RobertS975 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 912 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3829 times:
Having spent 6 hours yesterday looking out the windows at DCA waiting for a daughter's delayed flight, I was intrigued by the increasing numbers of RJs of various types. Can anyone compare the economics (operating costs and acquisition costs) of types like the CRJ70 vs E-170, the upcoming CRJ90 vs E190 etc.?
It seems to me that the Embraer products are far superior to the CRJs of similar seating size. But how do the economics compare?
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9157 posts, RR: 52 Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3744 times:
Quoting SkyexRamper (Reply 1): And about 2yrs ago the airlines finally realized that the anything under 70 seats really don't make money.
They still can when used correctly. There are plenty of routes that can only support two 50 seat regional jets a day and CRJs are great. There are a lot of cities in the Midwest that really benefit from 50 seat jets. However offering 8 daily flights between cities like ORD and IND makes no sense.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Gregtx From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 216 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3726 times:
It's likely there will be a resurgence in props. No one is arguing that many markets benefit from 50 seat frequency---just the cost of maintaining those schedules with a jet will become too expensive---it's marginally there, already...
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3702 times:
After just viewing the Boeing 717 cd they put out in 2004 comparing it to the E-Jets I'm scratching my head as to why they shut down that line in the first place; according to their numbers it was much more economical and especially in the longrun. A 717-300 with winglets would have been awesome!
RE: ERJ 135/145 Vs. CRJ-100/200 (by Flyinryan99 Jun 21 2002 in Civil Aviation)#ID856072 can help a little as well. There's another thread floating around in the Civ Av archive, wherein I posted some research results on this very topic.
The numbers vary year over year, but they upshot is that the CRJ and ERJ have very, very similar block hour costs in segments where they compete directly.
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
RobertS975 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 912 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3570 times:
OK, here is another question... flew today on a DL Connection (Comair) CRJ40 which, as I understand it, is the same hull as a CRJ50 with some seats removed. There are closets up front as well as a large amount of foot room in front of the front rows. What is the purpose of taking out these seats? What is the rationale of the CRJ40 other than the weight of 10 seats and potential passengers?
RJ From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 198 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3415 times:
The 40 seater's at Comair had nothing to do with scope.
Comair saw the need for a smaller platform for thinner routes that would not support the 50 seat market. (Remember, this was back in the days of cheap oil. It is laughable today that 10 seats could make such a difference) The only platform at the time in this seat range was the EMB-135. Dornier was developing a stretch of the 328, but that program never made it off of the ground.
Bombardier didn't want to loose an order to rival Embraer, so they took 10 seats out of a 50 seat plane, put closets in their place and charged less for the aircraft. That is the key. Comair negotiated lease rates that were cheaper for them to operate the 40 seater. If you think about the expense of bringing a new type (ie EMB-135) on property and all of the training, spares, etc. that go along with it, it made more economical sense to get the CRJ with 40 seats in it and the cheaper lease rates that went along with them.
I have heard that if Comair ever wanted to covert the 40's back into 50's they would have to pay a substantial fee for the process. Hence, Bombardier would recoup some of their money back.
RobertS975 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 912 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3285 times:
I am trying to imagine the logistics of the planeside luggage handoff for larger carryon pieces with the CRJ90... I can only imagine the annoying delay as the pax are held onboard while the planeside luggage for nearly 90 passengers are unloaded and brought forward to the boarding door, then trying to find YOUR rollaboard amongst the many.
The E190 has real overhead bins that eliminates to need for this planeside handoff ritual. Again, why would anyone buy and operate the CRJ90 over the E190?
I can understand crew training and commonality factors. Is the CRJ90 the same type rating as smaller CRJs? Does anyone know the realtive acquisition costs between the products? And operating costs?