Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?  
User currently offlineCumulonimbus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5974 times:

As the above question states. Is there going to be any Market for the turboprop and 50 seat RJ's in the future? With the sucess of the new E-Jets It would seem not. What is your opinion?

Mike

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5961 times:

Regional Jets? Possibly.

Turboprops? I don't think so. (until such time manufacturers develop jet engines with operating economics that match that of a turboprop.)



Delete this User
User currently offlineLubicon From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5952 times:

There will always be a market for turbo props. There are many airports worldwide that have runways that are not suitable for jets. No turbo props means no service to those airports.

User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5417 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5945 times:

It's all to do with distance and most efficient altitudes also.
Turboprops are more efficient at lower altitudes and therefore the much shorter routes.

...although I just got a B737 from GSO - CLT on a 20 min flight, 16000ft....and I would argue I'd rather drive anything shorter than that!

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6771 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5859 times:

I am no expert, but my guess would be this..

Turboprops <50 seats.. probably will turn Elvis and be done.
Turboprops 50 & 70 seats.. still a market for those as long as they get more quiet
RJ <50 people.. probably turn Elvis and be done
RJ 50 & 70 seats.. still a market for those but should be maintained at small Regional airports (50 seaters) and midsize airports (70 seaters)
E-jets 75-110.. the cycle returns and will probably be the big thing for the next 20 years
Jets 100-120.. (318, 736) should probably die out to the E-jets, but only if range on E-jets can get an extra 500 nm...



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5835 times:

Quoting Cumulonimbus (Thread starter):
With the sucess of the new E-Jets It would seem not.

The E-Jets are really there to fill the void left by the DC-9 and F100 type airplanes. That is a mainline market.

The age of the 50 seat RJ is quickly coming to an end, as their horrible economics and affect on capacity at airports is giving airlines massive headaches. The turboprop, however, is a much more efficient monster and have become almost as fast and just as comfortable as their purejet cousins. I actually think there will be a turboprop renaissance, which has already started with the increased popularity of the Q400



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8273 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5791 times:

Quoting Cumulonimbus (Thread starter):
Is there going to be any Market for the turboprop and 50 seat RJ's in the future?

3 Letters: C-L-E. ERJ heaven!



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5737 times:

The turboprop market is experiencing a rebirth and is about to explode with growth. The regional jet market at less then 1 hour is not a profitable one, and as far as time... turboprops offer nearly the same, or in some cases even quicker gate to gate times for a cheeper operating cost.


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5659 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7):
The turboprop market is experiencing a rebirth and is about to explode with growth. The regional jet market at less then 1 hour is not a profitable one, and as far as time... turboprops offer nearly the same, or in some cases even quicker gate to gate times for a cheeper operating cost.

No kidding. While customers care about silence and the "it's a jet" feeling, they care mostly about price. Turboprops are a much better proposition for short flights under 50-60 pax. Also, they are getting much queieter. Compare a Dash-8 Q400 with a SAAB 340!



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5583 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7):
The turboprop market is experiencing a rebirth and is about to explode with growth. The regional jet market at less then 1 hour is not a profitable one, and as far as time... turboprops offer nearly the same, or in some cases even quicker gate to gate times for a cheeper operating cost.

While there may be a renaissance of turboprops in terms of comparative sales (i.e. 2006 turboprop sales vs 2003 turboprop sales) it is a fact that the existing RJs are not going anywhere soon. Will many go to the desert? Yes, very likely. However, when a company can choose between a new turboprop and a used RJ that is significantly cheaper, all bets are off.

Not good for the residual value of the <50 seaters, but they will not be "replaced" by new turboprops.

Remember: fuel is expensive, but cost of ownership is also a huge slice of operating costs. With the current RJ glut the cost of aquiring second hand RJs will become attractive to many - despite them being gas guzzlers.

mrocktor


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5547 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):
Compare a Dash-8 Q400 with a SAAB 340!

Hell, compare a Q400 with a CRJ200

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 9):
Remember: fuel is expensive, but cost of ownership is also a huge slice of operating costs

Props are cheaper to buy as well as being much, much cheaper to fly



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5521 times:

The 50 seat Regional Jet is in a death spiral. The market for much of the world in regards to them is just about saturated. The turboprop is about to make a big comeback if fuel prices stay where they are. I think some airlines that operate RJs on short routes will soon abandon the use of RJs on those routes in favor of turboprops.

There are cities that without turboprop airliners would not have any sort of service at all. There is still a small market for the under 30 seat turboprops, but the majority of this market is for used a/c.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13138 posts, RR: 100
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 5350 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 4):

Turboprops <50 seats.. probably will turn Elvis and be done.
Turboprops 50 & 70 seats.. still a market for those as long as they get more quiet
RJ <50 people.. probably turn Elvis and be done
RJ 50 & 70 seats.. still a market for those but should be maintained at small Regional airports (50 seaters) and midsize airports (70 seaters)
E-jets 75-110.. the cycle returns and will probably be the big thing for the next 20 years
Jets 100-120.. (318, 736) should probably die out to the E-jets, but only if range on E-jets can get an extra 500 nm...

ERJ170, I agree with you... mostly. I think the 50 seat RJ market is saturated. As Ejets come online, airlines will want to dump about half of the 50 seaters. The CR7 and CR9 have neither the range nor comfort to garner any of my interest. Oh, on certain routes they have good economics; just not enough routes for me to understand adding another sub-type.

I would argue that the E-jets need 800nm more range.  bigthumbsup  That would give US coast to coast against 95% of the winter winds.  Smile

And if I'm wrong, I'll just equate rhinestones with rivits and take that as the definition of going Elvis!  duck 

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 11):
The 50 seat Regional Jet is in a death spiral. The market for much of the world in regards to them is just about saturated. The turboprop is about to make a big comeback if fuel prices stay where they are. I think some airlines that operate RJs on short routes will soon abandon the use of RJs on those routes in favor of turboprops.

I agree EXCEPT that I feel that the auto/SUV has replaced the turboprop on many of the short routes. Airlines will continue to get out of the <400 km market. Since turboprops lack the comfort/speed for any routes > 750 km, that leaves a narrow niche (one manufacturer, maybe two).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 5319 times:

"The CR7 and CR9 have neither the range nor comfort to garner any of my interest."

I have flown a 737 and a crj900 for 2.5 hours and I loved the CRJ more than the 737. I don't understand why people hate the crj so much they are not any different than a 737 on economy. These ones had better room also and not as many people. I don't think the crjs will ever go away maybe the props will.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 5284 times:

It goes down like this:

30 Seaters - All varieties - Stick a fork in 'em. They're done except for cargo.

40/50 Seat Jet - Stick a fork in them too.

40/50 Seat Turboprop - Q300/ATR-42 with a bit more speed is needed, but it'll do to replace the noisey E-120's. J41's and SAAB 340's in rural markets.

70 Seat Turboprop - The new cash cow, the ATR is way too slow for the route flexibility required in most route structures. 70 seats for the same cost as a 50 seat RJ, and the same speed for the majority of the routes a 50 seat jet is used for.

70 Seat RJ - The medium range cash cow (500-1000 miles). Balance these with 70 seat and 50 seat TP's and you'll make some money.

90/100 Seat RJ - Niche aircraft. More beneficial to the customer to have more 70/50 seat flights than one or two 100 seat flights, too little demand for them from major players in point to point markets. JetBlue will regret this purchase. This covers the E-175/190/195/A-318/717/737-600/CRJ-900 and likely the C-Series.


User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3295 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 5241 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14):
It goes down like this:

30 Seaters - All varieties - Stick a fork in 'em. They're done except for cargo.

40/50 Seat Jet - Stick a fork in them too.

I'd agree, except for one question. What are you going to do with small markets that currently have turboprop service? NW still has a lot of prop flying that won't be profitable with a 44 seat CRJ. CO has moved props back into markets that won't support props. The new fare structures won't support jet service. Maybe flying a jet isn't as important as it once was?


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 5235 times:

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 15):
I'd agree, except for one question. What are you going to do with small markets that currently have turboprop service?

50 seat TP's.


User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3295 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 5225 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 16):
50 seat TP's.

I hear you. But a 50 seat turboprop has too many seats for many markets. Now what? How do you keep service to many markets that are too big for EAS, but too small for a 50 seat turboprop?


User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6771 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 5205 times:

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 17):
I hear you. But a 50 seat turboprop has too many seats for many markets. Now what? How do you keep service to many markets that are too big for EAS, but too small for a 50 seat turboprop?

Turboprop break even is different than a RJ... A 50 seat turboprop at $100 probably only needs to fill about half the plane to break even.. so props can fly less than full and still fulfill their function..



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5053 times:

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 17):
I hear you. But a 50 seat turboprop has too many seats for many markets. Now what? How do you keep service to many markets that are too big for EAS, but too small for a 50 seat turboprop?

A very small percentage use the 19 seaters. Most now use 30 seaters. the 50 seater is simply a growth aircraft. The 19 seater routes would be picked up as one stop routes. The economics just don't work anymore for anything new with less than 50 seats.


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6876 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 4175 times:

Ever tried to place an order for a brand new ATR? It's an 18 month wait... LOL

50 seater props will always be needed. You can serve a 200NM sector out of a 1000m runway... Long gone are the days of 50 seater props needing 1500m runways...

For 200 - 500NM sectors...
Your ATRs and DHC8s will cost about 30 USD per seat hour (ACMI + fuel). That'll be about US 8 cents per seat kilometer.

Your RJs will cost about 11.5 cents per seat kilometer...

We haven't even included overheads into it...

The question is... are the customers prepared to pay for it? How much extra are they really willing to pay for it?

Don't forget that these RJs will require 1850m runways... and require stronger runways than the props... which is another cost that will have to go down to the ticket price somewhere along the line (airport nav/landing/parking charges)... that'll add a few cents to the tickets...

But hang on... 1850m runways? Hell I can give my pax jet service for 7 cents per kilometer!

So, I can have the same yield on a 732/3/5/6/7 at 75% load factor as on a CRJ200 with 100% load factor...

In my opinion, the 50 seater RJs will be dead... the traditional gap will reappear again... The incoming 2nd generation RJs needs to have seat kilometer costs that are closer to 120 seater aircraft or at least match the traditional 70-100 seaters (F70/F100) or they too will die.

As of using 20 seaters? Well, unless you have to... why use them? Anyone fancy paying 2x the RJ ticket on a 20 seater?

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineFlyBeQ400 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 4127 times:

Turboprops are looking stronger than the have for a long time.

From my point of view the best options right now are:

Q400 (70+ seats)
E190/5 (110+ seats)
738 (175+ seats)

Now, there aren't many gaps to plug in that line up. The 738 will almost always win on CASM, but the E190s are looking good, and Q400's can deliver amazingly low b/e even at 55% load factor. Problem is between the E190/5 and the 738. Smaller 737's dont have as good CASM as far as I know. Maybe the A319/20 sneaks in between those there.

As for RJ's - I never really saw the point other than for mid-range thin routes; but it'd have to be quite thin and quite long to use that over a double daily Q400 or a once daily E190/5, IMHO.


User currently offlineHorizonGirl From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 807 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 4113 times:

I have the feeling that the Q400 will be successful for a long time.


Devon



Flying high on the Wings of the Great Northwest!
User currently offlineBoeingPride800 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 430 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 4111 times:

Anymore hopes for the Beechcraft 1900?

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 4107 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14):
but it'll do to replace the noisey E-120's. J41's and SAAB 340's in rural markets.

Brasilias and SF340s are 30 seaters, not 50 seaters.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
25 Post contains images Mandala499 : The B1900D still got a chance... Mainly in terms of safety... It's controllable in a single engine climbout, unlike the Casa 212s... For a 20 seater t
26 Boeing7E7 : That's why I said the 50 seater is a growth aircraft. By the time those three all retire 7-10 for the most recent builds, demand will be there for 50
27 Frugalqxnwa : Turboprops: future could be bright for the right size of aircraft 90 seats could sell well, if the aircraft have the right range, flexibility, and eff
28 Post contains images GQfluffy : LOL! Not HARDLY! GQ operates a dozen-ish turboprops. And we've made a profit for last 6 quarters in a row. There is no other airline that operates in
29 ERJ170 : GQfluffy, That may be the case for your airline, and that is very great. For real. But for the big picture in the future, small turboprop aircraft wi
30 Mrocktor : Really? I don't have access to figures, could you post the price of a new Q400 and that of a 10 year old ERJ/CRJ200 for comparison? Just wait until I
31 N1120A : They have an excellent CASM, hence why so many have been sold. It is a combo or CASM and Trip costs. The 736/A318 are not that great, but the 73G is
32 Boeing7E7 : Even at the cheaper price you can't offset a $25M 70 seater (Typical Q400 price - loaded with HUD) and a $12-15M 50 seater when you're burning nearly
33 EMBQA : Not good for the residual value of the
34 Post contains images GQfluffy : True. But with the altitude we have here and the possible high temps, the Beech's are just a smarter move. I've had a Metro (Metro 23) leave here onc
35 Post contains images Mrocktor : You can get a new ERJ for $12-15M. I'd imagine that, once they start being parked, the 10yr old planes will be available for maybe a third of that. T
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Future Of 50 Seat RJ's posted Thu Mar 17 2005 22:31:36 by Cumulonimbus
50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!? posted Fri Jul 29 2005 15:33:00 by Jayspilot
Why Do Some Airlines Put 2 FA's On 50 Seat RJ's? posted Tue Sep 24 2002 22:30:45 by ChautauquaFA
What Do You Think Is The Best And Busiest Airport posted Sun Sep 23 2001 04:51:32 by A340-500
Which Is The Best And Worst Latin American Airport posted Sat Aug 25 2001 03:37:17 by TOMASKEMPNER
What Is The Best Economy-Class Seat In A 737-200 posted Sun Jan 16 2000 04:31:01 by Westjet_737
Midwest, Who Got The 50 Seat Flying? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 00:54:00 by ATWZW170
Why Is There A Gap Between The 787-3 And 787-8? posted Tue Sep 19 2006 05:00:13 by JAM747
What Is The Cost Of A Dead A350? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 08:11:27 by Art
What Is The Difference Between A342 And 343/346 posted Wed Jul 5 2006 18:48:39 by Myk