Flight Booking by Aircraft

[Ted]

Today I had to book a flight for business travel. Although we go through a travel agency, I prefer to check the flights online first so I know which one I want when I call. When I searched this time, I noticed a new feature that I hadn't seen before, the ability to search by aircraft type. You could specifically rule out regional jets or turboprop aircraft. It also gave me a warning that I was booking a flight on a turboprop aircraft. Odd that it would consider this worthy of a warning.

Interestingly, you could not choose specifically that you wanted regional jets orturboprop aircraft. I actually prefer the two to flying on the big jets. The turboprops are more fun for me as a pilot, and I find the regional jets to generally be nicer as they are smaller and feel less like a bus, and I've found normally pretty comfortable. Also interestingly, I couldn't specify that I don't want an Airbus. I actually did pick flights specifically so that I would not have to fly on an Airbus, since it does say what type of plane you're flying on specifically.

I book commercial flights pretty often online, and this was the first time I saw it. The website I used was kayak.com. Anyone else ever notice this?

Too bad times are past where I could pick as a selection "Must have round piston engines only"

 

[flyersfan31]

I haven't had to book anything 'cept for the annual pilgrimage to Orlando on Southwest in years. That being said, I'd be all over that function. I had a lot of latitude in picking my travel when I did work for money. I lived south of Baltimore, so had my choice of BWI, IAD, or DCA, and I often booked based on equipment rather than convenience. I flew on a 777 2 days after they entered revenue service DEN-IAD on United. CRJ1 our of DCA pretty much same thing for a trip to YYZ. I once dragged my wife out of our way to fly an AVRO RJ from DEN-GEG, instead of a more convenient flight, because I was intrigued by those little 4 engined jets.

Oh, those were the days. Of course, it was not nearly as painful to fly back then either.

 

[Teller1900]

I haven't had to book anything 'cept for the annual pilgrimage to Orlando on Southwest in years. That being said, I'd be all over that function. I had a lot of latitude in picking my travel when I did work for money. I lived south of Baltimore, so had my choice of BWI, IAD, or DCA, and I often booked based on equipment rather than convenience. I flew on a 777 2 days after they entered revenue service DEN-IAD on United. CRJ1 our of DCA pretty much same thing for a trip to YYZ. I once dragged my wife out of our way to fly an AVRO RJ from DEN-GEG, instead of a more convenient flight, because I was intrigued by those little 4 engined jets.

Oh, those were the days. Of course, it was not nearly as painful to fly back then either.

I loved the Avro RJ/BAe-146s. I wanted to fly for Mesaba for the longest time because they were one of the last operators I saw with them. But then they gave in to the ubiquitous CRJ.

If this option becomes too widespread, I'm probably going to be out of a job before too long. People still hate flying on that "tiny little thing with the propellers." Even though our "tiny" little 65,000lb turboprop is a heckofa lot bigger and, IMO, a lot more comfortable than its smaller jet counterparts, people just get freaked when they see a propeller.

 

[Everskyward]

People still hate flying on that "tiny little thing with the propellers."

I flew from KDEN to KICT with one of our mechanics in a Q400. The first thing he said when he saw it was, "That thing has PROPS!" He also said it was the smallest airplane he had ever been in... until the next day when he had a ride in the new Cessna.

I'm not the biggest fan of the Q400, but I'm not fond of traveling by airline. Still, it gets you there...

 

[maddog52]

Also interestingly, I couldn't specify that I don't want an Airbus. I actually did pick flights specifically so that I would not have to fly on an Airbus, since it does say what type of plane you're flying on specifically.

Curious as to why you would avoid the Airbus?

I personally find the RJs cramped and uncomfortable. Narrow seats, close pitch, small to non existent bin space, low ceilings, and no entertainment other than the sometimes cute, young flight attendants reading. I'd rather be on a turboprop for a short flight or a Boeing or Airbus for anything over an hour and a half.

 

[ScottM]

Curious as to why you would avoid the Airbus?

I find their seat designs to be annoyingly unergonomic and their luggage space to be less than adequate.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I find their seat designs to be annoyingly unergonomic and their luggage space to be less than adequate.

Better than the 737 -300 and -500 series.

 

[maddog52]

I find their seat designs to be annoyingly unergonomic and their luggage space to be less than adequate.

I agree on the seat aspect but they are still miles ahead of the RJs on both counts.

 

[ScottM]

I agree on the seat aspect but they are still miles ahead of the RJs on both counts.

The RJs do have their drawbacks, but I do enjoy the single left seats on some of the American Eagle planes as well as the microbrew of the month that Horizon serves.

 

[corny357]

You could use Flightaware to see what aircraft airlines are running on particular routes.

 

[Ghery]

The RJs do have their drawbacks, but I do enjoy the single left seats on some of the American Eagle planes as well as the microbrew of the month that Horizon serves.

Two flights on Horizon Q400s tomorrow - SEA to PUW and PUW to SEA. And no microbrews for me. Darned rat poison, anyway. That, and I have to drive home when I get back to SEA.

Folks who don't like the turboprops don't know what they're missing. I've had a couple flights in Dash 8s where I had more legroom than on almost any jet in coach. No complaints from me at all.

 

[sba55]

people just get freaked when they see a propeller.

That's very true and it's also very annoying. Why don't they like props? Because in their completely uneducated opinion, they're less safe?

Whenever I hear that someone doesn't like props, I just tell them that they'll be seeing a lot more of them in the future. Get used to it.

 

[Ghery]

That's very true and it's also very annoying. Why don't they like props? Because in their completely uneducated opinion, they're less safe?

Whenever I hear that someone doesn't like props, I just tell them that they'll be seeing a lot more of them in the future. Get used to it.

And isn't a fan jet just a ducted turboprop with lots of blades?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I find their seat designs to be annoyingly unergonomic and their luggage space to be less than adequate.

For me, it's more that I like the plane to have all of the pieces still attached when it returns to earth, especially the control surfaces!

 

[Ted]

...people just get freaked when they see a propeller.

And I can't figure out why. Turboprops never freaked me out, and these days I would rather fly on one than on a jet just because I think they're cooler.

A lot of it I think does come down to an uneducated opinion about big jets being safer. Truth is, they're both really safe. So, said people should just shut up and enjoy the flight. I think a lot of people use SUV mentality that bigger is safer. Should an impact occur, I can assure said people that the Earth is bigger, and will win.

 

[4CornerFlyer]

You can probably thank the airline industry for the misconception that propeller aircraft aren't safe. They've been hyping jets since the 1960's.

Jon

 

[vontresc]

I know the Lockheed Electra thing is ancient history, but maybe there is still some residual fear of turboprop vs jet from those accidents?

 

[Teller1900]

I know the Lockheed Electra thing is ancient history, but maybe there is still some residual fear of turboprop vs jet from those accidents?

If people could actually enunciate a logical reason for their fear, I would respect that. But as Ted, Felix, and Jon said, it's mostly a matter of a completely illogical and uneducated fear, exasperated by the airlines themselves. Because it's not a big magic jet, it's less safe. Never mind it's a lot more economical and often times features a lot more leg room.

I'd bet that about 60% of the people that got on the 1900 had a long moment of hesitation and made some snide remark about how small and unsafe, and how much of a "joke" airliner that plane was before they got on board. I'd also bet that about 98% of those people were singing the praises of the plane when we got them home safely 40 minutes later through the worst New England weather, and the plane didn't melt in the rain. Once folks got past this long developed idea that RJs are the best thing the airlines have ever created, they actually seemed to enjoy the fact that they were able to talk to the pilots before and after the flight, and see what we were doing through the open cockpit door during flight.

And now on the Q, everyone loves the plane until they sit down and look out the window to see the prop. We board through a jetbridge, so they think they're getting on any other jet. It's tall enough inside that, at 6'3", even I can walk down the center asile without ducking, and I can't get my knees to hit the seat in front of me if I try. We have the same exterior footprint as the small 737s and carry more people than CRJ100/200/700 or ERJ135/145, but as soon as people see the props I can still hear the same "oh this is the smallest plane I've ever been on," "I don't like these little prop planes they're so unsafe!"
I don't think most of them could tell you anything about an Electra let alone elucidate that as the basis of their fear.

 

[Teller1900]

I think a lot of people use SUV mentality that bigger is safer. Should an impact occur, I can assure said people that the Earth is bigger, and will win.

Very well put, I like that!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You can probably thank the airline industry for the misconception that propeller aircraft aren't safe. They've been hyping jets since the 1960's.

I think that the general public has no idea that a turboprop uses the same engine technology as a jet, and it's just the fan that's different. I know that before I was a pilot (or before I started really soaking up aviation knowledge in the process of becoming a pilot), I didn't know that. I don't think people realize what a major difference there is between a turbo prop and a turboprop. All they know is that those little Cessnas that crash on the news all the time have props, so they must be unsafe.

We do a VERY poor job of educating the rest of the world about aviation.

 

[sba55]

We do a VERY poor job of educating the rest of the world about aviation.

Hey, I try. We have about 50 people in our office, and I'd guess that the majority of them know what AIRMETs are and that propeller planes aren't less safe. I keep harping on about it all day

and see what we were doing through the open cockpit door during flight.

They might have felt differently had they seen the pilots taking pictures Not that I've known that to happen, of course.

-Felix

 

[Ghery]

I'd bet that about 60% of the people that got on the 1900 had a long moment of hesitation and made some snide remark about how small and unsafe, and how much of a "joke" airliner that plane was before they got on board. I'd also bet that about 98% of those people were singing the praises of the plane when we got them home safely 40 minutes later through the worst New England weather, and the plane didn't melt in the rain. Once folks got past this long developed idea that RJs are the best thing the airlines have ever created, they actually seemed to enjoy the fact that they were able to talk to the pilots before and after the flight, and see what we were doing through the open cockpit door during flight.

And now on the Q, everyone loves the plane until they sit down and look out the window to see the prop. We board through a jetbridge, so they think they're getting on any other jet. It's tall enough inside that, at 6'3", even I can walk down the center asile without ducking, and I can't get my knees to hit the seat in front of me if I try. We have the same exterior footprint as the small 737s and carry more people than CRJ100/200/700 or ERJ135/145, but as soon as people see the props I can still hear the same "oh this is the smallest plane I've ever been on," "I don't like these little prop planes they're so unsafe!"
I don't think most of them could tell you anything about an Electra let alone elucidate that as the basis of their fear.

I hear that comment about the 1900 on our corporate shuttle flight (OLM-HIO, and we use a 1900). "Smallest plane I've ever been on!". I just laugh. Bigger than anything in my log book.

First ride in a Q400 this morning, and I'm sitting at PUW waiting for my second (running an hour late). Good comfortable cross state flight this morning. And FAST! 20 minutes from the start of take-off roll to crossing the Columbia River north of Vantage. Any idea about how long that takes on the ground? About 50 minutes from wheels up at SEA to touchdown at PUW. And typical great Horizon service.

 

[ScottM]

And typical great Horizon service.

They are great!! I loved when I was doing the HP run in the early 90's. I would fly to Seattle and then grab Horizon to Spokane!

 

[jesse]

Well--if you consider the statistics for small regionals versus major airlines you'll find one is statistically more dangerous than the other. There is a big difference between Part 135 vs Part 121 safety records. So--one could say that flying Part-135 commuter turboprops *is* more dangerous.

Fatalities per 100,000 flight hours
Part 121 - 0.089
Part 135 - 0.670
Non-Scheduled Part 135 - 1.230
General Aviation - 2.305
Source: NTSB

 

[sba55]

Well--if you consider the statistics for small regional turbo-props versus major airline large jets you'll find one is statistically more dangerous than the other. There is a big difference between Part 135 vs Part 121 safety records.

But we're only talking about Part 121.

I don't think you'll find a large difference in safety. AFAIK, there wasn't a single in-flight fatality for 121 in 2005. I don't think that's changed much....

 

[jesse]

But we're only talking about Part 121.

I don't think you'll find a large difference in safety. AFAIK, there wasn't a single in-flight fatality for 121 in 2005. I don't think that's changed much....

Ah crap, I wasn't thinking right...Let me dig some more...

 

[jesse]

Okay..back with some more numbers. Rough to say the least.

I dug through the NTSB accident database and found the following:
Beech 1900: 3 fatal accidents operating under Part 135 in the United States since 1962.
Boeing 737: 8 fatal accidents operating under Part 135 in the United States since 1962.

Beech 1900: 695 built (695 / 3) 1 in 231 crashed.
Boeing 737: 5,854 built (5,854 / 8) 1 in 731 crashed.

My numbers suck and you could knock all sorts of holes in it...I admit

 

[gismo]

But we're only talking about Part 121.

I don't think you'll find a large difference in safety. AFAIK, there wasn't a single in-flight fatality for 121 in 2005. I don't think that's changed much....

The regional carriers might be a poorer safety risk, primarily due to the fact that they operate from airports the majors don't. Their crews tend to have fewer hours but that might be compensated by the higher number of landings per hour.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But we're only talking about Part 121.

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure Teller was operating as Part 135, at least on the Beech 1900. Reading 135, 121, and 119 I can't figure out what the requirements are for operating as 121 vs. scheduled 135.

 

[sba55]

The regional carriers might be a poorer safety risk, primarily due to the fact that they operate from airports the majors don't. Their crews tend to have fewer hours but that might be compensated by the higher number of landings per hour.

Makes sense. But I don't think statistics show that, do they?

I'd guess, however, that hours have even less of an effect on safety in a 135/121 environment.

 

[Teller1900]

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure Teller was operating as Part 135, at least on the Beech 1900. Reading 135, 121, and 119 I can't figure out what the requirements are for operating as 121 vs. scheduled 135.

Negative, we were dispatched under Pt. 121, though a lot of our operating rules were still 135 (including the more lenient rest requirements). When we had the Beech 99s and 1900Cs, they were 135, but around about the time we picked up the Saab 340s and got rid of the 1900Cs, we went over to 121. We have it in our OpSpecs that we can be chartered as 135, but I don't think they've done that in a long time.

Cape Air, on the other hand, I'm almost certain is a scheduled 135, at least in terms of the Cessna 402 side of their operation.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Negative, we were dispatched under Pt. 121, though a lot of our operating rules were still 135 (including the more lenient rest requirements). When we had the Beech 99s and 1900Cs, they were 135, but around about the time we picked up the Saab 340s and got rid of the 1900Cs, we went over to 121.

OK, now I'm more confused than ever.

What requires a 121 cert, and what requires 135? It's not entirely clear even from reading 119, 121.1, and 135.1.

 

[Teller1900]

OK, now I'm more confused than ever.

What requires a 121 cert, and what requires 135? It's not entirely clear even from reading 119, 121.1, and 135.1.

That I can't help you with. All I know is that our dispatch releases contained the line "This a/c released under 14CFR121" (or 14CFR91, if it was a ferry flight).

Our OpSpecs and Flight Manual have the FAR citations for each section. Most of our FOPPM (Flight Ops Policies and Procedures Manual) is referenced to 121, where as a large portion of the Beech CFM (Company Flight Manual - the Beech's user manual) used rules from both 121 and 135.

I don't have any idea, operationally, what the difference is. All I know is a combination of both were used to form our OpSpecs, and that's our rule book for day to day operations. I have to go make lunch before the wife gets home, but I'll see if I can't find my Beech manual and find some examples for you.