You need to replace 'higher wing loading' (in terms of weight per wing area) by 'lower wing loading'. Your statement on turbulence is otherwise correct. The other main component is of course cruising altitude, lower having more thermal activity.

I love turboprops on short flights, especially the Dash-8 series. I hate landings on a CRj200 (and they are/were built in my home town). Like someone already mentioned they don't have leading-edge devices. It makes for higher approach/landing speeds and longer rollouts. The part I really really hate though is the nose-low attitude during approach, unlike most jets. It makes for a large last-minute attitude change during the flare. Very noticeable if you're sitting near the front. Even then most pilots wind up landing flat, on all 3 wheels at the same time.

I was thinking about when airplanes have to circle near an airport, not about where the corridors between cities get congested. In the former situation, wouldn't a CRJ be able to use more altitudes than a turboprop, and thus be less likely to get a diversion order?

If you can't already tell, I don't really know anything about this. I'm just guessing.

I didn't say that the prop aircraft are actually more dangerous than large or jumbo jets, I just think that is certainly the perception by most of the public, accurate or not.

Again, LarryJ can give a definitive answer, but my understanding is that both the airlines and the FAA try very hard not to have planes have to hold enroute, and when they do the further from the destination the better, generally speaking. Thus "ground stops" and "flow" (that wonderful thing northern Californians who fly ex-SFO know so well).

When planes are held enroute, they fly an oval "racetrack" pattern that is published over a particular navigational aid (a VOR station, e.g.). Planes that are holding over that particular fix are separated, iirc, by 1000 feet vertically. It can get complicated when you have a mix of traffic holding. As the weather either clears out or gets worse, the planes are released from the (usually) bottom of the "stack" to the destination airport (and the others drop a "level"), or, if they are going to exceed their minimums for enroute fuel (a certain amount is required to be in the airplane at landing -- or at least planned to be!) they are vectored off to an alternate.

None of that exactly answers your question, and some of it may be outdated from this lapsed VFR-only pilot

Was it the OU (Croatia Airlines) ATR42 you flew in? Or the EMB-120 that used to be flow by SkyEurope? Or the Dash8 from Austrian/Tyrolean airways?

Even in a [to most Americans] little known place as Dubrovnik you get plenty of prop traffic. And no, Dubrovnik is not obscenely remote, it gets jet traffic as well, it's just there is a point in airlines above choosing to fly turbo-props on these short haul routes!

Ok - the point is perception. Again, some other posters pointed out the the accident rate of a commuter turbo-prop is on par if not better than jets. Taking statistical significance into consideration, then all it is perception...

And perception that is obviously wrong. It's like saying that people buy SUV's because they feel they are safer. But there is more than a handful of SUV's that have a safety record far worse off than other regular vehicles. Again, perceptions that are deceiving and are wrong.

Turbo-prop versus a regional jet, there is no proven discrepancy between safety, but as this thread proves there is a difference in perception. At least here in the US.

About the press thing. How many DC-10's did fatally crash with many, many more fatalities right here in the US, and did the US majors drop carrying them? No, it proved to me a very successful long-haul aircraft well liked by the US majors and flow many, many times more than the ATR transcontinental. And yet every year on Discovery channel thy shall not forget to air the Sioux City crash.

I am skeptical about the aircraft getting bad press. The US (and to a certain extent international) press a bad way of spinning their lack of knowledge, or facts for that matter when it comes to aviation disasters. Especially when it comes to something like, for example, the Russian jets. Does anyone remember the Tu-154 and DHL B752 crash a few years back? Before the facts were in the press was "all over" Russian reliability and ...... Russian jets...

It is then crappy routing by the pilot/company/ATC and not the turbo-prop at fault. Jets have much higher decent/ascent rates, angle of attack etc. Try going on a jet with a fault in pressurization system and what how your ears explode over turbulance.

The prop can fly at 35k feet?

I'm not concerned with clearing my ears -- I'm a certified scuba diver and can do it easily, notwithstanding a faulty pressurization system on a commercial jet (which I've never experienced in a lifetime of flying). This has nothing to do with the ride, which is what I don't like. Thanks to those who've posted the material on wing loading -- I now understand why turboprops (and many smaller commuter jets) are more sensitive to turbulence. That confirms my decision to avoid them (and explains my hell-flight from Martinique to Guadaloupe).

Nothing happens overnight - yet your bolded paragraph assumes they do.

Hundreds of RJs were ordered during the 1990s, when jet fuel bounced around between $0.55/gal and $0.75/gal; even though RJs are less fuel efficient than turboprops, at those cheap fuel prices, it didn't seem to matter.

Even before fuel spiked in price, the days of the 50 seat RJ were over - Boyd and other analysts correctly saw the evolution toward 70-100 seat RJs instead.

If jet fuel stays at or near $2.00/gal for the long term, I expect to see more turboprops replace the 50 seat CRJs.

The aversion to turboprops? Doppy said it better than I could.

Another historical factor with which you may not be familiar is that for older flyers (like me), turboprops replaced DC-9s and 737s in many smaller to medium sized markets after the 1978 deregulation of USA domestic air travel. In the 1960s and 1970s, many of us were spoiled by those RJs (737s and DC-9s) which even featured First Class, in and out of cities that now are lucky to see 50 seat CRJs (and no mainline service on any airline).

For some of us, the sight of those turboprops triggers anger - as in "I used to sit in F on that route on a 737, and now it's a lousy 46 seat ATR."

That is a very good point. Kind of analogous to what I feel today when I see a CRJ200 replace a 737 or A320 on a route.

Exactly. I agree completely. Doesn't matter to me where it was designed/built: it was one of the rare design flaw-caused crashes in modern times (as opposed to the much more common pilot error crashes). Five years later, AA experienced a huge tragedy attributed to design flaw and pilot error: the A300-600 crash at JFK.

American Eagle pulled the ATRs from cold-weather climates for almost a year following the 1994 crash. In some markets, AA reinstated mainline F100 service and in others, Saab A340s replaced the ATRs.

By the time the ATRs returned to cold weather stations the following year, AA was negotiating with the pilots to add the ERJ in fairly large numbers. As soon as the ERJs were delivered, the ATRs were shunted off to MIA to serve the Caribbean destinations where icing shouldn't be as big a concern. The 46 seaters were sold to FedEx - dunno whether FedEx has any interest in the 64-66 seat Super ATRs.

I flew to Dubrovnik on Croatia Airlines turboprop. That was a smooth nice trip. But I was on one in Scandanavia that was not. And it was scarring. The flight attendant could never get up and had that sort of worried expression on her face that had us gripping our chairs. We all bolted down the airstairs with such glee to be alive!

Typo fixed, thanks.

Airplanes don't get "diversion orders' (9/11/01 excepted). A flight holds until it's crew requests a destination change to a diversionary airport. That generally doesn't occur until the fuel remaining has reach a point where they no longer have extra fuel to spend holding or when they believe that the hold will last longer than their holding fuel. ATC will let them stay in the hold indefinitely.

Most? I don't know. Many? Definitely. That's why I was trying to determine the reason for the stated fear and provide the applicable facts.

Turbulence, even in an unpressurized airplane, won't produce a pressure change that could be felt in your ears.

The turboprops can, and do, climb above the turbulence on most days. On the very short flights both jets and turboprops will be stuck down in the bumps. Of course, there are other days, more common in the winter, when the smooth air is down at the turboprop's typical altitude while it's bumpy up high. Hot weather is when the jet has it's biggest advantage in finding smoother rides.

I worked for one of the then five American Eagle carriers at that time. I was 'drafted' by my chief pilot to spend a fun-filled week at a Sabre terminal re-doing the schedules of our displaced Saab pilots onto their new ORD and JFK routes. What a mess that was! I don't recall it lasting for an entire year, though.

You missed a point.