Why are US Airlines Ditching Turboprops? | Aviation Deep Dive
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- In recent decades, turboprops have nearly disappeared from commercial service in the United States. In this Deep Dive, we take a look at the reasons behind this shift and what this means for the future of regional aviation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use the code AIRWAYS10 for 10% off your next purchase at airlineemploye...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Video: Will Kibbe
Thumbnail: ATR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Airways on Social Media:
Twitter: / airwaysmagazine
Facebook: / airwaysmagazine
Instagram: / airwaysmagazine
LinkedIn: / airways-magazine
Website: airwaysmag.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#airwaysmag #aviation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is That You or Are You You by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommon...
Source: chriszabriskie....
Artist: chriszabriskie....
Mario Bava Sleeps In a Little Later Than He Expected To by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommon...
Source: chriszabriskie....
Artist: chriszabriskie....
I was immediately saddened to see the title of this video, then even sadder when I heard that they have a reputation for being louder, more cramped, and outdated... because they are beautiful planes and I love them!!
Nothing can be more crowded than present day planes -- of course if you are willing pay thousands of dollars for upgrades then you get a bit more room.
I highly agree. Turboprops have such a cool and iconic look and sound to them
Exactly. Same. I loved flying turbo props. Flew in them all the time growing up and some since. But they got harder and harder to find. Now nonexistent sadly. But also good to be safer too, so a trade off.
Ew no, they look ugly. Have you seen a jet engine?
I fly because it's too far to drive in 1 day. Short haul airlines use a lot of propeller planes. Not a pleasant experience.
I never knew people don't fly airlines because of propellor planes. I always thought people picked the cheapest tickets!
@Sky Honkler You are one of them sir.
But there are many aviation enthusiast who tend to pick their favorite aircraft type and avoid others. How is that not the same?
@Sky Honkler They are not stupid they got a freedom of choosing.
I think it’s both - the general public will pick the cheapest ticket and have no idea what “Bombardier Dash-8 Q400 or similar type” means on their itinerary.
However, after LANDING, they will forever have that image of x/y/z airline flying “scary little propeller planes!!!” into their memory. THAT is the image the airlines were trying to remove I think - improving the passenger experience and perception of their airline.
I don’t agree with it, but I’m also a gear head and love prop planes of all types and have no issues flying in a 75-year-old WWII torpedo bomber with 14 cylinders and a 13.5’ prop, so I’m probably the wrong one to ask anyways. 🤣
There's paper on the "Turboprop aversion hypothesis" that suggests it's mostly a myth, it might just be with data from Brazil though.
There isn't one dash 8 fatal crash in America that's due to the aircraft malfunctioning. That seems like one impeccable safety record to me.
I could see one possible factor making the jets safer even if the turboprops never have any safety-impacting malfunctions, which is that jets fly higher and thus are less likely to be impacted by weather. But most weather-related crashes are around takeoff or landing, not in cruise, so I doubt this would make a notable difference anyway.
Meanwhile the 737 has crashed 108 times
@@relaxingnature2617 You mean twice
@@H.R.King. How did it crash only twice when the B737 was introduced around the golden age of flying. Basically when people were still understanding aviation safety? Or the world only is 5 years old in your mind?
@@MasterofBlitz I thought the comment said the 737max
The most memorable flight I ever took was on a Northwest turboprop. It had a deicing issue so we flew low. They went around the cabin and asked everyone their weight saying “we need you to be honest.” Flying that low for so long you really got to enjoy the scenery. It felt like flying in the 1940s.
That would have been a neat experience.
In what year did Southwest fly turboprops?
@@khanhd716 No idea because it Northwest not Southwest. I’ve fixed in my comment.
Romigi, exactly! So much charming! Flying Lisbon to Porto in an a320/319 is just plain boring... In a 737-800 is just torture but in an ATR..... it's wonderful! You can see everything and really appreciate the trip!
Same thing flying over seas, fly over the Atlantic in any jet and it is bring, fly over it with a turboprop and it is amazing!
Oh, I wonder how many people got offended by that question and thought they had the right not to answer that or that being asked that in public was an invasion of their privacy 🤣
If I was there, I would have to ask the flight attendant for a scale... I never know how much I weight
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod The men didn’t care but the first woman she asked hesitated and she had to say “you can whisper it to me.”
On a flight under 400 miles, the turboprop is ideal. Excellent short field takeoff, lots of power at low speeds. Love em.
As for turboprops, the planes are safe, fuel efficient, fast and great for short flights. There MAJOR problem in most cases is they are run by small airlines with big airlines name painted on the fuselage, being flown by low time pilots as compared to the major airlines. And the general public has no idea.
Like the Colgan (Continental) Air flight 3407 that crashed near me.
There is some truth to the safety issue, though. Turboprops lack a shroud around the blades to contain them in the event of a hub or blade failure. This means there is nothing to prevent them from perforating the fuselage. Even with proper maintenance, this can be induced via damage. While a jet's cowling does not always completely stop the fan blades in the event of disc failure, it usually is able to contain it and, at the very least, absorbs enough of the force that it does less damage.
@Sky Honkler Exactly, at first it was thought to have ice buildup around the wings, and then it turns out that it was due to lack of training, which the citizens involved pushed congress to enact laws to have better training.
Straight wings equals not fast
@@WardenWolf When is the last time you saw a turbo prop engine failure that resulted in shrapnel or the blade separating and entering the fuselage? Has it ever happened? Of course it has happened at least once. But, that is not typically how a turbo prop engine fails whatsoever. A jet engine is a completely different animal in that respect, which is why a Kevlar shield is required.
Ever heard of Horizon Airlines? Regional for Alaska Airlines flying Q400s...mostly newer airplanes. I would honestly rather fly on a Dash 8 than a shitty little CRJ-200 any day.
They're the exception, not the rule.
Also their Q400s are up to 20 years old.
@@mirzaahmed6589 as other planes in a lot of any airline’s fleets are
A CRJ-200 is the 100% the worst regional jet.
@@mirzaahmed6589 its more eco friendly tho
Alaska/Horizon always seems to use turboprops on the route between Portland and Seattle. I love getting to fly on the dash 8. I enjoy being able to see the landing gear from the window, and I like hearing the propeller. Also, it always feels so much faster taking off on the runway. Maybe the pilots are having more fun too?
On a flight from SEA to Portland on a Dash 8, the pilot announced a detour to fly close to Mt. St. Helens for a scenic tour. Very impressive! No way this would happen today on a jet and airline restrictions.
The turboprops are prone to cabin noise. They are jet engines with props. Safe as any other plane
Well turbo fan engines are jet engines with props too :)
Edit: I really like turbo props. The style the sound.... Sitting right in line with the blades, you can see them turning to the level of thrust.
Ehhh, couple flaws to your assertion, as there have been many propeller-related failures that have caused serious damage or even a crash.
The bigger issue is icing - winter ops with turboprops are (statistically) SIGNIFICANTLY more risky than jets, both in fundamental aerodynamic design, and in the altitudes / speeds they fly at (and length of time they spend there.)
Great for cargo. Kinda like a 'great face for Radio'.
Right. Put a cowling around the prop and call it a 'jet' :)
@@EstorilEm Yet in northern, cold, wilderness areas like Northern Minnesota, Canada, Alaska etc prop planes are much more common like the video says.
I remember in about 1990 I flew with my family to Honolulu and we were then going to connect to Maui. There was a mix up with the connecting flights and not enough planes for the passengers. It was late at night, pouring rain and all the passengers were very upset. There were enough passengers for 3 planes but Aloha only had 2 planes available. Finally after and hour or the passengers about to riot, Aloha said they had a 3rd plane. However, it was a PROPELLER plane. My mom and sister said they would not fly on that plane no matter what. My dad and I switched with them. We flew on the prop plane and they flew on the 737. I have no idea which plane was safer but the point about public perception of propeller planes was certainly true back in 1990. FWIW, my mom flies on Dash 8's at least once a month now. lol
I don't know how old your mum was in 1990, but it may be that she remembered propeller aircraft which had piston engines. In that case she was right that they weren't very safe compared with jets. Piston engines were shockingly unreliable. The rest of the aviation industry was less safe too.
It's funny because when jets were first introduced the (DH Comet) they were considered death traps. Now props are the "dated death traps".
I once read an article in Aviation Week where they asked a representative from Horizon why they were buying more turbo props instead of the jets everyone else was buying and his answer was because “they burn a third the fuel and only add eleven minutes to their average stage length. Those are economies we can’t ignore.”
And yet, Horizon has now phased out every last Q400 in favor of Embraers.
@@gmitchellfamily
Yep, they hired the same idiots from all the other airlines to run their airline. The real reason for the change is, back when Horizon made that statement I mentioned, they had a very loose association with Alaska. Now, they are in bed together and it changes the financial dynamic.
@@gmitchellfamily Distortion of the market caused by ever more absurd and convoluted regulations. Congress and the FAA slowly killing aviation with pseudo-safety (For political show.) while continuing to completely miss their mark on the real net effects.
They will learn to "ignore" these economies when no one pays to fly their airline any more, preferring jet competition.
@@shakey2634 I would also point out that the TSA circus has all but killed short hop flights. Nobody can justify standing around the airport for 2 hours to take a 30 minute flight when they can drive in 3 hours on their own schedule and not need to rent a car when they get there.
What’s funny to me is that almost every regional-sized plane in Canada is a turboprop with regional jets as a rarity, whereas in the US it’s exactly the opposite.
That is the economic distortion of different sets of convoluted regulations affecting the viability of various business decisions.
@@mytech6779nan, it's just that most regional airlines in Canada service small villages with no other means of access, for example Air Inuit services Inuit Nordic villages in Nunavik, a region of northern Quebec.
These villages usually only have gravel runways (which is why the 737-200 lasted so long in service with air Inuit and Canadian North, and is still in service with Nolinor and Chrono aviation).
Usually flights from these only get about 30 to 40 passengers at most, with most flights being done with a combi aircraft (usually Dash 8-300 or ATR42) to transport freight as much as possible.
Exceptions to that are the regional hubs, such as Kuujjuaq and Iqaluit, which do get much more traffic than the other villages, and are equipped in consequence with asphalt runways and ILS on their most used approach, while all the other have to make do with only RNAV approach, and before the modernisation NDB approaches
The Q400 turboprop is a great plane. Love flying in that.
The q400 is great indeed. Has better seats and is more comfortable than many regional jets
It can do a barrel roll too!
Small jets offer also flexibility over routing and planning. Some days they can fly a short 30 minute hop between small cities, some days they can fly three hours between larger cities or hubs. It helps a lot when airlines plan their operations.
Any airline that would run a cramped regional jet on a flight lasting more than 90 minutes is a s**t airline. I’m looking at you United.
1:02 An important observation to make is that not only did United go from turboprops to jets, the jets are notably larger than the turboprops they replaced, not really direct replacements. The smallest of the current United Express jets are the ERJ145 and CRJ200, both of which carry 50 passengers. Most of those turboprops were smaller than that. So maybe it's not just about wanting to get rid of turboprops, but also a shift away from the smaller aircraft that probably turned less profit - less fuel efficient per passenger, same crew costs, almost as much maintenance cost. We ask jet vs. turboprop, but I think the better question is larger vs. smaller, larger aircraft tending to be jets and smaller turboprops. It often feels like everything is trending in the direction of using 737 and A320 size aircraft for literally everything, "regional" aircraft are getting bigger while 737s and A320s are now used for mainline and some long-haul flights formerly done by widebodies. I guess Southwest, Frontier, and Spirit have the right idea only flying those aircraft.
Quill Maurer planes smaller than 50 seats don’t make sense for airlines. If their is a 35 seat plane it still takes up 1 takeoff and one landing slot. At hub airports slots are very expensive rare at most hubs too. Also when the airline mergers between 2008 and 2012 happened airlines were able to consolidate routes. This meant that instead for flying a 35 seat and a 25 seat plane they could fly ore 50 seat plane or a 70 seat plane. The last reason is worker’s unions. The regional operators can have 1 flight attendant on a 50 seat plane. That made airlines have 50 seater jets. Above 75 seats they usually can’t fly under a regional operator because of workers unions. That is why 75 seat planes are so popular too.
@@TysonIke All good points - similar reasoning to what I gave. An airliner regardless of size will need two pilots, a takeoff/landing slot, and so on. I hadn't considered the mergers though, that's a good point that would trend towards fewer larger aircraft.
As for the union stuff, from what I read the limit, as regulated by "scope clauses," is 76 passengers or less, so the maximum regional jet size would be 76. Several are designed around this limitation. This is to prevent the airlines from having a lot of their routes flown by lesser-paid regional jet pilots. The Q400 and ATR72 can carry that many though, so I guess this still leaves the question of why those aren't more popular - then I suppose it comes down to the things discussed in this video: jets are faster, quieter, regarded as more comfortable, more prestigious, and safer by passengers. I could also imagine them requiring less maintenance and having fewer mechanical issues, as turboprops have gearboxes and propellers to worry about.
Wait until AOC’s first Earth-saving, Green Electric regional makes its debut!
Also, the US is massive by size. There are many routes that required aircraft with longer range and higher speed. Many turboprops tend to have limited range and payload capability.
Hence why Q400 is more popular compared to ATR in the US.
@@nntflow7058 True, but the whole idea of these aircraft is that they are for short-haul flights, mainly between a main airport and nearby smaller cities. Thinking of where I live (Denver area) I think of flights between the small regional airports in Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Fort Collins, Cheyenne, Aspen, Grand Junction, and so on to the main Denver International Airport for flights to further away destinations. That's what regional aircraft are meant for, and turboprops would be optimal. But we're not seeing much of this, most of those places aren't served by turboprops, and usually people will drive or take a ground shuttle bus to the main airport instead of getting a regional flight because those flights are outrageously expensive. We're instead seeing "regional aircraft" used for "thin" flights, longer-haul between main hubs, possibly up to a couple hours by jet, that don't get enough business to fill a full size mainliner. So they're basically using them as low-capacity mainliners instead of as regional aircraft. For this, jets do make more sense. So maybe our mistake is in thinking of it as "regional aircraft," which isn't really how they're used in the US. Instead they're just "smaller aircraft."
Flying public: I think we prefer regional jets over turboprops.
CRJ-200: Allow me to introduce myself.
I’ve flown on the Q400 many times and I like it.
@@GH-oi2jf I'd take a Q over a CRJ2 any day of the week, but the 900 is delightful.
I also have a soft spot for Dash 8-100's.
@@GH-oi2jf Same. It's a nice aircraft.
I certainly didn't like the ERJ-145 flight I took last year, that cabin is more cramped than a Dash 8
Annnnnd they never said bad about the turboprops again hahaha
Back in the '60s when I was a young boy, my family flew a lot. It's true, in the early jet age, _nobody_ wanted to be seen getting on or off of a prop plane. The first prop plane flight that I recall was in 1975, in an old Convair that started life as a piston engine plane, converted to turboprop. At my young age, I was impressed by the novelty of flying on something other than a 707 or 727, and didn't mind that every time we landed, we got hit by blast furnace heat; the little airports we landed at had no jet bridge, no ground A/C, and the ancient plane wasn't made to work with them either.
I've flown on a few more prop planes, and yes, I'd rather be on a big jet. Before the airlines reorganized routes into the hub-and-spoke model, flying from a major airport to almost anywhere meant that you flew on a 727, or a DC-9 if it was a real hellhole. I don't mind the props as much as the hub-and-spoke system that takes me past my destination, and spending hours to wait for, get on and take the final flight when before we'd just fly right there.
Perfect plane for island hopping in the Caribbean!
my understanding is that maintenance and parts expenses cause airlines to streamline their fleets - particularly that of the scale of US big three airlines
I agree, the US carriers operated a wide mix of jets and props in their regional fleet. So I thought just as the large jet fleet, carriers were just streamlining.
Turbo props are actually much easier to maintain and are still in production. They're honest much cheaper for airline to operate
@@mra6308 Not even close, they have all the parts of a jet engine plus the added expense and wear of reduction gears, props, and constant-speed hubs. They only save on a bit of fuel.
The big three haven't operated any propeller aircraft in decades. The regionals are separate companies that paint their planes to match whoever they have contracted with and several regionals contract with several major airlines and vice versa.
I prefer to fly turboprops for short flights, sad.
Prop planes where good enough for SKY KING.
Doesn't speed also play a factor? I know jets burn more fuel but the higher cruise speed also allows a few more revenue generating cycles per day.
This is quite a significant point imo too. Video makes no mention of this.
My last turboprop flight was on a United Express EMB-120 Brasilia into Santa Barbara... beautiful polished engine cowlings.
Even on that flight, I can still recall how uneasy people were as they boarded. I thought it was about the coolest thing ever (even back then, turboprops were becoming rare, much less a 120..)
If I had known they’d ALL be gone, I’d probably have asked for a picture w/ it out on the ramp lol. Gorgeous plane.
Dornier 328JET is just smirking
Interesting that just north of the US in Canada, the regional arms of both Air Canada and WestJet operate large numbers of Q400 aircraft - passenger acceptance of turboprops is just one of many attitudinal differences between the US and Canada.
Indeed, the amount of turboprops at Vancouver International is staggering. There are the Dash-8s, Beech 1900s and Saab 340s to name a few! -ML
Alaska Airlines’ subsidiary, Horizon, as flyinga lot of Q400s in the United States until recently.
Also before Covid one of Hawaiian's brands flew atrs to the smaller islands
@@AirwaysMagazine 0.19 times per million flights versus 0.21 times per million flights (Jets) but turbos are more dangerous ?? completely corrupted logic... there is a serious reading error here .. I listened several times. check 3:18 in approx. TE Fidler NzL Edit sorry heard it as )0.19 not 0.91 .. still, it is a good low number regardless. And what about this. .. if that is all US jets, I am picking that the risk per passenger seat is very nearly the same because the jets tend to be larger, often a lot larger . And better still when a jet goes in it often hits and explodes. Turbos have lower landing speeds and lower stall speeds.. I am picking that the risk per passenger seat of Death might be the same or even lower in turbo props. TEF. I think this statistic still needs more work.
US Airlines are ditching turboprops because there aren't any significant airports in the lower 48 that require turboprops (period). If people had to get to destinations with airports only 4,000ft (1.2km) long, I guarantee the airline would use a turboprop.
It’s kinda a misconception that turboprops were used for their runway performance - that’s just not true, and it wasn’t THAT much better than the smallest jets anyways. Usually it was just short-hop routes that only needed to move ~20-50 people at a time, so the efficiency was a clear driving factor.
For example a 70-seat CRJ-700 takes about 100’ more runway at MTOW than a 30-seat Embraer Brasilia does.
On the other hand, my last turboprop flight would kinda disagree with your notion as well (about airport specs) as Santa Barbara only has 2x4100’ runways and 1x6000’ runway. This was the last airport I flew into on a (commercial) turboprop, and obviously those are some pretty short runways.
I also remember entering into the pattern with an ATR at Martinsburg with my flight instructor - one of the scariest and coolest things I remember about the whole process lol. Larger runway, but still remote with little demand (kinda why we flew there that day lol).
@@EstorilEm well respectfully, it is strange then why none of the airlines here in the Philippines use small 70-seater jets for 1.2km runways (even if there are like 8+ daily flights to the same airport). We all use turboprops.
@Sky Honkler Oh there were definitely a lot of jets there, it was just interesting that they also used (SMALL) turboprops as well. I'm glad, it may very well be my last commercial turboprop flight. :(
I'm here because of a Voepass ATR-72 crash in Brazil.
The Saab 340 is and always will be my favorite turboprop.
Funny that at the beginning they're questioning about props in the US while showing YUL which is a Dash-8 hub.
Honestly, after twelve hours of flying international, getting to the final leg and having to take a turboprop kind of sucked.
2 out of 3 of your points would argue for biplanes. Also well done glossing over the very real safety issues of turboprops in ice regimes.
I flew a Dash 8 for 5 years after flying a CRJ for about a year prior to 9/11. Left the airline and moved to a new airline to fly an MD80. There was never a time I felt that the CRJ or MD80 were safer planes than the Dash. Moved from the MD80 to Airbus A320. Still feel like the Dash 8 was overall, safer. A better plane all in all. Not saying the CRJ, MD80 or AB320 isn't safe in any way, but overall, for a number of reasons, I feel the Dash 8 was the safest plane I ever flew in my career. Not the easiest, but the safest. Just my opinion.
I love how you added the cebu pacific turbo prop ive been on that plane several times, the only thing i didnt like about it was the noise and the small fuselage
I used to fly the dash 8 for american eagle. My last flight was June 30, 2018. Fantastic aircraft!! Very safe and reliable!
Turboprops are quite popular in India.
Many regional airports have short runways which make props viable.
Many low-cost airlines in India are acquiring Q400s and ATRs.
I was hired in 1987 and became the principal software engineer for the electronic systems of Q400. I'm retired now but it's design was gone over with a fine tooth comb.
Diligence , love of this fantastic airplane and many thousands of hours of exacting technical and scientific work went into the Q400
I remember those years with intensity, the work was in intoxicating , the line between workplace and home became blurred for many years, there was a presience about the team, we knew the outcome of our work would be a safe airplane carrying many people many miles for many years in comfort and economy.
The Q400 is the hearts and brains and care of the many engineers and science went into the development of this very carefully crafted technically very advanced airplane. It remains our perfect baby and 20 years on since the first flight we all remain very proud
I personally like turbo props. Very first flight I’ve on was on a Vickers Viscount. My last one was while ago on Dash Q800. I feel fine in them, except when snow is out. In tropical regions they are perfect. In snow country in busy airport they have to rely more on airport de-icing on the ground. My understanding on American Eagle crash, ice on the wing was the issue. I know the French ATR have updated the de-icing capabilities, but jets have better de-icing capabilities is my understanding.
Very informative video. Horizon and Silver airways seem likely to keep turboprops in their fleet however.
I miss my 1951 Fokker F27. Whistle pig! It had only 60,000 hours total time. Practically new! N729FE
Wow, do a video
@@DumbledoreMcCracken
That was 26 years ago. I think only The Golden Knights parachute team still flies the F27 in the US. Incidentally I worked on all 3 of theirs.
I would ALWAYS get a ticket in an ATP, ATR or Dash 8 over any jet for regional flights.
Yes, even the ATR is a bit noise at take off, it really messes with my ears but then it settles and it is smooth as silk.
They usually spend less fuel, it takes less time to boar and unboard doe to carrying less passengers and as they fly lower, you get those amazing views you just can't get on a jet.
Could it be possible that an electrified future might lend itself to more turboprop style engines versus jet engines? Electrified engines and aviation would likely compete in the same segment as turboprops.
Pure electric flights are only viable within short routes, but onboard generators have been proving a good alternative to fully electric vehicles, allowing large road vehicles to have much greater fuel efficiency compared to combustion engine equivalents. The same could potentially allow propeller planes a significant boost in range plus reduction in noise. Moreover, it wouldn't be too difficult to retrofit existing planes, they are already designed to be easy to replace engines.
I flew on some United Express turboprops previously, and I personally didn't mind it. I was surprised that they're all gone now.
You left out another big issue with turboprops. Last time I was on one, the combined ages of the pilot and co-pilot didn't equal mine and I was 50.
People got to start from somewhere. If inexperienced people aren't given any chance, sooner or later you going to run out of experienced people.
In the last 5 years have you flown on a commuter airline. Prior to COVID, if you had a Commercial Multi-engine rating and a pulse you could get hired by a regional airline.
@@kerucutgaming2216 You think if those two pilots were flying U.S. Airways 1549 it would have ended up the same?
@@gwcrispi those pilots won't even exist if these young people don't get any chances.
Low time, bad weather equals accidents, the records show it time and time again. They may need to get experience but not on my life, let them haul freight or go the military route. 1500 hrs to right seat or possibly even left is crazy.
I want to mention that from 1:00 past it sounds like a turboprop engine is in the background of the music! Very cool video!
I remember flying into Gunnison, Colorado one moonlit winter's night in a high wing turboprop. Mountain flying, of course, often has lots of turbulence. On our approach to Gunnison, with moonlit white mountains below, sometimes it seemed that our little plane was hanging in the air, more than moving. The engines changed pitch with the turbulence, and of course, pilot input.
I felt very safe. Not sure how safe I'd feel in an RJ which has to have greater speed to stay up. A lot less room for error or a difficult situation.
Having flown short hauls many years, Hartford-Toronto, Cleveland-Toronto, I'm glad. Poor maintenance, planes were broken all the time. Noisy and rough ride as well. I'll fly Embraer or Bombardier if I have a choice.
Yep. Give me a CRJ over a Dash 8 rattle trap.
Just build a shroud around the prop and call it a "jet"-- the public is so clueless they'd probably buy it!
Ducted fans are less efficient.
@@TecnamTwin
Why? Unnecessary weight?
@@travist7777 induced drag
@@PRH123
How so? The shroud makes the prop more draggy/less efficient? Just curious. Cheers!
@@travist7777 hi, it’s interesting because theory says induced drag should be reduced, but practice shows the opposite: “In general, if you want to shroud the propeller for better efficiency, you need to accept the higher surface area of the shroud, which will quickly add more drag than you are ever likely to save by preventing flow around the prop tips.
What could be saved by shrouding the prop? Induced drag would be the same, since this comes from lift creation. The classical theory for minimum induced loss propellers by A. Betz and L. Prandtl requires an elliptic lift distribution over the propeller disc, such that lift smoothy tapers off at the tips. Artificially increasing it would only help if this could reduce blade chord at the tips - since the tips see the highest dynamic pressure, this could indeed translate into less friction drag. However, this gain is small when compared to the massive increase in friction drag of a shroud”
I came ridiculously close to meeting my maker in a Saab 340, in an ice storm, in Mason City, IA. As the pilot flared for landing, we got slammed with a wind gust and went partially inverted over the runway. By some miracle (pilot skill), our pilot throttled up, righted the wings, and did a go around.
How scary was it? In the 5 seconds after we became inverted, people were screaming and lost their bowels. I'll never forget being planted against the window, staring at the runway, and accepting calmly that I was probably about to die.
That must have not been a fun experience. -ML
@@AirwaysMagazine I had trouble flying for a few years after.
Man just youtube recommended your video and really liked your analysis never knows of this before.......Need more Aviation contents like this and i have subscribed to your channel.
Awesome, Glad you enjoyed it!
Those turboprops are great for short hop Caribbean ops. America is a big place.
I still see silver with ATRs operating in the Southeast and Southcentral. That thing is super slow. Doesn’t even cruise above 300kts.
I'd be very surprised if any jet technology is even same efficiency as turboprops.
And, I'd assume maintenance is far lower, like requiring lower pressures, parts stress and know-how.
I've never attributed the higher accident rate to the turboprop technology, it's just a reflection of the carrier's operations as a whole.
I hope they bring back turboprops in the near future.
Propellers are noisy. Embraer has just designed one with 2 engines near the rear as pushers. That will reduce passenger noise. The plane is designed to accommodate a future upgrade to hydrogen. Sorry for sounding like an ad but Embraer has an engineering center in my county in Florida.
I remember the my last time flying an AA Eagle ATR back in 2012. Never knew a year later they would be gone.
Hopefully a Renaissance happens.
When the big Convair propliners we’re flying, they were a bit roomier then today’s regional jets. What would be the reception to an updated version of the Convair 580 with new systems, engines, composites and avionics??? I look forward to future turboprops,
"Many travellers viewed the aircraft type as dangerous, a perception that although misguided, does have some truth behind it". So is it misguided, or has truth behind it? Waffle?
They're more dangerous due to their smaller size and because they're operated by small regional carriers with less experienced crews. It has nothing to do with being a turboprop. Jets of the same size and with the same kind of carrier/crew would have roughly the same issues.
@@jblyon2 Exactly. The small / turbo prop routes are usually the first steps of an airline pilot right out of flight school and are paid very little. Combine newer pilots with smaller airfields with sometimes difficult or challenging approaches is a recipe for a few more incidents or bumpy landings.
Alaska Horizon has never had a crash on a passenger flight with a Q400. They have a pretty good record with the Q400. So I think it’s probably safe to fly them.
I work for AA reservation, the first thing customer ask when travel to small regional airport is, is the aircraft a jet or prop...
@@jediguy634 wrong
I miss flying in the American Eagle turboprops out of Rockford IL. I also reminisce about the days I spent flying the Britt Airways turboprops out of Danville IL into O'Hare
This is a world-wide trend. Even in Europe, most carriers are getting rid of turbo-props. Look at SAS, Eurowings, AirBaltic, etc.
After flying an Embraer E-Jet NOBODY wants to fly again a flying blender like ATR 72.
Yep. Especially sitting directly next to the propeller wondering if it breaks will it come into the cabin and into you!
I have no problem with turboprops. If it means lower ticket price, I'll happily take a turboprop. Turboprops are fun actually.
Wondering if we are getting e - prop aircraft anytime soon
Harbour Air out of Vancouver have an Electric Floatplane! -ML
I flew the clunky but fast E120. The Hot Rod and lively Mighty Beech 1900. Then the CRJ. Loved the 1900.
I used to fly a lot on business. I never felt that turbo props as planes were inherently unsafe. My problem was that the "Express" subsidiaries of the major airlines did not seem to require the same level of pilot experience and training... Didn't pay their pilots well and did not treat them well... None of which contributed to flight safety. The other issue (that I imagine is common to both turboprops and jets) is that, on short hops, you are spending a larger fraction (if not the entire flight) at low altitude down in the weather with greater risks of icing and severe turbulence.
You hit it right on the head. How the “express” pilots live (barely) and work is downright frightening. Fatigue and lack of experience were the root cause of at least one major crash in the US. And most turboprops are simpler system wise, as evidenced by the ATR crash caused by aileron reversal, which were not hydraulically boosted, due to ice buildup on the wing, as the ATR had only pneumatic boots on the wing for anti icing in flight. So passenger perceptions were bit wrong.
Please fix your intro. Quiet voice to loud dramatic intro, then quiet voice.
Great informative video though
Thanks for watching! We are working on refining our intros. -ML
Referencing a 1994 crash of a plane type as relevant seems kinda silly. Almost 30 years ago.
Just FYI, The ATRs autopilot had been compensating for icing. the crew was unaware of. The plane stalled. There was nothing crew could do.
Excellent presentation!
Damn, the ATR72 is a sexy plane (4:33)!!!😁
You also have to consider pilot training and retention. If I'm not mistaken, when I used to look at commercial pilot opportunities, some airlines would have minimums for flight hours in dual-engine jet aircraft. If you're flying a turbo prop, you aren't getting those hours, and if you're not getting the hours you want/need at a regional to advance your career, why be there? The only reason would be higher pay.
I think this became less of an issue with the pilot shortage that was occurring pre-COVID, but back in the late 90s and early to mid 2000s, it made sense for pilots to train on less aircraft types and fly on jet aircraft to procure hours of the same type.
In most of these turboprops, the pilot is getting multi-engine hours and turbine hours. Were the airlines looking for type specific hours?
Germany is currently on the verge of reviving the Dornier Do328 program that was suspended almost 20 years ago due to bankruptcy. The licensing producer is owned by an American holding.
The real answer is that the TSA made short distance airline service absurdly inconvenient, killing the market segment. Combine that with an increasing number of bass ackward FAA regulations (several mandated by congress so it isn't completely on the bureaucracy) which have been slowly destroying the small end of the industry for decades with zero rational or data backed safety benefits.
Basically turboprops no longer have an advantage when the shortest flights are dissapearing and the maintenance costs are lower for jets. The pilot situation (Mainly caused by congress/FAA) is also driving out the smallest planes, which is only going to make things worse in the long run because the move away from small airframes further reduces the pool of experienced pilots for the large mainline fleet.
Still lots of Dash 8 flights between Seattle and Vancouver.
Great overall summarization, although I thought there were some points that were missed as well.
1.) Colgan was never mentioned. I was rather surprised that was not brought up in this video. Colgan I believe played a huge part in the shift away from turbo-prop aircraft even more than the American Eagle ATR accident. Being that the ATR is a rare find in North America, a lot of people still can recall the Colgan crash and the many Q400s in service. That's also not to mention, the many landing accidents the Q400 had early on with landing gear collapses of the main gear. At the time, you still had Colgan, Horizon, Lynx Aviation just within the United States flying the Q400. It wasn't until Silver Airways and also Hawaiian's ATR under the 'Ohana' name flown by Empire did we see ATR's come back into the US passenger service market.
2.) A lot of the disappearance of turbo-props came from fleet consolidation primarily due to the small regional outfits collapsing from bankruptcy within the US. Have to dig a little further back when airlines like Great Lakes Airlines were just small 'ma and pa' outfits just about that got brought into the 'United Express' umbrella complete with repainting to look like their main airline operation. So many of these smaller airlines merged into each other to become a bigger entities like SkyWest has over the years. Granted, having the right fleet also helps the small guy's in getting the right contracts too to fly under their bigger parent names eg Delta Connection.
Again, great summation, but I think these two HUGE points were really missed and would help complete the overall puzzle and larger picture.
Colgan was pilot error he pulled back on the shaker stick stalling the plane and flew into ice storm with de-icing off and the landing gear collapes all went back to American made BF goodrich landing gear faulty seals
The crash statistics are misleading because there are confounding factors. Specifically, turboprops were flown by regional airlines and their pilots tend to be less experienced.
Yes. And they are also flown into more difficult airports with pilots usually on less rest.
@@jonesjones7057 absolutely correct. For decades it was legal to schedule flight crews a minimum layover of 8 hours from engine shutdown at night to engine startup the next day. This would then only allow 4-5 hours a night for actual sleep. But hey...profits over safety. Thankfully that has been changed to ten hours.
The CAUSE is irrelevant.
@@johnp139 the cause is relevant, because replacing those turboprop with jets doesn't remove the cause...inexperienced pilots on regional routes.
I worked as an aircraft mechanic for 11 years at American Eagle Airlines, We had Saab 340B turboprops and ATR-72 turboprops in addition to our jets. We never had any Dash-8 aircraft in our fleet whatsoever.. Eventually we did retire all our turboprops
Brought over into AA from US with the merger ...east coast ops. That's where the Dash came into play for AA ;) Hope that helps!
@@IEFlyingRamper , Thanks, That makes sense
@@4321grp Yup, yup, no worries Sir!
Henson had the Dash-8s
Turboprop is not fit for us market but here in Asian country where so many airport in remote area
lol, ruthless opening with Porter just cratering in onto the runway.
Man that first landing....oof! I hope they had chiropractors standing by at the gate! Lmao
Some regional airlines (flying the livery of the majors) preferred to use turboprops because they served airports without jet bridges. Some Embraer do not have stairs and the airlines supposedly did not like the image of rolling stairs up to the jet.
I love the turbo prop, the torque power feeling on takeoff and climbout is unrivaled
As you stated in your video better for journeys under 300 miles, which here in the UK covers much of the domestic flights. On such short flights, the altitude is much lower (some of the flights have very little if any crusing, the flight being take off, climb, descend and land only). Lower altitude inevitably means more turbulence hence many passengers perceptions.
IDK ... flying in what could amount to less than a 4.5 hour drive seems a bit extravagant.
@@thomasreedy4751 Which in the congested UK would probably be most journeys over 150miles, and considerably less when water crossings, Highlands and Islands are involved. Also, many shorter journeys typically serviced by turboprops are part of a much longer multi-leg journey.
@@thomasreedy4751 Which in the congested UK would probably be most journeys over 150miles, and considerably less when water crossings, Highlands and Islands are involved. Also, many shorter journeys typically serviced by turboprops are part of a much longer multi-leg journey.
@Sky Honkler Untrue, wherever possible people North of the Midlands will try and avoid the London Airports. I used to fly to Europe regularly from Manchester using Lufthansa or Swiss with connections in Germany or Switzerland - hardly budget carriers, and used to see many of the world's (non-budget) carriers represented there.
Turboprops don’t save much fuel versus the latest turbofans. Also, they fly slower, which means more pilot hours AND additional aircraft to cover the same network versus a jet fleet. Turboprops cost basically just as much to build and maintain. So they have no real advantage.
I have flown many Turboprops, Dash 8, Twin Otter, ATR 42, Beechcraft 1900, Embraer and never gave one thought to the fact it was a turboprop. I just wanted to get where I was going.
I think it has more to do with logistics than anything else. For most carriers turboprops were used as a spoke plane for short hops to the hub airport.
Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant, JetBlue, and Southwest are all having direct flights from all kinds of random airports to very viable destinations, so more and more of their planes need to fly competitive routes and also be competitive as well from a plane perspective. I've seen regional aircraft fly longer distances than they used to. Plus regional planes are getting bigger and more fuel efficient. So there's less and less reason to carry props if your mission is more range flexibility and the fuel savings are becoming more minimal.
And yeah, no matter what props have a lower prestige whether deserved or not. That doesn't help matters.
Most airline crash videos I have seen going back years pointed to pilot error as causing most of them. Blaming the aircraft is passing the buck!
The passengers do not like turboprops, they break more offen and cannot fly as high. I worked on the Q400 for over 10 years and it was consistently breaking and did not fly. So Alaska brought the embrierair 175, people love it, smooth and quiet and flies above the turbulence here in the PNW. Alaska still flys the Q400 but is retiring the real fast. Because Bombardier no longer sells it and will not service it. Viking bought a lemon from them, good luck.
How will QX serve places like SUN then? Or will they drop destination like they did when the SWMs were parked?
@@erik_griswold
Good question, probably with a 175, or one of the old Q’s that they might keep around. Depending upon what Alk management wants.
@Sky Honkler
I worked on the same ramp in Sea with that person, not a good outcome. Because of that the FAA came down hard on us, not fun.
I am sure they will be back to the states in the future. Especially when fuel gets expensive again. They're also much better at dealing with confined mountainous areas and steep descents. The ejets, while wonderful to fly, can be very tricky to manage the speed on. Granted, most airports in the lower 48 that have enough traffic for the airlines also do just fine with jets, especially if they can do RNP approaches.
2:05, it's also worth noting that these aircraft had wider fuselages than the Embraer and Bombardier aircraft, the Fokker jets are more comparable to the smaller variants of the DC-9 than they are to the CRJ. Likewise with the 146, it could be configured with 6 seats abreast like larger mainline jets, while it was indeed a regional jet, it really was on the larger end of regional airline aviation.
You nailed it.
Very nice analysis! However, I think the fact that many routes in the US tend to be longer than in Europe, also has a role to play... Turboprops, as you pointed out are the most efficient at routes of less than 300 nm, but on longer routes they are way too slow...
Also, fleet planning is another issue... While there could be fuel savings from operating a small turboprop fleet for very short routes, increased maintainence costs, and crew training probably outweighs these, especially considering that a small fleet would be spread out between many different bases.
Its a pity because for some reason, I always felt safer in propeller driven aircraft. True that they are noisier (inside) than most jets but that was a source of comfort. I have, in the distant past, been on commercial DC series prop craft including the DC3 and DeHaviland Dash aircraft in the US, Canada (where they are were built) and Australia.
I was on a prop aircraft, not sure of the make, possibly ‘Short’ from N.I.. I went from Amsterdam’s Schipol to Luton in England, and back again across the north sea. One advantage of that flight is that the plane flew low enough over the north sea that we could clearly see grey NATO ships escorting a Russian submarine out of the channel. The sub was huge and dwarfed the nato vessels.
I fly out of PDX a lot and Horizon Air (a subsidiary of Alaska) would fly a lot of the Q400. I’ve flown on several of them and I have to say, they are cramped, loud and slow. I typical flight from PDX to BOI takes about 1 hour on jet and the same flight on the Q400 would take 90 minutes. Another problem is there is no first class on the Q400 (and there really isn’t any room to add it) which provide a significant income boost to the airline’s bottom line. Alaska/Horizon are decommissioning the Q400’s in favor of Embraier jets. I personally think it’s a good move as I find the E-jets more comfortable and faster, and while less efficient, I have a feeling the airlines will ultimately make more money as they can add first class.
Very informative and interesting keep it up!
Glad you enjoyed it! -ML
More complications. You have a jet engine plus a reduction gearbox plus props with feathering equipment.
I can only think fuel in N America is very cheap - here in the UK where we all know fuel is extortionate, true regional airlines themselves have gone out of the way to publish the advantages of props and were still buying them before the plague!
I believe that taxes on aviation jet fuel are very different from at the pump at your local gas/petrol station. IIRC the difference between buying a litre of jet fuel at Heathrow versus as JFK is far less than the price difference between filling up your car in those locations.
@@johncassels3475 Sorry, are you saying kerosene is cheaper UK than USA?
@@drdoolittle5724 no, what he’s saying is that jet fuel is typically not taxed by national governments. Thus the price an airline pays for jet fuel in the UK might actually not be that far off from what is paid in the US.
@@concorde4893 Indeed, even jet fuel price "paid at refinery" is in the USA slightly higher than in Europe. What an airline pays at certain airports including taxes etc etc is indeed something else.
Flew in Bae ATP on UK domestic flights a few times and loved them..
The problem here is people make choices based on assumptions and turbo props for most people look outdated and cheaper than jets. Well it turns out that if people are given a choice, they will not only go for the option which seems safer, but also and more importantly (ironically) to the one that looks more expensive ( same reason you tend to prefere buying branded items)
Shame people’s lack off knowledge , turbo props are true feats of engineering and rather more efficient aeroplanes for short/medium range flying.
True. People also cancel their vacation when something tragic happens in the target country, even though statistically that makes zero sense. Along these lines, as a white guy I've walked through some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the world, at night, often alone, and nothing bad happened, with some close calls, though I don't recommend that in general for most people.
turbprops could make a comeback if electric powered planes become popular.
If we have electric powered aircraft, why would even want old turbo props ?
I'm not sure if you're aware, but your title music around the 0:45 mark is clipping badly.
The crash of American Eagle flight 4184, involving an ATR-72-212 (which was the deadliest for the series), started the negative animosity towards turboprops in America.
I’m an airline pilot in US. Use to fly the EMB-120. I think a lot of the issue is that the turboprops just weren’t as comfortable as the regional jets and nor were they enough more efficient to make up for the customer dislike of the slower speeds, vibration, noise and belief that Turbo props were less safe.
Continental express operated a lot of beautiful ATR’s and still, passengers just didn’t care for them.
Today the pilot shortage is driving ever larger airframes. What turboprops we do end up seeing in the future will most likely be 70 seat or larger. I don’t believe we’ll see a lot on the 30 seat configuration of the past.