Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5605635/

Topic: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: justinlee
Posted 2012-11-07 03:59:25 and read 1858 times.

I am just wondering why there are so many RJs in the US nowadays. Economically they are not so profitable as 737/320 and there are not so many RJs 10 years ago! Would you guys think it will be a trend for the global market, especially the domestic market in Europe or China?

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: AA737-823
Posted 2012-11-07 04:16:05 and read 1865 times.

Quoting justinlee (Thread starter):
I am just wondering why there are so many RJs in the US nowadays. Economically they are not so profitable as 737/320 and there are not so many RJs 10 years ago! Would you guys think it will be a trend for the global market, especially the domestic market in Europe or China?

Greetings from the US.
In the late 90's and early 2000's, there was a push to go "all-jet." That was a small part of it... and may have been purely marketing.
The real issue here is scope clause. Pilot contracts at most carriers include verbiage that basically states, "Any aircraft larger than XXXX number of seats will be flown by mainline pilots." So, to cut costs, the airlines bought the regional jets by the dozens, and contracted out the flying to carriers like XE, OO, MQ, and the like.
Unfortunately, once fuel started coming up in price, the dang things became a very ugly economic picture, very quickly.
So, while they have their advantages, they also certainly have disadvantages.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-11-07 04:26:23 and read 1865 times.

The US market loves frequency over capacity, the A+B NB are a bit big and wasteful to suit frequency, a 737-700 is not ideal to fly 90 seats 20 times a day..

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: N766UA
Posted 2012-11-07 04:27:59 and read 1864 times.

Probably because US airline companies are generally short-sighted, knee-jerk reactionaries who will do anything to cut costs or gain a marketing advantage. Back when oil/fuel was cheap, it was easy to say "we're all jet!" but, as times has gone on, the jets are less and less profitable while the public opinion remains the same. People will avoid turboprops to the point that airlines are forced to keep jets on routes that really can't support them.

Also, the contracts put in place (like at UA) often make it very difficult to divest RJ's. I think UAL is stuck with 200 of them until 2020 or something like that.

Basically the industry here is messed up. Plus the reasons mentioned above.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: kalvado
Posted 2012-11-07 04:34:54 and read 1863 times.

Other factors would include population density lower than in Europe or eastern Asia - hence service to airports which serve less people; demand for frequency; and multiple different airlines.
If you have 5 airlines serving half-million area with 5 flights a day each, you suddenly realize that filling 737/320 on each of these flights becomes difficult. And it is really profitable to fly 737 only if there are butts in those seats.
Things are likely to change, as it was already mentioned, as price of fuel goes up (and number of majors/hubs goes down, I may add)

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-07 07:52:39 and read 1863 times.

Quoting justinlee (Thread starter):
I am just wondering why there are so many RJs in the US nowadays.

All the reasons above, plus the fact that the US went to hard-core hub/spoke earlier than most and you need RJ-sized aircraft to make that work. Econmically, it would be better if those were turboprops but public opinion drove the airlines over to RJ's.

Quoting justinlee (Thread starter):
Economically they are not so profitable as 737/320 and there are not so many RJs 10 years ago!

You're looking at it a cost-per-flight...that's the wrong perspective. The purpose of RJ's is to get passengers from smaller locations into the mainline networks. They're quite good at that. You need to look at network revenue and network profit.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: KaiGywer
Posted 2012-11-07 08:29:23 and read 1861 times.

Quoting kalvado (Reply 4):
Other factors would include population density lower than in Europe or eastern Asia - hence service to airports which serve less people; demand for frequency; and multiple different airlines.

Also, Europe has a much better high speed rail system connecting smaller cities that in the US can only be connected by plane.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: alevik
Posted 2012-11-07 10:46:22 and read 1863 times.

I read your question and thought "yes, there are a lot of RJ's in North America".

I went to Flightware and browsed by aircraft type. Mid-day here in North America, here is what came up for the most common types (keep in mind flights from more than just North America are in here) airborne right now:

A319/320 - 773
733/737/738 - 769
A321 - 147
739 - 74
CRJ1/CRJ2 - 211

Interesting the split in the 737 versus A320 family airborne right now. I didn't segregate, but I'm sure the majority of the CRJ's are in North America.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: justinlee
Posted 2012-11-07 10:55:46 and read 1863 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
You're looking at it a cost-per-flight...that's the wrong perspective. The purpose of RJ's is to get passengers from smaller locations into the mainline networks. They're quite good at that. You need to look at network revenue and network profit.

That's interesting! Do you have any accounting methods to distribute network profit in order to get the break-even point and make decisions of the ticket price?

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: Burkhard
Posted 2012-11-07 11:05:19 and read 1864 times.

The American philosophy is time is money, so frequency brings money. Other cultures know that time is the only resource that we get for free every day, that is why 60 flights between NYC and Chicago would be called an ecological crime hereover.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: justinlee
Posted 2012-11-07 11:16:48 and read 1862 times.

Quoting alevik (Reply 7):
A319/320 - 773
733/737/738 - 769
A321 - 147
739 - 74
CRJ1/CRJ2 - 211

I checked it too. There are also 145 CR7, 100 CR9, 103 E190 and 198 E135/145. That's a big number. And from the perspective of operators, CR1/2, for example, Europeans operate about 120 but US carriers operate more than 490...

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: rcair1
Posted 2012-11-07 13:46:19 and read 1862 times.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 9):
Other cultures know that time is the only resource that we get for free every day,

Interesting perspective. Time is finite (life) , expensive (you simply cannot buy more time) and precious (most people want more time). Clearly I would disagree with you. I'm also not sure what you suggest - that people don't work or travel? That we force people not to travel - or force them to only work in a particular place. (wouldn't be surprised to see that coming actually).

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: koruman
Posted 2012-11-07 16:07:18 and read 1859 times.

Quoting kalvado (Reply 4):
Other factors would include population density lower than in Europe or eastern Asia - hence service to airports which serve less people; demand for frequency; and multiple different airlines.


If you have 5 airlines serving half-million area with 5 flights a day each, you suddenly realize that filling 737/320 on each of these flights becomes difficult.

And it is really profitable to fly 737 only if there are butts in those seats.

But we have an even lower population density in Australia.

This is why the good Lord invented the ATR-42 and ATR-72. And trains.

But American passengers believe that they are entitled to board via a jetway. And the absurd decision to charge for checked luggage on formerly full-service carriers incentivises passengers to carry stuff they don't need onboard in bigger carry-on bags than they really need.

I commonly fly Indianapolis-Chicago and Innsbruck-Frankfurt, which are 178 miles and 230 miles respectively.

United uses gas-guzzling ER-145, ER-170 and CRJ-700s for this short hop.

Austrian uses a Bombardier Dash-8.

It's a really stark difference.

And demand in the USA is probably inflated by the lack of fast trains with high-quality service: Indianapolis to Chicago in Europe would be an hourly 45 minute train ride with no security hassles, but on Amtrak it is a nineteenth century once-daily 5.5 hour ride!

A very large proportion of flights from minor airports into hubs would be train rides in other countries, but the lack of passenger railway infrastructure in the USA means that vast numbers of passengers are unnecessarily shunted onto airplanes.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2012-11-07 16:22:32 and read 1861 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
And the absurd decision to charge for checked luggage on formerly full-service carriers incentivises passengers to carry stuff they don't need onboard in bigger carry-on bags than they really need.

Of course the airlines that charge the most fees are also the most profitable, but why let facts get in the way of a tired rant?

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
I commonly fly Indianapolis-Chicago

Why don't you fly WN? They don't charge for bags. Oh that's right, they are dropping INDMDW.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
All the reasons above, plus the fact that the US went to hard-core hub/spoke earlier than most and you need RJ-sized aircraft to make that work.

Most major European airports are slotted, plus most European carriers have only one hub. Those two combined push the regional aircraft size up, whereas slots are less of an issue at US airports and most carriers have multiple hubs competing for many of the same traffic flows, pushing down the size of feeder aircraft.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: koruman
Posted 2012-11-07 16:56:50 and read 1858 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
I commonly fly Indianapolis-Chicago
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 13):
Why don't you fly WN? They don't charge for bags

Because I buy a First Class ticket on United (or sometimes US) to/from LAX or SFO or HNL to get there from Australia. And I'm Star Gold, so I don't pay baggage fees anyway.

But back to IND-ORD: it is really, really noticeable that many of the passengers would be on a train if this was Europe or Asia, and that an RJ's high costs are really wasted.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: commavia
Posted 2012-11-07 17:09:15 and read 1858 times.

Quoting justinlee (Thread starter):
I am just wondering why there are so many RJs in the US nowadays. Economically they are not so profitable as 737/320 and there are not so many RJs 10 years ago! Would you guys think it will be a trend for the global market, especially the domestic market in Europe or China?

They have been and are prevalent in the U.S. because they offer economic benefits in various ways.

First, the vast majority of sub-100-seat jets in the U.S. are flown by non-mainline, "regional" operators who often have minimal or no union presences, extremely low ages and far more flexible work rules. That helps offset the small jets' obvious disadvantage on unit fuel consumption.

Second, regional jets have allowed airlines, in multiple cases, to either enter or maintain frequency in markets they otherwise would not have been able to profitably with larger jets, adding new incremental revenue sources to their networks and increasing the relative attractiveness of their product (in the form of more convenient schedules) to higher-yielding, more convenience-oriented business customers.

Finally, small jets have also allowed airlines to constrain capacity and keep yields high. This is a critical point often missed by those who focus only on the poor fuel economics of small jets. While they are fuel inefficient, there is an equilibrium where they can be profitable in markets where they allow airlines to keep supply (of seats) low and charge higher fares.

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
A very large proportion of flights from minor airports into hubs would be train rides in other countries, but the lack of passenger railway infrastructure in the USA means that vast numbers of passengers are unnecessarily shunted onto airplanes.

Hardly. It's not "unnecessary" - it's reality. And U.S. travelers aren't "shunted" on to planes - they have chosen, happily and willingly, to go that way for decades.

But either way, your comparison is meaningless. The only country in the world whose geography, demographics and infrastructure for long-distance, inter-city rail (real or potential) is even roughly comparable to the U.S. is China. And even there, it's hardly much of a comparison.

Most countries in the world are, compared to the U.S., tiny. And even then, there are only really a very small handful who have true, national, high-speed intercity rail networks. Almost all are in Western Europe. The reason is very simple. Those countries' populations are generally all relatively small, and highly concentrated and dense, and pretty much all the major cities are no more than 300-400 miles apart. Even in China, while the population is enormous, nearly half the country's population (and the vast majority of it's wealth) is concentrated in a narrow band hugging the coastline and extending only a few hundred miles inland.

The U.S., obviously, is quite different. The U.S. has around 50 metro areas with more than one million people, literally spread from corner to corner across the entire country, which itself spans the entire North America landmass from east to west. There are a handful of particular population concentrations - the obvious and largest example being the northeast corridor, but also the "Texas Triangle," and Southern California, to name a few. But even still, there is absolutely no economically viable way for rail to serve that type of a population dispersion.

After all, passenger rail really isn't economically viable even in the places that already do have today, and generally only via massive government subsidies. Now I know, I know - this is where the usual argument comes up about how air transportation and highways are already directly and/or indirectly subsidized. And while true, it is still no endorsement of rail. Air and highways may be partly subsidized, but highways are vastly more versatile than either air or rail (it is competitive and viably as a means various forms of transportation - personal and mass, passenger and freight, short- and long-distance), and air, while capital-intensive, is still lower cost when opportunity cost is factored in, because much of the nation's air infrastructure is already a sunk cost, and because airplanes (though admittedly not airports) can be moved somewhere else if not being used profitably, where as rail cars and lines are stuck forever.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-07 17:31:16 and read 1859 times.

Quoting justinlee (Reply 8):
Do you have any accounting methods to distribute network profit in order to get the break-even point and make decisions of the ticket price?

The very largest carriers are only now trying to figure out how to do this. Dividing O-D revenue over the various flight legs is incredibly difficult because any one flight serves multiple O-D markets. The latest revenue management models try to look at what any particular seat is bringing in and look at what that seat is displacing (i.e. can't be used for other O-D markets in the network) and attempt to optimize the overall revenue for the network. So, for example, it might be more profitable overall to fly an "unprofitable" RJ that feeds passengers onto a highly profitable international long-haul than to run a barely profitable larger aircraft on a route that's carrying no connecting traffic. These type of problems are so large, and need to be done in near real-time, that tractable financial models are only now just catching up with available computer power.

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
And the absurd decision to charge for checked luggage on formerly full-service carriers

Ancillary revenue (baggage fees and the like) are the difference between profitability and loss for most of the US carriers now. In other words, if they didn't do what you deem "absurd" they'd be bankrupt.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: koruman
Posted 2012-11-07 17:45:00 and read 1859 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 16):
Ancillary revenue (baggage fees and the like) are the difference between profitability and loss for most of the US carriers now. In other words, if they didn't do what you deem "absurd" they'd be bankrupt.

I showed on another thread that the ancillary charges coughed up by Coach passengers in the USA actually don't quite cover the cost of the uniquely US-phenomenon of giving away First Class seats to frequent flyers who aren't willing to pay for them.

Ancillary charges are just another way of getting Economy passengers to subsidise First Class. It's a bit like how Mitt Romney pays a tax rate which is 1/3 of the one I pay.

But ancillary charges are neither balancing the books nor generating profits. They are simply mitigating part of airline management's deliberate self-harm.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: koruman
Posted 2012-11-07 18:00:20 and read 1860 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 15):
Hardly. It's not "unnecessary" - it's reality. And U.S. travelers aren't "shunted" on to planes - they have chosen, happily and willingly, to go that way for decades.

But either way, your comparison is meaningless. The only country in the world whose geography, demographics and infrastructure for long-distance, inter-city rail (real or potential) is even roughly comparable to the U.S. is China. And even there, it's hardly much of a comparison.

Most countries in the world are, compared to the U.S., tiny. And even then, there are only really a very small handful who have true, national, high-speed intercity rail networks. Almost all are in Western Europe. The reason is very simple. Those countries' populations are generally all relatively small, and highly concentrated and dense, and pretty much all the major cities are no more than 300-400 miles apart

Even if you ignore the northeast corner of the USA - which most obviously disproves your hypothesis - you can actually make a similar argument for high-speed rail in the part of the USA I am more familiar with.

You could have Chicago as a hub airport with high-speed rail links to Cleveland, Detroit, Colombus, Cincinatti, Louisville, Indianapolis, Des Moines, St Louis, Kansas City and even Minneapolis. None of those cities is even a 3 hour high-speed train ride away. (Although they are 5-8 hours away on Amtrak!)

If this happened there would be large tracts of failed US cities which were rendered re-habitable and a city like Chicago could aspire to becoming one of the world's great cities, whereas at the moment all of those cities are in a lamentable condition.

The case of Stockton in California is an instructive example. It was an overflow dormitory suburb for San Francisco, but in the absence of mass rapid transit that meant that its inhabitants had to get up at 4 am to go to work. It is now bankrupt and dying.

But it's only 83 miles from San Francisco! In Europe those people would be boarding an 0820 train to be at work by 0900, and they'd be boarding a train back around 1700 to get home by 1730.

It's insane that you can afford hundreds of RJs making absurdly superfluous flights while many of the country's cities are moribund because they are "unlinked" to the more viable nearby cities they could and should be dormitory suburbs for. And sadly, until or unless the USA has that sort of planning and reduces its duplication of services there will be a continuation of this slow, inexorable decline.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2012-11-07 18:27:58 and read 1860 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 17):
I showed on another thread that the ancillary charges coughed up by Coach passengers in the USA actually don't quite cover the cost of the uniquely US-phenomenon of giving away First Class seats to frequent flyers who aren't willing to pay for them.

You've done no such thing. All you've shown is that you can repeat the same rant over and over again devoid of any single fact even when they're staring you in the face. There are people that pay for first class but they are few and far between, and almost always are guaranteed availability long before seats are 'given away' to frequent flyers. Where are all these people clamoring to pay for first class that you think exist? Don't you think if the airlines could find them they'd hold onto them for dear life? If there were all these paying passengers in the rest of the world, why has the F seat gone the way of the dodo in European narrowbodies? Most of Australian/NZ flying? India? Why is every carrier in Asia falling over itself to start an LCC with no F? Where are these people you speak of?

Quoting koruman (Reply 17):
But ancillary charges are neither balancing the books nor generating profits. They are simply mitigating part of airline management's deliberate self-harm.

The most profitable carriers in the world each have laundry lists of ancillary fees, and in several cases, those ancillary fees make the difference between a huge profit, and a considerable loss on the actual ticketed fare. Full stop. End of story. Case closed.

Quoting koruman (Reply 18):
It's insane that you can afford hundreds of RJs making absurdly superfluous flights while many of the country's cities are moribund because they are "unlinked" to the more viable nearby cities they could and should be dormitory suburbs for

The price of those hundreds of RJs is probably 1:100 versus the price of one high speed rail line, never mind the politics.

Quoting koruman (Reply 14):
Because I buy a First Class ticket on United (or sometimes US) to/from LAX or SFO or HNL to get there from Australia. And I'm Star Gold, so I don't pay baggage fees anyway.

So what are you complaining about then?

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: commavia
Posted 2012-11-07 18:31:06 and read 1860 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 18):
Even if you ignore the northeast corner of the USA - which most obviously disproves your hypothesis

It actually makes my point quite clearly.

Even in the U.S., the wealthiest and third most populous nation on earth, there is only a single rail line that can even qualify as marginally "high-speed," and even that is only a pathetic excuse (by global standards) for high-speed, and even that requires regular and substantial injections of taxpayer dollars simply to operate.

The reality of the situation speaks for itself: if high-speed rail made such sense in the U.S. - given the immense capital costs, inevitable time and litigation, general public indifference towards rail, and easy and cheap access to alternative forms of mass-transportation - why haven't more rail lines been built? Nobody seriously argues that a true national inter-city high-speed rail network would require hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars to build. But if it was such a slam dunk, why do U.S. voters seem to have zero interest in it?

The answer is simple and obvious: it simply does not make economic sense. Period. End of story.

Quoting koruman (Reply 18):
You could have Chicago as a hub airport with high-speed rail links to Cleveland, Detroit, Colombus, Cincinatti, Louisville, Indianapolis, Des Moines, St Louis, Kansas City and even Minneapolis.

Will never happen, and for very good reason. The economics simply would never work.

The capital cost required simply to build such a network would be so prohibitively expensive as to render the entire thing a non-started from the beginning. (And good luck getting all the environmentalists and NIMBYs to agree on the right-of-ways - just ask allegedly "green" California how that's going to go.)

But even if somehow that could be overcome (and it couldn't), you'd then have to figure out how to persuade enough people to patronize such high-speed trains to avoid such massive taxpayer subsidies as to, yet again, drag the entire venture down. Strike 2.

And then of course we come to the intellectual failing that undermines your entire point - the fact that none of these cities really critically needs access to each other to elevate their stature and standing. They need access to New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Shanghai, Sao Paulo, Frankfurt, etc. In short - national and global markets. A 2-hour train ride to Chicago ain't going to cut it, nor will the alleged throngs of transfer passengers utilizing the "hub" to go from Des Moines to St Louis or Louisville to Cleveland.

That is yet another reason why in the U.S. air connections have been near unanimously prioritized over rail. Air networks are inherently open, national and increasingly global. Rail - by its very nature - is an inherently local, closed system. You cannot create a rail "hub" in Boston that seamlessly connects London with Atlanta. Sure, there are ways to link air and rail but, again, the relatively low opportunity cost of aircraft (given the already long-sunk-cost of air infrastructure) vs the massive capital cost required for rail renders those types of air-rail connection concepts totally dead-on-arrival in the U.S. They may work in Frankfurt or Paris - they do not work in the U.S.

Quoting koruman (Reply 18):
If this happened there would be large tracts of failed US cities which were rendered re-habitable and a city like Chicago could aspire to becoming one of the world's great cities, whereas at the moment all of those cities are in a lamentable condition.

How laughable. The suggestion that any dying city could be saved by high-speed rail is ridiculous.

Quoting koruman (Reply 18):
In Europe those people would be boarding an 0820 train to be at work by 0900, and they'd be boarding a train back around 1700 to get home by 1730.

But this isn't Europe! Your penchant for trying - repeatedly, on multiple topics - to take things that make sense (to you) in other countries and apply them to the U.S. simply does not work. The U.S. is a different country, with a different geography, a different demography, and a different economy. Again - what works in countries as small and dense as France, Germany and Japan doesn't necessarily work in the U.S., which is seven times the size of all of those countries put together.

Quoting koruman (Reply 18):
while many of the country's cities are moribund because they are "unlinked" to the more viable nearby cities they could and should be dormitory suburbs for.

First off, the rust belt cities you appear to be referring to are not "moribund" for lack of connections. They are "moribund" due to crumbling infrastructure, an unfavorable business climate, crushing taxation, business-unfriendly labor laws, and lower-cost foreign (and increasingly domestic U.S.) competition. They are certainly not in the state they are in because they need a high-speed rail link.

Plus, your suggestion that they are "unliked" to the more viable nearby cities is totally false. Every population center of consequence in this country is linked to the outside world by, at a minimum, a highway and often an airport, too, and increasingly by innovative, flexible, customer-friendly and very affordable bus service. And that is the way that Americans want it, as evidenced by their general refusal to patronize rail or elect enough politicians to build more rail. Americans generally prefer flying or driving - not taking a train.

Quoting koruman (Reply 18):
until or unless the USA has that sort of planning and reduces its duplication of services there will be a continuation of this slow, inexorable decline.

Well I realize U.S. declinism is all the intellectual rage these days. But the argument is meaningless here. High speed rail is pretty much entirely absent from the U.S. not for lack of planning, but for lack of economic viability. If other countries have made decisions to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize inter-city rail service between their few, closely-clustered big cities, then good for them. It does not and would not work in the U.S., which is precisely why it hasn't happened here, and also precisely why instead U.S. consumers and the U.S. airlines that serve them have focused on creating broad, efficient networks of flights, with lots of planes (big and small), going to lots of places all over the country.

[Edited 2012-11-07 18:34:32]

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: zippyjet
Posted 2012-11-07 18:36:59 and read 1862 times.

My simple hypothesis: Well to do passengers + high demand for places like BOS, DCA, and the three NYC area airports=RJ overkill. People want to travel when they want to go and in many cases RJ's fit this model of flight scheduling/operations.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2012-11-07 18:46:07 and read 1859 times.

Cheap landing fees + attractiveness of frequency to the pax = reduction in average aircraft size. (not just RJs)

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-07 19:12:32 and read 1861 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 17):
I showed on another thread that the ancillary charges coughed up by Coach passengers in the USA actually don't quite cover the cost of the uniquely US-phenomenon of giving away First Class seats to frequent flyers who aren't willing to pay for them.

There is no US airline revenue management system that will give away a first class seat to a FF when there are paying first class customers (the booking limits won't allow it). As a result, the marginal revenue of a first class seat available for a FF is zero...the airline isn't getting any money for it either way. Given that the marginal cost for upgrading the FF is also zero, it's economic and accounting nonsense to suggest that this is a subsidy of first class.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2012-11-07 19:18:22 and read 1860 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 14):
train if this was Europe or Asia

Europe, obviously continent-wide. Asia, not so much.

Quoting commavia (Reply 15):
entire country, which itself spans the entire North America landmass from east to west.

There's a big land mass called 'Canada' that's in the way. Canada is much further east than the easternmost part of the US. And while Alaska may be further west than the US, Canada separates Alaska from most of the US. FYI, Canada is a larger land mass than the US while having 1/10th the US population. Another FYI. When Romney said (and kept saying) 'North American energy independence', he was including Canadian oil sands. Thanks for acknowledgement, Mitt.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: commavia
Posted 2012-11-07 19:32:22 and read 2096 times.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 24):
There's a big land mass called 'Canada' that's in the way.

Notice how I did not say that the U.S. covers the North American landmass. I said it spans it from east to west, which it does.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-11-07 19:40:00 and read 2112 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 14):
it is really, really noticeable that many of the passengers would be on a train if this was Europe or Asia, and that an RJ's high costs are really wasted.

How is it noticeable? You acknowledge that you fly FRA-INN, a route of a similar distance.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 24):
Europe, obviously continent-wide.

You've clearly never ridden Polish or Ukranian trains.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: koruman
Posted 2012-11-07 20:54:19 and read 2197 times.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 24):
Europe, obviously continent-wide. Asia, not so much.

Are you sure?

The Tokyo-Osaka bullet-train railway is 515km long, and carries 151 million passengers per year. Four other bullet train lines carry more than 10 million passengers per year.

In terms of the OP, I think that we all agree that in the USA RJs are so prevalent because they carry passengers who in Europe or Japan would be carried on a train.

It is a matter of opinion whether you believe that it is better to have the US scenario of cars + planes + rust belt + massive areas of urban decline and abandonment or whether you subscribe to the opposing view that government needs to intervene to link areas to prevent this wastage.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 26):
How is it noticeable? You acknowledge that you fly FRA-INN, a route of a similar distance.

I fly that sector (and ORD-IND) as the final leg of an international journey. I can't imagine that I would for an O+D trip.

Quoting commavia (Reply 20):
Plus, your suggestion that they are "unliked" to the more viable nearby cities is totally false. Every population center of consequence in this country is linked to the outside world by, at a minimum, a highway and often an airport, too, and increasingly by innovative, flexible, customer-friendly and very affordable bus service. And that is the way that Americans want it, as evidenced by their general refusal to patronize rail or elect enough politicians to build more rail. Americans generally prefer flying or driving - not taking a train.

I'm not convinced that that is how Americans want it, and I would again cite Stockton, California as a model for that.

Proper urban development of infrastructure in large parts of the US has been decimated by your dual system of state and federal government. The lines I'm arguing for cannot be built because they cross state lines in a country which permits lobbyists to have undue control over politicians. (In contrast, the most famous political lobbyist in Australia has served a jail sentence for his behaviour and the Premier of Western Australia actually banned government ministers from contact with him.)

If you return to Stockton, CA, it is moribund because it had no local "middle-class" employment and was reliant upon property taxes for revenue. And it only has bus and car links to San Francisco, which require a 430 am departure to get to work just 80 miles away.

It's lack of linkage to its big neighbour is precisely why it has failed. And the people whose house purchases are now junk and who can't stay in that town because there is no work and no viable way to commute to San Francisco while bringing up kids are not saying "thank God we've got a car and a road". They should be saying "This town is bankrupt and increasingly dangerous because the transport infrastructure is inferior to South Africa or Brazil or Malaysia".

But this is what happens when a country develops not as a society but as a disorganised assembly of individuals. The car and the plane beat mass transit, and whole areas of the country become derelict or dangerous to visit.

The US is my favourite country to visit, and I admire many things about it. Its inter-city transport infrastructure and urban planning are, however, items for which I feel only pity and sympathy for my American friends, not admiration or envy. We're not particularly blessed for mass transit where I live in Australia, but we are not cursed in the way most Americans unfortunately are.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2012-11-07 21:20:24 and read 2139 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
The Tokyo-Osaka bullet-train railway is 515km long, and carries 151 million passengers per year. Four other bullet train lines carry more than 10 million passengers per year.

And yet it still has more air seats than just about any route within the US

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: FlyASAGuy2005
Posted 2012-11-07 21:47:32 and read 2129 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 28):
And yet it still has more air seats than just about any route within the US

LOL    Good one!

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: JOEYCAPPS
Posted 2012-11-07 22:29:48 and read 2114 times.

Because you don't always need a 777 to fly LAS-ONT

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2012-11-07 23:03:18 and read 2120 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
In terms of the OP, I think that we all agree that in the USA RJs are so prevalent because they carry passengers who in Europe or Japan would be carried on a train.

I wish it's that simple. It's borderline criminal that we have U.S. carriers flying 3.5 hour flights with ERJ135s, and I've actually flown Delta CRJ200 from NYC-CHI.

Sadly, the Cali train project would never succeed (too much relying on politicians), while the Acela speeds are a pure joke compared to Shinkansen, TGV, or even Eurostar.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-11-07 23:08:59 and read 2108 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
Econmically, it would be better if those were turboprops but public opinion drove the airlines over to RJ's.

It's interesting how on this one issue, public opinion really made a difference in type selection. Typically, airlines couldn't care less.

I, for one, never did mind turboprops for short hops of under 45 minutes. They were just as fast (or almost), perfectly comfortable, and kinda fun.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: justinlee
Posted 2012-11-07 23:46:43 and read 2083 times.

Quoting JOEYCAPPS (Reply 30):
Because you don't always need a 777 to fly LAS-WN use a pure 737 fleet to fly this route. My question is why US carriers use 10xdaily RJs instead of 5xdaily 737/320 in some routes. For EU or Asian countries, no major carrier has a significant RJ fleet.

Besides, asian carriers are intensively using wide-body in short-haul and medium-haul routes such as HND-ITM, PEK-SHA, HKG-TPE and so on.


[Edited 2012-11-08 00:07:56]

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: koruman
Posted 2012-11-08 00:04:07 and read 2112 times.

To add to Justin Lee's comments, Virgin Australia dumped its smaller E jets for turboprops because they were economic basket-cases.

If there are enough passengers in a market to justify a Boeing or Airbus, that's fine. But if not, who cares what type they fancy flying on, give them an efficient turboprop.

As for 3.5 hour sectors on an E jet, the management of that airline is therefore financially incompetent and requires urgent termination.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-08 03:26:21 and read 2070 times.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 31):

I wish it's that simple. It's borderline criminal that we have U.S. carriers flying 3.5 hour flights with ERJ135s, and I've actually flown Delta CRJ200 from NYC-CHI.

Why? You're going to get the same service in coach on the ERJ as you would on mainline flying the same sector. Heck, you'd probably get better service.

Also, NYC-CHI is not a big a market for DL, apparently, what with UA, B6, and now WN dominating the route, but at least DL is keeping some sort of service availabl on the route.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: commavia
Posted 2012-11-08 04:53:41 and read 2046 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
Proper urban development of infrastructure in large parts of the US has been decimated by your dual system of state and federal government.

Well there's no such thing as "proper urban development." Urban development occurs organically. What you call "proper" I might call "authoritarian," and what you call "proper" today is probably going to be very different than the "proper" that is en vogue 20 years from now.

It was easier and cheaper in post-war Europe and Japan to rebuild cities in the form of "proper urban development" (as it was defined then) because many of the cities were decimated, in whole or in part, and thus they were essentially starting from a clean slate. Many other countries also have far less protections for individual citizens and property owners that make if far easier to simply take somebody's land and use it for government purposes. In the U.S., the individual property rights are generally treated as sacrosanct (relatively speaking) by the judiciary, which makes it harder still for the government to impose "urban development," "proper" or not, on existing cities.

All but a handful of U.S. cities have been built around other forms of transportation - particularly car and air. The sunk capital cost of the infrastructure to support those means of transportation is so great that even if long-distance, inter-city high-speed rail did make sense (and it doesn't), it still wouldn't be able to overcome the opportunity cost hurdle of competing forms of transportation (personal and mass).

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
The lines I'm arguing for cannot be built because they cross state lines in a country which permits lobbyists to have undue control over politicians.

And yet the single only high-speed rail problem actually moving through the development pipeline in the U.S. right now using the federal high-speed rail dollars is wholly within the state of California, does not even come anywhere near any state lines, and yet is mired in intense battles between lobbyists, environmentalists, politicians and local residents to the point of now having ground almost to a halt and being rendered entirely useless.

Again - the lines you're arguing for could be built if there was enough popular will to support them, based on a sufficient economic business case to build them. But neither exists. High-speed rail would be a needless waste of trillions of taxpayer dollars that could be far better spent by the government elsewhere, or simply returned back to citizens in the form of lower taxes.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
If you return to Stockton, CA, it is moribund because it had no local "middle-class" employment and was reliant upon property taxes for revenue. And it only has bus and car links to San Francisco, which require a 430 am departure to get to work just 80 miles away.

It's lack of linkage to its big neighbour is precisely why it has failed.

Again, hardly. What is wrong with Stockton (and indeed with many cities in California and across the country in the same predicament) has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of high-speed rail. It has to do with stupid elected officials make horrible decisions regarding capital investments, public-sector pensions that were predicated on terribly unrealistic assumptions of growth and returns, and a broken political system (particularly in California) that has legislated elected officials out of making tough decisions to seriously and definitively address either government revenue or government spending in any meaningful way.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
But this is what happens when a country develops not as a society but as a disorganised assembly of individuals.

Well, again, your attempt to project your perception of your reality onto another country undermines any argument you try and make. Ours is every bit a "society" as any other, but it is a less structured one, and that is precisely the way it was intended.

Unlike in some other countries, with far longer histories and with a far less suspicious (and in some cases actually favorable) historical relationship to organized government power, the U.S. was founded on the principle of limited government generally staying out of the lives of individuals unless absolutely necessary. As such, the natural instinct of the U.S. political system - as opposed to, for example, those of Western European "social democracies" - has been for the government not to impose top-down solutions, and instead to allow society to work out solutions organically, and locally.

In this country, that means that government hasn't spent trillions of taxpayer dollars imposing high-speed inter-city rail networks on our citizenry because our citizenry already found an alternative solution that is cheaper, more flexible, and given the vast size of the country and large distances, usually faster.

America long ago decided that based on our patterns of geography, demography and economic development, air was a more efficient, lower-cost, and more reliable form of inter-city mass transportation. Air networks are inherently more global, and inherently more flexible, and for most of the "moribund" cities you repeatedly reference, that is far more important than a 2-hour train ride to Louisville.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
The car and the plane beat mass transit, and whole areas of the country become derelict or dangerous to visit.

Ironic, since many of the most dangerous and derelict places to visit in the U.S. are not "far-flung" and "disconnected" from national transportation networks, but in fact actually inner-cities directly in the heart of some of America's largest metro areas. There goes another theory.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
we are not cursed in the way most Americans unfortunately are.

Well, as an American, if this is "cursed," then I am thrilled to be "cursed" and would never want it any other way.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-11-08 05:12:40 and read 2048 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
I fly that sector (and ORD-IND) as the final leg of an international journey.

I guess I really don't understand your point, then. IND-CHI is predominantly connecting passengers as well.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2012-11-08 07:22:31 and read 2023 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 34):
As for 3.5 hour sectors on an E jet, the management of that airline is therefore financially incompetent and requires urgent termination.

If it's profitable on a segment or system basis, does it matter?

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: CalebWilliams
Posted 2012-11-08 13:43:07 and read 1974 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
I'm not convinced that that is how Americans want it, and I would again cite Stockton, California as a model for that.

And yet you would think we would vote accordingly.

Quoting koruman (Reply 34):
f there are enough passengers in a market to justify a Boeing or Airbus, that's fine. But if not, who cares what type they fancy flying on, give them an efficient turboprop.

You know that, I know that, the rest of A.net knows that, but the rest of the American people don't know that. I suggest you start running commercials on TV to tell them. Now that the election is finally over, we need more ads on TV telling us how to think and feel.

[Edited 2012-11-08 14:17:53]

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: BlueLine
Posted 2012-11-08 14:36:57 and read 1984 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
Are you sure?

The Tokyo-Osaka bullet-train railway is 515km long, and carries 151 million passengers per year. Four other bullet train lines carry more than 10 million passengers per year.

The 747-400D would like to have a word with you.

Yes, there is a large amount of high speed rail passengers between these two cities, but there is also an immense amount of passengers who would rather travel by air. So much so that Boeing offered a variant of the 747-400 specifically for this market.

You can offer high speed rail between two large cities in America, but people will still choose to travel by air for one reason. Time. You can run a train from Chicago that will be in New York in five hours, but how many people will pick that when they can be there in less than two?

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: mayor
Posted 2012-11-08 14:55:24 and read 1971 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
But this is what happens when a country develops not as a society but as a disorganised assembly of individuals.

As opposed to a penal colony, for example?  
Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
The car and the plane beat mass transit, and whole areas of the country become derelict or dangerous to visit.

And yet it was rail that built this country.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
The US is my favourite country to visit, and I admire many things about it.

And I suspect that you never get out beyond the large metro areas, which skews your view and opinion of our country. Is that pretty close?

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-11-08 15:11:48 and read 1965 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
The lines I'm arguing for cannot be built because they cross state lines in a country which permits lobbyists to have undue control over politicians.

As commavia pointed out, do some reading on the "high speed rail line" in California.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
no viable way to commute to San Francisco while bringing up kids are not saying "thank God we've got a car and a road". They should be saying "This town is bankrupt and increasingly dangerous because the transport infrastructure is inferior to South Africa or Brazil or Malaysia".

They "should be saying"... huh? The reason many towns in California are bankrupt is due to the catastrophe that is the California politicians, coupled with the left of center majority of the electorate that keeps voting themselves tax increases (see election results from this past Tuesday) which in turn drives more middle class residents out of the state because they can't afford the taxes.

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
But this is what happens when a country develops not as a society but as a disorganised assembly of individuals. The car and the plane beat mass transit, and whole areas of the country become derelict or dangerous to visit.

The USA has never been "a disorganized assembly of individuals."

Quoting koruman (Reply 34):
As for 3.5 hour sectors on an E jet, the management of that airline is therefore financially incompetent and requires urgent termination.

Why? The mainline carrier isn't losing money on the route. They've contracted it out to a regional carrier who flies a plane painted in the mainline's color scheme and logo and the regional carrier pays just above poverty level wages for the crew.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 35):
Why? You're going to get the same service in coach on the ERJ as you would on mainline flying the same sector. Heck, you'd probably get better service.

Right, except for the part about sitting in a tiny tube where if you are over 5 feet 10 inches tall you can't even stand up all the way or you'll hit your head on the ceiling. I suppose flying in a coffin with 31 inch pitch would be "just the same service" as well.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-08 15:21:14 and read 1967 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 42):
Right, except for the part about sitting in a tiny tube where if you are over 5 feet 10 inches tall you can't even stand up all the way or you'll hit your head on the ceiling. I suppose flying in a coffin with 31 inch pitch would be "just the same service" as well.

You have no idea what's it's like to be in a flying coffin... And I'm perfectly okay with you not finding out.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-11-08 15:31:05 and read 1964 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 43):
You have no idea what's it's like to be in a flying coffin... And I'm perfectly okay with you not finding out.

While I haven't flown in a coffin, I have been on my share of RJs. Have you flown in a coffin?

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-08 15:36:02 and read 1967 times.

Not a real coffin, but a plane with a cockpit of approx. 40 x 28 x 18 inches.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-11-08 15:50:31 and read 1955 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
But we have an even lower population density in Australia.

This is why the good Lord invented the ATR-42 and ATR-72. And trains.

But American passengers believe that they are entitled to board via a jetway.

Well a question, how many carriers / airlines you have operating, lack of or minimal competition makes it much easier for one or two carriers to decied that they will user ATR's versus RJ's, however, if someone offers and RJ flight at the same cost as an ATR - which happens in the USA on a regular basis - the RJ wins.

Quoting commavia (Reply 20):
But even if somehow that could be overcome (and it couldn't), you'd then have to figure out how to persuade enough people to patronize such high-speed trains to avoid such massive taxpayer subsidies as to, yet again, drag the entire venture down.

In countries with central government structure, the stick is taxes. Tax for road use, gasoline, car / bus insurance any form of taxation that can be put on the alternatives to make them more expensive so that the train becomes affrodable.
Since they are not subsidies, the WTO or alternative forms of transportation have no legs to stand on.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: freakyrat
Posted 2012-11-08 15:52:18 and read 1960 times.

Quoting Comavia:

"Finally, small jets have also allowed airlines to constrain capacity and keep yields high. This is a critical point often missed by those who focus only on the poor fuel economics of small jets. While they are fuel inefficient, there is an equilibrium where they can be profitable in markets where they allow airlines to keep supply (of seats) low and charge higher fares."

That's what they do in places like SBN and FWA that can definitely support larger aircraft than CRJ's and ERJ's.

Fortunately in SBN there is Allegiant flying full sized planes to most of their vacation destinations and Frontier flying 4 time a week to Denver with full sized A319's.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-08 15:57:32 and read 1963 times.

Quoting freakyrat (Reply 47):
Fortunately in SBN there is Allegiant flying full sized planes to most of their vacation destinations and Frontier flying 4 time a week to Denver with full sized A319's.

CRJs are "full sized" as well.

We're not talking about scale models here...

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-11-08 16:57:51 and read 1949 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 45):
Not a real coffin, but a plane with a cockpit of approx. 40 x 28 x 18 inches.

Hehehehe. But I was talking about the passenger experience, not those in the front office.  
Quoting par13del (Reply 46):
Tax for road use, gasoline, car / bus insurance any form of taxation that can be put on the alternatives to make them more expensive so that the train becomes affrodable

Coming soon to the USA - though not necessarily to make the train more affordable.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-08 17:07:47 and read 1944 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 49):
Hehehehe. But I was talking about the passenger experience, not those in the front office.  

If it was a two-seater, the passenger experience wouldn't be much better.  

Besides, I'm tired of the comparisons of CRJs to flying coffins, whether in jest or not. It's not funny.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: mayor
Posted 2012-11-08 17:19:46 and read 1937 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 50):

If it was a two-seater, the passenger experience wouldn't be much better.

Besides, I'm tired of the comparisons of CRJs to flying coffins, whether in jest or not. It's not funny.

I agree........if it was set up as a bizjet, they'd be saying how luxurious it is, no matter that the headroom is the same.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2012-11-08 17:28:01 and read 1924 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 34):
If there are enough passengers in a market to justify a Boeing or Airbus, that's fine. But if not, who cares what type they fancy flying on, give them an efficient turboprop.
Quoting koruman (Reply 34):
As for 3.5 hour sectors on an E jet, the management of that airline is therefore financially incompetent and requires urgent termination.

I think the only one who needs urgent termination is anyone making sweeping generalizations and actually proposing management act on them.

The whole idea behind the E jets is to right size. In other words, when the 737 or A320 is too big, or the ERJ/CRJ or turboprops are too small.

And as far as ignoring what customers want, go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot if you want. . . the market will urgently terminate your airline.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-11-08 17:42:45 and read 1915 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 50):

Besides, I'm tired of the comparisons of CRJs to flying coffins, whether in jest or not. It's not funny.

Have others used that comparison? It was just something that popped into my head today, I wasn't aware of any prior comparison using the term. And I certainly didn't use it to imply that RJs are dangerous / deadly / etc, so if that's how you took it, my apologies. Not at all meant as that, was only used to illustrate a point about passenger space.

Quoting mayor (Reply 51):

I agree........if it was set up as a bizjet, they'd be saying how luxurious it is, no matter that the headroom is the same.

I am probably the only person out there that wouldn't want to fly on one of those tiny bizjets. Now a DC-9 sized or above bizjet is a different story.  

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: freakyrat
Posted 2012-11-09 03:59:08 and read 1898 times.

I really don't mind them on the short flights such as SBN-DTW or even SBN-ATL. I suppose in the future Delta will up gauge to the CR7 or CR9's on these routes as they remove the CR2's from the fleet.

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: bjorn14
Posted 2012-11-09 05:08:25 and read 1900 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
but public opinion drove the airlines over to RJ's.

Yep. Driven by the airline's marketing mantra "We're All Jet"

Topic: RE: Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-11-09 05:30:00 and read 1902 times.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 55):
Driven by the airline's marketing mantra "We're All Jet"

Did anyone have that marketing besides MQ at ORD? I cannot recall any other carrier, and DL, NW, CO and US all kept props for more than a decade after that marketing blitz. (For that matter, OW also continued to operate props.)


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/