That would be Frontier.

It's really about distance. SAN-LAX or PDX-SEA are all on turbo-props. AFIK, the same is true of other 1-200 mile routes. Such planes make sense for such distances, but for longer routes the increased flying time becomes an issue.

I flew Bristol- Glasgow a lot in the late 90s - on turbo-props. It was simply not viable for a day-trip as a result. I now do SAN-SJC daytrips (~30% greater distance) on RJs and usually don't even have to take the last flight home.

I have no problem with either type of plane, so long as it makes sense for the route. Portland shuttle is fine, but I would resort flying WN if AA tried to use turbo props for SAN-SJC.

Well, I am trying to gauge if the choice of a regional jet versus a turbo-prop of the major US airlines is based on distance/consumption/maintenance, i.e. the cost/benefit factors, or based on the publics perception that turbo-props are slow, load, unsafe, etc...

Or perhaps it's a combination of both. There are some airlines that only consist of turbo-props that fly longer routes. I think that can be quiet paintful and slow. Olympic, for example, flies a turboprop on the ATH - BEG route, ATR72, and the flight is a painful 2 hours, 20 minutes. JAT flies the same route with the B733 and it's a little over an hour. People (when they can) prefer the jet.

However, another route I mentioned earlier TIV-BEG is about 45 minutes with a jet and 1 hour with a turbo-prop. In that case (200-250 nm) it makes sense to use the turbo-prop if the capacity and consumption requirements are such.

Interesting how many perspectives on this thread. I would jump for joy if UA would offer an EMB120 turboprop SAN-SJC and would take it over the alternatives.

[quote=cblaisd]Feels more like "real" flying and reminds me of.. /quote]

Nice to see somebody else in here who 'gets it' ;)
Sometime I'll tell y'all what it's like to sit right-seat in a DC-3. ^

/.

Yeah -- what he said. In spade! :)

I don't know, one of the finest flights I've ever taken was in an American Eagle turboprop from MIA to EYW (Miami to Key West); a window seat 9,000 feet above the Florida Keys on a perfect day for flying.

Back in the early 80s, I flew on an Air France turboprop from Martinique to Guadaloupe. We flew through (not over, not around) a thunderstorm. I will not, under any circumstances, fly in anything smaller than an MD-80.

As they say, YMMV. I like small planes with props. I've even flown aerobatics in an open-cockpit biplane and had a blast. (Yes, they were intentional aerobatics, too, and my only stick time that day was the straight and level part.)

It goes beyond perception. The difference between 60 and 90 minutes has very substantial practical implications. That extra 30 minutes can easily mean not being able to connect to the last transcon/midcon of the day. Besides, I'll take 30 extra minutes with my wife & kids over bouncing around in a turboprop any day.

As far as connections go, it's unfair to pint-point the actual speed versus travel time in making or not making a connection. If the flight and connection times fit, I would imagine you would try schedule it that way regardless of the flight time or the type of prop.

30 minutes extra is gracious I agree, but the chances are flight delays caused by the airline/traffic/weather are more likely to play factor that an difference in flight time in the real world.

Bouncing around is very subjective term, again based on perception as to what the turbo-props are. Sure, they are not fun when flying through thunderstorms, but then it is up to the routing of the company/pilot to determine the best course of action.

I am sure every jet would like to be cleared to FL350 and above to avoid turbulence and make the flight comfortable for the passengers, but in the real world this is often not possible given traffic congestion, routing, weather, flight distance, etc.

Sure there will be variances from the scheduled time, but those would apply equally to both types of planes, right? Thus, on average, you're looking at an extra 30 minutes. That's not a night/day difference, I agree. Still, it can be very significant.

As for scheduling around the extra time in a turboprop, that's not always possible. I'm sure I could find lots of itineraries that were impossible with the old turboprops, but are now possible with the CRJs. For example, last year I caught an afternoon flight on a CRJ from Rhinelander, Wisc. to MSP. I just barely caught the last midcon to SFO. I suspect that in the old days, the turboprop arrived at MSP too late to catch the last flight to SFO.

On what is this fear based? Is it claustrophobia or something else?

Otherwise unmentioned here has technological obsolescence. Turboprop (engine) R&D has been minimal in the last wod decades, while turbofans have become lighter, smaller and more economical. Other than STOL ops or very short legs, turboprops will likely soon disappear, but I don't think we'll be commuting in V22s any time soon.

I seriously doubt that turbo-props will disappear. Maybe R&D design on the engines have slowed, but the newest turbo-prop avionics are just as advanced as the jet planes. And they are produced and sold in masses.

Environmental issues, fuel consumption, remote area airports, rugged and short runways, there is plenty of market for turbo-props.

The perception of turbo-props in the US differs significantly from the rest of the world.