Going green.

[bri5150]

Why don't airlines market turboprops as "going green"? Instead, they cut them because pax don't like them. Just sayin'. Maybe the fuel savings is worth it?

 

[CptMurf]

I've been saying that for a long time. I can see the commercial 70 pax in front of a Q-400 with a sign on how long it took from point A to B. 50 pax in front of a CRJ200 with their time en route, on the same flight segment. Then the camera zooms out to show the gallons of fuel used on the flights.

 

[Abernathy]

Because airlines are run by former and future oil executives.

 

[Dash8don]

Like this?

http://http//www.airliners.net/phot...1725663/&sid=df8e89d2924750ae73a0f0c2059ae1d5http://www.airliners.net/photo/Hori...25663/L/&sid=df8e89d2924750ae73a0f0c2059ae1d5

 

[cbrown1]

Like this?

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Horizon-Air/De-Havilland-Canada/1725663/&sid=df8e89d2924750ae73a0f0c2059ae1d5

Link doesn't work.

 

[WIPilot]

Why don't airlines market turboprops as "going green"? Instead, they cut them because pax don't like them. Just sayin'. Maybe the fuel savings is worth it?

because few people really care about going green unless it is able to positively effect their pocketbooks while keeping equal or better quality of life.

 

[WalterSobchak]

Link doesn't work.

FTFY

 

[say again]

because few people really care about going green unless it is able to positively effect their pocketbooks while keeping equal or better quality of life.

Exactly!!!!!

 

[bri5150]

because few people really care about going green unless it is able to positively effect their pocketbooks while keeping equal or better quality of life.

I disagree. I am pretty sure hybrids cost their owners more money in the long run. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[glasspilot]

Going green is considered high tech. Nobodies building covered wagons under the "green" label are they?

People want green to be clean and high tech. Commercial aviation does not hit those marks with their turbo props. There are turbo props that do however...

Fast, clean, efficient turbo prop marketed as "green"


Here's a company that markets the "green" of their turbo prop

 

[trip]

because pax don't like them

+1 .

 

[CoATP]

Georgia Skies markets their Caravan as an "ECO JET"

 

[taters]

Horizon has a "green" Q400 with the associated hippie slogans on it

 

[glasspilot]

+1 .

Hate to bust your bubble. Pax don't hate turbo props. Ask 99% of them what a turbo prop is they won't know. Ask 99.5% the differance between a turbo prop and a jet they still won't know. Seriously, the man on the street doesn't care what's pushing the plane...thrust or torque. (I bet a few reading this didn't know that's the difference).

What pax hate is small planes. Pure and simple. They dislike being uncomfortable. Imagine that.

I flew a CRJ and I didn't get it at the time. My attitude was, "hey, would you rather be on a turbo prop" thinking some pax poor attitude was un-founded.

Now I ride on CRJs and ERJs as a paying pax and I get their point. They suck. Very uncomfortable. The erj-190 is nice, but that is KILLING upward movement my sucking flying from mainline so I dislike it on principle.

 

[JetSpeed219]

Horizon has a "green" Q400 with the associated hippie slogans on it

We've got 2 of them, nicknamed Shrek and Fiona...

 

[altimaklr]

You are delusional if you think people like a Q400 over a CRJ200. The cabin width is the same, seat pitch same, and the Q400 still shakes back and forth and makes twice the noise. Nobody likes to look out and see propellers, fact or not, people consider it antiquated and unsafe and therefore don't like it.

 

[AiRegency]

And CRJs are more comfortable then turboprops even if the cabin dimensions are exactly the same. It's because you have to spend a lot less time in the cabin of a CRJ then of a turboprop. Unless, of course, we're talking about really short hops in which case it doesn't make much of a difference. But even then, the average passenger would still rather not see props out there and the louder ride that goes with them.

 

[CptMurf]

And CRJs are more comfortable then turboprops even if the cabin dimensions are exactly the same. It's because you have to spend a lot less time in the cabin of a CRJ then of a turboprop. Unless, of course, we're talking about really short hops in which case it doesn't make much of a difference. But even then, the average passenger would still rather not see props out there and the louder ride that goes with them.

I would disagree. I would rather ride 50 minutes on a Saab than 50 minutes in a 200.

 

[AiRegency]

Even on a hot summer day?

 

[Metro752]

I doubt so. He's full of it.