So what's the deal with TED?

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:56:04 +0000, PTRAVEL wrote:


"mtravelkay" wrote in message
. com...

All of the "commuters" I fly are jets.
I haven't noticed any more turbulence on them than on the 737s I fly
down along the coast.

Is that right? I've asked about this before on the ng, but the answers I
get vary from "no worse than a 73" like yours, to, "if you don't like
turbulence, you won't like this."

I've been in some pretty rough turbulence on 73s before, albeit rarely. Of
course, the worst I ever experienced on a non-prop plane, was a 747 -- we
hit "severe" for a couple of minutes.

If commuter jets aren't any worse than larger jets, I'd reconsider my
aversion to them.

There are at least two (or three) orthogonal issues here. Type of plane,
size of plane, and who operates what plane.

Take for instance the BAE146 (renamed to some acronym and eventually
dropped from production). Pretty large jet. Yet's it's being operated by
some of the United Regional partners.

OTOH, you got CRJs operated by the mainline, AC. Whose regional operation
does run BAE146 incidentally.

Now, coming to planes rather tham talking operators, there are at least
two issues.

Size of the plane -wing span- remains the most significant factor. This
said, the luck factor -flying in the wrong part of the world on a bad day-
may end up having much more of a role than anything else, assuming we are
looking at planes large enough to be jet-powered, hence flying high enough.

Which brings up the third issue: jet vs. propeller-driven planes. Jets
fly higher, but for short rides, propeller-driven planes are cheaper.
Also, the very smallest planes are always propeller-driven.

Flying higher almost always helps, because the atmosphere is less
turbulent at higher altitude. Except if flying through a very strong
thunderstorm, which they do their best to avoid.

In summary, (1) it's not so much who the operator is but the type and size
of the plane. (2) for longer flights, jets are usually OK. Especially if
larger. Finally (3) for short hops, nothing matters much, since you'll
have to fly briefly through turbulence (if any) no matter what; to some
extent, being on a larger plane will help.

So, bottom line is: if I were emotionally adverse to turbulence, I
would avoid long rides on small propeller-driven planes.

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:56:04 +0000, PTRAVEL wrote:


"mtravelkay" wrote in message
. com...

All of the "commuters" I fly are jets.
I haven't noticed any more turbulence on them than on the 737s I fly
down along the coast.

Is that right? I've asked about this before on the ng, but the answers
I
get vary from "no worse than a 73" like yours, to, "if you don't like
turbulence, you won't like this."

I've been in some pretty rough turbulence on 73s before, albeit rarely.
Of
course, the worst I ever experienced on a non-prop plane, was a 747 --
we
hit "severe" for a couple of minutes.

If commuter jets aren't any worse than larger jets, I'd reconsider my
aversion to them.

There are at least two (or three) orthogonal issues here. Type of plane,
size of plane, and who operates what plane.

Take for instance the BAE146 (renamed to some acronym and eventually
dropped from production). Pretty large jet. Yet's it's being operated by
some of the United Regional partners.

OTOH, you got CRJs operated by the mainline, AC. Whose regional operation
does run BAE146 incidentally.

Now, coming to planes rather tham talking operators, there are at least
two issues.

Size of the plane -wing span- remains the most significant factor. This
said, the luck factor -flying in the wrong part of the world on a bad day-
may end up having much more of a role than anything else, assuming we are
looking at planes large enough to be jet-powered, hence flying high
enough.

Which brings up the third issue: jet vs. propeller-driven planes. Jets
fly higher, but for short rides, propeller-driven planes are cheaper.
Also, the very smallest planes are always propeller-driven.

Flying higher almost always helps, because the atmosphere is less
turbulent at higher altitude. Except if flying through a very strong
thunderstorm, which they do their best to avoid.

In summary, (1) it's not so much who the operator is but the type and size
of the plane. (2) for longer flights, jets are usually OK. Especially if
larger. Finally (3) for short hops, nothing matters much, since you'll
have to fly briefly through turbulence (if any) no matter what; to some
extent, being on a larger plane will help.

So, bottom line is: if I were emotionally adverse to turbulence, I
would avoid long rides on small propeller-driven planes.



CRJ's seem to handle turbulence well, mostly because they are adept at
rising, descending, or turning quickly out of adverse weather. I prefer the
CRJ to the 737.


BTW, SFO-LAS is less than 1 hour actual flight time. I've done that one
many times before my company allowed me to do the AS non-stop SEA-LAS.

mtravelkay wrote in message .com...
PTRAVEL wrote:

"Traveller" wrote in message ...
All of the "commuters" I fly are jets.
I haven't noticed any more turbulence on them than on the 737s I fly
down along the coast.

Where I live we have no choice, except for commuter airlines, Great
Lakes, Skywest (either DL or UA service), and possibly Northwest
Airlink (not which airline will really operate the flights for NWA) if
Natrona County International Airport and the city of Casper can get
them to come to CPR. Our other choices are a 5 hour ride to Denver or
Billings, which we have done when the fare was right (e.g. CPR-YVR-CPR
:$576 vs. BIL-YVR-BIL :$276). I don't do it to avoid the commuter
planes.

M. Graham