Premium #211- 90+ Seat Turboprops

The 90+ seat turboprop is something that has been bubbling up for a long time. Interest was primarily driven by rising fuel prices. The key firms in the turboprop business today are ATR and Bombardier. Both firms have long made the case that a 90-seater isn’t in the cards. But interest never went away, as also shown in the story here. Recently, Bombardier announced they had managed to squeeze 90 seats in their Q400. We are certain that ATR is preparing its own solution. Squeezing more seats into an existing fuselage that was designed for fewer passengers can only mean one thing – more discomfort. If turboprops can maintain their popularity during a period with low fuel costs, it might spur the OEMs to start thinking about something new. One of the big issues OEMs told us about building a clean-sheet 90-seat turboprop is that it will likely require more powerful engines to match the larger airframe. The current fuselages have already been optimized and have reached their maximum capacity with the use of slim line seats. We suspect a larger engine power requirement exceeding the 5,000 SHP class might be necessary. While the 5,000 SHP could work on a lighter fuselage, but with a stretched fuselage weight will likely rise, even with the use of advanced materials. In addition, we expect OEMs offering a larger turboprop would want to provide high speed to compete with regional jets. The table illustrates the most powerful turboprop engines from the three principal western OEMs. The GE and Rolls-Royce engines are mainly used in military aircraft. But these engines can be deployed in any airframe. P&WC and Rolls-Royce might have to develop new engines to match the capacity of the GE38. A senior engine executive we recently spoke with believes engine power demand will grow beyond the current 5,000 SHP class for a next generation turboprop. Perhaps the GE38 power level of 7,500 shp could become the next baseline power goal for Pratt & Whitney Canada and Rolls-Royce? Engines substantially influence aircraft designs and their evolution. More capable engines act as a disruptive force by allowing aircraft OEMs to consider either stretching a current design or developing a new model optimized for that new technology. If the aircraft OEMs were to do a clean sheet design they would obviously not limit themselves to 90 seats. It would make sense to develop an airframe that can be stretched, perhaps as far as 120 seats. At this size these aircraft would be bumping into the market for the largest regional jets. At the current sizes of around 80 seats, ATR and Bombardier are already competing with regional jets, so this will not be anything new. But it certainly would make the 100-120 seat segment intensely competitive with both jet and turboprop choices. If the aircraft OEMs decide to look at a 110-seater, and using data from three current aircraft, we see that such aircraft might need two engines closer to the GE38. Indeed, looking at power per seat, the GE38 might even be de-rated significantly and still provide sufficient power. We assume new materials would reduce airframe weight substantially from current offerings. We also assume high speed will be an important feature to compete with regional jets. To ensure optimum aircraft weight, new materials and technologies like Fly-By-Wire help reduce weight. As a rough guide, 90-100 SHP per seat might be appropriate for an all new high speed model. A clean sheet 110-seat turboprop would likely be built with new materials, and be lighter than existing models, particularly the Q400, which has been in service for several decades. Therefore, the power/seat ratio will likely be significantly lower than the Q400. It is notable that the ATR has a relatively low power to seat ratio, partially due to its lighter weight and partially due to its lower speed. If the key driver is going to be speed, that will be a factor in defining power requirements. How might a 110-seat turboprop be deployed? In airline use turboprops are more fuel efficient than regional jets below 500 miles. Yet in the US market we have an intriguing situation with air shuttle service between New York, Boston and Washington, DC. The shuttle market in known for high fares and short hauls. Take a look at the distances; this should be the ideal turboprop market. Yet airlines operating the routes deploy E-170s (Delta) or E-190s (American). Clearly the case for jets must be strong. Even with lower per seat costs, turboprops are not being used. Take a look at the flight frequency between LGA and DCA, and also note the fares. These high fares allow the profitable use of jets. But these same fares using turboprops would be far more profitable. One would think this type of flying would seek lower costs than that of regional jets. One has to wonder why? While this example for the US may look odd, we should point out that Canada's Porter Airlines has been very successful deploying turboprops against regional jets. One expert we spoke with said: "Horizon replaced its E170 and CRJ700 with Q400 for efficiency and to play to the green theme in the Pacific Northwest. Their (and Alaska's) customers don't seem to mind. But (and especially after the 1994 Roselawn, Indiana Eagle ATR-72 crash) the majors spent most of the last half of the 1990s talking about going "all jet", relegating turboprops to warm weather secondary hubs (or offshore with Executive Airlines at AA's then San Juan hub). I like the Q400 for its speed and active noise cancellation/quiet cabin, but I doubt the Big 3 will adopt it or the ATR." Another view from an executive at an OEM that does not make turboprops shared this: "The turboprops do not have better economics in shuttle service. They may have better costs but because of lack of consistency with the mainline standards it compromises revenue. Shuttle markets typically have a high percentage of business passengers who demand a better product. And they pay for it. Typically 15% above the average of the market for the same distance. So no big airline would accept to take risks of losing such profitable passenger. In shuttle markets the jets have better overall economics." Looking at the US traffic by trip length we see the following. Over the recent past, fewer people are flying under 500 miles as a percentage of overall traffic. An initial response might be to say the market is therefore not worth focusing on. But it could also be argued that such a market needs fewer, but larger, aircraft. Turboprops work best on shorter routes, and jets overtake them economically after about 500nm. The problem is that many short-haul US flights of 250 miles or less are nearly as quick by car, given airport security lines and the need to travel to and from an airport versus direct to a destination. As a result, demand for short-haul air travel has reduced substantially, even in shuttle markets such as Boston-New York. (The Eastern shuttle once ran A300 wide-bodies at peak times) No matter which side of the argument one takes, the business case for a larger turboprop is tough to make. The fact is the market looks like it is getting tougher. Consequently, if an OEM considers a 90+ seat turboprop, they should probably focus on range and speed to offer airlines the greatest flexibility. On the other hand, demand data suggests the turboprop OEMs have been smart not to rush into this kind of project. Will we see a 90-120 seat turboprop? The answer is unlikely for the next decade.

No results