A classmate of mine who works in the Manila airport tower said that the Dash 400 are also powerful enough to carry passengers to the northernmost island of the Philippines - Batanes. I’ve been there via Philippine Airlines and the winds are notoriously strong that sometimes, I have to shout just to be heard by my tour guide
Two Dash-8s flew over my house while watching this video. Every Canadian knows the sound of the Dash-8. Comfortable efficient plane. A big selling feature of the Dash-8 in eastern Canada is that it’s one of the few commercial planes allowed at Toronto Island (Billy Bishop) airport.
From what i read, those Q400 are a bit overpowered, which makes them allmost as fast as jets, but also more costly to service those engines... Generally, turboprops make sense on shorter routes, as the optimum altitude for their engines is around 25 000ft, while jets work best above 30 000 ft (FL300). Thus, turboprops reach their optimum altitude sooner, while on some short routes jets wouldn't reach their optimum altitude at all, as they will be descending again before reaching it...
I flew TPA-TLH on a Silver Airways ATR-42 a few years ago. From a passenger perspective, I found the ATR-42 to be much more comfortable than most CRJs I’ve been on. I hope ATRs make a comeback.
Yup. ATR's are common in Manitoba with Calm Air and they were the most comfortable turboprop/airliner I rode on while working in the North up there... Dash 8's from Air Canada and CRJ's from Air Canada were excruciatingly congested with seating thigh to thigh and seatback to seatback...
Air Canada Jazz uses them in Atlantic Canada, too, though operated by Newfoundland’s PAL. Interestingly, Porter is transitioning from an all-Dash-8 airline to using Embraer E2 jets on many routes, including Halifax to St. John’s (where everyone used Dash-8s for many years).
The ANZ ATR72 messed me up first time I flew on one. Thought I scored with a front of the cabin seat, not realizing that they board from the rear. Doh!
@@thatonerandomkid-r2nyea but that one over Buffalo was pilot error the 2 pilots were tired and hit iceing and kept pulling the plane up and stalled it
@@thatonerandomkid-r2n Yeah that was pilot fatigue not aircraft design or even maintenance issues... Had she not had to commute from Denver that morning everyone would still be alive!
@@ronparrish6666 Yup. Like being half asleep behind the wheel when an alarm goes off she chose wrong and everyone paid the price. Not her fault though considering her commute to work... 8 hours before she started to fly that day I believe. Two flights from home in Denver if I'm not mistaken. And she was paid basically minimum wage or just over... All factors that contributed to that accident...
@@stickynorth yep like I said pilot error nothing wrong with the Dash 8 actually a little bit better than the ATR because of range and horse power and the Dash has a APU to keep the power to the aircraft on the ground while the ATR has to keep one engine running for Air
1991 I flew from Nashville, TN to Peoria, IL in Saab 340. We flew through a thunderstorm. I recall seeing an unbelted child appear to levitate, illuminated by flashbulb lightning. When we arrived at Peoria, all of the runway lights were out at the airport due to a direct lightning strike. So they lined the runway with emergency vehicles and our pilot spiraled the plane downward through the storm until we broke through the clouds to find the runway. I was sitting on the wing and I will never forget being sideways looking straight down the wing and seeing the grooves in the cement on the runway before the plane righted and we landed. Pilot and co-pilot appeared to be in their early 30’s. I was aged a lot after that but hey, gotta give it to them AND the plane!
Every Christmas vacation, I always flew on Philippine Airlines' Dash 8-400s to my hometown. Interestingly, there are no direct flights from where I work to my home city so I always fly the Dash 8s four times every time I went home for vacation and returning to where I work. Every time I flew, I'm still really fascinated by turboprops. If I have the chance, I always booked a window seat near to the propellers.
As a Canadian? The Dash 8 is the workhorse of our airline sector outside the Big 6 cities of Toronto Ottawa and Montreal in the East and Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary out West... And even then you're as likely to get a Dash 8 flight between cities in those two triangles as an Embraer was a few years ago which was also a nice change from Boeing (If it's Boeing I'm not going) or the thoroughly mid Airbus lineup...
There are some airlines operating turboprops in Europe, such as Air Nostrum for Iberia, Portugalia Airlines for TAP, Widerøe, SAS, Danish Air Transport, Twin Jet, Swiftair, Olympic Air, Air Serbia, Sky Express and so on
Thumbs up. Finally, an aviation channel that pronounces "Bombardier" correctly. Great job. Flown on Porter an Air Canada turboprops many times. All good.
As an American who has been flying commercially for decades, my first commercial flight was on a Beech craft 1900. I was on many of those during university days. It's quite small and if you're nervous flyer you aren't going to like it. But I always enjoyed them. Flown on many Dash eights, and a handful of times on a Saab. Only time I was on an ATR was a domestic flight in the Philippines. Personally I'd prefer a turbo prop to those awful regional jets. And a turbo prop does not have visible turbines, just the propellers. Everything else is inside and actually less visible than on a turbo fan
Maybe its just because I'm Canadian but my only negative perception of turboprops is that they're a little loud. I never really minded flying on them though. Currently have the Dash 8-400 (possibly another model too when I was a kid but can't say for sure), Beech 1900 (C and D variants), and Saab 340 under my belt
Air Canada has 46 Dsh-8-400s , but got rid of the 200 and 300s. Air Creebec runs on Dash-8 100s to linke northern Québec to Montreal. Air Inuit also has them.
Growing up I used to fly the Henson Airlines breadbaskets on the East Coast of the USA. Usually from Patrick Henry in Newport News to Rochester NY or Buffalo NY, with a switch of plane at BWI. I also remember the days taking American Eagle from Rockford IL into O'Hare. These were before the early 2000's, or the early 2000's. The last I flew a turboprop was on a Lufthansa affiliate out of Munich. I was heading to Italy.
The first time I remember taking an airplane was on the Britt Airways turboprop from Danville IL into O'Hare....this was the 1980s. Note: Mom and Dad told me I flew earlier but was to young to remember. Even then it was directly from O'Hare on a jet to India.
I've flown into Nanaimo on a small Dash 8 and I like the acceleration getting out of a small runway. Much more immediate in a prop plane vs a jet with its slow build up of power.
I was a passenger in a Dash-8 that experienced an engine failure (many years ago). Let's just say things got interesting. That plane really doesn't like to fly on one engine. Fortunately, we had some altitude and the pilot was able to get the plane trimmed out well before the ground started rushing up at us.
Most of us Americans really dislike turboprops. I sort of miss them. I have a sentimental attachment to the roomy, tall-cabined Short 360, common for regional airlines providing services for American, at least in the Midwest. Mostly it’s the noise, I think. The lack of speed, too.
I think US flyers associate turboprops with being flimsy, fragile, unsafe airplanes. Incidents like the famous American 4184 in 1994, or Air Midwest 5481 in 2003, where they crashed due to icing or weight imbalance. Especially the American flight was really high profile, reaction toward the ATR’s dangerous behavior in icing was similar to the 737 MAX. It was even heavily brought up in US media when covering the recent ATR crash in Brazil. I also hear claims of them being cramped inside. I flew an ATR for the first time last year and it wasn’t significantly smaller than a narrowbody jet. Maybe it’s because I’m a tiny Asian guy, much shorter than the average American, so maybe they find issue with the cabin size. I understand US flyers travel with lots of carry-on baggage and turboprops have tiny overhead bins, so passengers have to gate check them all the time. But all these are the same with small regional jets for the most part, so I don’t buy that as much.
Turboprops have always been my favorite way to travel ever since I was a child. I would like to see more turboprop operating in the US market given the choice I would always choose a turboprop for my travel needs
Been lucky to fly on a EMB120 a few times, and several q400s. Was even a fueler at PDX, put fuel on hundreds of Q400, even had to climb up on the wing to over wing fuel a few. Love that plane!
I remember that Turboprops and small jets used to be very common in the USA in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s on airlines like Air Midwest, Air Wisconsin, American Eagle, Atlantic Southeast, Big Sky, Chatuaqua, Colgan Air, Comair, Compass, Endeavor, Expressjet, Freedom, Gojet, Great Lakes Aviation, Gulfstream International, Harbor, Henson, Lynx Aviation, Mesa, Mesaba, Metroflight, North Pacific, Piedmont, Pocono, PSA, Ransome, Republic Airlines, Rocky Mountain Airways, Seaport, Shuttle America, Skywest, Texas International, Trans States, and others. Note: Many of these lesser known airlines were contract and regional carriers and provided commuter flights as the "express" or "commuter" version of many big name Airlines like American, Continental, Delta, Frontier, Northwest, TWA, United, US Airways, and others at the time.
A few years ago I was on an E-195 bound for MIA but not yet pushed back. Seated next to me was a guy on his phone telling someone he was on a “ little puddle jumper”. Oh brother! The anti turboprop people want a jet, the anti- regional jet people want an A330. There is no pleasing some people.
Hahahaha agreed! A Cessna 206 is a puddle jumper, a Dash 8-100 is a puddle jumper... E-195? Not so much... It's basically a trans-continental jet not unlike the A220... If it can do coast to coast service? Tis no puddlejumper, English!
As long as we don't get a horribly crammed CRJ, any jet/prop does it for me. The CRJ is the only aircraft I dislike because it's just so small, leg room is horrible and everything just feels so squished and stuffy. This doesn't happen with a320s
Taking off at Dulles to Toronto is such a vibe in Porter's turboprop. The exceptionally short final over the water at Billy Bishop YTZ is also spicy and very fun.
Back in 2006 I intentionally booked a flight in a Frontier Q-400 from DEN to ABQ. Thoroughly enjoyed it. As a GA pilot myself, at no point in the flight was I ever concerned for my own safety flying in a "smaller turboprop" aircraft.
I think one of the major reasons in the United States was for passenger comfort. Turbops were known for being loud and Bumpy. They couldn't fly over the weather as well as jets could and it just became. Better when the regional jets came on the scene
I grew up back when turboprops were very much the norm for "express" flights. In fact, I'm a bit of an ATR veteran with my frequent trips on Continental Express. In those days, they really were short trips, i.e. under an hour, and only on routes that had exceptionally low demand. Otherwise, airlines continued to operate regular jets, even if it was under an hour. The idea of a regional flight halfway around the country was considered insane. This changed after 9/11, when airlines were desperate to cut costs. More routes were dropped into the laps of these regional carriers, some of them quite a long distance and close to, if not beyond the reach of many turboprops. Nobody wants to be stuck on a noisy vibrating turboprop for more than an hour. There is also the issue of cost. Maintaining two types of aircraft and two sets of pilots is a lot for regional carriers that are operating under contract. The savings in fuel isn't really worth the increased complications of having two type ratings to keep track of, especially with federal subsidies in play. It's easier for them to take a hit in fuel economy on a few routes for streamlined operations overall.
On short haul flights you don't even notice difference in time between turbo prop and jet. It is perfect economic sense on many smaller 1 hour or less routes.
When I was a kid, USAir flew Short 360s into my hometown's airport. These had a boxy look, much like the flying Winnebago spaceship in Spaceballs. Later, the regional airlines that served this airport switched over to Dash-8s and ATRs. Today, RJs serve all the flights. I actually sort of miss the incredibly loud racket the turboprops made when taxiing or taking off, which got conspicuously louder from my parents' house (4km away) when the planes approached the terminal building on account of the echo.
When I was a youngster, I flew Piedmont Airlines out of CRW on NAMC/Fairchild YS-11s. I thought they were great, though as an adult I would probably find them noisy. The most miserable planes I have been on are the Beechcraft 1900 (a turboprop) and the CRJ200 (a jet). I'd take a Dash-8 Q400 over a CRJ any day of the week. The Dornier 328 was a really nice plane too. It is a shame it was never very popular and was sort of orphaned by bankruptcy.
Turboprops popular in the US in the 90’s replaced by regional jets in the 00’s. Engine noise for the passenger was LOUD approaching 85 dB as I remember.
Here in Taiwan the ATR72-600 dominates the domestic market where both UNI Air and Mandarin only operates the type for their entire fleet. Unfortunately this also caused our infamous record of crashing two ATR72-600 in six months, both by the now defunct TransAsia
I think that the crash of a Dash 8 in Buffalo in 2009 was one of the biggest factors why the impression of turboprops being unsafe arose in the US. It was a big story in the US as one of the passengers was the widow of a 9/11 victim. This is despite the fact that the cause of the crash was found to be pilot error.
I was surprised to see that in Canada, Dash-8-400's were used on jet-distance flights. I like those planes, and many flights in Europe are turboprop. Iceland and Greenland depend on them entirely for domestic flights. Important international flights from/to Croatia rely on the Dash.
The airline I work for operates ATR 42s, SAABs, 1900s, King Airs and Twin Otters, my base also services the occasional Dash-7 (the predecessor to the Dash-8) all are very reliable, especially in remote locations and cold temperatures.
Brazilian here, sad that the video did not mention Embraer, Brasília and bandeirante were the backbone of many south and central America regional flights. LIAT the Caribbean airlines also flew the dash 8 for decades, they were the lifeline for many families around the region to move but sadly went bankrupt
Big hail Liat! They eventually transitioned to ATRs before the closure. Caribbean Airlines also used Dash 8s and then transitioned to ATRs which they still use on most regional routes. Air Antilles, which sadly went into liquidation, had a fleet of ATRs and Dash 8s. Bahamasair has 5 ATRs.
They were EXTREMELY popular with regional carriers here in the US as well. I remember a time not so long ago that nearly all of my connections were on Embraers. I have never lived near a major international airport, so pretty much every flight I take has at least one connecting flight.
Have flown on a lot of them. Dash 8 100s 300s and 400s, ATR 42s, Beech 1900s, Saab 340s, Folker F27, even a Hawker Siddley HS 748. All time favorite has to be the DHC-6 Twin Otter. Have flown it on floats, wheels and skis. It may well be the best plane ever built
Everything but the Q400 is almost unbearable after an hour... Even the Dash 8-100's and 200's are loud as f*ck! Even on a 45 minute commuter run between Edmonton and Calgary your ears will ring like a rock concert afterwards...
A secondary video could be made on the future of Turboprop's alone especially in the context of ZeroAvia and formerly Universal Hydrogen which are/were developing conversion kits to create hybrid hydrogen-electric planes for the regional market... I still think that's a great idea considering the eco-footprint of fossil fuels and PM 2.5. Yes water vapor COULD be an issue one way with creating more hazy skies but that's a long ways off...
Major turboprop brands in North America are Bombardier/dehavilland, ATR, Embraer and Saab. Of these bombardier is used almost exclusively in the west and north. It is STOL, suited to very cold winter climates and meets the rule that the aircraft must be able to fly fully loaded on one engine 1500 feet higher than the highest land in the operation area. This rule pretty much excludes Embraer and atr from western North America.
I've flown the Dash 8 for the first time back in June with two stopovers from Davao to Caticlan for Boracay Island via ferry. I personally like the sound and the way the pilot handles the turboprop, though it was way cramped than the usual Airbus A320 family airliners we flew aroudn the country.
Aer Lingus used to run the Dublin to Kerry route with turbo props. But Ryanair run it now. Back in 2005 I flew with Aer Arann Express from Galway to Dublin return. I didn't mind flying on turbo props because the journeys I took were less than an hour.
I think the distances involved even on regional flights is why turboprops aren't that popular. Alaska Airlines used to fly Dash 8-400's on routes out of Seattle to destinations in other parts of Washington state, Oregon and even into Idaho; they were all phased out in favor of the Embraer 175 regional jet.
Loud slow and cramped… I’ve hated these rattle traps every time I’ve been stuck on one (I’d frequently be stuck on freezing ones flying between my home in NYC and college in Syracuse)
Had a quick hop over to Jersey yesterday on an ATR 72 and back again same day for an AOG aircraft. Found it to be very pleasant. Seats were cramped but no more than a Ryanair 737, and for a 30 min flight was perfect. We charter out flights on turboprops (Kingairs) and anything under 2 hours flying, jets just aren’t worth it. The right tool for the right job.
Using a jet to do a short flight is like using a jack hammer to drill a hole in your house. Yea it looks cool and fun. But it's overkill and your gonna get a huge energy bill for that
In greece we have the ATR 42 and ATR 72, SkyExpress Olympic Air and Aegean Airlines use the ATRs the Dash 8 has been retired by the airlines 2 years ago
The ones that have wings on top of the roof offer excellent view outside from anywhere on the plane as there are no wings to get in the way. Moreover, they fly much lower than commercial jets so that you can enjoy the scenery up close and flying slower enhances it even more .
Back when United still offered the service, I would frequently take a Saab 340 between CLL and IAH because it didn't add much, if anything to the price, and I got to go through security in a much less crowded airport while avoiding rush hour traffic on the notoriously congested US-290.
Because people are back to not liking visible spinny things on their airplanes. Those puddle jumper things were made in world war 2 apparently if you ask the someone randomly on the street. Passenger comfort as well and segment lengths are a factor. If there was money to make an updated plane with more luggage storage space and a bit more space per seat it might make them more attractive.
I only flew with Air Philippines' YS-11 wayback Y1997. They have a promo price back then (Manila to Kalibo) of 500pesos (around US$9 today) one way fare.
The ATR72 is very popular in the caribbean. Airlines such as Caribbean Airlines and Inter caribbean Caribbean has quite a few. they service from south America all the way up to cuba.
I’d much rather fly a turboprop than a CRapJet-200!! Having said that, If I’m traveling less than 600 miles, I’m driving. It’s faster and cheaper than flying.
I think that the downfall of turboprops in the U.S. began on Halloween night October 31, 1994. When an American Eagle ATR 72 headed to Chicago crashed in a field in Indiana killing all the people aboard the plane. It was determined that severe icing caused the crash. I heard it explained that the ATR 72 had a rubber boot on the leading edge of the wing to deal with icing. The rubber boot on the leading edge of the wing was supposed to inflate and crack the ice off of the wing. On jets they explained that during icing conditions. That hot air from the engines was pumped through the leading edge of the wings to melt ice and prevent icing. It was explained when ice builds up on wing it disturbs the airflow over the wings and the wings lose lift and the plane falls like a rock. They explained that the icing was so severe that the inflatable rubber boots on the leading edge of the wings couldn't crack the ice off of the leading edge of the wings. The wings lost lift and the plane fell like a lead balloon. I'm not an aeronautical engineer but that's what I heard on a program about the crash so it's probably not 100% accurate. American Eagle transferred all of it's ATR 72 planes to southern States like Florida and Texas where icing isn't a problem. I'm not saying that the crash killed Turboprops in the U.S. but I think that the crash was part of their demise. I wouldn't fly on a turboprop in a State north of Florida or Texas. Maybe other people felt the same way. But I did feel comfortable flying on an ATR 72 from Miami to Fort Myers, Florida. Not much further north from there I wouldn't step one foot on an ATR 72.
I had a flight from VIJP TO VILK (in India) on an atr72 and it suffered severe continuous turbulence all the way on the 1.5 hour flight. Again it was not the case when I flew the same route but from VILK to VIJP, but it doesn’t make sense to pay for a flight can be so bumpy. I mean a drive would have been much more comfortable.
One issue is the perception in the US is that turboprops are not as safe as jets. This is due to some highly publicized crashes in the upper Midwest involving ATR turboprops. These crashes were due to icing issues. The manufacturer admitted at the time that the model plane in the crashes had issues with icing. This was supposed to have been fixed, but speculation about the recent ATR crash in Brazil involves icing. I, for one would not fly on an ATR in cold weather at all. I have not heard of any issues with the Dash 8.
For the most part, the US is huge and we need jets to actually cover the distance quickly. Though I used to fly for an airline in the US that flew exclusively Props to small communities that needed the service just to do a short flight to a larger airport via a service we have here in the US called the Essential Air Service or EAS for short. During my time doing these flights, I learned the Airport Managers are always more inclined to favor getting jets to their airports over prop planes. Why? Well they will sell it to the public as the most economical option, the comfortable option, the safer choice. But I can tell you a jet is none of those things. A jet uses a ton of fuel on the takeoff and climb. Most of the losses are then made up for during a long cruise flight. So how does that make sense for a short 20-40min flight to the nearest hub. It doesn't. It just takes off and immediately goes into the arrival or even the approach phase of the flight. A rail service or a prop plane, if you don't have rail, would do that trip far more efficiently! Props are also made of studier materials making them far more reliable than a jet which has to be made of lighter components. Jets also require far more complex systems to run perfectly which can cause more opportunities for delays. So why then do they favor jets? Well, like everything it has it's roots in money. The airports get a subsidy from the government to be able to operate. The amount that airport gets is dependent on how many passengers they service through the airport in a year. I remember, during my service the One Million passengers serviced was important because that was the point the airport would essentially get a raise. But, one of the first things the Airport Manager did when they reached that goal, was try to replace the prop airline for one that had the jet. Why? Cause Airport Managers see a jet as the more attractive option to passengers who could chose their airports to fly out of instead of the next one. But the airline that services the EAS route is voted upon by the community. So how do you convince the public that a gas guzzling, very complex, super inefficient jet is the better option for a tiny community? Simple. You feed into their culture. The same way you convince Americans to buy a gas guzzling SUV, you convince an American community to buy a big shiny gas guzzling jet. The jet just needs to look pretty when you show it to the public. One of the things I did as prop pilot was try to put myself in front of my passengers and talk to them so that they could see I was a real human being even though my intrapersonal skills were never on par with a professional politician. I could not sell them a big shiny jet, but I could sell them my service as a human being. It got to the point people recognized me by name at the supermarket. It wasn't too hard, there was only 3 pilots serving that community. However it was my own service that eventually drew enough passengers to the airport to meet the million passengers mark. It's the harsh nature of our line of work. We provide a good service, however it was that aspect that eventually brought about our own undoing. I don't work in EAS anymore. I work in the major airlines now, and I'm sure I will never get another passenger recognize me at a supermarket ever again simply due to the fact I fly out of major cities now and you just get lost in the crowd with everyone else there.
A classmate of mine who works in the Manila airport tower said that the Dash 400 are also powerful enough to carry passengers to the northernmost island of the Philippines - Batanes. I’ve been there via Philippine Airlines and the winds are notoriously strong that sometimes, I have to shout just to be heard by my tour guide
Two Dash-8s flew over my house while watching this video. Every Canadian knows the sound of the Dash-8. Comfortable efficient plane.
A big selling feature of the Dash-8 in eastern Canada is that it’s one of the few commercial planes allowed at Toronto Island (Billy Bishop) airport.
It might be efficient on that route, but not at all on an average one.
Were they Q400s or some of the older Dash 8s which sound very different, or maybe one of both?
From what i read, those Q400 are a bit overpowered, which makes them allmost as fast as jets, but also more costly to service those engines...
Generally, turboprops make sense on shorter routes, as the optimum altitude for their engines is around 25 000ft, while jets work best above 30 000 ft (FL300). Thus, turboprops reach their optimum altitude sooner, while on some short routes jets wouldn't reach their optimum altitude at all, as they will be descending again before reaching it...
@@SYNtemp Yep, the Q400 cruises fast as an average fighter jet’s long distance cruise.
I flew TPA-TLH on a Silver Airways ATR-42 a few years ago. From a passenger perspective, I found the ATR-42 to be much more comfortable than most CRJs I’ve been on. I hope ATRs make a comeback.
Yup. ATR's are common in Manitoba with Calm Air and they were the most comfortable turboprop/airliner I rode on while working in the North up there... Dash 8's from Air Canada and CRJ's from Air Canada were excruciatingly congested with seating thigh to thigh and seatback to seatback...
Sad the EMB-120 wasn't mentioned... they were pretty popular about 10-15 years ago.
I am a dispatcher for a cargo airline who flies almost exclusively EMB-120s, such a reliable versatile A/C
The pride of the west, they were swarming LAX, SFO, and PDX.
@@stephenmunoz4129 Hey, good to hear they're still out there. They've definitely disappeared from my local airport...
Though you mentioned WestJet, you missed Air Canada and their fleet of Dash 8-400s. I've flown them many times from PDX to YVR.
Air Canada Jazz uses them in Atlantic Canada, too, though operated by Newfoundland’s PAL.
Interestingly, Porter is transitioning from an all-Dash-8 airline to using Embraer E2 jets on many routes, including Halifax to St. John’s (where everyone used Dash-8s for many years).
I'm old enough to remember flying YWG-YQT on one of the earlier Dash 8s, operated by Air Ontario.
you forgot air new zealand that flies both ATR72 and DHC Q300 (29 and 23 of each respectively)
They’re workhorses down there honestly
The ANZ ATR72 messed me up first time I flew on one. Thought I scored with a front of the cabin seat, not realizing that they board from the rear. Doh!
Yes! My first and only ride on a turboprop plane was from CHC to ROT in 2019.
Remember too that after Roselawn, and other crashes, the ATR-72 became less popular because of it's susceptibility to icing conditions
Same thing with the Q400. Once the Colgan Air crash in Buffalo happened airlines started retiring it.
@@thatonerandomkid-r2nyea but that one over Buffalo was pilot error the 2 pilots were tired and hit iceing and kept pulling the plane up and stalled it
@@thatonerandomkid-r2n Yeah that was pilot fatigue not aircraft design or even maintenance issues... Had she not had to commute from Denver that morning everyone would still be alive!
@@ronparrish6666 Yup. Like being half asleep behind the wheel when an alarm goes off she chose wrong and everyone paid the price. Not her fault though considering her commute to work... 8 hours before she started to fly that day I believe. Two flights from home in Denver if I'm not mistaken. And she was paid basically minimum wage or just over... All factors that contributed to that accident...
@@stickynorth yep like I said pilot error nothing wrong with the Dash 8 actually a little bit better than the ATR because of range and horse power and the Dash has a APU to keep the power to the aircraft on the ground while the ATR has to keep one engine running for Air
Rex SAAB 340s and Qantas Link Q200s fly over my house all the time. Turboprops are very very popular in Oceania.
I love turbo props. Used to work with horizon air dash 8 as a baggage handler at sna for their Santa rosa route before the e175 replaced it.
My cousin piloted turbo props back in the day. He said they were awesome planes to fly. Very reliable.
1991 I flew from Nashville, TN to Peoria, IL in Saab 340. We flew through a thunderstorm. I recall seeing an unbelted child appear to levitate, illuminated by flashbulb lightning. When we arrived at Peoria, all of the runway lights were out at the airport due to a direct lightning strike. So they lined the runway with emergency vehicles and our pilot spiraled the plane downward through the storm until we broke through the clouds to find the runway. I was sitting on the wing and I will never forget being sideways looking straight down the wing and seeing the grooves in the cement on the runway before the plane righted and we landed. Pilot and co-pilot appeared to be in their early 30’s. I was aged a lot after that but hey, gotta give it to them AND the plane!
Those planes are study MFs
I was on a flight where a lady became alarmed that the wheel went up into the engine! Quote “that’s not right” 😂
I remember flying American Eagle ATRs back in the day. I miss those days.
REX, a regional carrier here in Australia has 61 SAAB 340 turboprop aircraft.
Every Christmas vacation, I always flew on Philippine Airlines' Dash 8-400s to my hometown. Interestingly, there are no direct flights from where I work to my home city so I always fly the Dash 8s four times every time I went home for vacation and returning to where I work. Every time I flew, I'm still really fascinated by turboprops. If I have the chance, I always booked a window seat near to the propellers.
As a Canadian? The Dash 8 is the workhorse of our airline sector outside the Big 6 cities of Toronto Ottawa and Montreal in the East and Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary out West... And even then you're as likely to get a Dash 8 flight between cities in those two triangles as an Embraer was a few years ago which was also a nice change from Boeing (If it's Boeing I'm not going) or the thoroughly mid Airbus lineup...
There's a video on RUclips (can't remember the channel) where a guy flies from Vancouver to St, John's exclusively on Dash 8s. Worth a watch.
There are some airlines operating turboprops in Europe, such as Air Nostrum for Iberia, Portugalia Airlines for TAP, Widerøe, SAS, Danish Air Transport, Twin Jet, Swiftair, Olympic Air, Air Serbia, Sky Express and so on
Flew on Malawian Airlines, a turboprop, in 2018, a first for me with both airline and airplane type. Felt safe and loved the views!
Yup I flew on both Turboprops back in the Day.
Long ago in the olden days I flew on Convair 640, Dash 7 (loved that plane), DeHavilland Twin Otter, Shorts 330, Douglas DC-6, Saab 340, NAMC YS-11.
Thumbs up. Finally, an aviation channel that pronounces "Bombardier" correctly. Great job. Flown on Porter an Air Canada turboprops many times. All good.
As an American who has been flying commercially for decades, my first commercial flight was on a Beech craft 1900. I was on many of those during university days. It's quite small and if you're nervous flyer you aren't going to like it. But I always enjoyed them. Flown on many Dash eights, and a handful of times on a Saab. Only time I was on an ATR was a domestic flight in the Philippines. Personally I'd prefer a turbo prop to those awful regional jets. And a turbo prop does not have visible turbines, just the propellers. Everything else is inside and actually less visible than on a turbo fan
The Saab 340 was my favorite turboprop. Quietest turboprop ever.
@@pete5668 One of my most enjoyable flights was on the Saab 340. Good airplane.
Maybe its just because I'm Canadian but my only negative perception of turboprops is that they're a little loud. I never really minded flying on them though. Currently have the Dash 8-400 (possibly another model too when I was a kid but can't say for sure), Beech 1900 (C and D variants), and Saab 340 under my belt
Agreed! I love them but the early Dash 8 variants are LOUD and buzzy to fly... Smooth and quiet weren't even factors when they were built!
Here in New Zealand I love flying on the atr-72 600 they are so roomy and so spacious compared to the 737 or even the Airbus A320.
Have flown the Fokker F-27 Friendship as a kid. Would love to fly on an ATR or Dash 400
Air Canada has 46 Dsh-8-400s , but got rid of the 200 and 300s.
Air Creebec runs on Dash-8 100s to linke northern Québec to Montreal. Air Inuit also has them.
Qantas, an international and domestic operator based in Australia has 45 Dash 8 aircraft. They fly to regional towns.
Growing up I used to fly the Henson Airlines breadbaskets on the East Coast of the USA. Usually from Patrick Henry in Newport News to Rochester NY or Buffalo NY, with a switch of plane at BWI.
I also remember the days taking American Eagle from Rockford IL into O'Hare. These were before the early 2000's, or the early 2000's.
The last I flew a turboprop was on a Lufthansa affiliate out of Munich. I was heading to Italy.
The first time I remember taking an airplane was on the Britt Airways turboprop from Danville IL into O'Hare....this was the 1980s.
Note: Mom and Dad told me I flew earlier but was to young to remember. Even then it was directly from O'Hare on a jet to India.
I've been on Dash-8 Q400s on a few flights. Very nice little plane and great for short flights.
in my country australia, qantaslink uses dash 8s on regional low demand routes to rural areas like Albury and Moree.
I've flown into Nanaimo on a small Dash 8 and I like the acceleration getting out of a small runway. Much more immediate in a prop plane vs a jet with its slow build up of power.
I was a passenger in a Dash-8 that experienced an engine failure (many years ago). Let's just say things got interesting. That plane really doesn't like to fly on one engine. Fortunately, we had some altitude and the pilot was able to get the plane trimmed out well before the ground started rushing up at us.
Most of us Americans really dislike turboprops. I sort of miss them. I have a sentimental attachment to the roomy, tall-cabined Short 360, common for regional airlines providing services for American, at least in the Midwest.
Mostly it’s the noise, I think. The lack of speed, too.
Not just geography, but runway length. If you got lots of long runways make use of them.
With jets.
Porter Airlines' home base (YTZ), where they fly lots of Q400s, has a runway length of less than 4000 feet.
I think US flyers associate turboprops with being flimsy, fragile, unsafe airplanes. Incidents like the famous American 4184 in 1994, or Air Midwest 5481 in 2003, where they crashed due to icing or weight imbalance. Especially the American flight was really high profile, reaction toward the ATR’s dangerous behavior in icing was similar to the 737 MAX. It was even heavily brought up in US media when covering the recent ATR crash in Brazil. I also hear claims of them being cramped inside. I flew an ATR for the first time last year and it wasn’t significantly smaller than a narrowbody jet. Maybe it’s because I’m a tiny Asian guy, much shorter than the average American, so maybe they find issue with the cabin size. I understand US flyers travel with lots of carry-on baggage and turboprops have tiny overhead bins, so passengers have to gate check them all the time. But all these are the same with small regional jets for the most part, so I don’t buy that as much.
Turboprops have always been my favorite way to travel ever since I was a child. I would like to see more turboprop operating in the US market given the choice I would always choose a turboprop for my travel needs
Been lucky to fly on a EMB120 a few times, and several q400s. Was even a fueler at PDX, put fuel on hundreds of Q400, even had to climb up on the wing to over wing fuel a few. Love that plane!
Took an FH 227 . Nashville to Paducah. Fun flying😊
Many smaller carriers with Beech 1900 and Saab 340's across Canada too.
I remember that Turboprops and small jets used to be very common in the USA in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s on airlines like Air Midwest, Air Wisconsin, American Eagle, Atlantic Southeast, Big Sky, Chatuaqua, Colgan Air, Comair, Compass, Endeavor, Expressjet, Freedom, Gojet, Great Lakes Aviation, Gulfstream International, Harbor, Henson, Lynx Aviation, Mesa, Mesaba, Metroflight, North Pacific, Piedmont, Pocono, PSA, Ransome, Republic Airlines, Rocky Mountain Airways, Seaport, Shuttle America, Skywest, Texas International, Trans States, and others.
Note: Many of these lesser known airlines were contract and regional carriers and provided commuter flights as the "express" or "commuter" version of many big name Airlines like American, Continental, Delta, Frontier, Northwest, TWA, United, US Airways, and others at the time.
A few years ago I was on an E-195 bound for MIA but not yet pushed back. Seated next to me was a guy on his phone telling someone he was on a “ little puddle jumper”. Oh brother! The anti turboprop people want a jet, the anti- regional jet people want an A330. There is no pleasing some people.
Hahahaha agreed! A Cessna 206 is a puddle jumper, a Dash 8-100 is a puddle jumper... E-195? Not so much... It's basically a trans-continental jet not unlike the A220... If it can do coast to coast service? Tis no puddlejumper, English!
As long as we don't get a horribly crammed CRJ, any jet/prop does it for me. The CRJ is the only aircraft I dislike because it's just so small, leg room is horrible and everything just feels so squished and stuffy. This doesn't happen with a320s
Wideroe in Norway operates 46 Dash 8's of various sizes.
Taking off at Dulles to Toronto is such a vibe in Porter's turboprop. The exceptionally short final over the water at Billy Bishop YTZ is also spicy and very fun.
Back in 2006 I intentionally booked a flight in a Frontier Q-400 from DEN to ABQ. Thoroughly enjoyed it. As a GA pilot myself, at no point in the flight was I ever concerned for my own safety flying in a "smaller turboprop" aircraft.
Many times in the 1st generation of turbo props the Vickers Viscount. Sadly today's turbo props don't have the same passenger appeal.
I think one of the major reasons in the United States was for passenger comfort. Turbops were known for being loud and Bumpy. They couldn't fly over the weather as well as jets could and it just became.
Better when the regional jets came on the scene
I grew up back when turboprops were very much the norm for "express" flights. In fact, I'm a bit of an ATR veteran with my frequent trips on Continental Express. In those days, they really were short trips, i.e. under an hour, and only on routes that had exceptionally low demand. Otherwise, airlines continued to operate regular jets, even if it was under an hour. The idea of a regional flight halfway around the country was considered insane.
This changed after 9/11, when airlines were desperate to cut costs. More routes were dropped into the laps of these regional carriers, some of them quite a long distance and close to, if not beyond the reach of many turboprops. Nobody wants to be stuck on a noisy vibrating turboprop for more than an hour. There is also the issue of cost. Maintaining two types of aircraft and two sets of pilots is a lot for regional carriers that are operating under contract. The savings in fuel isn't really worth the increased complications of having two type ratings to keep track of, especially with federal subsidies in play. It's easier for them to take a hit in fuel economy on a few routes for streamlined operations overall.
Speed + Efficiency = PropFan engine
when will they be used?
On short haul flights you don't even notice difference in time between turbo prop and jet. It is perfect economic sense on many smaller 1 hour or less routes.
When I was a kid, USAir flew Short 360s into my hometown's airport. These had a boxy look, much like the flying Winnebago spaceship in Spaceballs. Later, the regional airlines that served this airport switched over to Dash-8s and ATRs. Today, RJs serve all the flights. I actually sort of miss the incredibly loud racket the turboprops made when taxiing or taking off, which got conspicuously louder from my parents' house (4km away) when the planes approached the terminal building on account of the echo.
The Dash 8 is super comfortable. I've flown it many times with Porter and Air Canada Express.
Are you sure it was a Dash 8?
I find the QantasLink Dash8s have more legroom than the Qantas mainline 737s. Once seated you hardly know you’re on a small plane.
Also factor in their short runway capabilities. Myopic Alaskan had to cancel service to several airports because the Embraers wouldn’t fit.
When I was a youngster, I flew Piedmont Airlines out of CRW on NAMC/Fairchild YS-11s. I thought they were great, though as an adult I would probably find them noisy. The most miserable planes I have been on are the Beechcraft 1900 (a turboprop) and the CRJ200 (a jet). I'd take a Dash-8 Q400 over a CRJ any day of the week. The Dornier 328 was a really nice plane too. It is a shame it was never very popular and was sort of orphaned by bankruptcy.
Turboprops popular in the US in the 90’s replaced by regional jets in the 00’s. Engine noise for the passenger was LOUD approaching 85 dB as I remember.
0:27 also flying above the storm is safer when with a jet liner
Here in Taiwan the ATR72-600 dominates the domestic market where both UNI Air and Mandarin only operates the type for their entire fleet. Unfortunately this also caused our infamous record of crashing two ATR72-600 in six months, both by the now defunct TransAsia
I commute with an ATR plane every day from Donegal to Dublin.
Christ on a bike! Can you not wfh? What industry are you in?
Wow that's 40 mins of flight time and then additional minutes of airport security and getting to the airport from home/work.
I think that the crash of a Dash 8 in Buffalo in 2009 was one of the biggest factors why the impression of turboprops being unsafe arose in the US. It was a big story in the US as one of the passengers was the widow of a 9/11 victim. This is despite the fact that the cause of the crash was found to be pilot error.
I was surprised to see that in Canada, Dash-8-400's were used on jet-distance flights. I like those planes, and many flights in Europe are turboprop. Iceland and Greenland depend on them entirely for domestic flights. Important international flights from/to Croatia rely on the Dash.
The airline I work for operates ATR 42s, SAABs, 1900s, King Airs and Twin Otters, my base also services the occasional Dash-7 (the predecessor to the Dash-8) all are very reliable, especially in remote locations and cold temperatures.
Passaredo Airlines in Brazil exclusively operates ATRs as well.
Qantaslink has the largest fleet of Dash-8's in the world, including 3 variants. Surprised not to see them mentioned!!
Turbo-props are very dangerous to fly. Birds tend to not pay attention when they come up from behind and accidentally hit the plane in the back.
😄
Brazilian here, sad that the video did not mention Embraer, Brasília and bandeirante were the backbone of many south and central America regional flights. LIAT the Caribbean airlines also flew the dash 8 for decades, they were the lifeline for many families around the region to move but sadly went bankrupt
Big hail Liat! They eventually transitioned to ATRs before the closure. Caribbean Airlines also used Dash 8s and then transitioned to ATRs which they still use on most regional routes. Air Antilles, which sadly went into liquidation, had a fleet of ATRs and Dash 8s. Bahamasair has 5 ATRs.
They were EXTREMELY popular with regional carriers here in the US as well. I remember a time not so long ago that nearly all of my connections were on Embraers. I have never lived near a major international airport, so pretty much every flight I take has at least one connecting flight.
AirNZ flys both the ATR72 and Q300.
Honestly with the Brazilian plane crash I feel Silver should get rid of those ATRs and buy some E175s instead.
Have flown on a lot of them. Dash 8 100s 300s and 400s, ATR 42s, Beech 1900s, Saab 340s, Folker F27, even a Hawker Siddley HS 748. All time favorite has to be the DHC-6 Twin Otter. Have flown it on floats, wheels and skis. It may well be the best plane ever built
I have traveled in Turbo prop planes many times here in the U.S. The main problem I have with Turbo prop is that they are noisy.
Everything but the Q400 is almost unbearable after an hour... Even the Dash 8-100's and 200's are loud as f*ck! Even on a 45 minute commuter run between Edmonton and Calgary your ears will ring like a rock concert afterwards...
A secondary video could be made on the future of Turboprop's alone especially in the context of ZeroAvia and formerly Universal Hydrogen which are/were developing conversion kits to create hybrid hydrogen-electric planes for the regional market... I still think that's a great idea considering the eco-footprint of fossil fuels and PM 2.5. Yes water vapor COULD be an issue one way with creating more hazy skies but that's a long ways off...
Major turboprop brands in North America are Bombardier/dehavilland, ATR, Embraer and Saab. Of these bombardier is used almost exclusively in the west and north. It is STOL, suited to very cold winter climates and meets the rule that the aircraft must be able to fly fully loaded on one engine 1500 feet higher than the highest land in the operation area. This rule pretty much excludes Embraer and atr from western North America.
I've flown the Dash 8 for the first time back in June with two stopovers from Davao to Caticlan for Boracay Island via ferry. I personally like the sound and the way the pilot handles the turboprop, though it was way cramped than the usual Airbus A320 family airliners we flew aroudn the country.
Aer Lingus used to run the Dublin to Kerry route with turbo props. But Ryanair run it now. Back in 2005 I flew with Aer Arann Express from Galway to Dublin return. I didn't mind flying on turbo props because the journeys I took were less than an hour.
I think the distances involved even on regional flights is why turboprops aren't that popular. Alaska Airlines used to fly Dash 8-400's on routes out of Seattle to destinations in other parts of Washington state, Oregon and even into Idaho; they were all phased out in favor of the Embraer 175 regional jet.
Loud slow and cramped… I’ve hated these rattle traps every time I’ve been stuck on one (I’d frequently be stuck on freezing ones flying between my home in NYC and college in Syracuse)
There's a range where jets don't have much of a time advantage and the props are much cheaper.
So, Why Are Turboprop Airliners So Rare In The US?
Dash 8 and saab 2000 are my favourite aircraft in the world
Love flying the ATR to the Greek islands. Easy on and off too
Prior to Flybe going into administration in 2020. several turboprops flew from London Heathrow, on internal flights and to the channel islands.
Had a quick hop over to Jersey yesterday on an ATR 72 and back again same day for an AOG aircraft. Found it to be very pleasant. Seats were cramped but no more than a Ryanair 737, and for a 30 min flight was perfect.
We charter out flights on turboprops (Kingairs) and anything under 2 hours flying, jets just aren’t worth it.
The right tool for the right job.
Using a jet to do a short flight is like using a jack hammer to drill a hole in your house. Yea it looks cool and fun. But it's overkill and your gonna get a huge energy bill for that
In greece we have the ATR 42 and ATR 72, SkyExpress Olympic Air and Aegean Airlines use the ATRs
the Dash 8 has been retired by the airlines 2 years ago
The fact that FedEx is now using ATR’s on 1,000mi nonstop routes from Miami to Central America signals a comeback for turboprops!
Also Air New Zealand use the dash 8 and the ATR-72 for regional services.. I think they are a great smaller class of aircraft.
Embraer 120 should be mentioned as well intercaribbean had a large fleet of them
The ones that have wings on top of the roof offer excellent view outside from anywhere on the plane as there are no wings to get in the way. Moreover, they fly much lower than commercial jets so that you can enjoy the scenery up close and flying slower enhances it even more .
Back when United still offered the service, I would frequently take a Saab 340 between CLL and IAH because it didn't add much, if anything to the price, and I got to go through security in a much less crowded airport while avoiding rush hour traffic on the notoriously congested US-290.
Do QantasLink, Air NZ link not exist ?
Because people are back to not liking visible spinny things on their airplanes. Those puddle jumper things were made in world war 2 apparently if you ask the someone randomly on the street. Passenger comfort as well and segment lengths are a factor. If there was money to make an updated plane with more luggage storage space and a bit more space per seat it might make them more attractive.
Turbofans are safer than turboprop engines
I only flew with Air Philippines' YS-11 wayback Y1997. They have a promo price back then (Manila to Kalibo) of 500pesos (around US$9 today) one way fare.
I live in New Zealand and when I told an American friend I was taking a turboprop on a regional flight he expressed something close to consternation
Lots of turbo props in Australia.
Air New Zealand operates both ATR and Dash8 aircraft. 👍
The ATR72 is very popular in the caribbean. Airlines such as Caribbean Airlines and Inter caribbean Caribbean has quite a few. they service from south America all the way up to cuba.
I’d much rather fly a turboprop than a CRapJet-200!! Having said that, If I’m traveling less than 600 miles, I’m driving. It’s faster and cheaper than flying.
did you forget INDIGO airlines?? it operates around 50 ATR-72s
I think that the downfall of turboprops in the U.S. began on Halloween night October 31, 1994. When an American Eagle ATR 72 headed to Chicago crashed in a field in Indiana killing all the people aboard the plane. It was determined that severe icing caused the crash. I heard it explained that the ATR 72 had a rubber boot on the leading edge of the wing to deal with icing. The rubber boot on the leading edge of the wing was supposed to inflate and crack the ice off of the wing. On jets they explained that during icing conditions. That hot air from the engines was pumped through the leading edge of the wings to melt ice and prevent icing. It was explained when ice builds up on wing it disturbs the airflow over the wings and the wings lose lift and the plane falls like a rock. They explained that the icing was so severe that the inflatable rubber boots on the leading edge of the wings couldn't crack the ice off of the leading edge of the wings. The wings lost lift and the plane fell like a lead balloon. I'm not an aeronautical engineer but that's what I heard on a program about the crash so it's probably not 100% accurate. American Eagle transferred all of it's ATR 72 planes to southern States like Florida and Texas where icing isn't a problem. I'm not saying that the crash killed Turboprops in the U.S. but I think that the crash was part of their demise. I wouldn't fly on a turboprop in a State north of Florida or Texas. Maybe other people felt the same way. But I did feel comfortable flying on an ATR 72 from Miami to Fort Myers, Florida. Not much further north from there I wouldn't step one foot on an ATR 72.
I had a flight from VIJP TO VILK (in India) on an atr72 and it suffered severe continuous turbulence all the way on the 1.5 hour flight. Again it was not the case when I flew the same route but from VILK to VIJP, but it doesn’t make sense to pay for a flight can be so bumpy. I mean a drive would have been much more comfortable.
One issue is the perception in the US is that turboprops are not as safe as jets. This is due to some highly publicized crashes in the upper Midwest involving ATR turboprops. These crashes were due to icing issues. The manufacturer admitted at the time that the model plane in the crashes had issues with icing. This was supposed to have been fixed, but speculation about the recent ATR crash in Brazil involves icing. I, for one would not fly on an ATR in cold weather at all. I have not heard of any issues with the Dash 8.
The last fatal airline crash in the USA was an iced up Dash 8 Q400 operated by Colgan Air.
@@calvinnickel9995 There was also American Eagle Flight 4184, which was highly reported at the time. This was an ATR 72.
A Dash 8 stalled in Icing conditions in 2009, but that was proven to be due to pilot error, and not the design itself
For the most part, the US is huge and we need jets to actually cover the distance quickly. Though I used to fly for an airline in the US that flew exclusively Props to small communities that needed the service just to do a short flight to a larger airport via a service we have here in the US called the Essential Air Service or EAS for short. During my time doing these flights, I learned the Airport Managers are always more inclined to favor getting jets to their airports over prop planes. Why? Well they will sell it to the public as the most economical option, the comfortable option, the safer choice. But I can tell you a jet is none of those things.
A jet uses a ton of fuel on the takeoff and climb. Most of the losses are then made up for during a long cruise flight. So how does that make sense for a short 20-40min flight to the nearest hub. It doesn't. It just takes off and immediately goes into the arrival or even the approach phase of the flight. A rail service or a prop plane, if you don't have rail, would do that trip far more efficiently! Props are also made of studier materials making them far more reliable than a jet which has to be made of lighter components. Jets also require far more complex systems to run perfectly which can cause more opportunities for delays.
So why then do they favor jets? Well, like everything it has it's roots in money. The airports get a subsidy from the government to be able to operate. The amount that airport gets is dependent on how many passengers they service through the airport in a year. I remember, during my service the One Million passengers serviced was important because that was the point the airport would essentially get a raise. But, one of the first things the Airport Manager did when they reached that goal, was try to replace the prop airline for one that had the jet. Why? Cause Airport Managers see a jet as the more attractive option to passengers who could chose their airports to fly out of instead of the next one.
But the airline that services the EAS route is voted upon by the community. So how do you convince the public that a gas guzzling, very complex, super inefficient jet is the better option for a tiny community? Simple. You feed into their culture. The same way you convince Americans to buy a gas guzzling SUV, you convince an American community to buy a big shiny gas guzzling jet. The jet just needs to look pretty when you show it to the public.
One of the things I did as prop pilot was try to put myself in front of my passengers and talk to them so that they could see I was a real human being even though my intrapersonal skills were never on par with a professional politician. I could not sell them a big shiny jet, but I could sell them my service as a human being. It got to the point people recognized me by name at the supermarket. It wasn't too hard, there was only 3 pilots serving that community. However it was my own service that eventually drew enough passengers to the airport to meet the million passengers mark. It's the harsh nature of our line of work. We provide a good service, however it was that aspect that eventually brought about our own undoing. I don't work in EAS anymore. I work in the major airlines now, and I'm sure I will never get another passenger recognize me at a supermarket ever again simply due to the fact I fly out of major cities now and you just get lost in the crowd with everyone else there.