. As a network carrier, you need optimized schedules, which fit mainly for C-class pax. They pay the big money, Y-class is just to fill up the remaining seats.

But Y class cannot simply fill "remaining" seats... because they are different from C seats. Why have Y to begin with? Why not just have smaller planes filled with C seats only, and no Y at all?

[steamchicken]

Design study: Ultra-fuel efficient regional turboprop, 100-150 pax..

[Torquelink]

. . and Bombardier talking about a 90 seat Q400 stretch with 15% throttle push on otherwise same engines - seriously interesting smcs I would have thought

[Fat Clemenza]

Is there a possibility to transform the Q400 into a full cargo configuration like the ATR72-500 Quick Change can?

[FougaMagister]

Never flown the Dash 8Q-400 (even though I used to dispatch it all the time) and I am not aware of any QC kit or full-freighter version. The reason I guess is that it could only be used as a bulk freighter since the cabin diameter (smaller than the ATR's) wouldn't accept containers. Also, I can testify that as a PAX a/c, it can be a bugger to get "in trim", especially with a lightish load. I believe the extra performance provided by the Q-400's chunky engines is not really a "plus" for cargo ops - where speed is not as important as dispatch reliability.

Cheers

[Pontius's Copilot]

The case for large turboprops against regional jets is about to be tested in the UK.

Flybe (the world's largest Q400 fleet), having just acquired BA Connect, is to dispose of BACon's D8-300 and Emb-145 aircraft over the next two years and replace them with even more Q400s. They will be used throughout the flybe network of leisure and business traveller routes including European city-pairs, using their low-cost airline business model

Let's see what happens over the next couple of years.