Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Future Of <70 Seat Aircraft  
User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3170 posts, RR: 4
Posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 12038 times:

Following the recent developments concerning the phase-out of small aircraft at European airlines, and other developments in recent years, I was wondering: what is the future of small aircraft for large airlines?

Eurowings Cutting Almost 50% (by NA Jan 19 2010 in Civil Aviation)
KLM's Last F-50 Flight On March 28 (by Severnaya Jan 18 2010 in Civil Aviation)

Only 5 years ago, there were still many aircraft smaller than 70 seats flying around in Europe: F50s, ERJ 135/145, Saab 340 and 2000, Dash 8-100, -200, -300, etc.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joel Vogt
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lasse Kaila



LX has been flying Saab 2000s and ERJ-145s up untill 2006. Currently, after also having disposed of their AR85s, the smallest aircraft in the fleet of LX is the Avro RJ100.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mick Bajcar
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andreas Fietz



BA (as BA Connect) was flying DH8-300s and ERJ-145s untill it was absorbed by FlyBE. FlyBE rapidly got rid of all small jets and small props, and currently their smallest aircraft is the Q400, still seating 70-something pax. Twice the size of the DH-8.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Bracci
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ralf Meyermann



Alitalia (as Alitalia Express) has been flying ATR-42s, ATR-72s and ERJ 145s up untill 2008 when the company restructured. The new company obviously decided not to keep any aircraft smaller than the Embraer 170. I'm not sure if the ERJs have even found a new owner.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thomas Posch - VAP
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royi Sher - TLVAviation



Malev disposed of their CRJ-100s not too long ago and we all know that the days of the CR1 and CR2 at Lufthansa are counted. For the time being, LH will still operate ATR-42s operated by Contact Air; their smallest jet-powered aircraft will be the CR7.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Polfliet



A bit longer ago, but Sabena used to operate DH3 and AT7 aircraft. When SN restarted, they chose the AR8 to be the smallest aircraft in their fleet.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Co Van Den Heuvel



And now, KLM will retire its F50s, keeping the F70 as the smallest aircraft in the fleet.

Their are still operators left in Europe with small aircraft: Air Nostrum still flies CRJs in IB colors, and Brit Air and Regional still fly small CRJs and ERJ 135s and 145s in AF colors.

What's the future of these operators? Will we still see <70 seat aircraft for big (allianced) carriers in 5 years time, or will they only be left at niche operators? And what developments take place in other places in the world?

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11963 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think turboprops are dead. Too loud and too slow. I expect UDFs to suffer the same fate, though they might be possible for a rear-mounted application like the CRJ and ERJ-13x/14x.

If the PW1000G GTF works as good or better than Pratt hopes ( well,  pray  ), that might make a smaller plane economically feasible.


User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7218 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11900 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I think turboprops are dead. Too loud and too slow.

I think the reverse. The American EAS program will keep turboprops alive unless they change the program to require jet powered aircraft which I don't expect.

37 seat RJs are competely dead and never should have been manufactured in the first place. Used 50 seaters will come in and out of vogue with fuel prices. I think the market for new 50 seaters is dead.

The market for 70 seaters is stable, but I don't expect a lot of new orders unless oil prices go down. The market for 90+ seaters will track the economy.

My 2 cents.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11900 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I think turboprops are dead. Too loud and too slow. I expect UDFs to suffer the same fate, though they might be possible for a rear-mounted application like the CRJ and ERJ-13x/14x.

If the PW1000G GTF works as good or better than Pratt hopes ( well, ), that might make a smaller plane economically feasible.

Turboprops make sense for the less than 500 mile feeder flights. Much more economical on fuel than the barbie-jets with about the same travel time (a little more, but who notices 10 minutes on a one hour flight). The also have the ability to go into some of the smaller community airports that are incapable of handling passenger jets (like HHH).

I hope the 50 and 70 seat jets are doomed. They are fine for 90 minute and less flights, but too many airlines are using them for 2 and 3 hour flights. Those long RJ flights should be outlawed by the Geneva Convention as cruel and inhumane. I avoid booking those types of flights whenever possible as apparently many others do also because it looks like airlines are finally starting to get the message.


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11775 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 3):
I hope the 50 and 70 seat jets are doomed. They are fine for 90 minute and less flights, but too many airlines are using them for 2 and 3 hour flights. Those long RJ flights should be outlawed by the Geneva Convention as cruel and inhumane. I avoid booking those types of flights whenever possible as apparently many others do also because it looks like airlines are finally starting to get the message.

I'll agree with you on the 50 seaters, but the 70 seat E-170 is a fantastic aircraft to fly on.

The CRJ-200 and ERJ-145 are terribly uncomfortable and I refuse to fly them on any segment longer than an hour. The CR7 and CR9 are so-so.


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11767 times:



Quoting Cba (Reply 4):
I'll agree with you on the 50 seaters, but the 70 seat E-170 is a fantastic aircraft to fly on.

I agree, but it all comes down to the bottom line. 70 seat jets, like the E-170, are probably ok. 90 seat jets will be fine. 50 seaters are done for. Expect to see more advanced turbo props like the Q400 in the shorter markets.


User currently offlineThegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11743 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 3):
Turboprops make sense for the less than 500 mile feeder flights. Much more economical on fuel than the barbie-jets

By this reason alone, I don't think they aren't going anywhere....

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 3):
I hope the 50 and 70 seat jets are doomed. They are fine for 90 minute and less flights, but too many airlines are using them for 2 and 3 hour flights. Those long RJ flights should be outlawed by the Geneva Convention as cruel and inhumane. I avoid booking those types of flights whenever possible as apparently many others do also because it looks like airlines are finally starting to get the message.

Amen! I think safe to say that everyone here tries to avoid them especially if a mainline or if an E-Jet is available....



Our Returning Champion
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6201 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 11544 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 3):
(a little more, but who notices 10 minutes on a one hour flight).

Yes... a one hour flight and... a 1.5 hour security clearance!  Big grin

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I think turboprops are dead. Too loud and too slow.

Too slow... see above. Too loud... Q400 isn't.

Quoting Enilria (Reply 2):
The market for 70 seaters is stable

No it isn't... orders have declined.

Quoting Enilria (Reply 2):
The market for 90+ seaters will track the economy.

Not necessarily if airlines continue to Chap 11 or consolidate.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7218 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11436 times:



Quoting Planemaker (Reply 7):

No it isn't... orders have declined.



Quoting Enilria (Reply 2):
The market for 70 seaters is stable, but I don't expect a lot of new orders unless oil prices go down.

Did you read beyond the first few words?

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 7):
Not necessarily if airlines continue to Chap 11 or consolidate.

Sure. Anything can happen. It's the airline industry. These are guesses. My time machine is broken.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6201 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 11334 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 8):
Did you read beyond the first few words?

Yes, and the market is not stable but in decline. Even if oil prices go down.

Quoting Enilria (Reply 8):
Sure. Anything can happen. It's the airline industry. These are guesses. My time machine is broken.

You just have to look around at what has happened in the past 12 months... and it can only get worse.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 11241 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 2):
37 seat RJs are competely dead and never should have been manufactured in the first place.

Nevertheless, they have been sold in quite big numbers, in all parts of the world. Why were they popular at one time? Even with low fuel prices, they had a high CASM, and surely higher than the turboprop counterparts.

I know that among the justification of this type of aircraft, the higher potential utilization is an important one, but this only applies when flying longer sectors. I seem to have read once that after a series of Turboprop accidents in the USA, the popularity of the turboprop quickly dropped, and people were asking for jets. But wasn't it also a bit of a chicken run by the airlines, that everyone "needed" to have regional jets?


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 11109 times:



Quoting Joost (Reply 10):
Nevertheless, they have been sold in quite big numbers, in all parts of the world. Why were they popular at one time?

For a couple of reasons:

1. Passengers see turboprops as "old tech." They look out the window and see the prop and think they are in an Indiana Jones movie. Most passengers simply don't understand that a turboprop is a jet engine with a prop instead of a fan.

2. The small 30+ seat turbo props didn't have stellar CASM themselves (a lot of the fixed costs like crew for example are the same whether it is a jet or prop). Fuel wasn't a big part of the equation 10-15 years ago so the fuel burn difference didn't matter much.

3. The fuel burn difference was largely negated by the speed advantage the jets had over the props. There is a big difference in speed between a Dash 8 100/200 series and a Dash 8 Q400. There isn't that much of a noticeable difference in speed (in regards to scheduling) with a Q400 compared to a CRJ-200 on a lot of the 1-1:30 hour flights these 50 seat aircraft do.

4. 9/11 and the subsequent economic crisis forced a major contraction in the market rather rapidly. Airlines needed to cut capacity in the market and 37 and 50 seat jets allowed them to do this while keeping a similar CASM and keeping the same flight schedules. If they had kept flying around 100+ seat mainline jets the yields would have plummeted. For example a Mesa CRJ-200 had a CASM of 9-10 in 2004 while that same aircraft has a CASM a little over 16 now. A CASM of 9-10 is very competitive with legacy mainline rates, 16 isn't.

Now I can fly a Q400 for nearly identical block hour costs as a CRJ-200, keep the same flight schedules (on shorter flights) and get 20-24 seats of extra revenue potential. That's an easy choice in my book when I'm looking to replace my current fleet of 50 seaters.

37 seat jets are done, there are very few left in service now. Where you'll see 50 seat jets survive the longest are on long thin routes from a hub to a spoke where the mainline partner is the only game in town and can charge pretty much whatever they want. You might also see the oddball frequency from hub to hub during a time of day when the demand doesn't warrant a larger jet. Most likely though these flight will be replaces with 70 and 90 seat jets if it was too long for a turboprop.

Now maybe something like a GTF could change the economics of the 50 seater, I don't know. The questions then are how much does it cost to develop/retrofit, how much does it improve the economics, and would airlines prefer larger RJs with GTFs instead?

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 9):
Yes, and the market is not stable but in decline. Even if oil prices go down.

I think the 70 seaters will be ok, but I agree with you that we won't see much or any growth in the segment. I think we'll see more of the all coach class ones fitted with first class to help generate extra revenue and improve the economics. A GoJet CRJ-700 for example has 66 seats with 6 first, 28 economy+, and 32 economy vs. the usual 70 you see in an all coach layout. Losing 4 seats in coach but gaining that mix of premium seating would probably be worth it.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6201 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10973 times:



Quoting Joost (Reply 10):
Why were they popular at one time?

Because of Scope Clauses. Without scope there never would have been so many RJs.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 11):
I think the 70 seaters will be ok, but I agree with you that we won't see much or any growth in the segment.

Yes, industry rationalization will keep new-builds in check.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4281 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10936 times:



Quoting Planemaker (Reply 12):

Because of Scope Clauses. Without scope there never would have been so many RJs.

I don't agree with that entirely. Had the DL pilots and other groups agreed to fly the RJ's when they first came around back in the day, we may not even be having this discussion. Instead they let pride get in the way, and look what happened.

Also, I think scope is the reason several carriers don't have more RJ's. Continental Express and American Eagle come quickly to mind. If there wasn't scope in place like there was, I think there would be even more of them in service.


And that brings me to my next point. I think the market at the 70 and less seats is going to be stable. The key thing though, is that mainline pilot groups, noteably UA, are trying to negotiate tougher scope so that only planes 70 seats and less are farmed out, and everything else is kept at mainline. If it happens that way, I think its going to kill the CRJ-900 program at least in the US, and the C series will be the way most of the carriers approach the gap between the 70 seaters and the Boeing/Airbus products.

What I think happens is this at the legacies. AA and CO already have tough scope concerning even 70 seaters, and this doesn't get relaxed. UA pilots I think will get tougher scope, but won't change a thing there, but I do feel that express capacity at UA is going to flatten, and hopefully we see a narrowbody order from UA soon concerning C Series planes, but I think thats still a ways off. US allows the YV contract to expire, and keep the existing contracts, but eventually bite the bullet and retrofit the 170's and CRJ-700's with F to keep USAPA happy and to stay competitive. DL is real tricky because of all the regional partners. However, most of the lift in the 70 seat range is operated by wholly owneds, and there also is existing tough scope language as well. DC-9's stay for a while, but will be replaced by either 190's or the C series.

So bottom line is, I think the cutoff line between mainline and express is starting to be drawn at 70 seats and thats the way most of the pilot unions are approaching it. What will drive this in the future is will it stay cost effective to keep flying in house with 100 seat lift, or cheaper to outsource it for 70 seat lift and is that sacrificing too much capacity. The other thing in play is other union contracts. For example, at UA if a station has even one mainline flight a day, the station must be staffed by United people and not a contractor. I think if UA can win a concession on this point, it would give them much more flexibility and they would be more likely to keep more flying in house. DL and US don't have such restrictions in their labor contracts with the rampers.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6201 posts, RR: 35
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10899 times:



Quoting Apodino (Reply 13):
Also, I think scope is the reason several carriers don't have more RJ's. Continental Express and American Eagle come quickly to mind. If there wasn't scope in place like there was, I think there would be even more of them in service.

Precisely because of scope there ARE so many RJs (and why EMB double shrunk the ERJ). There were no limits on the smaller RJs and thus they loaded up on them.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 13):
If it happens that way, I think its going to kill the CRJ-900 program at least in the US, and the C series will be the way most of the carriers approach the gap between the 70 seaters and the Boeing/Airbus products.

The CRJ900 program is virtually already 'dead'. And the CSeries will never get much traction because the market niche is already 'saturated'.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 13):
So bottom line is, I think the cutoff line between mainline and express is starting to be drawn at 70 seats and thats the way most of the pilot unions are approaching it. What will drive this in the future is will it stay cost effective to keep flying in house with 100 seat lift, or cheaper to outsource it for 70 seat lift and is that sacrificing too much capacity.

You bring up good points but the bottom line is that the industry is in way too much flux to be able to state anything definitively except that 50-seat RJs are as dead as a door nail and that there are enough 70-seat RJs in service to meet most future requirements.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2637 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10811 times:

It's not just the RJ's, whose days are over, also props seem to be disappearing in this segment (though still quite succesful in the 70-seat segment). BBD has discontinued the Q400, and ATR only manufactures a handful of -42s per year. So it seems that all airplanes below 70 seats, jet or prop, are coming to an end.

There will still be a market of course, but it will be much smaller than today (and nothing like the RJ boom in the 90's) and limited to specific routes and markets. A new generation turboprop family seating 30-50 people could be viable for this market (again, not wildly succesful, but viable). But I don't see 50-seat jets ever returning again, even with GTF. This segment will belong to props.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6201 posts, RR: 35
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10750 times:



Quoting R2rho (Reply 15):
BBD has discontinued the Q400

Pls check again

Quoting R2rho (Reply 15):
(and nothing like the RJ boom in the 90's)

And what a boom it was. There have been +2500 units delivered thus far!



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23058 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10724 times:



Quoting Joost (Reply 10):
I seem to have read once that after a series of Turboprop accidents in the USA, the popularity of the turboprop quickly dropped, and people were asking for jets. But wasn't it also a bit of a chicken run by the airlines, that everyone "needed" to have regional jets?

The latter. Americans happily flew on props for several years after the MQ accident in Indiana until airlines started deciding they "needed" all-jet hubs.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently onlineRbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10693 times:



Quoting R2rho (Reply 15):
BBD has discontinued the Q400

When did this happen?


User currently offlineDash9 From Canada, joined Nov 2008, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10650 times:



Quoting R2rho (Reply 15):
BBD has discontinued the Q400, and ATR only manufactures a handful of -42s

no way

BBD has discontinued the Q200 & Q300 only. Q400 are still selling OK in these time.
As for ATR, they are shipping brend new -42 and -72 every months.


User currently offlineElBandGeek From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 757 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10579 times:

50 seaters aren't dead. They will have a life for many years to come, just not in the numbers they have been. The airlines are rushing to get rid of them, but that's mostly getting them off of routes they weren't designed for. Once the "purge" is done, they'll effectively be back to where they started flying actualy regional routes that only need a 50 seater, and not being used to suppliment/replace mainline flights (a market the CR7/9/E70/75 are much better for).
I think down the road when they will eventually need to be replaced, I see an eventual return to props (Q300 production may be wrapped up, but I'm sure BBD will keep the prospect of a nextgen model on the back burner) unless GTFs or some other new engine tech really makes a difference in terms of effciency. If they're used on the routes they *should* be flying, range and speed won't make that much of a difference.


User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4281 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10411 times:



Quoting Planemaker (Reply 14):

Precisely because of scope there ARE so many RJs (and why EMB double shrunk the ERJ). There were no limits on the smaller RJs and thus they loaded up on them.

You are looking at this from a different angle then I am. My point about scope is that if scope wasn't in place like it was, there would be more CRJ-900's and EMB-190's would be flown by regionals. This is what I meant when I made my statement.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 14):
And the CSeries will never get much traction because the market niche is already 'saturated'.

I don't agree with that for one reason. The C Series is going to help bridge the gap between 70 seaters, particularly the C110, and the Airbus/Boeing lines. Part of the problem a lot of the legacies are having is the fact that there is such a huge gap between the two, which really leaves route planners at a difficult. Continental and AA are particularly vulurable to this because of the huge gaps in capacity, which means that some markets a 100 seat aircraft would be perfect, but they don't have them, so they either have to throw a 737 or at least two RJ's on the route, neither of which are the most efficient. The only plane out there right now that can fill that role is the 190. The C series would be another plane that could do it. DL has a huge advantage over other Legacies in this area because they still operate DC-9's, and in fact you are seeing Mainline service in markets you wouldn't expect from DL because of that (ATW comes to mind). US got their 190's for this very reason. However they can't get rid of their 737's like they would like to because of pilot contracts, so they had to get rid of some 190's (Only type they could reduce per the current agreements). AA, UA, and CO are "hand tied" at the moment with this.

The other thing too, unrelated to the RJ topic is that the Boeing is completely focuses on the 787 and 748 programs at the moment, and Airbus is focused on the A350. With the C Series using similar technology to those planes, airlines could opt for them instead of existing products. I could even see Ryanair as a customer, because Bombardier just might give MOL a good deal.


User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4281 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10400 times:

Back on the original topic though, I would not buy stock in any regional at the moment. I do think there are too many 50 seaters out there, and the problem is that all the regionals have leased them, which means they can't park them. I do think we are going to see another regional go belly up within a year or two. My money is of course on Mesa.

But one thing that I do wonder. Trans States has 50 MRJ's on order. What exactly are they going to do with them? The only possible flying existing at the moment that I see opening up that they could use that on would be Mesa 70 seat flying, or existing RAH flying if one of the legacies decides that they don't like paying money to directly subsidize a competitor. The only other thing I see is to replace CR7's at GoJet. Any thoughts on this?


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 10286 times:



Quoting Apodino (Reply 22):
I do think we are going to see another regional go belly up within a year or two. My money is of course on Mesa.

Mesa is most likely but there are some others out there that are probably in for a world of pain when these contracts come due.

SkyWest will definitely be a survivor due to their sheer size and amount of cash in the bank. They can (and have) and probably will use their financial muscle to push smaller regionals out of business. RAH seems to be headed out of the fee for departure business and I agree with you that majors might decide to not continue subsidizing a direct competitor.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 22):
Trans States has 50 MRJ's on order. What exactly are they going to do with them?

Their 50 orders are for the large 86-96 seat MRJ-90 variant, so they aren't looking to replace their CRJ-700s or take over YV's CRJ-700s. I'm not sure what they are up to because I don't think there are any carriers they can fly those aircraft for because of scope. So either scope has to be relaxed more (unlikely) or they are thinking of doing branded operations. They do have 50 options which could be converted to the smaller MRJ-70 but even that is a 70-80 passengers and at 81,200 lbs MTOW it is about 8,700 lbs more than the CRJ-700 and thus might be in violation of UAL's scope. We've also all seen how MTOW has increased in a lot of new aircraft programs so there is a risk of that with the MRJ.

They might be able to start their own brand and codeshare with a major partner but that isn't possible with every airline. DALPA for example has to approve codeshare partners.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6201 posts, RR: 35
Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10155 times:



Quoting Apodino (Reply 21):
You are looking at this from a different angle then I am. My point about scope is that if scope wasn't in place like it was, there would be more CRJ-900's and EMB-190's would be flown by regionals. This is what I meant when I made my statement.

You are forgetting that 100-seat aircraft already existed when Scopes were developed and they were flown by mainline.

On the other hand, the RJ was thought by EVERYONE to be a flash in the pan (including BBD with only 200 total orders originally forecasted). The bottom line is that if pilots could have imagined that BBD was going to quadruple stretch the "Challenger", and that a marginal manufacturer in S. America was going to come out with a family of jets bridging 70-110 seats, Scope clauses would have been even more restrictive.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 21):
I don't agree with that for one reason. The C Series is going to help bridge the gap between 70 seaters, particularly the C110, and the Airbus/Boeing lines.

The E-jets already do that... just look at AC.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 21):
The other thing too, unrelated to the RJ topic is that the Boeing is completely focuses on the 787 and 748 programs at the moment, and Airbus is focused on the A350. With the C Series using similar technology to those planes, airlines could opt for them instead of existing products. I could even see Ryanair as a customer, because Bombardier just might give MOL a good deal.

Not so... you are not familiar with what is actually going on. Read the the recent thread on the CSeries... and it will bring you up to speed why the CSeries is not going to get market traction.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
25 JoeCanuck : Rather, you will read a variety of opinions about the CSeries, some pro and some anti but all speculation.
26 Apodino : Not at all. And that is not exactly true. Air Wisconsin operated the 146 for many years under the United Express monger, and their smallest mainline
27 Planemaker : It absolutely is true. No, the real reason is that it is cheaper to have regional carries fly the routes. You haven't been following E190 sales. LEAP
28 R2rho : Woah... BIG typing error there on my side, sorry! Obviously I meant the Q300!
29 YTZ : Not necessarily true. The public is slowly wisening up. Look at the success of Porter in Toronto. It's almost becoming fashionable to fly turboprops!
30 Viscount724 : After only 4 years in business, Porter has recently become the #2 passenger carrier afer AC in the Toronto-Montreal and Toronto-Ottawa markets, ahead
31 Kent350787 : Of course this discussion is US (or at least North America) focussed. There are other parts of the world where turboprops are the real workhorses. Aus
32 Cslusarc : It is too bad that the US regional airlines bought too many Regional Jets. Only Horizon Air (QX), Lynx Aviation (L3) and Colgan Air (9L) were smart en
33 Planemaker : Do not forget that the Q400 entered service 8 years after the CRJ entered service.
34 Tangowhisky : What is the combined deliveries of turboprops BB and ATR? about 100-110 a year. That is nothing close to small jets, medium jets, or large jets. and
35 Joost : It became so. It started in Europe But eventually they will need to replace them - but with what? This is still a class below the aircraft mentioned
36 Planemaker : BBD has looked at a Q400 shrink for a decade now but has not pulled the trigger. If demand is there in the future they may finally do it. In any case
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 Is The Future Of This Aircraft? posted Mon Oct 6 2003 19:40:52 by Kevin752
The Future Of Regionals posted Tue Jan 12 2010 11:40:19 by Alias1024
The Future Of PHX? posted Wed Nov 25 2009 20:07:55 by AirStairs
The Future Of CO At IAH? posted Sun Oct 18 2009 20:03:17 by Deltaflyertoo
What Is The Future Of "Yananyi Dreaming" posted Fri Oct 16 2009 12:46:03 by SXDFC
The Future Of PER posted Tue Sep 22 2009 04:06:45 by Ben175
The Future Of LCC Codesharing And Alliances posted Wed Aug 19 2009 12:11:44 by OP3000
The Future Of OA JFK-ATH. posted Tue Aug 18 2009 11:21:38 by Pegasus01
The Future Of Super Sonic Transportation... posted Wed Aug 12 2009 15:22:12 by Swa4life
A Little Competition On The Future Of Etihad posted Tue Jul 21 2009 23:18:30 by Kleinsim
The Future Of OS Long Haul Fleet posted Sat Aug 14 2010 14:00:15 by miaintl
The Future Of British Airways At Gatwick Airport posted Mon Aug 9 2010 20:37:52 by BAfan