Because people, Americans anyway, are mostly about progress and technological advanement in most all areas, which generally translates to something being "better." In this case, turbo prop planes scream outdated, old fashioned, dangerous and inferior. There is just no denying that perception, here in the US anyway. And I think it doesn't help that you hear much more often of plane crashes involving smaller planes and it just gives people, myself included, a far greater sense of unease. I have flown on a number of them in Europe and I found them to be cramped and very loud. When the weather was nice the view was really gorgeous, especially coming into Dubrovnik, but I'll wait and look at the place when I get there if I ever have to deal with bad weather on one of those, and I have, and it was completely terrifying.

Do you have a citation for the actual rate of "small" plane airline crashes versus "big" pure-jet ones? I think you'll find the reality is that there is little signifcant difference, and, in fact, by some measures "small" turboprop-jets are in fact safer.

Are you including in what you "hear much more often" stories about 2- and 4-seater Cessnas and Pipers et al? The news media love those stories and will pick them up from thousands of miles away, despite the fact that one small plane crash usually has fewer injuries and fatalities than the crash on the adjacent freeway that day at rush hour.

Finally, re the safety thing, Regional Jets are marketed as being somehow "safer" and more like "real" flying. But, everything else being equal, give me an EMB120 turboprop any day over a CRJ200 -- what makes me nervous in a CRJ200 (besides the almost inhumane seating arrangements and the window level made for midgets) is that it has no leading edge devices to lower the approach speed. If you're ever landing on either the 25s or the 24s at LAX, compare sometime how much longer the rollout is in a CRJ200 than an EMB120. Again, everything else being equal, I feel safer in a plane with a slower approach speed.

If one is nervous about "small" turboprops, why not the same nervousness when flying, say, an A319 or A320 "real" jet? Compared to, say, a 777, the size and weight of an A320 isn't that much different in scale to comparing a small turboprop to an A320.

Only to those who know little about them. The technology advancements present in airplanes such as the ATR, Saab 340, Dash 8, etc. may not be evident to the layman but they certainly exist.

The accident rate for part 121 turboprops has often been better than the rate for part 121 jets. The rates for either type are very good and quite similar.

Claustrophobia I can understand. A fear of the safety of these airplanes I can not.

--- edited in response to LarryJ's post---I would bet that you're still much safer flying on a turboprop than you are driving to the airport.

To the OP's general question, though, I'd note that the safety perception is very, very strong in the USA. There are millions of people who never would or did fly on turboprops who will, or do fly on RJs. The broad adoption here was widely considered to be based on those perception issues. Your points about fuel efficiency are well taken, and one would expect that airlines might try harder to bring them back for routes they figure they could fill. As you can see from the responses, though, I think it's safe to say that Americans (at least think they) value safety above all else, and if it means flying a more costly plane, then so be it.

In any case, I don't think the average American has any idea that ATR is French. What they DO know however is that one had icing problems and crashed.

LarryJ - do you think that's accurate for the totality of turboprops v jets?

Well who wants to spend another 30 minutes on a slower plane after having already been delayed for an hour because of traffic or weather?

Turboprops also have fewer options because of their limitations, which can thus make weather delays worse.

As one who will not fly on turboprops for any reason, I want to clarify: I don't think they're significantly less safe than commuter jets, "old fashioned" or anything like that. I don't like the ride. Period. I hate turbulence and, particularly, rapid changes of altitude, i.e. sudden drops and "elevator" such as you get with mountain rollers. Some people like roller coasters. I don't.

Indeed. I would think (but I don't claim to know) that the altitude and speed limitations would make a diversion more likely for a turboprop. In bad congestion, ATC can put the CRJ in more places than a turboprop.

I think -- LarryJ could confirm or show me I'm incorrect -- that in some cases the minimum landing distance of a CRJ200 is actually longer than a B737-300

Actually, it's often the opposite.

The turboprops fly at lower altitudes on the arrivals and departures to major airports. Since the regional industry has transitioned more to jets than turboprops the turboprop altitudes are generally less congested while the jet altitudes are now clogged with both mainly and regional jets.

That's a good reason, too, but it's not "fear" which was mentioned earlier.

An airplane's ride through turbulence is determined by it's wing loading (weight per area of wing), not by it's engine. The turboprops, however, generally have lower wing loading which does produce a bumpier ride in turbulence.

No, I wouldn't think so. The turboprop's altitudes are less congested so I'd think that the opposite would be true. The turboprop also has more options with regard to the runways that it can use.

Just flew SAN-LAX in an UA turboprop, and it was an enjoyable ride. Yes it was noisier, and if a person is afraid of flying, I wouldn't put him/her in one.

I'll second the notion that turboprops got phased out due to 1) icing-induced crashes in the 80's and 2) perception that jet is more advanced.

Turboprops at SAN fly out of the Commuter Terminal, which is pleasantly empty compared to Terminal 1 and 2.

Interestingly, I don't know if it's perceived (noise) or real, but the EMB on takeoff felt like it had higher acceleration than any CRJ or Boeing/Airbus. I was pushed back into my seat, and for me it was great fun - to cruise along at lower altitude and gaze at the Californian coastline.

Lastly, these EMBs seem to takeoff and land on a dime. I can see congested airports pave a short runway just for them. A win-win situation since they would not compete for either cruising alt nor takeoff/landing slots.

I always hear the term "wing loading" in discussions about turbulence. Exactly how does that work? Do planes with larger wings compared to their weight feel turbulence more? Less? Inquiring minds want to know. :)

I'll second that request for info, and any references (web, book, magazines) on causes/effects/remediation of clear-air turbulence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading

Second to last paragraph addresses ride in turbulance.