Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs  
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5848 times:

The 70 seat RJ sales have slowed to a trickle. The 90 seat and plus RJ sales have slowed down considerably. Considering how well Boeing and Airbus have done selling 737s and A320s, one would think that large RJ orders should not weaken. So my question is, will there be a recovery in the 90 seat and greater size RJs in the coming years?

Here is my take. In the post 9/11days, majors were transferring capacity to their regionals blaming high cost structures at the mainlines. This resulted in continuous deliveries and new orders of RJs. Some LCCs such as FlyBe and JetBlue jumped in and made large orders for 100 seaters for different reasons than the legacies. But the real market for large RJs is and was supposed to be the majors, who have now restructured and found many ways of reducing their costs at mainline. Therefore the need to transfer capacity to regionals is not what it used to be. Add to that the scope restrictions, and higher seat-mile-costs of a 90 seat RJ, I don't see mainline carriers ordering 90 seat RJs. The 100 seat and above seems more plausible and only Embraer has a truly optimized 100-120 seat mainline type of product. So my take is that, there will be fewer 70-90 seat RJ sales than the coming 110-120 and even greater seat RJs, that are right-sized for network markets.

What do you guys think?


Only the paranoid survive
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5817 times:

I don't think of the E-jets as RJs. They were purpose built to bridge the gap between the RJs and 737/319 types. I also see the Ejets as a DC9/F28/F100 replacement vs being an RJ.

The CRJ900 has reached maximum length and is out performed be the newer competition. It is still selling though.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5799 times:

These larger airplanes are not 'RJ's. There is nothing 'regional' about what they do or how they do it. They should be flown by so-called mainline airlines.

There does exist a place for them, to be sure, but we have got to stop calling them RJs. Just a pet peave of mine.

I think that the industry is also slowly waking to the fact that these smaller planes have not solved anything. Rather they have caused more airport congestion.

Yesterday I operated a flight to LGA at 6:10 AM on a 50-seater. There was another flight on the same airline between the same cities at 7:00 AM. LGA is already too congested. Doesn't it make more sense to operate fewer larger airplanes a bit more spread out than hourly service on tiny airplanes with less capacity and higher CASM between already overcrowded city pairings?

I hope the trend towards all the so-called RJs ends!!!



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5790 times:

Well if you consider that Embraer have full order books until the end of 2011 I would not say that it hasn't slowed down.

There are many airlines pondering using the E190/E195 to replace the DC9 for sure, Northwest has indicated this and when they placed the order for the E170 they also had options on those plus a block of 100 other options which I would say are for the 190/195.

Now also with Varig getting there full operators certificate it paves the way for the potential order of 50 from them. Lufthansa, KLM, JAL commuter, plus many others are looking at the E190/195 as a very viable aircraft.

Today Embraer also announced that they will be hiring three to four thousand new employess to keep up with demand on the Ejets and the new line of exec aircraft.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13250 posts, RR: 100
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5756 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
So my question is, will there be a recovery in the 90 seat and greater size RJs in the coming years?

NW still hasn't replaced the DC-9's!  duck   flamed 

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 3):
Well if you consider that Embraer have full order books until the end of 2011 I would not say that it hasn't slowed down.

 bigthumbsup  I didn't realize it was that booked... however...

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 3):
Today Embraer also announced that they will be hiring three to four thousand new employess to keep up with demand on the Ejets and the new line of exec aircraft.

This says they are anticipating an increase in production.  hyper  For who?  scratchchin  There are just far too many routes that make sense for a 70 to 100 seater. (I'm not a fan of the E195, but I'm quite willing to be proven wrong.) You do not hire 3,000 to 4,000 to *maintain* production.  Wink

I consider the B6 E190 deferal more of an opportunity than anything else for Embraer... this opens slots for a new order.

And you didn't mention AA. I believe AA has a market for a 100 seater. However, that requires a huge concession by the unions... until they agree to new work rules for the E190... don't expect to see Dallas flooded with them.

I also do not consider the 70 seater sales done. 50 seater? Yes. Those were overbought. Hundreds will probably be sent to the desert. But then again, the 50-seaters were bought with very short payback intervals. (Its typical on small aircraft.) I expect scope clauses to be expanded (again) and thus we'll see more E170 (E175?) flying in various airline colors. Many of which would be displacement/growth of 50-seaters.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5706 times:

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 1):
The CRJ900 has reached maximum length and is out performed be the newer competition. It is still selling though.

Selling yes but the combined CRJ7/CRJ9 backlog is about 80 planes, compared to 5 times that amount for Embraer's E170 to E195 product line. My point is that these larger models are no-where close to the volume of sales that these two manufacturers experienced with the 35-50 seat jets back in the later 90s, or even an expected fraction of the combine narrowbody annual deliveries and orders A&B are getting.

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 1):
I think that the industry is also slowly waking to the fact that these smaller planes have not solved anything.



Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 2):
Yesterday I operated a flight to LGA at 6:10 AM on a 50-seater

Are you referring to 50 seat jet or is your point about "not solving anything" valid for 90 seat planes?

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 3):
Well if you consider that Embraer have full order books until the end of 2011 I would not say that it hasn't slowed down

Sure that is because they are only going to build 160 planes next year, including 50 seat jets in China. Matching production rate to market demand is the main reason. Bu that still begs the question: is the market demand abdout 200 70-100 seat jets a year or will it significantly increase?

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 4):
You do not hire 3,000 to 4,000 to *maintain* production.

Sure but, this week they also announced beefing up the after-market support with organizational changes. Then there are the Phenoms that are going to start production. So I would say that some new workers would go towards E-Jet production, but don't leave out the other large scale activities coming up.

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 3):
There are many airlines pondering using the E190/E195 to replace the DC9 for sure, Northwest has indicated this and when they placed the order for the E170 they also had options on those plus a block of 100 other options which I would say are for the 190/195.



Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 3):
Lufthansa, KLM, JAL commuter, plus many others are looking at the E190/195 as a very viable aircraft.

This is a good point. But the question is - are the E-Jet 190/195s an ideal DC-9 replacement? In terms of 1:1 seating replacement, yes. But even after the better performance an E-Jet 100 seater offers, and considering traffic growth isn't better for these current 737/A320 operators to stick with A319s and 737-700s? If Boeing or Airbus had an optimized 100-110 seat plane, I'd say the E-Jets would have a bleak future. So, I agree that they are looking at the E-190/195, but if they pass it over, then I don't see where the large orders will come from. I would only see small orders.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 4):
And you didn't mention AA. I believe AA has a market for a 100 seater. However, that requires a huge concession by the unions... until they agree to new work rules for the E190... don't expect to see Dallas flooded with them.

Agree totally. AA pilots would never allow such a plane to be flown by Eagle. So, would it make sense under mainline? AA did not go through the kind of restructuring that NW, UA, and DL went through, so it would be interesting to see what AA will do for its MD-80s and 100 seat requirements.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 4):
I expect scope clauses to be expanded (again) and thus we'll see more E170 (E175?) flying in various airline colors. Many of which would be displacement/growth of 50-seaters.

Yes. Maybe they will get the 190/195S under mainline, in exchange for more 70 seat jets under their regionals. This could be good news for Bombardier if AA get the CR7 for Eagle in exchange for many E190/195s for the MD-80 replacement.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5696 times:

The investment will be around US$1 billion and there is also rumour of another exec jet launch mentioned by the president of Embraer. Maybe a second linage aircraft!

The bookings include options which Embraer strongly feel will be converted to firm orders or blocks that are available for customers that have letters of intent to purchase. The latter are undisclosed.


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5624 times:

"...According to Mauricio Botelho, the investments will be used to launch products, certify current aircraft, developing technology, increasing industrial capacity and opening four service centers abroad.

"We are now going to apply the same amount of money in half the time," said Botelho at a press conference in Sao Paulo, stating that the company would hire 4,000 staff in 2007 in order to deliver orders within contracted deadlines...."

This means that much of the investment is based on fulfilling current orders, financing the increased capacity (Phenoms, E-Jets, etc.), and the costs associated with opening new service centers.

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 6):
The bookings include options which Embraer strongly feel will be converted to firm orders or blocks that are available for customers that have letters of intent to purchase. The latter are undisclosed.

Let's hope so. The Embraer stock has been moving up in small volumes lately, perhaps there are some rumours to your statement.

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 6):
and there is also rumour of another exec jet launch mentioned by the president of Embraer. Maybe a second linage aircraft!

That would be great and I think they will launch a new type of aircraft as Bothelo's words relate to that. Embraer executes well in products it launches.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2205 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5590 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

European carriers may order some 90-100-seaters as the 148-189-seat-market becomes saturated while many small airports still have limited service or only 2-4 flights a week.

57 x CRJ900 are heading for Europe, potentially 26 x E195 and 30-ish(?) E190 too so far.



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4876 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5448 times:

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 6):
The investment will be around US$1 billion and there is also rumour of another exec jet launch mentioned by the president of Embraer. Maybe a second linage aircraft!

Based perhaps on the E170? That would be great.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6240 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5382 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
Considering how well Boeing and Airbus have done selling 737s and A320s, one would think that large RJ orders should not weaken.



Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 5):
My point is that these larger models are no-where close to the volume of sales that these two manufacturers experienced with the 35-50 seat jets back in the later 90s, or even an expected fraction of the combine narrowbody annual deliveries and orders A&B are getting.

Faulty logic in the statements. Just ask who has been buying the bulk of 737s since 2000...

Southwest
Ryanair
AirTran
dBA
Air Berlin
WestJet
Virgin Blue
Lion Air
GOL
etc, etc,

And add in the other large buyer (Chinese airlines)...

China Eastern
China Southern
Hainan
Shandong
Shanghai
Shenzen
etc,

How many of these airlines fly RJs?

Now ask how many legacy airlines ordered how many 737s (... and not as replacements)?

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
Here is my take. In the post 9/11days, majors were transferring capacity to their regionals blaming high cost structures at the mainlines. This resulted in continuous deliveries and new orders of RJs.

The bulk of RJ sales were placed pre-9/11... not post 9/11. The transferring of capacity was already well on its way and planned for before 9/11 as the Legacies maxed RJ orders as per their respective Scope Clauses.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
Therefore the need to transfer capacity to regionals is not what it used to be.

They can't transfer capacity to the regionals (even though they want to) as you yourself say in your next sentence...

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
Add to that the scope restrictions



Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
So my take is that, there will be fewer 70-90 seat RJ sales than the coming 110-120 and even greater seat RJs, that are right-sized for network markets.

FYI, you can go to the various manufacturer's market forecasts and read the detailed market analysis for various seat categories for each market. Here are some numbers...

EMB -
30 to 60 seats - 500 (2006-2015) 1,050 (2016 -2025) 1,550 (2006-2025)
61 to 90 seats - 1,300 (2006-2015) 1,650 (2016 -2025) 2,950 (2006-2025)
91 to 120 seats - 1,550 (2006-2015) 1,900 (2016 -2025) 3,450 (2006-2025)

BBD -
20 to 59 seats - 1,100 (2006-2025)
60 to 99 seats - 4,100 (2006-2025)
100 to 149 seats - 5,800 (2006-2025)

Boeing -
Regional Jets - 3,450 (2006-2025)
90 to 175 seats - 14,440 (2006-2025)

Airbus -
50 seats - 1,207 (2006-2025)
70/85 seats - 2,784 (2006-2025)
100 seats - 2,006 (2006-2025)
125 seats - 3,508 (2006-2025)

Rolls-Royce -
30 to 50 seats - 1,310 (2006-2025)
60 to 90 seats - 4,135 (2006-2025)
110 seats - 2,592 (2006-2025)
130 to 180 seats - 12,373 (2006-2025)

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 2):
I think that the industry is also slowly waking to the fact that these smaller planes have not solved anything. Rather they have caused more airport congestion.

Yesterday I operated a flight to LGA at 6:10 AM on a 50-seater. There was another flight on the same airline between the same cities at 7:00 AM. LGA is already too congested. Doesn't it make more sense to operate fewer larger airplanes a bit more spread out than hourly service on tiny airplanes with less capacity and higher CASM between already overcrowded city pairings?

You may be interested in knowing that, according to Innovata, CRJ200s and ERJ-135s accounted for 30% of all Delta flights from LGA earlier this year (291 flights a week to 20 markets). And that 50-seat RJs accounted for 19.3% of all LGA nonstop flights, 5.2% by Saab 340s and another 1% by 1900s.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 8):
European carriers may order some 90-100-seaters as the 148-189-seat-market becomes saturated while many small airports still have limited service or only 2-4 flights a week.

There is a small chance that there may be another player entering the "RJ" field. As previously reported, FI confirmed that BBD's "former" partner is looking to launch a 70-seat and 90-seat "RJ" by 2008...



Mitsubishi Heavy Industries details plans for new MJ regional jet family, as supplier discussions commence

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...ly%2c+as+supplier+discussions.html




Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5351 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 10):
You may be interested in knowing that, according to Innovata, CRJ200s and ERJ-135s accounted for 30% of all Delta flights from LGA earlier this year (291 flights a week to 20 markets). And that 50-seat RJs accounted for 19.3% of all LGA nonstop flights, 5.2% by Saab 340s and another 1% by 1900s.

What's your point? Mine is that airports like LGA are badly congested, in part because airlines want hourly service rather than accepting service every two hours between city pairings. Using a larger aircraft every 90 minutes instead of two smaller ones cuts costs. I understand the desire for frequency, but sometimes it is inefficient. Or at least it seems that way to me. Paying four pilots to fly a route seems to be spendy.

I fly CRJs and think that they are a good tool for certain types of segments. The first time I flew on one was in the mid-90s on Comair from CVG-ATW. WOW!!! Sure as heck beat the ATR to Green Bay I used to go on.

But as a replacement for a mainline aircraft it is not a solution, except on some odd circumstances. These airplanes tend to be uncomfortable, with limited space for carry-on baggage. Passengers hate them. I am not an accountant or a business person. Part of my dislike for RJs is what they have done to the profession of aviation and that is not really the question here.

My point was that we don't need bigger and bigger RJs. The Embraer is not a 'regional' jet. It is a mid-size airplane intended to fill the slot below the Boeings and Airbusses.

RJs (or more accurately the misuse of RJs) have contributed to a lot of congestion problems we now face on the ground and in the air, especially on the East Coast of the US.

[Edited 2006-12-16 20:51:46]


smrtrthnu
User currently offlineEmSeeEye From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 508 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5322 times:

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 1):
The CRJ900 has reached maximum length and is out performed be the newer competition

Where did you get this info from? From what I hear (of course I may be wrong...) Mesa actually has lower CASM on the 900's than expected. What facts are you using to base this on?


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5308 times:

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 11):

I think airlines are aware of the inneficiency of flying a RJ (or any aircraft, really) twice an hour on the same route. But don't forget, they are out to make money, and if they decide to keep flying RJs the way they do, there is probably a good reason for it.

Surely it would be more profitable to fly three A380s NYC-LAX a day then several B757s/B767s a day. . . but it doesn't work that way.

Cheers

[Edited 2006-12-16 22:00:08]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6240 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5297 times:

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 11):
Mine is that airports like LGA are badly congested, in part because airlines want hourly service rather than accepting service every two hours between city pairings.

LGA would be badly congested even without RJs. Take away RJs and airlines would just replace them with "mainline" aircraft (and actually increase pax terminal congestion). Airlines try to match service to demand (with an obvious eye on what the competitor is offering). Some markets require (passenger's demand) hourly, or almost hourly service through most of the business day. If one airline offers that service and another doesn't... guess which airline loses?

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 11):
But as a replacement for a mainline aircraft it is not a solution, except on some odd circumstances.

I agree if the mainline LF is there, but... if an airline doesn't reach LF breakeven on a 737 then they have no choice but to go with an RJ.

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 11):
These airplanes tend to be uncomfortable, with limited space for carry-on baggage.

The single seat row on the ERJs are not uncomfortable... certainly less so than a middle seat on a 737/757. I agree with the carry-on with both the ERJs and CRJs but the E-jets can handle carry-ons.

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 11):
My point was that we don't need bigger and bigger RJs. The Embraer is not a 'regional' jet. It is a mid-size airplane intended to fill the slot below the Boeings and Airbusses.

The line is now blurred... the CRJ700 and CRJ900 are direct competitors with the E-170 and E-175, which are all considered RJs... but the E-190 and E-195 are not considered RJs (anymore). There just isn't any clear cut definition anymore.

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 11):
RJs (or more accurately the misuse of RJs) have contributed to a lot of congestion problems we now face on the ground and in the air, especially on the East Coast of the US.

Competition has driven the proliferation of RJs (within the context of Scope Limits). In 2000, LCCs had approx 12% of the domestic market. Now it is over 30%. With a shrinking market share how does a legacy maintain service or frequencies between city-pairs as LCCs encroach and other legacies enter the same market? Just look at all the options between BOS and NYC airports. (BTW, the solution that I support to reduce congestion is industry consolidation.)



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5288 times:

Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 12):
Where did you get this info from? From what I hear (of course I may be wrong...) Mesa actually has lower CASM on the 900's than expected. What facts are you using to base this on?

I don't think he was meaning out performed as in economically. I believe he was meaning in terms of a/c performance. The E-Jets have a longer range and have a higher crusing speed than the CRJ-900. The E-Jets have the advantage of being a clean sheet design (As Embraer had stretched the ERJ design as far as they could) while the CRJ-700 and 900 are stretched variants of the CRJ-100 with some technical tweaks here and there.


User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5264 times:

Planemaker,

I do see your points, especially about competition. If one airline does something, so do the others, just to keep up.

I think consolidation will be a big factor.

Thanks for the discussion! Intellegent discussion is always welcome. I claim no divine knowledge - just the knowledge that I get from having worked in ops and flying CRJs for a living. But I don't know everything. (almost though.... Big grin )



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2098 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5128 times:

Aren't fuel prices hurting RJs? I can see the need since convenient schedule is the most important criteria for business travelers but price is a fairly close second. Back when most of the current RJs were ordered, fuel prices were much lower. The relatively high fuel burn per seat compared to larger mainline jets and the low ratio of pilots per seat keep the costs up. Obviously small mainline planes like the 737-500 and A319 are not much larger than a 100 seat RJ, but fuel costs have sent those planes out of favor as well.

User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5120 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 17):
Obviously small mainline planes like the 737-500 and A319 are not much larger than a 100 seat RJ, but fuel costs have sent those planes out of favor as well.

I believe you mean the 737-600 and A318.


User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5088 times:

Saab-One MAJOR problem with LaGuardia is that many of the slots at the airport are REQUIRED to be flown by airplanes with 50 seats or less.

Additionally, look up how many flights American (all Eagle) and Delta (all Connection), in addition to US Airways Express, have between Raleigh-Durham and LaGuardia (I'm guessing that's the route you were referring to from Thursday). It is absolutely ridiculous how many flights American, Continental, Delta, and US Airways have between Raleigh-Durham and Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark, expecially LaGuardia, and unfortunately, everybody is basically keeping up with the Joneses, if you catch my drift.



Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4977 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 5):
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 1):I think that the industry is also slowly waking to the fact that these smaller planes have not solved anything.

Interesting. The quote says I said this, but I didn't.

Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 12):
What facts are you using to base this on?

Mesa may be getting better than expected CASM, but as I recall the Ejet has an overall lower CASM with greater uplift and range. I'm on the road right now so can't quote a source. Log on to the manufacture's sites and compare for yourself.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4970 times:

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 19):
between Raleigh-Durham and LaGuardia (I'm guessing that's the route you were referring to from Thursday). It is absolutely ridiculous how many flights American, Continental, Delta, and US Airways have between Raleigh-Durham and Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark, expecially LaGuardia, and unfortunately, everybody is basically keeping up with the Joneses, if you catch my drift.

You are right. It was RDU-LGA. We left with about 18 pax. The later flight also left with not very many. Comair left just ahead of us and we heard them on the freq the whole way.

I know it is about competition and keeping up, but the congestion at LGA and EWR would be better dealt with with some common sense restrictions. Flying empty airplanes is not good for anyone, except some manager's ego so he can say he/she keeps up with the other airlines.

Just my $.02



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6775 posts, RR: 17
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4944 times:

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 21):
You are right. It was RDU-LGA.

Perhaps I can try to explain RDU-NYC...

American Eagle flies a RDU/DCA/BOS/LGA shuttle..
US Airways flies a RDU-LGA shuttle also (and used to fly a RDU-DCA shuttle)
American Eagle and Delta Connection flies JFK to connect to International Banks...
Delta flies LGA for Business travelers
American Eagle flies EWR for Business travelers..

So it's about utilizing the demands of the high number of business travelers that fly to NYC and international out of RDU..

it's all quite simple.



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4921 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 22):
it's all quite simple.

On paper it is very simple. On the tarmac when you have a departure time to LGA in 90 minutes because of airway congestion it is less simple. Or when you are nr. 37 for departure behind a bunch of other RJs which are also not full it is less simple.

Oh, and because of the frequency the market demands (yet ATC cannot deliver) sometimes two flights to the same destination operated by the same company will be sitting on the pad somewhere waiting for the EDC time. This exact scenario just happened to me the other day in GSP.

Competition and market demands are nice on paper. Give the customer what they want. I couldn't agree more. I speak simply as a realist who operates these things and deals with the frustrations created by having too many planes going to too small a place in too short a period of time.

Anyway, we digress here.

RJs have their place, to be sure. But are not the solution to everything or every whim people have.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4903 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 10):
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries details plans for new MJ regional jet family, as supplier discussions commence

Look, a 7E7ized E-jet  Big grin


25 Tangowhisky : The MJ seems to be more or less like an E-Jet dimensions and configuration. It's chance of a launch depends more on launch orders from Japanese carri
26 ERJ170 : Oh I agree.. I wish that instead of 11 daily to LGA.. AA would offer 6x on a larger aircraft.. unfortunately, they do not have the right size aircraf
27 Scouseflyer : " target=_blank>http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles....html Maybe this is the first stirrings of the next third-player in the airliner market - what'
28 Planemaker : But with a 20% more fuel efficient goal. Actually, initally they wanted to make a 30-pax RJ. Not in the sub-100 seat market which MHI is looking at.
29 Post contains links and images Lightsaber : Interesting... very interesting. I love the E-jets, but their main weakness is the engine. While the CF-34-8/10 is a reliable design, its basic conce
30 Planemaker : I don't know if you caught this in the FI article: GE confirms it is in "active discussions" with MHI over the MJ, but adds that "we haven't signed a
31 Tangowhisky : MHI has a long road before it can be a serious competitor. Aside from convincing airlines that it will have better economics and performance than the
32 Planemaker : And why wouldn't it? If they are good enough for Boeing, Bombardier and Embraer, why won't they be good enough for their customers. What does that ha
33 SHUPirate1 : Let's get this started: EWR (13): American Eagle: 1x ERD, 4x ER3 Continental: 1x 738, 1x 735, 6x ERJ (ExpressJet) LGA (22): American Eagle: 2x ERD, 9
34 ERJ170 : Well, dont' forget jetBlue has 4x JFK... which would make it 47 flights. But you have to remember.... 1. LGA is a US, DL, and AA focus city.. 2. EWR
35 SHUPirate1 : How could I forget about jetBlue? The problem is when a passenger on, for instance, AA4735 (the 5:55 PM departure from RDU, arriving at LGA at 7:35 P
36 Post contains links and images Lightsaber : I took too long writting my reply... that's quite an improvement. Since that's greater than the 15% minimum improvement required to open up a market
37 Post contains links CRJ900 : LH Cityline claim that the fuel consumption on their 84-seat CRJ900 can be as low as 0,035 litres per seat per km under ideal conditions (with 90 seat
38 Saab2000 : People who go to LGA are not connecting to international destinations, with the possible exception of Canada. Obviously JFK and EWR have a lot of int
39 SHUPirate1 : They think they've found their solution...getting rid of slots in two weeks! (laughter all around)
40 Bond007 : Correct! I am a weekly business traveller and hourly service between cities that are only 1 or 2 hours flying time apart looks good on paper only. As
41 Warreng24 : It has been shown time and time again that the US consumer wants frequency/convenience. RJ's provide frequency. This is the same reason mass transit
42 Bond007 : Answer - Because I'd rather leave 3 x daily on-time and cheaper, than be delayed by 5 of the 10 flights anyway - the end result is the same or actual
43 Saab2000 : BINGO!!!! The marketing is designed by people who don't do this for a living. (Well, I guess they live from what they do 'cuz I assume they are paid
44 ERJ170 : Just for my own knowledge, which routes have the most frequencies per airline? I can't imagine that RDU can be that high when comparing each airline..
45 Bond007 : Very few of the high-frequency routes are regionals: frequencies very approx! QXE PDX-SEA 25/day DHC8 AAH OGG-HNL 20/day B732 HAL OGG-HNL 20/day B712
46 ATWZW170 : I have to agree with SAAB2000. Too many RJ's = too much congestion. These planes typically need to fly at higher altitudes in order to be fuel efficie
47 Planemaker : Yes, but only at a handful of airports nationwide. At at the congested airports, eliminating hourly flights between two cities will not alleviate con
48 Bond007 : Yes, I agree, which in turn may force less frequency of flights between cities. If LGA has x slots/hour, then it doesn't matter whether they are all
49 Planemaker : It is a complex equation that only airline staff with confidential Yield and LF data would know the answer to. For example, even with reduced slots,
50 Post contains images Bond007 : Yes, but shouldn't they be doing that anyway The problem is when they sacrifice similar yielding low-frequency city-pairs, just to maintain the high-
51 Post contains images Planemaker : But they might feel charitable towards the low-freq city-pair. My response was within the context of your suggestion that an airline would perhaps in
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...
What's The Future For Sjc? posted Wed Nov 3 1999 19:32:50 by Sea nw dc10
What's The Future Hold For Sheffield City Airport posted Sun Jan 1 2006 23:55:25 by Gilesdavies
What The Future Holds For OA? posted Sun Sep 12 2004 00:11:19 by Mika10021
What Will Be The Future For KLM. posted Thu Sep 12 2002 16:05:11 by Emile
UK About To Tax Aviation - What The Future Holds? posted Sun Oct 29 2006 19:22:37 by Kaitak
Which Is The Future For Iberia? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 11:42:00 by Dme
AQ - What's The Future? posted Fri Dec 30 2005 19:53:49 by Lahaina
The Future For EMA posted Sat Oct 15 2005 21:02:56 by BDRules
What The Future Would Be? posted Wed Oct 12 2005 08:00:29 by Sunphilips23
The Future For 744 With 330/340/777 Customers posted Fri Jul 29 2005 16:34:41 by BHXDTW