US airlines' aversion to turbo-props
 

It seems that a very few American regional carriers are flying turbo-props, and more and more are flying the EMBs and the CRJs. Whereas, the turbo-props such as the ATR42/72 are highly efficient and popular in the rest of the world, what is the aversion in the US to turbo-props?

I would tend to thing with a local of regional traffic and rising fuel prices, that turbo-props would find a place among US regionals.

CO To run Turbo-props from EWR in 2008
 

See this thread

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=656486

I would think it's a couple of things:
1. The regional jets are faster - although on a short flight this is admittedly a minor difference.
2. The turbo-props are noisier and, therefore, just have more of an "outdated" feel to them. I suspect it's easier for the airlines to market the RJ because it is, after all, a jet, just a smaller one.

Having said that, personally I find some of the remaining turboprops in various US fleets to be more comfortable than most of the small RJ's, and I wouldn't mind if they came back particularly for flights of <1 hour.

They frankly scare the hell out of me. I am glad there is an aversion.

Actually, that reminds me, someone else is also going to be adding some Q400s...either Frontier or Alaska, don't recall which...

Like I said, easier to market a jet...

If you want props, fly around the south on ASA Delta Connection, they have lots of ATRs on short hops from ATL. Alternating with CRJs on many routes.

1. Flying time. A 1 hour trip on a CRJ is 1:30 on an ATR.
2. Even on a short hop the CRJ climbs to 31,000 ft. The ATR runs at about 15,000. I will not book an ATR operated leg in summer thunderstorm season for a 3 PM leg. I do not look forward to ever taking one of those rides.:D
3. It just seems a little Old Fashioned to hear the announcement "We have arrived at the gate, remain seated until someone installs the Tail Stand. If you all walk to the back of the plane, it will tip over." In this century, people used to flying widebody jets expect a plane to be somewhat stable on its own tires. A plane that needs a tail stand give me visions of Orville telling Wilber "Go prop a stick under the tail to keep the plane from tipping back".

My experience this week has been counter to what you suggest: I flew on a Saab 340 from IAD-SCE, and on a EMB 120 from SEA-PDX, both on United Express.

My perception is also somewhat swayed by my exposure to Alaska Airlines. Sitting at SEA yesterday I plane-spotted for an hour and saw countless ATRs and Dash-8s coming and going.

As for preference - both turboprops were adequately comfortable. My biggest complaint would be the noise and vibration inside compared to jets. The best part, though, is how low they generally fly. I felt like I could reach out and touch Mt. St. Helens.

I think that the facilities for maintaining different types of aircraft do vary. I mean, I doubt that Boeing technicians are allowed to do maintenance on Embraer or Airbus jets. If a company is large - like US carriers are - I am sure they may have inhouse maintenance facilities, but a jet is not a jet.

I know people at JAT technics, and they are certified to do Boeing maintenance on certain planes (B727 and B737), but not some of the larger and newer ones such as B777,B747. When processing an upgrade, the carrier takes into consideration that they can more easily "train" some of the maintenance staff from a B737-300 to let's say B737NG type. Similar goes with pilots.

My aversion to turbo props is that they're loud, vibrate too much, are slow and fly at low altitudes.

I tend to agree. I don't think the turboprop provides a very nice flight experience, generally.

Ok - but all these arguments are simply "market" perception arguments.

1) On a very short hop, I don't think that it makes much difference if it takes 1 hour for a jet, a 1.5 hours for a CRJ. After all, the routing, weather, and traffic is more likely to play a significant factor (especially ATL or any other bigger hub inbound), then the 30 minute flight time. This goes for short hops (300nm or less), over a longer hop it does make a significant difference.

2) ATR frequently cruise at FL240 which is usually above the weather. Jet's on shorter hops (i.e. LGA-BOS) go about the same level.

I agree, people in the US have bad connotations attached to the turbo-props. But I think in the era of rising fuel costs and many short routes, the turbo-prop is a more economic alternative on shorter hops.

And personally, for those who really love flying, I think that a prop can never compare to a jet!

How do "low altitudes" and "speed" impact your flight experience? You don't then mind the flight delays and sector circles that most airlines in the US run? Wasn't there a recent report that one in three flights in this country is delayed?

low altitude = bumpy

slow = longer flight

Sure, it fits the market. The bigger and the faster.

But nothing beats this now does it:

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

The cream of the crop of the US corporate class love this - it beats all the miles , clubs, and hassles. Fly higher and faster than everyone else.

Americans love SUVs too. And V8 engines. But you know what? When the fuel prices surge and it comes to pay... well, what I like and what is reasonable are two different things. If I had it my way, I'd fly the Citation X too, I'm sure its an "uber" smooth right, faster and higher than everything else.

Also, turbo-props are more environmentally friendly.

Today - fuel prices high and environment going to crap. I think it's a valid enough of an argument to make a case for use of turbo-props...