Turboprop vs RJ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: By the fridge
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turboprop vs RJ
HI everyone,
I was having a chat with a fellow pilot about the limits of turboprop aircraft profitability compared to faster narrowbody jets. There's this common idea that over 300NM an turboprops loose their advantage due to time, PAX comfort...If time is the main factor, does an RJ resolve the problem? Or will it still be profitable to operate the 320 in the same conditions? What are the limits of turboprop aircraft?
I'd like to receive your opinions about the subject.
Cheers and safe flying
I was having a chat with a fellow pilot about the limits of turboprop aircraft profitability compared to faster narrowbody jets. There's this common idea that over 300NM an turboprops loose their advantage due to time, PAX comfort...If time is the main factor, does an RJ resolve the problem? Or will it still be profitable to operate the 320 in the same conditions? What are the limits of turboprop aircraft?
I'd like to receive your opinions about the subject.
Cheers and safe flying
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that at distances up to 500Nm the economy is still on the turboprops side. Fuel burn - up to 50% less than in an RJ... Flight time? For a 500Nm sector the difference will be less then 30 minutes - not that much... Comfort? - a new ATR/Q400 isn't any worse than an old CRJ... I think the main problem is the passengers' perception. My outfit operates turboprops both on domestic flights (up to 300Nm) and some longer international routes. I noticed that although the pax seem to accept the "airplane with props", on domestic flights, they get disgruntled when they learn they're flying a turboprop abroad. Most of them really hate it. Therefore I think RJs should be used on anything longer than 250Nm - to improve company image, even at some expense of economy...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been employed in companies with both concepts, RJs, turboprop and larger 320/737, I think it depends more on the business model than on aircraft type.
Both RJ and turboprop are very similar in costs, and if you are the only one to operate a route, passenger can't do anything anyway. While there are a huge number of network carriers who operate small RJs and turboprop, there isn't any low cost who does.
Conclusion: it depends on the yield which type you can use. The higher the ticket price and the more C-class, the more RJs you can use. That's why lots of network carriers stop operating those nice CRJ-100 50 seaters, they are just too expensive. Bombardier halted prodution btw.
Regarding comfort I still think that every jet is superior to any prop. It's not only the noise, which can be handled with modern technology to a certain degree, it's also the vibration, specially in high speed. Additionally there is a higher complexity of the prop (gearbox, blades), which makes them less reliable and more difficult to handle.
Dani
Both RJ and turboprop are very similar in costs, and if you are the only one to operate a route, passenger can't do anything anyway. While there are a huge number of network carriers who operate small RJs and turboprop, there isn't any low cost who does.
Conclusion: it depends on the yield which type you can use. The higher the ticket price and the more C-class, the more RJs you can use. That's why lots of network carriers stop operating those nice CRJ-100 50 seaters, they are just too expensive. Bombardier halted prodution btw.
Regarding comfort I still think that every jet is superior to any prop. It's not only the noise, which can be handled with modern technology to a certain degree, it's also the vibration, specially in high speed. Additionally there is a higher complexity of the prop (gearbox, blades), which makes them less reliable and more difficult to handle.
Dani
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: By the fridge
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if your aim is reducing costs to the maximum and try to beat competition with that? Flying a jet on 300NM sectors doesn't make sens unless you're after prestige...but fuel prices and the volatility of the market don't give you much choice.
Bombardier claim that their Q400 can compete with narrowbody jets on 400NM sectors. Many airlines fly those distances with 737's and 320's, I have even seen some airlines flying less than 100NM sectors with those jets. Is the company image so important that you'd be willing a to pay more for your operational costs when turboprops can do the same job? Or do fares alone represent the only viable argument to passengers...Look at Flybe, they don't seem to be unhappy about their Q400's.
Bombardier claim that their Q400 can compete with narrowbody jets on 400NM sectors. Many airlines fly those distances with 737's and 320's, I have even seen some airlines flying less than 100NM sectors with those jets. Is the company image so important that you'd be willing a to pay more for your operational costs when turboprops can do the same job? Or do fares alone represent the only viable argument to passengers...Look at Flybe, they don't seem to be unhappy about their Q400's.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cape Town SA and Manchester UK
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In South AFrica, South African Express have introduced it on the Johannesburg - George route which is +/- 560nm. I'd be guessing here but depending on the winds you could be looking at an increase of 20-30 mins in journey time. There are drivers that post so you can get beter gen from them. I guess there is also the comfort factor of being at FL250 instead of 350 which given some of the wx in SA could make a good deal of difference.
With India and China showing an unprecedented demand for crude oil driving long term prices upwards, the Q400 might carve out a niche.
Rgds
GT
With India and China showing an unprecedented demand for crude oil driving long term prices upwards, the Q400 might carve out a niche.
Rgds
GT
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding comfort I still think that every jet is superior to any prop. It's not only the noise, which can be handled with modern technology to a certain degree, it's also the vibration, specially in high speed. Additionally there is a higher complexity of the prop (gearbox, blades), which makes them less reliable and more difficult to handle.
Dani
Dani
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On the right of the clowns and to the left of the jokers
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to be more specific about my original post, if I may...
RYR flies from DUB to ORK (Dublin to Cork), which is 144 NM according great circle mapper. EZY does very similar things with comaparable equipment.
According your theory this would be a perfect turboprop sector. Which, of course, it isn't, because of the volume.
Ergo it's not about turboprop or RJs, it's about passenger figures. In the USA, where sectors tend to be much longer, turboprops are used extensively also on longer routes.
Turboprop or small RJ: Most of the time this is not decided because of sector length but because of fleet availability. A company decides to buy eighter turboprops OR RJs, based on the average length of their sectors. When they have now a few sectors that are not so suitable, they wouldn't buy another aircraft type for this. Important is the overal cost, not the cost of the specific cost on this very sector.
Regarding BAe, I know this type very well, it might have problems from time to time (mainly the ball bearings, but not the gearbox), the passenger comfort is still way better than any turboprop. And my argument about easier handling in case of problems is also valid for her.
Dani
RYR flies from DUB to ORK (Dublin to Cork), which is 144 NM according great circle mapper. EZY does very similar things with comaparable equipment.
According your theory this would be a perfect turboprop sector. Which, of course, it isn't, because of the volume.
Ergo it's not about turboprop or RJs, it's about passenger figures. In the USA, where sectors tend to be much longer, turboprops are used extensively also on longer routes.
Turboprop or small RJ: Most of the time this is not decided because of sector length but because of fleet availability. A company decides to buy eighter turboprops OR RJs, based on the average length of their sectors. When they have now a few sectors that are not so suitable, they wouldn't buy another aircraft type for this. Important is the overal cost, not the cost of the specific cost on this very sector.
Regarding BAe, I know this type very well, it might have problems from time to time (mainly the ball bearings, but not the gearbox), the passenger comfort is still way better than any turboprop. And my argument about easier handling in case of problems is also valid for her.
Dani
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As George Tower has mentioned, at SA Express we operate the CRJ, DH8-300 and Q400.
For calculation purposes, you can use the following numbers for the 3 aircraft:
CRJ: TAS 420KTS, Burn (1st hour) 1500kg, 50 seats
-300: TAS 260KTS, Burn (1st hour) 700 KG, 50 seats
Q400: TAS 360KTS, Burn (1st hour) 1200 KG, 74 seats
Obviously there are other factors:
Runway requirements (we can only fly 300 into RCB)
Services (Copco, GPU, hot catering)
Purchase cost
Maintenance
Competition on route/Passenger acceptance
The CRJ is the most expensive to maintain (due to complex systems, ie. Oxygen and powerful APU for bleed starts), followed by the Q400 (full EFIS and very powerful engines) and then the 300.
Crew utilisation is another factor. If you operate a slow turboprop on long sectors, you might only be able to use your crew for 2 sectors, whereas a jet crew would be able to do the same 2 sectors and have duty left for another 2.
Frequency required to destination. Obviously a jet can do more trips to the same destination (lets say over 300nm) than a turboprop.
BTW, although the Q400 is 60KTS slower than the CRJ in the cruise, it can maintain the same speeds in the TMA and the time difference on sectors under 350nm is negligeble. Because of the extra 24 seats, the cost per seat mile is much better.
Hope my incoherent post helps.
For calculation purposes, you can use the following numbers for the 3 aircraft:
CRJ: TAS 420KTS, Burn (1st hour) 1500kg, 50 seats
-300: TAS 260KTS, Burn (1st hour) 700 KG, 50 seats
Q400: TAS 360KTS, Burn (1st hour) 1200 KG, 74 seats
Obviously there are other factors:
Runway requirements (we can only fly 300 into RCB)
Services (Copco, GPU, hot catering)
Purchase cost
Maintenance
Competition on route/Passenger acceptance
The CRJ is the most expensive to maintain (due to complex systems, ie. Oxygen and powerful APU for bleed starts), followed by the Q400 (full EFIS and very powerful engines) and then the 300.
Crew utilisation is another factor. If you operate a slow turboprop on long sectors, you might only be able to use your crew for 2 sectors, whereas a jet crew would be able to do the same 2 sectors and have duty left for another 2.
Frequency required to destination. Obviously a jet can do more trips to the same destination (lets say over 300nm) than a turboprop.
BTW, although the Q400 is 60KTS slower than the CRJ in the cruise, it can maintain the same speeds in the TMA and the time difference on sectors under 350nm is negligeble. Because of the extra 24 seats, the cost per seat mile is much better.
Hope my incoherent post helps.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cape Town SA and Manchester UK
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future Tipping Points
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?
My main question is whether any of you sages agree / disagree that should crude oil lets say double in price, we would see aircraft like the Q400 taking on longer and longer sectors e.g. 700-800nm as of course the fuel cost difference between jet and prop would then be far greater than what they are now? Note that RJ bubble coincided with <20$ per barrel oil prices....correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Embrarer are making many ERJ135/145s these days, and BA Connect seem to struggle to make money with them.
So is there a tipping point of fuel price that would see turboprops become the domiant mode of transport in short haul travel?
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?
My main question is whether any of you sages agree / disagree that should crude oil lets say double in price, we would see aircraft like the Q400 taking on longer and longer sectors e.g. 700-800nm as of course the fuel cost difference between jet and prop would then be far greater than what they are now? Note that RJ bubble coincided with <20$ per barrel oil prices....correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Embrarer are making many ERJ135/145s these days, and BA Connect seem to struggle to make money with them.
So is there a tipping point of fuel price that would see turboprops become the domiant mode of transport in short haul travel?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: By the fridge
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I confirm, Embraer know that the current oil prces have killed the whole ERJ family (according to an Embraer salesman)
Last edited by Fat Clemenza; 9th Nov 2006 at 14:38.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Density vs. fuel price
Letī s have a look at it this way:
Suppose we have a high-volume shorthaul route. Why not use turboprops there?
If a route is capable of supporting 1 150-seat B737 or A319 narrowbody jet having n flights in a day, the same passenger volume might alternatively be transported with 2n 75-seat ATR-72 turboprop flights, which because of longer legs and slower rotation would require 3 or 4 airframes and cockpit crews.
Would those 2n flights burn significantly less fuel than the n B737 or A319 flights do?
And would the difference in fuel prices compensate for the pay of extra crews, and perhaps maintenance and capitalization of the larger number of airframes?
Bombardier is said to be trying to stretch Dash-8. Would there be a market for a new-design 100...150 seat turboprop?
Suppose we have a high-volume shorthaul route. Why not use turboprops there?
If a route is capable of supporting 1 150-seat B737 or A319 narrowbody jet having n flights in a day, the same passenger volume might alternatively be transported with 2n 75-seat ATR-72 turboprop flights, which because of longer legs and slower rotation would require 3 or 4 airframes and cockpit crews.
Would those 2n flights burn significantly less fuel than the n B737 or A319 flights do?
And would the difference in fuel prices compensate for the pay of extra crews, and perhaps maintenance and capitalization of the larger number of airframes?
Bombardier is said to be trying to stretch Dash-8. Would there be a market for a new-design 100...150 seat turboprop?
chorny,
True, but lets say he route in question is mainly used by business travellers. They want to be able to get from A-B in the morning, then home to A again that night, so will pay a premium for a more frequent service.
Basically, it all comes down to delta$, what's the most profitable combination of speed, size and frequency. It will be different for a particular route for any number of reasons, and change with different circumstances (like the way fuel prices are seeing once desirable 50 seat jets gatering sand in the desert), but there is never one easy answer.
True, but lets say he route in question is mainly used by business travellers. They want to be able to get from A-B in the morning, then home to A again that night, so will pay a premium for a more frequent service.
Basically, it all comes down to delta$, what's the most profitable combination of speed, size and frequency. It will be different for a particular route for any number of reasons, and change with different circumstances (like the way fuel prices are seeing once desirable 50 seat jets gatering sand in the desert), but there is never one easy answer.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note that there was a time it took less than four hours to cross the Atlantic, if one of the two daily flights was at a suitable time. But subsonic flights of over 7 hours are so much more frequent, cheaper and more comfortable that the market for SST is hard to find...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, remember that because of their cost structure, LCCs typically need a load factor in excess of 70% to make money on a given route. Can't say for the ATR 72, but I recall that 28 PAX are enough to break even on a (78 seat) Dash 8Q-400 on a typical sector. That's a load factor of 36%...
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the answer: If a Q400 uses 1200kg/h than two of them use 2400, which is about the FF of a A320. With the same seat pitch you can load 180 pax on an Airbus/737.
Price of a Dash might be above 20M$, so it's also more capital consuming than a narrow body jet. Because of the sheer volume Airbus/Boeing are producing, they can offer at any price with lower maintenance cost.
If a 150 turboprop would consume less is another question. It leads to the old unducted fan projects (performed by McDo and Embraer), but mechanical problems never got solved. Also the Saab 2000 was an excellent solution, but got killed by the low fuel price then. Remember that Embraer 145's first design was also a turboprop. btw I think that Embraers bigger RJs make still good results and are sold very well. Mainly in the 190/195 size, where they will be slowly replacing F100s, old generation 737 and A318/319.
Dani
Price of a Dash might be above 20M$, so it's also more capital consuming than a narrow body jet. Because of the sheer volume Airbus/Boeing are producing, they can offer at any price with lower maintenance cost.
If a 150 turboprop would consume less is another question. It leads to the old unducted fan projects (performed by McDo and Embraer), but mechanical problems never got solved. Also the Saab 2000 was an excellent solution, but got killed by the low fuel price then. Remember that Embraer 145's first design was also a turboprop. btw I think that Embraers bigger RJs make still good results and are sold very well. Mainly in the 190/195 size, where they will be slowly replacing F100s, old generation 737 and A318/319.
Dani
Aviator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norveg
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the answer: If a Q400 uses 1200kg/h than two of them use 2400, which is about the FF of a A320. With the same seat pitch you can load 180 pax on an Airbus/737.
Complex stuff...