Why are US Airlines Ditching Turboprops? | Aviation Deep Dive
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 фев 2021
- 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.
Video: Will Kibbe
Thumbnail: ATR
Follow Airways via 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. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: chriszabriskie.com/reappear/
Artist: chriszabriskie.com/
Mario Bava Sleeps In a Little Later Than He Expected To by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: chriszabriskie.com/vendaface/
Artist: chriszabriskie.com/
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the title of this video, then even sadder when I heard that they have a reputation for being louder, more cramped, and outdated...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!!
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.”
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.
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.
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
On a flight under 400 miles, the turboprop is ideal. Excellent short field takeoff, lots of power at low speeds. Love em.
I used to fly the dash 8 for american eagle. My last flight was June 30, 2018. Fantastic aircraft!! Very safe and reliable!
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?
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
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
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".
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
Turbo props aren't going anywhere anytime soon in Alaska.
Think about what you have written.
@@alejandrayalanbowman367 ahahaha I'm glad you caught that
@@alejandrayalanbowman367 lol I guess they're all grounded
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I prefer to fly turboprops for short flights, sad.
Dornier 328JET is just smirking
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.
thx for the info!
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!
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.
Very informative and interesting keep it up!
Glad you enjoyed it! -ML
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.
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.
You nailed it.
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.
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
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.
@@G-546 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."
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.
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.
Funny that at the beginning they're questioning about props in the US while showing YUL which is a Dash-8 hub.
Very informative video. Horizon and Silver airways seem likely to keep turboprops in their fleet however.
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.
"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 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.
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
Prop planes where good enough for SKY KING.
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.
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.
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,
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.
Same thing happened to me, had I known it would be the last I probably would have taken more photos or talked to the crew a bit. :(
I can see ditching ATR's those things are deadly in icing conditions.
@@kdrapertrucker T-tail turboprop issue, Colgain 3407 was a Bombardier Dash-8.
@@kdrapertrucker blame on older ATRS
@@Swag_K1RBY As I said above, I love Airbus (ie ATR) but my favorite turboprop is the Q400 - I'm completely unbiased here but they've BOTH had high-profile icing-related-crashes. A lot of it was lack of understanding on the dynamics of ice formation on t-tail aircraft, and the reversal effects it could have on pitch authority. A LOT of valuable research came out of those incidents at least.
I used to live in Salisbury, and never flew out of the Salisbury-Ocean City for the exact reason mentioned in the video. Also because the turboprops never went to any major airports. But I always thought turboprops were more dangerous than jets, and I remembered the Colgan Air Flight 3407 accident happening around that time. Still, this video was a bit eye-opening. I think I'd be willing to try the newer ones now. Interesting video anyhow.
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.
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'll always remember the passenger complaining to us about how hard the leather seat was on our CRJ and wanting to know how he could figure out which flights had the older (and softer) cloth seats. Dude, you just got direct jet service to Meridian, Mississippi, would you rather go back to 2 legging it on a turboprop to get here?
This is a world-wide trend. Even in Europe, most carriers are getting rid of turbo-props. Look at SAS, Eurowings, AirBaltic, etc.
There’s Silver Airways and it’s sticking with the Turboprops for a long time. They recently received ATR-72 model aircraft to replace many of their Saab 400s.
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 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.
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.
I have no problem with turboprops. If it means lower ticket price, I'll happily take a turboprop. Turboprops are fun actually.
I have always had an affection for the jet known as the BAC/ BAE-146. I thought she was a beautiful and dependable sirplane. I sometimes feel that airlines are too hasty to take a plane out of service when they still have a long and useful life. Some large jets like the 757, 767, the MD-11 , even the 747, are still going strong. I understand the hesitancy of the public in regards to the ATR 42/ 72 and the Dash 8 because of their high profile crashes but the BAC ( BAE)- 146 disappeared much too soon and had a great service record.
My very first trip on a plane was an American Eagle shorts 360 back in 1985. I remember it being very loud and bumpy
I flew on Shorts 360s from time to time. What you have to remember is that the 360 was a design derivative of the Skyvan. I thought of them as sheds with wings, extremely useful but not terribly sophisticated, and yes they were a bit noisy. It was still a very good aircraft.
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?
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.
3:24 That right there was the single turning point for turboprops in US commercial aviation.
I flew TW Express ATR42s between JFK and BOS all through college (in all seasons, in all weather, without incident). Almost as cheap as Amtrak and nearly the same takeoff-to-touchdown time as jets. Good times.
Silver Airways fly’s tons of SAAB 340’s out of Pensacola International around the south east here
Alaska has the most turbo props. Because they’re cheap to operate, reliable, and can operate in adverse weather conditions.
Man that first landing....oof! I hope they had chiropractors standing by at the gate! Lmao
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”
If I had to guess, The PUBLIC PERCEPTION of Turboprops is, "Noisy, slow, prone to ICING'.
General public perception of ICING? I don’t think any of the general public think about the deicing systems of their airliner.
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.
Our large company used jets for a city to city transport, about 100 miles, after switching out from a turboprop. It actually took about as long because the jet needed to go above 20,000 feet, and thus spent most of the time climbing or descending. I have seen many regional airlines going to and from airports here that were too small for jets. It makes no sense.
Wondering if we are getting e - prop aircraft anytime soon
Harbour Air out of Vancouver have an Electric Floatplane! -ML
The should make turboprops look cool and futuristic by giving them props like those on the A400M or even counter-rotating like those on the AN70 . Make the individual blades different colors and incorporate LED light strips on the tips an edges to make a light show when they spin at night.
maybe the same engine as Tu-95/An-22.
5:08 that's an ATR-72 of Cebu Pacific in the Philippines 🇵🇭🇵🇭🇵🇭
Cool
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.
i miss when back in 2010, almost all of the planes that passed by my house near IAH were EMB 120s and Q400s
I grew up under the flight path into Monterey Regional Airport in CA. I saw the transition over the years from EMB-120s and Saab 340s to mostly CRJs, and now lots of ERJ-145s and E-170s. Very interesting how the carriers all switch around the same time frame.
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.
There's a big need for a turboprop plane with less than 35 seats due to smaller flight crew requirements and regulations. Rex airlines in Australia is still running Saab 340Bs that are 20+ years old because there's no obvious replacements.
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.
More complications. You have a jet engine plus a reduction gearbox plus props with feathering equipment.
Ahh mysterious intro music from the anime re:zero
A big reason airlines wanted jets for regional carrier's, is they needed pilots that have multi engine jet time to fly their own aircraft.I remember when all this happened and it was mainly about pilots and the pay scale for jet pilots. Regional carriers have always been the minor league for the big cariers.
A long time ago, most turboprops were the purview of private companies and small FBO's. Usually independent pilots and flights.
The only thing I can think of is that airlines are dropping them and essentially handing off that market to the smaller guys.
they are less flexible in many areas, you can ussualy replace turboprop with regional jet but not other way around without causing problems like at least falling bechind shedule due to lower speed
Makes me wonder ... with the impacts of carbon costs on everyone's net wealth plus penalties for travel (impacting regional travel) and the years of recovery post Covid, I wonder if the 50-72 seater will force a resurgence as this is a market that jets just don't fit?
I'm not sure if you're aware, but your title music around the 0:45 mark is clipping badly.
The only passenger turboprop aircraft I flown was the ATR-72 with Cebu Pacific.
Actually, it is Cebgo that operates the ATR 72. Cebgo is the regional subsidiary of Cebu Pacific and utilize the ATR 72 for shorter flights and small airports with shorter runways and limited service.
I love them. They are fun.
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.
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
I never minded flying in turboprops as a passenger but they could be very loud. The Saab 340 comes to mind.
There is at least one area where turboprops are inferior in safety: blade and hub failure. Recently a 777 suffered an engine explosion. Despite this dropping various parts on the ground, the engine shroud did as designed and prevented the fan blades from striking the fuselage. Meanwhile, a turboprop's unshrouded propeller blades have nothing to prevent them from perforating the fuselage should they fail in a catastrophic manner. Even with proper maintenance, bird and other debris strikes can also induce such a failure. As such, there is some truth that they are inherently less safe.
I've always wanted to fly a Q400. Maybe if I go fly for alaskan
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.
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.
Turboprop is not fit for us market but here in Asian country where so many airport in remote area
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
50 seat CRJ-200s last produced 2006, and the heydays of production were prior to 9/11. Regional jets grew from there and Bombardier bankrupted itself building the 130 seat C-Series (originally planned at 100). The CRJ is now out of production. (Mitsubishi only bought rights , maintenance contracts).
I have to wonder how airlines will serve 50-100 seat markets with all new jets aimed at 100 and aboveé
You should noted that as part of its de-facto-bankruptcy, Bombardier offloaded all its former de Haviland Canada products to Longview Aviation who got its subsidiary Viking Air to start producing the abandonned Twin Otter and they now have the -400 model with upgraded engines, avionics etc. And they also got the Dash-8 product which went to newly formed subsidiary De Havilland Canada (as they also got the trademark from Bombardier).
Under Bombardier, the products were more of less left to rot as BBD was busy with stretching its CRJ and building C-Series. It will be interesting to see if De HJavilland Canada, which is hungry for business, will be able to bring life back into the Dash-8 (as it did to the Twin Otter).
Another difference: Viking has existed for a very long time maintaininga and retrofitting aircraft. When it actuired the Canadair water bomber aircraft from Bombardier, it found out that BBD had refused to offer upgrade packages, thinking people would buy new fire bombers. Production ceases for lack of new orders. Viking started to offer CL215 to CL415 upgrades (piston to turbo prop engine upgrade, avionics upgrade, water capacity increase etc) and those are selling well. They don't count as "new aircraft sales".
I have to wonder if they may do something similar to Dash-8-400s.
When airlines seek to find a 50-70- seat aircraft, will they take a second look at turboprops now that there are no jets? Or is that market no oonger to be served by air?
What happened two years ago with the big 3 U.S. carriers is not a trend for regional flying around the world. With demands for greener flight and less carbon emissions the turboprop should slide easily into most shorter haul configurations. Hybrid electric for props is coming on stream. Hi bipass jet engines cannot get that much bigger without them being essentially turboprops themselves or requiring new airframes. When you put hybrid engines on a Dash 8 or ATR you add even greater fuel efficiency to superior fuel economy already existing. Pratt and Whitney Canada are going down this road right now. That means the Dash and ATR airframes have a lot of life left and airlines like Wideroe in Norway prove the Dash's metal. Embraer still will factor in with jet fans but the Q400 is very fast, easy to turn around, easy to fly into much smaller airports and with vastly superior fuel economy. I think the future is there for turboprops and big carriers like the one's divesting of turboprops are are really now just heavily leveraged Dinosaurs who are going to get knocked silly by small and nimble operations at smaller airports and with very small crews and logistics. The watch should be on now for how communities will wish to promote their small airports.
The deals always struck me as odd. Fine for Bombardier (they get their money and walk away) but the other guys?
They’re buying HUGE projects with extremely complex and modern aircraft that they have NO experience with. Even if they have good intentions, I don’t see the scale of such a small company meshing very will with the scale of such a large project/airframe.
I do hope they manage to make it work - there is nothing wrong with the Q400, and fundamentally I think it’s easily the best and most modern turboprop in its segment right now, however all of that will be lost if these new guys can’t leverage that.
@@EstorilEm Viking Air (aka e Havilland Canada) has been in business for a few decades and has been maintaining original de Havilland aircraft for that long. For instance, when Bombardier sold them the IP/rights to the Twin Otter and others, Viking updated the design and restarted production of a plane Bombardier was never interested in. Bombardeir had prefered to shut the water bomber due to no sales rather than offer upgrade packages. Once Viking got the product, it offered upgrades from the CL215 piston aircraft to the CL 415 EAF with turbo prop engines, new avionics and increased water capacity. And governments find it far less expensive to upgrade their old CL215 than to buy totally new ones.
In the case of the Dash-8, de Havilland Canada inherited the lease to the Toronto assembly hall, with stipulation they vacate by mid 2021. (in its Liquidation, Bombardier sold that too). So that is a big unknown because depending on where they move the Dash-8 production they may not have any Dash-8 expertise they can hire. However, as they do parts/maintenance, they will quickly ramp up that expertise.
@@jfmezei That definitely makes me feel better (and I knew about the twin otter) but that's like comparing a Cessna 172 to a 737, the Q400 is a pretty advanced aircraft; all the maintenance and ops/training/special equipment is on an entirely different level.
At least they're pretty much getting EVERYTHING it sounds like, but as you also say - are they keeping the employees and the knowledge?
Maintenance is one thing, but production is another.... this thing didn't sell well before (in a market for which it was custom-built, regional mainline markets) with an experience commercial airline manufacturer. I guess I just have my doubts that in this jet age, a much smaller company can get even close to the (unprofitable) numbers of Bombardier, especially after the PR hit and image of the aircraft as a "failed design" since they flat-out walked away from it.
There are so many out there being retired, my guess is that they'll take on all the principal maintenance, training, etc plus a lot of spare parts, and possibly cargo or other conversions for small operators out of remote areas? I'm not entirely sure we will ever see another new-build Dash-8 again.
@@EstorilEm Viking/de Havilland hs been maintaining aircraft of all sorts for a long time. (look up Viking Air on the web). Bombardeir had long agai abandonned prodiuction of the Twin Otter, and Viking not only restarted production, but created the -400 with totally modern cockpit avionics etc. Also, de Havilland inherited all the IP /designs and the staff for the Dash-8. And continued production of it until recently. Just like Bombardeir was not interested in the CL415 firebombers or the popular Twin Otter, it lost interest in the Dash-8 because it was focusing on stretching the CRJs and then on the C-Series. My hope is that with De Havilland depending on the Dash-8, they will be agressively pushing it. Another aspect is that Bombardeir diverted funds from all its operations to develop the C-Series, Global 7500 and Lear 85 planes (the later was cancelled after having spent a few billions). De Havilland can focus on the Dash-8 instead of whatever revenues from it funding C-Series.
Also during its last years, Bombardier was seen as a bankrupt company (and even Canadian oppposiotion politicians kept repeating te government shouldn't help a failed company) and that really hurt its sales. De Havilland doesn't have that image, but it does have the image as the small company it is. But the world wide maintenance/parts network still exists, so this isn't a small company creating a new plane from scartch. Nobody is buying planes now. But consider the number of CRJ200 and 700 that are out there. Consider climate change. And consider airlines will want a cheap solution for feeder airlines. The Turboprops may come bacl.
I could ask a similar question: Why are airlines getting rid of their piston-engined aircraft, like the DC-3?
Economics. Piston driven aircraft are incredibly inefficient and over their lifetimes more costly to maintain (and less reliable)
The funny part is that long after all of the ATR's and q-400's are retired the DC-3 will still be up in the air flying.
@@dehman8174 freight yes. But not people, not in the US. In countries that don't as tightly goveren aviation and especially maintenance they will fly forever. Because without maintenance oversight they are easy and cheap to repair. I flew in Argentina, with a voltmeter out of a Ford being used. That won't happen here. Of course you'll find the exception, Buffalo Airlines for example. But in 95% of the cases old piston driven airframes just aren't as reliable to run 10, 15, 20 hours every day. And even Buffalo said they would switch to the turbine DC3 if the upfront cost weren't so steep.
There are still 80 year old DC-3s in revenue service.
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 like flying in a turboprop plane because the flight is less boring than very smooth high flying jets, also I can see the land scenery much better with turboprop.
However, you can’t blame the customer for the disappearance of turboprop plane, because even under the same weather condition and at same altitude, jets generally fly smoother because of their higher wing loading.
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’ve been flying since 1984. I average about 90 flights per year. Turboprops are just damn loud.