Turboprop passenger plane airlines

[Genie47]

I'm talking about Firefly and Berjaya Air.

 

Anyone took them before? Them and their swanking new ATR72-500?

 

I know Berjaya Air used the old Bombardier DHC-7 which is a really extreme STOL plane. Pity they retired them for the ATR72.

 

I had taken the Skyvan and Herc so I don't have any qualms in taking such airlines with these turboprop aircraft.

 

Since most of the regional flights can be less than 800km in distance, do you think most of the budget airlines have gone the wrong way by using regional jets instead of these turboprop planes? They use less fuel means they break even if the seats are 55% filled. This means they can be on time and have less canceled flights. The cruise speed of the fastest turboprop (Bombardier Q400) is close to a regional jet and so it is just as fast.

 

Then they can also service the places where no jets can land since they are STOL aircraft usually.

[Super4]

Yup. One on berjaya air to Tioman and Fireflyz to Terengganu. Both flights sat next to the props, and incredibly it's not even audible at all (i'm not deaf yet). Thought it would be noisy at first, but it isn't and the journey was smooth with hardly any speed bumps or turbulence.

 

Only qualm is that, these planes are small! So yeah.

[Genie47]

The ATR72-500 is not small actually. With a 72 passenger load, it is bigger than the A320 or A330 with 30 passengers.

 

But it loses in range.

 

The next gen turboprops can take up to 90 passengers and have a range and speed that competes with the regional jets. We may see these turboprops take over the LCC action.

[Perrier]

I'm talking about Firefly and Berjaya Air.

 

Anyone took them before? Them and their swanking new ATR72-500?

 

I know Berjaya Air used the old Bombardier DHC-7 which is a really extreme STOL plane. Pity they retired them for the ATR72.

 

I had taken the Skyvan and Herc so I don't have any qualms in taking such airlines with these turboprop aircraft.

 

Since most of the regional flights can be less than 800km in distance, do you think most of the budget airlines have gone the wrong way by using regional jets instead of these turboprop planes? They use less fuel means they break even if the seats are 55% filled. This means they can be on time and have less canceled flights. The cruise speed of the fastest turboprop (Bombardier Q400) is close to a regional jet and so it is just as fast.

 

Then they can also service the places where no jets can land since they are STOL aircraft usually.

 

Alot has to do with the fuel price as well as the traveling pattern and emergence of new airlines.

 

I previously have a close working relationship with ATR and my Taiwan customer said it sip fuel.

 

Of cos, the recent avionics upgrade and cabin comfort level does score some points as well.

 

For your info, Bangkok Airways, Thai Airways, TransAsia, Laos, Vietnam Airlines, Hansung, Cebu, Air New Zealand are a few operators who own the ATR.

 

I don't work for ATR. You can also check out their ATR -600 with the new avionics suite.

 

[Krado]

I'm talking about Firefly and Berjaya Air.

 

Anyone took them before? Them and their swanking new ATR72-500?

 

I know Berjaya Air used the old Bombardier DHC-7 which is a really extreme STOL plane. Pity they retired them for the ATR72.

 

I had taken the Skyvan and Herc so I don't have any qualms in taking such airlines with these turboprop aircraft.

 

Since most of the regional flights can be less than 800km in distance, do you think most of the budget airlines have gone the wrong way by using regional jets instead of these turboprop planes? They use less fuel means they break even if the seats are 55% filled. This means they can be on time and have less canceled flights. The cruise speed of the fastest turboprop (Bombardier Q400) is close to a regional jet and so it is just as fast.

 

Then they can also service the places where no jets can land since they are STOL aircraft usually.

 

IIRC some budget airlines purchase their jets second hand from larger airlines, despite what their claims of "young" fleet may be... airliners.net is yr friend. Maybe they already did some homework and the second hand jet is more viable? I'm not sure how airlines are run.

 

I've personally sat in a C130 (don't have to guess why), Fokker 50 and an ATR72 (Firefly). The experience of flying in a turboprop isn't the greatest but it does bring back memories. The other time I was in a prop plane, it was for short hop flight in the US.

[Genie47]

I'm not sure how airlines are run.

 

They are run for profit.

 

[Krado]

They are run for profit.

 

I mean how they determine their ROI lah.

[Genie47]

Alot has to do with the fuel price as well as the traveling pattern and emergence of new airlines.

 

I previously have a close working relationship with ATR and my Taiwan customer said it sip fuel.

 

Of cos, the recent avionics upgrade and cabin comfort level does score some points as well.

 

For your info, Bangkok Airways, Thai Airways, TransAsia, Laos, Vietnam Airlines, Hansung, Cebu, Air New Zealand are a few operators who own the ATR.

 

I don't work for ATR. You can also check out their ATR -600 with the new avionics suite.

 

I would think the incumbents like Tiger and AirAsia might switch to these if passengers like us put on-time flights and less canceled flights AND price into our decsions.

 

ATR and Bombardier seems to be competing hard in this area. As a regional traveler for a region that has a dearth of good rail links, comfort is not that paramount but the above are much more important.

[Genie47]

I think it is the number of passengers they can stuff into a plane.

 

Most turboprop planes can break even for a flight with just 44% of all the seats filled. So I would think ROI will be much faster.

 

Hate it when a flight is delayed or canceled not due to weather. Experienced it twice with AirAsia. I would gladly pay more (but not too much) for a flight from a LCC with better time and schedule performance.

 

I think those operators mentioned above got the smarts for this business by operating the turboprops. I think they understand economics better.

[B777jubilee]

The ATR72-500 is not small actually. With a 72 passenger load, it is bigger than the A320 or A330 with 30 passengers.

 

But it loses in range.

 

The next gen turboprops can take up to 90 passengers and have a range and speed that competes with the regional jets. We may see these turboprops take over the LCC action.

 

huh? The A320 can sit close to 190pax, which is more than double what ATR72-500 can take.

[Redstorm]

MasWing, a subsidiary of MAS, also use the ATR for some of their domestic routes. I flew once from Kota Kinabalu to Sandakan on this plane. Quite new and more comfortable than the older Fokker 50 which they phased out. All the seats have individual overhead LCD screen.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Redstorm

[Sabian]

TBP got no range. LCCs want the flexibility to gun for mass mkt routes that legacy airlines are slowly giving up and swopping is planes between routes is easy. TBP cannot fulfill that the kind of numbers they want to achieve and airport slots are expensive.

[Krado]

I think those operators mentioned above got the smarts for this business by operating the turboprops. I think they understand economics better.

 

Just to add on... it was surprisingly quiet, like a jet.

 

I think the general public prefer jet over turboprop because... well.. "sounds nicer"

[B777jubilee]

the general public tend to have impression that turbo prop are less safe than jets. but in reality, turbpoprops are probably safer as they fly slower.

[Linkinwiz]

The ATR72-500 is not small actually. With a 72 passenger load, it is bigger than the A320 or A330 with 30 passengers.

 

But it loses in range.

 

The next gen turboprops can take up to 90 passengers and have a range and speed that competes with the regional jets. We may see these turboprops take over the LCC action.

Bro, ATR72-500 where got bigger than A320 or A330? Slightly smaller than A320, but way smaller than A330. A330 is quite big and flies quite far you know?

[Thestig]

I don't remember the number of times that I've been on a jet propelled plane but I'll always remember the times I was on a TBP!

 

They are just a little slower but I feel that they take you on the more spectacular trips. The ones that you will always remember.

 

[Astro]

Flew in one recently with Fireflyz. The experience is not too much to shout about. Our flght was quite bumpy thorughout probably due to the size of the plane and thus more suceptible to turbulence. Not comfortable at all and contrary to one of the comment made, the noise produced though not deafening but it sure can be quite loud.

[Ferraricalifornia]

turbo-prop can't go fast lah....

 

at most Mach 0.5???

 

most Airbus and Boeing you see,

 

capable of cruising at Mach 0.65-Mach 0.85 (without tail-wind)....

 

plus turbofan allows for more payload capacity, better range etc....

 

but one thing good about turbo-prop is the much cheaper maintenance, and sips fuel lah....

 

but turbofan quite efficient too....

 

sat on the C-130 and Fokker-F50 too....the F50 can really do steep banking man....

 

C-130 quite quiet too....