Turboprop vs regional jet: Aircraft manufacturers clash over America’s short-haul future
November 10, 2025
A quiet but pointed dispute has emerged between two aircraft manufacturers over what the next generation of regional air transport in the United States should look like.
On one side, ATR believes the turboprop’s time has come again. In September, the Franco-Italian manufacturer issued a bullish forecast claiming demand for up to 300 new aircraft in the US regional market, arguing that many short-haul routes once served by 50-seat regional jets could be reopened more efficiently by turboprops.
The company says that with lower fuel burn, reduced emissions, and comparable comfort, its ATR 72-600 can economically restore connectivity to smaller communities where jets have become uneconomic.
ATR’s strategy is built on hard economics. It claims that a modern turboprop is 30–40 % cheaper per seat to operate than a 50-seat jet, while burning 40 % less fuel. The manufacturer sees an opportunity as ageing fleets of CRJ200s and ERJ145s approach retirement, noting that no new 50-seat jets are being built.
But across the border in Montreal, MHI RJ Aviation Group – the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries subsidiary that inherited Bombardier’s CRJ programme – is having none of it. In a sharply worded article on its own Wingspan blog, the company argued that ATR’s narrative is “a myth”.
MHI RJ insists that 50-seat jets are far from finished, claiming most aircraft still have half their design life left, with plenty of cycles remaining before retirement.
“Fifty-seat aircraft are nowhere near the end of their life,” says Ross Mitchell, the company’s Senior Vice President for Strategy and Business Development. “The airplanes were built for 80,000 cycles. Most of them are at 30,000 or 40,000 cycles today.”
In other words, there is no impending replacement wave. MHI RJ also points to the limitations of turboprops in the US context: lower cruise speeds, passenger perception issues, and restrictive pilot scope clauses that make introducing new aircraft types more complex.
Turboprops vs regional jets: Who is right?
The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Modern turboprops are indeed slower than small jets, but the real-world difference is surprisingly small. On sectors under 350 nautical miles, the ATR 72-600’s cruise speed of around 275 knots adds barely 10 minutes to total journey time compared with a CRJ200. Taxi, climb, and descent times are nearly identical, meaning passengers often arrive at almost the same time.
Yet MHI RJ has a valid point about utilisation and market structure. A CRJ200 can fly more sectors per day and integrate seamlessly into existing airline networks, while the US public still tends to view turboprops as noisier and less comfortable – a perception that lingers from older designs even if it no longer matches reality.
To illustrate the competing claims and the facts behind them:
| Topic | ATR’s claim | MHI RJ’s claim | Reality check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fleet replacement need | Up to 300 US regional jets need replacing soon | 50-seat jets have 40–50 % of life left | Many RJ50s still airworthy; retirements will be gradual |
| Speed | Turboprops competitive on short routes | Too slow for high-frequency operations | Only ~10 min longer below 350 nm; minimal schedule impact |
| Economics | 30–40 % lower cost per seat | Differences overstated when utilisation factored in | Turboprops cheaper on fuel; jets better for longer rotations |
| Passenger perception | Modern cabins are quiet and comfortable | Travellers prefer jets | True perception issue remains in US; education required |
| Market readiness | Turboprops can revive underserved routes | Infrastructure and scope clauses limit uptake | Both factors valid; success depends on airline strategy |
In essence, ATR is right on efficiency, while MHI RJ is right on market reality. Turboprops make financial sense for shorter hops, but without policy changes and operator appetite, they may struggle to achieve the scale ATR envisions.
US regional airlines face a 50-seat jet replacement dilemma
The replacement of 50-seat regional jets in the United States has reached a strategic impasse. A detailed analysis by FlightGlobal points to a looming “replacement crisis” among US regional carriers, driven by a fleet of around 300 ageing 50-seat jets and the absence of a new direct replacement currently in production.
What this means for fleet planners and OEMs is that the ideal successor has yet to clearly emerge. Key conditions stacking the deck:
- The operators’ installed base of 50-seat jets (such as the CRJ200/ERJ145 category) still has service life remaining, slowing the urgency of replacement.
- At the same time, there is no manufacturer today producing a new-generation 50-seat jet that meets the weight, economics and pilot-scope-clause constraints of US regional operations.
- As a result, many operators are effectively stuck between keeping ageing jets and switching entirely to different aircraft categories (turboprops or larger regional jets) if they want long-term efficiency gains.
In short, the market is waiting for a credible next step. Will fleets migrate to modern turboprops (as ATR advocates), shift to larger regional jets, or await a bespoke 50-seat jet revival? Because none of those scenarios is fully delivered today, operators must balance renewal decisions with operational risk, cost pressures and contract constraints.
For now, the contest between propeller and jet is less about speed and more about survival. ATR is right that economics favour the turboprop, but MHI RJ may ultimately be right that the US market isn’t ready to embrace them again.
