can 30 seat jets replace turboprops


#1

can the emb-135 or dornier 328jet replace turboprops? Also, what is the break even point of the emb135 and dornier 328jet?


#2

Define break-even point please?


#3

break even point- # of seats that must be filled before the airline can make a profit.


#4

break even divide by seats = make no money ticket price. Add profit and compare that number to what the market will bare or what the big airline contract will pay. Add $5, 6, ?? per gallon for JetA. Turboprops are coming back, see other posts on this topic.


#5

With the way fuel prices as these days and depending on the distance of the route the aircraft is to serve. Props are more efficient and profitable then most regional jets. Not to mention more spacious, take for example the Continental Express E145. Words that come to mind long, sleek, tight fit and one row of overhead bins. Now the Continental Connection Dash 8, roomy, comfortable and with the new NVS system as quite as a regional jet. The United States is far to use to regional jets, look at Europe…


#6

Don’t forget lower pilot cost…pilot flying turboprop I believe makes less money than pilots flying RJ’s.


#7

Good point. Labor is still the biggest $$ component.


#8

i want to say the do jet breaks even at about 18-20 seats. It will never replace the turboprops.

        100nm    200nm      300nm

dornier… 954 lb 1528 1910
saab 340… 605 990 1340

that’s 30-37% more fuel for the same distance and two less seats

sources: zenithaviation.com/0410/pdf/ … 328jet.pdf
saabaircraft.com/download/fi … ertFAR.pdf


#9

How about the performance aspect. Most (not all) turbo props out perform jets on short airports with high density altitudes. I would say all if we compare a/c with the same number of seats. Look at KASE, KEGE, and KTEX on any given day. There aren’t very many, if any commuter jets going in there, just commuter turbo props. There will always be a market for turbo props, FOD is just one reason, a prop can nick a stone, but ingest a stone into a jet and it’s bad news.


#10

takeoff performance for the do jet is 4485 feet vs 4425 for the saab. for those of you who know their math, that would be only 60 more feet. the dornier and the emb 135 have fast takeoff roles and landing distances.


#11

Is that at standard sea level? What about high density altitude takeoff performance numbers?

Also, capitalizing the first letter of the first word of each sentence makes reading a post much easier and adds to your credibility.


#12

Does anyone know the pounds of fuel and capacity for a SW 737?

Just curious.


#13

6,875 gal, which is about 46,000 lb.


#14

i think more like 23-26 seat break even point.


#15

Are you kidding me. That is like an 80% break even point. Anyone here know the actual break even point?


#16

Also depends on the fares bought as to what the break even point is. If everybody on the plane is paying $200 a tickets on a 21 day advance and is connecting on a 2nd flight, the break even point is much higher than a plane full of business walk up fares who are only travelling the one flight.


#17

Sorry, I meant the fuel usage and seat capacity, like the numbers above for the regional jets. Just for comparison.


#18

just for the record i believe turboprops can never be replaced with jets, look at the new DeHavilland Dash 8-Q400 and the ATR 42/72, these are more efficient in every way on routes below 400NM, the CRJ may be a tough competitor in speed but thats it,