General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAir travel and the turboprop revival - Turbo aversion, turbo reversion
But now, even as regional airlines continue to phase out their older turboprops, a new generation of planes with propellers is taking off. ATR, a European maker of turboprops that is jointly owned by Airbuss parent EADS and Finmeccanica of Italy, had a record year last year, winning firm orders for 157 planes and options for a further 79. Like Airbus and Boeing it now has an order book stretching years ahead. And like the bigger planemakers it is ramping up its output to meet the demand: in 2005, the turboprops darkest hour, ATR made just 15 of them. Last year it made 53, this year it is aiming to make more than 70, and in 2014 it wants to turn out 85.
...
The reason for the turboprop revival is simple: the oil price. Filippo Bagnato, ATRs boss, explains that the turnaround began when crude rose above $35 a barrel in the years following the Iraq war. Planes powered by jets are faster, but for flights of less than around 500 nautical miles, the shorter time spent in the air is insignificant compared with the fuel savings to be made by flying a slower turboprop. As it has become increasingly uneconomic to fly regional jets with fewer than around 70 seats, the turboprop has come to look like a better option. There seems little chance of oil going back down to the levels that had for a while made their fuel efficiency unimportant.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2012/02/air-travel-and-turboprop-revival
msongs
(67,498 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)This is regional carriers going back to turboprops for short flights to smaller airports. In the article, IIRC there were 27 airports that had lost major carrier jet service last year.
originalpckelly
(24,382 posts)In Europe, that's how the trains are used and on routes where they exist, they are so competitive with air travel that it all averages out and the trains are better. Plus, you can power a train with electricity from all kinds of sources.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)This would cost trillions of dollars in the US.
The existing roadbeds cannot be used because the curves are too tight and the tracks aren't at the right angle in curves for high speed operation. They also have to be grade-separated from all roadway crossings, since hitting a semitrailer at 200 mph is a bad thing.
If you thought people put up resistance to a new interstate through their neighborhood was bad, try putting a new high-speed rail through their neighborhood.
roody
(10,849 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one".
The government should pay displaced homeowners or renters a generous amount and give them a great deal on new places to live.
As for the environment - do the best possible routing job possible to minimize damage to sensitive areas, and remind the environmentalists that it is the lesser of two evils.
originalpckelly
(24,382 posts)which is just a type of propeller enclosed in a tube.