Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, December 16, 1994 TAG: 9412170005
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: A19 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Traveling in more and more of the country's smaller cities means walking across the tarmac - watch out for the propellers - climbing up wobbly steps and finally changing seats at the last minute to balance the airplane.
For many, it's much too close to barnstorming.
``Too small, too easily buffeted by outside forces, lack of safety equipment, lack of pilot training and not enough room for a passenger to be comfortable,'' is how Bob Foster, a California attorney, explained his aversion to the turboprops.
The smaller airplanes have gotten more popular in recent years, replacing jets and carrying an estimated 10 percent more passengers this year.
Accident rates for the smallest aircraft - those with fewer than 31 seats and accounting for half the regional fleet - far surpass the rates for the bigger airplanes, figures provided by the Regional Airline Association show.
This week's crash of an American Eagle commuter jet in North Carolina has focused attention on the smaller planes.
With lower-paid crews, cheaper landing fees and lower maintenance costs, airlines have found the smaller turboprops can make money on routes where jets have been too costly.
American Airlines and others have been turning over more of their short routes to regional airlines. Most of the time, that has meant smaller cities with fewer passengers lose jet service.
(At Roanoke Regional Airport, 80 percent of the daily departing flights, accounting for 55 percent of the available airline seats, are aboard commuter airliners, according to the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission's December report.)
``It is a downgrade in service and something we are not happy with or satisfied with,'' David Langston, mayor of Lubbock, Texas, said when American switched to turboprops at his airport this week. ``I think there is a high degree of consumer resistance to these commuter planes.''
Some passengers can be found who prefer the commuter flights. Mike Sullivan, a Dallas-based training manager for computer printer maker Epson America Inc. in Dallas, said he feels more confident with commuter pilots.
Sullivan, a private pilot, figures the commuter captains are more familiar with the airports they use and, since they fly at lower altitudes, are more proficient at flying through bad weather.
Foster, the California lawyer, took some ribbing from co-workers when he would go six to 12 hours out of his way to avoid flying a small plane from San Diego to San Luis Obispo for business.
His choices were a nine-hour drive, a 12-hour train trip or fly on a jet to San Jose and drive six hours instead of flying two to three hours on a commuter flight.
``I refuse to fly in anything smaller than a 737,'' Foster said.
Partly to allay concerns about the safety of smaller craft following this week's American Eagle crash, the Department of Transportation is accelerating its plan to force planes with fewer than 31 seats to meet the tougher standards of the biggest planes.
Analysts haven't been able to determine how much it would cost airlines to meet the stricter standards, but any increased costs would be harder for a small carrier to make up.
Commuter pilots are allowed to fly 20 percent more hours each month and post-training checks aren't as stringent.
``I think it will encourage more independent regional airlines to get into larger aircraft,'' said Richard Murphy, an analyst with airline consultants SH&E Inc.
by CNB