Hello All,
This blog post shows how the global Turboprop fleet has evolved in the last six months. We use planespotters.net data.
A slightly shrinking fleet
We exclude the Embraer 120 from the data. We track Turboprops with 30 or more passenger seats, excluding aircraft for VIPs and governments. Below is the summary table:
| Family | 2023-06-30 | 2022-12-31 | Change (count) | Change (%) |
| ATR72 | 730 | 719 | 11 | 1.5 |
| DHC-8 | 700 | 729 | -29 | -4.0 |
| ATR42 | 162 | 156 | 6 | 3.8 |
| Saab 340/2000 | 116 | 118 | -2 | -1.7 |
| Fokker F50/F60 | 54 | 61 | -7 | -11.5 |
| Dornier 328 | 24 | 24 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 1786 | 1807 | -21 | -1.2 |
The overall passenger Turboprop fleet shrank by 1.2%. Except for ATRs, the only OEM among those currently producing aircraft, all the other world fleets shrank. The DHC-8 fleet shrank the most in number, driven by carriers retiring aging turboprop fleets, and replacing by regional jets.
The Fokker F50 fleet shrank the most in relative terms. The aircraft fleet is extremely old, so it is not a surprise.
ATR had 12 ATR42 (1) and ATR72 (11) passenger aircraft deliveries during the first half of 2023. The ATR42 fleet additions resulted from aircraft returning to service after staying in storage during the Covid-19 pandemic.
ATRs now represent almost half the global turboprop passenger fleet seating 30 or more passengers. The share will increase further in the future as it is the only manufacturer producing such aircraft at the moment.
Gloomy long-term sector prospects despite hydrogen
Despite putting some positive notes during the Paris Air Show, including the prospect of major disruptions with Hydrogen-powered aircraft, the sector growth prospects are extremely gloomy in this blog’s opinion.
In this blog’s opinion, it will be a miracle if the global turboprop fleet does not shrink in future years. The main reason is that recent trends (more high-speed train services, more expensive flight crews) will disproportionally disadvantage turboprops. There are fewer passengers to spread flight crew costs, and block times are longer due to lower flight speed.
The structural disadvantages also mean that new propulsion with Hydrogen won’t significantly revive the sector. Hydrogen-powered turboprops are an excellent proving ground for the technology in a smaller market segment if they ever enter into service.
The silver lining with a small market
The consequences of getting it wrong for OEMs are much smaller than for the heart of the single-aisle market. Turboprop could be the proving ground for larger hydrogen-powered aircraft in the following generation of single-aisle or regional jet aircraft.
This blog would like to caution that it will require lots of public subsidies to make hydrogen-powered aircraft economically viable. The alternatives would be to severely tax jet fuel or a carbon tax, but the political will for such action does not currently exist, even within the European Union.
This blog does not see the point of discussing battery-powered aircraft. Leeham News’ Bjorn Ferhm has done an excellent job to explain why electric turboprops don’t work with current battery technologies.
EPSILON AVIATION 
The large size turbo prop market ( around the 70 seats level) is hampered by the the US artificial limit of regional jets of around 70 seats under the union scope agreements. Normal regional jet size in the rest of the world without bizarre restrictions like this is the 90 or so seater .
From what I can see ( from a distance) its a Mexican standoff between pilots and airlines. The airline wants more planes under the scope clauses together with a weight ( or passenger numbers ) to rise. The pilots dont want the fleet size to increase but cant get a weight increase only which is neutral for them
LikeLiked by 1 person
How do you explain that US regional airlines have also opted for small regional jets (CRJ200, ERJ145) instead of ATR42/ATR72 for their fleets? I suspect it is a combination of flight crew costs and US passenger aversion to turboprops.
LikeLike
Simple really . The 50 seaters arent fleet size limited
“United converted a handful of 70-seat CRJ-700 aircraft into a spacious 50-seat configuration it calls the CRJ-550. This was done in order to respect the scope clause, which does not meaningfully cap the number of 50-seat aircraft that can fly under the United Express banner.”
https://liveandletsfly.com/united-airlines-crj-900/
Every one only thinks of the seat numbers/ max weight cap but fleet size is capped too* – or not in the case of Uniteds 50 seater ( *maybe capped as a % of mainline fleet)
The airlines really really want to increase the actual numbers of these dinky little RJ – 50 or 76 seats- flying with low wage pilots
LikeLike
While I agree pilot shortage and customer preference are some of the reasons why carriers opt for RJs instead of ATRs, this phenomenon is not unique in US.
Take Japan as an example, both ANA and JAL Group have a sizable Q400 fleet, but they opted for different replacements (then-MRJ and ATRs respectively). The former has a use case more similar to RJs, and back then Dash 8 was significantly cheaper than jet equivalents, while providing lower but still comparable speed and range-payload. This is no longer the case with the progress in jet engines and stagnation of turboprop developments. Because of the cancellation of MRJ/MSJ they actually added a few 737s to fill the gap.
Meanwhile the later uses their Q400s on island hopping routes, which ATR72 nowadays is finally good enough for those tasks, though RAC still finds ATR inadequate of cargo payload. Do note that JAC and HAC also needs ATR42 for replacing smaller Saab 340s, which increase the attractiveness of ATR family.
AFAIK the same happened to other carriers e.g. airBaltic and LOT, which opted for A220 and E-jet respectively, and Uni Air (of EVA Air), which opted for ATR72.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Air Baltic has the largest A220 , say 130 seats so isn’t the little 75 seat RJ. Of course there are small numbers in use for other non US airlines but nothing like the huge numbers in service in the US
LikeLike
On some routes Q400s/RJs are used not because of low demand, rather because of low overall cost or a preference of frequency. See how many E jets flying along those corridors in East Coast.
Those routes can easily justify mainline jets like 737MAX or A320NEO, aberit with some frequency reductions and operational limitations. Carriers would just adjust their network to adapt to the new reality, though in airBaltic’s case fewer aircraft types and frequencies may actually be favourable in terms of cost.
LikeLike