If costs are a real issue. . .
then why haven’t we seen more purchases of turboprop aircraft for commuter and regional routes? After all, they make sense in that they can offer block times comparable to regional jets for routes 500nm and less. They can take off from less used runways and they have operating costs that are as much as 60% less than the equivalent regional jets. They’re quiet and vibration free and cost less to purchase. And they continue to be used for such routes in many other parts of the world.
I wish I could guess that the problem was scope clauses but it isn’t. Most of these aircraft fit well within the existing scope clauses and I think pilots would accept more turbo-prop flying in their scope clauses if it was asked.
I think the problem is inertia. Airlines got away from turboprops as the first generation regional jets arrived and the customer feedback was exceptionally good. What airlines lost sight of is that the turboprop world changed around the same time and for much the same reasons.
It’s a marketing issue, I think. Airlines haven’t figured out how to sell such a flight and I don’t know why. I’m pretty sure that no one is going to shy away from a lower price and the airlines can offer a lower price *and* make more money with these aircraft.
The one other obstacle is that it takes a leader to see the possibilities and adopt the model. Airlines aren’t managed by leaders anymore. They’re managed by finance men and finance men see the adoption of these aircraft as risk. Why? They’re afraid people will avoid them in favor of regional jets offered by others.
I maintain that it’s a price driven world out there and adopting these aircraft will allow an airline to lower prices, offer the same connections and earn more money. Ironically, if one wanted proof of this, one only has to look at how Horizon Airlines has rejected the regional jet and flown its Dash 8 / Q400 aircraft in support of Alaska Airlines and made a nice patch of money doing it. Stranger still, Horizon is using these aircraft for fairly long flights. Some in excess of the 500nm mile advantage.
So the question is: if costs are a real issue, why aren’t airlines working harder to use the right equipment and earn more?
Turboprops aren’t “glamorous.”
-R
(who is also not…)
Gregory, here’s a thought experiment for you. You want to set up an airline in a third world country and you need to start with 3 aircraft. There are 3 major cities within a 200m radius and a populous capital 650m away. The major trunk routes are from the capital to 2 of the three cities. The climate is hot and humid.
Bearing in mind the cost of leasing and ops should be minimised, what equipment would you use and why?
That, my friend, is tougher to answer than it looks on first glance. I’ll give it some thought and respond.
AF, you get your answer at 1:00am CDT tomorrow or in about 3.5 hours. Thanks for the challenge!