FlyerJosh

Really? Enlighten us sky queen. I know folks that have gotten on at plenty of majors with only turboprop time (1900s) and others that have gotten on with only turbojet time. Similar number of hours.

Is there a difference? Sure- odds are the guys flying 1900's have a harder job and are a lot more proficient at hand flying and instrument procedures than most RJ drivers (the fact that they fly into uncontrolled fields and have to fly full procedures can have that affect). Jet drivers usually have more advanced systems experience that will carry over to flying bigger equipment.

Either way, they all log the same time (AMEL), and take the same checkrides...

JoeyMeatballs

Jesus, Majors DON'T CARE IF YOU CAN HAND FLY, WHEN DO THEY EVER DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CactusCrew

Once or twice a year in the sim with a failed engine ...

Airborne

I don’t think Turbo Props are going to go away any time soon. The Props seem to climb to altitude better (shorter distance) which is good for mountain flying. Also the Bombardier Q series Aircraft seems to be gaining more popularity because of fuel efficiency.

As far as which is a better pilot. I would lean a litter towards T- Prop pilots simply because most jets have FMCs which does most of the flying for the pilots while the T- Prop guys are still mostly hand flying. Pilots that go straight into jets with FMCs kind of get spoiled quickly.

cruiseclimb

Turbo props are more fuel efficient. Their popularity will make a comeback. Especially in the shorter haul markets like the northeast.

JoeyMeatballs

"PROPS ARE FOR BOATS" haha j/k I will say that I enjoyed flying the SAAB more than the ERJ, but you guys have to remember that props really are props and pax prefer jets, and jets are faster, I know the SAAB 2000 and the Q400 are quick, but they simply arent as fast or as reliable as jets, mx is always more costly on a T-Prop. As to whos a "better" pilot well that all depends, one may be more "rusty" than the other but that doesnt mean they are "better" pilots! I hand fly the jet as much as possible, and the one thing I have noticed is that a jet is more difficult to hand fly than the SAAB was, so that being said is it fair to say that I am a "better" pilot cause I can hand fly a jet? no not really, Turbo-Props are very very easy to fly, just keep that in mind, well with the exception of V1 cuts of course

Baronpilot

I also know some 1900 guys from Colgan that went straight to the 767's, so it can be done. BTW, didn't HMP say she flew SAAB's prior to her current position?

FlyerJosh

Passengers don't give a sh*t about what they are flying on. Sure, they'll b**ch and complain about getting on a "tiny airplane" or a "prop", but you know what?

99% of them will choose it everytime over a CRJ/ERJ if the ticket is $10 cheaper... As far as maintenance and reliability, I'd challenge you to find numbers that showed that Turboprops are any less reliable (comparing aircraft of the same age) or any more expensive mx wise (over the long term). Remember, turbojet/turbofan engines are a lot more expensive to overhaul due to their size.

Also, RJs aren't a good fit for many of the communities being served by 1900s, Saabs, and DH8s. (<35 seats). You can't make money flying into places like Bradford, PA and Bemidji, MN with a RJ.

If anything I'd say we'll see a realignment in the next few years. Fewer 45-65 seat aircraft and more smaller (35 seat) and larger (70+) aircraft. The era of the CRJ/ERJ is drawing to an end. We'll see much more in the way of the EMB170, if you ask me.

JoeyMeatballs

I think your right about that, makes me wonder what are the regionals gonna do? I mean CHQ has some, but looks like the majors are going to be flying anything bigger than 70 seaters, such as mainline USAIR flying EMB-190s. But lest not forget too that there are still plenty of cities that fit perfectly into the 50 seat market, but agree the the 35 seat and under market is and will always be there as well.

rickair7777

The airlines would disagree with some of this. The 50-seaters were invented to replace props based on airline market research that indiacted that pax would drive or take another airline to avoid props if possible. This was before $75 oil, so the economics have changed a bit, and I feel that a fairly big, quit plane like the Q400 can have it's cake and eat it too.


Turboprops in airline service today are certainly less reliable than RJ's. This is probably not because they are props (vibration may be a factor), but because they are one generation back in technology, and modern engineering design places a high emphasis on reliability and maintainability. The fact that they are old and worn out might have a little bit to do with it also. However this means that a modern prop such as the Q400 should be as reliable as any other modern plane with similar technology (I know, the Q400 s*cks in this regard, but that is probably growing pains and not due to the prop)

The incremental cost of going from 50 to 70 seats is very small, so I agree that the airlines would just rather have 70 seaters, and fly them half-empty on lighter routes, while retaining the capacity to carry more when needed.

It would make sense in light of fuel costs to start seeing new-generation props in the 30, 50, and 70 seat ranges. The problem here is that if a manufacturer goes out on a limb to design a new high-tech prop, they could be left swinging in the breeze if fuel costs drop and everbody just decides to go with RJ's...