Flexibility also, perhaps?
If an airline procures turboprops for a particular short route, it is committed to that route or another of similar length. Jets on the other hand offer flexibility in terms of being reassigned to longer routes if the economics change and a route is dropped?
Perhaps that makes a difference, I don’t know. Maybe leasing terms render that issue irrelevant?
Passengers definitely aren’t too keen, and your average punter probably doesn’t know there’s a difference between turboprops and piston props.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
It is not only money and efficiency, it is also passenger appreciation. In the eyes of the wide public, turboprops are on one level with a JU52 and quite a few have heard one of those has crashed…
I would suggest this is the main reason. TP’s are much more efficient. Moving a big area of air slowly, is always more efficient than moving a smaller area faster. This is why every new fanjet gets a bigger and bigger front diameter to increase efficiency. I can promise you that in the future, they will eventually have to become unducted to meet efficiency demands. And an unducted fanjet is, well, a turboprop. 
Airborne_Again wrote:
I’ve never understood the rationale behind the dislike.
I’ve never understood why Elefants (and most women) are freaked out by mice either. It’s simply like that… why is the sky blue…
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I’ve never understood why Elefants (and most women) are freaked out by mice either
The high/low thing is something I discussed with pax who flew PA28 and C172, their view is that PA28 looks like a proper airplane, why? because it looks like an airliner, but some TP airliners are high wing? yes but I like sitting on it rather than getting hanged by a wing
The other aspects are probably engine confinement that feel safe or fear closed/open space?
Take someone who is both claustrophobic and has vertigo, good luck finding him a nice elevator, especially if he is not fit to climb stairs 
I had pax in open/closed cockpit, gliders/power, low/high wing…there is no clear cut but majority of nervous ones tend to like {flying low, closed cockpit, engine noise and low wing}
Mooney_Driver wrote:
why is the sky blue
I know why!
Mooney_Driver wrote:
In the eyes of the wide public, turboprops are on one level with a JU52 and quite a few have heard one of those has crashed… but seriously, a lot of passengers do not like propellers, they feel unsafe on prop airplanes and will, given the choice, fly with an airline which uses jets (unless it’s cheaper…..)
I’ve heard that many times and think that’s a myth and not a factor for airline management decisions. Most passengers have no idea in what plane they will fly or have flown. They book depending on price and time. If an airline wanted to use props and had a business case for them they would not care about the one dumb one out of a thousand passengers.
The small minority that is educated about airplane types knows that not booking a flight because it’s on a TP in the western world is ridiculous.
AdamFrisch wrote:
And an unducted fanjet is, well, a turboprop.
In Sweden BRA is dropping its jets (BAe146) for a full TP fleet (ATRs and Fokker 50).
Arne wrote:
BAe146
No wonder… the 146 is one of the worst examples (fuel, maintenance). A little joke:
Captain: Hey, go ahed and start the APU will you.
First Officer: Which one?
or monopolies (Wideroe, Dash 8, Norway) the airlines are getting rid of turboprops, and they wouldn’t do it if it made sense to operate them.
Widerøe started using E190 E2 a year ago. They are not a monopoly. Several others have started competing, but none has made it. It’s only a year ago that FlyViking went bust when trying to fly the same routes.
As I understand the E190 takes over some of the routes flown by the Q400 + additional international routes. It’s the 100 – 300 series of dash 8 that is the bread and butter however, and I don’t see any jet taking over those routes (or other TP for that matter).
