2 ms·

I have heard the alternative conclusion that the expense and reduced inter-changeability of airframes in a mixed fleet of turboprops AND jets, outweighs the cos

I have heard the alternative conclusion that the expense and reduced inter-changeability of airframes in a mixed fleet of turboprops AND jets, outweighs the costs of just jets, and furthermore the US domestic market has seen a reduction in demand for the short flights that turboprops excel at. Put another way, the jets are cheaper, even though they individually cost more and burn more fuel. That the turboprops have been phased out of larger airlines that both run long distance flights and would benefit most from the economics of just jets in their fleet, while turboprops are still in use at smaller airlines who would not benefit as much from a single airframe fleet and serve a higher proportion of short distance routes, does seem suggestive.

tuna-piano 7y ago
Interesting theory, and I'm no expert, but it doesn't feel correct to me. Of course United flies only jets, but it has a variety of regional partner airlines that also fly only regional jets. In a slightly similar way, FedEx operates only jets but for small cargo routes seems to operate only propeller planes (along with its large FedEx feeder partner feelts)[1]. This could be for a variety of reasons, but it seems most logical (to me) to assume that props are more economical and of course cargo doesn't care about comfort. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express#Fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express#Fleet