EXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1348 times:
I think it was but a 1000 mile flight on a CRJ with $90 fuel isnt going to work. I ma sure loads were good. We're begining to see the end of the CRJ adn ERJ, at least for flights over 500-700 miles.
Tan Flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1847 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1306 times:
Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 1): I think it was but a 1000 mile flight on a CRJ with $90 fuel isnt going to work. I ma sure loads were good. We're begining to see the end of the CRJ adn ERJ, at least for flights over 500-700 miles.
I was under the impression that it was the SHORTER flights on CRJ/ERJ that were in trouble due to fuel. (Thus CO's move back to turbo props at EWR)
It seems to me that once at cruise for a 500-1000 mile segment the RJ should not have significant fuel penalty. It is those 150-300 milers that kill fuel economy in an RJ (particularly at $90.00 USD per BBL of oil).
If I'm wrong, some one please advise, but that was my understanding for some time. ( I believe we will see the move back to turbo-props (Q-400?? or something else) accelerate in coming months/ years.
EXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1236 times:
Quoting Tan Flyr (Reply 3): It seems to me that once at cruise for a 500-1000 mile segment the RJ should not have significant fuel penalty. It is those 150-300 milers that kill fuel economy in an RJ (particularly at $90.00 USD per BBL of oil).
If I'm wrong, some one please advise, but that was my understanding for some time. ( I believe we will see the move back to turbo-props (Q-400?? or something else) accelerate in coming months/ years.
No it has always been the opposite. Not talking about CASM here but total costs. Long flights are fuel intensive. Also while a DH8 might be more efficient than a CRJ on a 150 mile flight, that still doesnt effect the comparison of a CRJ v CRJ between a 500 and 1000 mile flight.......A CRJ is best on a 250-500 mile flight. Beyond that, CASM no longer falls and might even rise on long 1000+ flights
EMB170 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 635 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1221 times:
Quoting Tan Flyr (Reply 3): If I'm wrong, some one please advise, but that was my understanding for some time. ( I believe we will see the move back to turbo-props (Q-400?? or something else) accelerate in coming months/ years.
Maybe yes, maybe no. The problem with Q400s is that you better be able to realize long-enough term fuel savings over the CRJ700/900 and EMB170/175 to justify the purchase/lease of the aircraft and time and money spent training new crews. Unless you're doing like F9 is doing with L4 (starting from scratch so it doesn't matter) or like 9E is doing with Colgan (beginning to phase out the old, outdated aircraft that aren't in production anymore with a new type), it's not necessarily viable to do so. Plus, don't forget the age-old passenger mantra of, "don't put me on that noisy little plane with the spinny things on the wings".
These wouldn't be the first routes from SLC that have been cut...like others have said, I'd bet that SLC to DSM, XNA, LIT, MKE, (and my hope) IND will re-appear once more, larger CRJ-900 aircraft become available to OO. As DL is now saying they want 50% of their mainline flight schedules to be international, more of the burden is going to be brought to bear on the connection carriers.
EMB170, who would (admittedly biased) like more IND service (from all airlines) to be *cough* mainline *cough*...
Can passenger jets fly as fast as my feet do? Let's find out...
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2004, 792 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
