Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Slow Demise Of RJs  
User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6341 times:

I just don't get why we aren't seeing RJs parked and scrapped more quickly and would love to hear everyone's thoughts.

With oil prices sky rocketing, we are seeing some RJs parked, but not as many as I would have expected. Instead we are seeing a lot of mainline aircraft parked or retired, like classic 73s. Given the CASM comparison between RJs, logic waould say to park the RJs first and reduce frequencies. What is taking the legacies so long to realize this? Even with the price of oil, eventually the 70 seaters are going to have bad economics.


Tailwinds!!!
42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOOer From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1466 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6330 times:

The problem is that there are SO MANY RJs out there that frequencies are being reduced dramatically....but there are still WAY too many out there!!!

User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6041 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6297 times:

Also, many segments that could not support mainline are doing quite well with RJ's.


Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6275 times:



Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 2):
Also, many segments that could not support mainline are doing quite well with RJ's.

 checkmark I wonder what percentage of 50-seaters are used on such segments.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineCALRAMPER From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6101 times:



Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 2):
Also, many segments that could not support mainline are doing quite well with RJ's

Very good point. Where I work we have 1 737 to IAH and 4-5 ERJ's. The timing does not make adding a 2nd 737 profitable as it went out with empty seats the time that we had it. ERJ's just make more sense for some markets.



ETOPS-Engines Turn or People Swim
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6049 times:



Quoting Skibum9 (Thread starter):
I just don't get why we aren't seeing RJs parked and scrapped more quickly and would love to hear everyone's thoughts.

Remember that many of the RJ's are operated under long-term agreements with regional affiliates. Even if you want to ground them, you'd have to keep paying for them.

Some mainline planes are easier to ground because they are owned outright and there's little cost to ground them.


User currently offlineUadc8contrail From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1782 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6009 times:

i sat next to a skywest employee who i later find out that he was the chief pilot at a certain skywest domicile and i was told(not a rumor)the the average break even on a uax/dlc flight on the 50 seater is 46 seats even more shocking was the break even on the 700 was 38 seats and 34 seats on the 900.....i have read on here that the 50 seater is a gas guzzling hog but how can any carrier make a profit with 4 pax????maybe he was blowing smoke but he seemed credible and even the crew knew he was the chief pilot.....tried to confirm what he told me but no one from skywest would answer my question


bus driver.......move that bus:)
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5955 times:



Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 6):
700 was 38 seats and 34 seats on the 900....

Given the differences between the -700 and the -900, that hardly seems credible. How can you break even on an aircraft that costs MORE to fly with FEWER passengers?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineUadc8contrail From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1782 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5933 times:

cub,
at skywest if you fly the 200,700 or the 900 you get paid the same.....no matter what aircraft......per skywest....the 700's have the same engines as the 900's(not all but most) and have been told by more than a few skywest pilots that the only diff between the 900 and the 700 is the frame...everything else is the same seems credible



bus driver.......move that bus:)
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5927 times:



Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 8):
everything else is the same seems credible

Fuel burn must be higher on the -900, right (because it weighs more and has the same engine)? I suspect the difference the fellow cited stems from the routes on which they are deployed, but I guarantee you that the -900 has higher costs on the same route.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6041 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5723 times:

Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 8):
the 700's have the same engines as the 900's



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 9):
Fuel burn must be higher on the -900, right (because it weighs more and has the same engine)?

Technically, and legally, they are the same engine (CF34-8C5); however, they are derated on the -700 to provide the same thrust as the engine the -700 was originally certified with (CF34-8C1.)

Another point is that while the CRJ-900 is a heavier airframe, they are not operated at max certified capacity due to scope clauses. Instead, they only have a few more seats than the -700. This, coupled with the higher thrust engines and a marginal increase in burn without the derate, does indeed provide a basis that the CASM could indeed be lower on the -900.

[Edited 2008-06-15 02:33:08]


Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5498 times:



Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 10):
does indeed provide a basis that the CASM could indeed be lower on the -900.

CASM is almost certainly lower. But for this to be true:

Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 6):
even more shocking was the break even on the 700 was 38 seats and 34 seats on the 900.

Trip cost on the 900 would need to be lower, which I doubt.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2760 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days ago) and read 5388 times:



Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 8):
at skywest if you fly the 200,700 or the 900 you get paid the same.....no matter what aircraft

Pilots at SkyWest receive what is called "block hour override" for flying 700s or 900s. Basically, they get their standard CRJ pay rate plus 5% for every block hour flown in 700 or 900.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2191 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5292 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 6):
break even on the 700 was 38 seats and 34 seats on the 900

A german aviation site, www.flug-revue.rotor.com, also mentions that the CRJ900 supposedly has a break-even point with 31 pax for an early NA carrier (Mesa, I believe). The article is a few years old, so with today's fuel price it must be higher. But still good numbers, though  Smile



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineMSP718 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4423 times:

Which United States regional airline do you guys think is the best off for the future?

User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4334 times:



Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 5):
Remember that many of the RJ's are operated under long-term agreements with regional affiliates. Even if you want to ground them, you'd have to keep paying for them.

Some mainline planes are easier to ground because they are owned outright and there's little cost to ground them.

I think this is the main reason that RJ's are not disappearing as quickly as one would expect given the fuel prices. Look at CO, which is maintaining the RJ fleet into 2010, but eliminating 737Classics. Otherwise, RJ's would be on the top of my armchairm-CEO list for fleet reduction.

However, I think that sooner or later economic reality will impose itself, turboprops will take over the 50 seat market, and scope clauses and other restrictive agreements will eventually give way to maximum operating efficiency. The carriers which adapt the quickest to this new reality will be the ones which do best.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4101 times:



Quoting R2rho (Reply 15):
However, I think that sooner or later economic reality will impose itself, turboprops will take over the 50 seat market

Why would turboprops take over the long, thin routes?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4020 times:



Quoting R2rho (Reply 15):
Remember that many of the RJ's are operated under long-term agreements with regional affiliates. Even if you want to ground them, you'd have to keep paying for them.

Some mainline planes are easier to ground because they are owned outright and there's little cost to ground them.

I think this is the main reason that RJ's are not disappearing as quickly as one would expect given the fuel prices. Look at CO, which is maintaining the RJ fleet into 2010, but eliminating 737Classics. Otherwise, RJ's would be on the top of my armchairm-CEO list for fleet reduction.

However the one thing I don't get is that at least with DL and NW, they just came out of bankruptcy. While in bankruptcy they could have easily terminated or restructured these long term contracts to get rid of more 50 seaters. Given that their BK restructuring was predicated on $100 oil, which made the 50 seaters a little more economically feasible. However it didn't take a rocket scientist at the time to see the writing on the wall that oil was going to continue to raise in price. So my question is, were these carriers just too shortsided in their thinking?



Tailwinds!!!
User currently onlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5438 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3925 times:



Quoting Skibum9 (Thread starter):
I just don't get why we aren't seeing RJs parked

They're not paid for. Since they earn all the variable costs of operation and some of the fixed costs, it's cheaper to fly them at a loss than to park them at a bigger loss.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineRainmaker From Brazil, joined Jan 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3220 times:



Quoting Skibum9 (Thread starter):
With oil prices sky rocketing, we are seeing some RJs parked, but not as many as I would have expected. Instead we are seeing a lot of mainline aircraft parked or retired, like classic 73s. Given the CASM comparison between RJs, logic waould say to park the RJs first and reduce frequencies. What is taking the legacies so long to realize this?

CASM or costs are just part of the equation. What really matters to airlines is of course profits, or yield specifically. Most RJ routes - high frequency ie. business traveler oriented and thin markets again business oriented - entail significantly higher RASM than 733´s which are deployed in more like trunk routes full of leisure travelers and/or competitive environment.

It doesn´t strike me as singularly odd that RJ are not being parked in massive numbers. Besides they provide much needed high-yield feeding to trunk routes. However the economic imperative is always there and many RJ missions are not profitable at all right now.


User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3187 times:

Can somebody explain to me what this thread is about? Why would the RJ's be grounded?

As I understand, the reason the airlines are going broke is that there are too many seats chasing too few passengers. If you have a 737 classic flying a certain route with 130 seats and you replace it with an RJ flying the same route with 70 seats, you have reduced seats on the route by 46% without decreasing the frequency to that market. And chances are you will also be able to raise fares on that market by 50% unless there is strong competition that jumps into the market.

It is true that an airline could reduce RJs and fly 737 classics less frequently. But this creates problems with the connections (particularly international) and the ability to offer convenient flights to business travelers. Airlines don't like to abandon a market or reduce frequencies unless absolutely necessary because this gives competitors a chance to jump in and dominate.


User currently offlineNkops From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2665 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3168 times:



Quoting Skibum9 (Thread starter):
logic

I just checked my airline dictionary, and I don't seem to find this word anywhere..
 Big grin

I'm guessing that the majority of RJ's are not paid for , and it comes down to which is cheaper.. fly them or park them.



I have no association with Spirit Airlines
User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3044 times:



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 20):
Why would the RJ's be grounded?

Good question. One of the reasons we have RJ's is that many pax, including me, got sick of flying in puddle-jumpers (props). I welcomed the RJ's when they started appearing, and I think they are filling a very important niche in air transportation.

Robert Crandall said several years ago that the puddle-jumpers would eventually disappear. I'm looking forward to the day when that happens.



Flying Colors Forever!
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3022 times:



Quoting Contrails (Reply 22):

Robert Crandall said several years ago that the puddle-jumpers would eventually disappear. I'm looking forward to the day when that happens.

I'm not a big ATR or SF3 fan, but is the Q400 really less comfortable than a CRJ?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBravo1six From Canada, joined Dec 2007, 397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2939 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 23):
I'm not a big ATR or SF3 fan, but is the Q400 really less comfortable than a CRJ?

Far more comfortable, at least as compared to a CRJ200.


25 MasseyBrown : I flew one CLE-BWI last month and, on that 55 minute route, the Q400 was fully competitive with anything in terms of speed, quiet, and comfort.
26 Cubsrule : I've not ridden one, but that's the impression I get. I'll certainly concede that the ATR isn't much fun (especially in front), but the Q seems like
27 KcrwFlyer : Basically...theyre really expensive to operate for an aircraft their size. Especially the 50 seaters. A CR2 will cost roughly twice as much to run as
28 FlyASAGuy2005 : I would say (in no particular order) SkyWest, Republic Airlines, Mesaba, and a few others. I'm not too sure, but I think this was brought up, Delta c
29 B6fll : I can't wait to see DL park some of these crappy RJ's so they can't clog up JFK anymore.
30 ERJ170 : I happened to have flown on the CO Q400, E70, and US Q100 on a recent work trip this past week and I can compare them for you. Q100.. old, loud, bump
31 KcrwFlyer : If you were on a US dash, it definately wasnt a Q model. I've flown on CO Q200's and theres a huge difference between those and the old ones that US
32 EXAAUADL : 1. wait till fall, youll see the cuts 2. Keep in mind most if not all RJs have high leases and are not fully paid for, so it might make sense to keep
33 Columba : Horizon maybe. They will have a stream line Q400 fleet that can compete with jets but have lower fuel costs. Because they use less fuel and with the
34 AS739X : Thank you. Many seem to forget the regional jets are not owned by the mainline airline. These planes are on long and short-term contracts and it's po
35 Bmacleod : Most US airlines despite $137 oil are keeping most RJs in service due to the fact that they're not filling up their larger 737s and A320s. Yes it's m
36 EXAAUADL : LFs are at a record, I think youll see RJs retired en mass this fall
37 Cubsrule : A Q400 burns less fuel on an 800 mile route than a CR7? I have a hard time believing that, but I'd love to see numbers... I think all of AA's are -20
38 R2rho : They won't (for now). The problem is, RJ's are being used on high frequency short hops, and not long thin routes. How many RJ flights are 2 hours or
39 Squrt29 : I wonder if the 50 seaters would be marketable as anything other than little airliners, like executive jets?
40 EXAAUADL : Eagle has ATR-72-212As, those are ATR-72s with the ATR-500s technology...there are no smaller sizeed ATRs left in AE fleet. I also think Eagle has ol
41 Cloudy : In my experience the Bombardier RJ's and pre E-Series Embraers are closer to a small turboprop in terms of comfort then they are to a mainline 100+ s
42 Cubsrule : Right, but when you say "burns less fuel," you're talking about fuel burn per unit of time. So on a long flight, the prop will burn MORE fuel because
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 Demise Of L-1011 EI-CNN posted Tue Aug 22 2006 19:45:58 by A40-TY
Did The MD-11 Cause The Demise Of MDD? posted Wed May 17 2006 07:41:29 by TWAtwaTWA
Sad To See The Demise Of The 737 At LHR posted Mon Nov 28 2005 19:48:33 by Bigpappa
The Demise Of Air Zimbabwe posted Thu Jul 21 2005 17:18:37 by Omoo
The Demise Of US Carriers posted Fri Oct 22 2004 03:40:07 by Daddad525
Why The Demise Of The Long-haul Tri-jets? posted Sat May 8 2004 18:38:34 by Saab2000
What Was The Demise Of Delta's A310s? posted Mon Feb 9 2004 05:42:33 by MTChemNerd757
The Demise Of MyTravelLite posted Sun Jan 25 2004 19:10:21 by Bhxforever
Travel Agents: Does Rise Of RJs Affect Bookings? posted Mon Dec 15 2003 17:39:38 by Ssides
The Future Of RJs posted Wed May 7 2003 18:12:23 by Qb001