Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Regional Jet Solutions Of The Future?  
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7812 times:

First, i'd like to say that I am a strong believer that the regional jet segment isn't going to just disappear. Yes, we have seen 50 seat numbers steadily decline over the past few years. Take a look at DL. They have limited the flying of the type and layed out a plan last year to return/retire frames through 2012. On the obverse, CR7/900/175 numbers have risen (good or bad; your opinion). They snatched up some QX frames and awarded them to ASA and have a fairly fleet fleet of the 76 seaters through the DCI system.

Here is the question. I am a realist and again I don't see the 50 seat segment just up and disappearing. Have we heard any talks on replacements for the CR2/145? Many frames are getting up there in cycles.

Thoughts?


What gets measured gets done.
38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineflyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7670 times:

I think it will require new engine technology for the 50seat RJ segment to see a re-birth. Maybe geared turbofan engines will be that advance?

Even without new engine technology I think the 50seaters will stick around. They do have a useful segment, but are used on routes that could support a larger airframe by the majority of carriers today.



These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3589 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7641 times:

I hope the 50 seat regional jets are sent to the scrap heap. The short hop thin routes can be covered more efficiently with little time penalty by turboprops. The longer routes can be flown by the larger RJs. 2.5 hours on a 145 or CR2 should be classified by tue Geneva Convention as cruel and inhuman punishment.

User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7611 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2):
I hope the 50 seat regional jets are sent to the scrap heap. The short hop thin routes can be covered more efficiently with little time penalty by turboprops. The longer routes can be flown by the larger RJs. 2.5 hours on a 145 or CR2 should be classified by tue Geneva Convention as cruel and inhuman punishment.

Yes, it is. Not sure what steps other majors have/are taking but again, DL has limited all a/c under 65 seats to 750 miles or less.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineKGRB From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 705 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7533 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2):
I hope the 50 seat regional jets are sent to the scrap heap. The short hop thin routes can be covered more efficiently with little time penalty by turboprops.

What turboprop? Other than the ATR-42, I can't think of one in the CR2's size range that's still in production.

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 1):
I think it will require new engine technology for the 50seat RJ segment to see a re-birth. Maybe geared turbofan engines will be that advance?

I agree. I bet Bombardier and/or Embraer will seize on this opportunity as soon as a large 50-seat RJ operator approaches them for a replacement. It requires minimal investment and the gains could be tremendous.



Δ D E L T A: Keep Climbing
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3589 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7438 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 3):
Yes, it is. Not sure what steps other majors have/are taking but again, DL has limited all a/c under 65 seats to 750 miles or less.

AA is using their E145s for alot of flights in excess of 2 hours. This is probably in part because of their pilots' contract scope clauses.


User currently offlinepackcheer From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 326 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7388 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 5):
AA is using their E145s for alot of flights in excess of 2 hours

AA currently uses E145's and the E140's (Not that there's much of a difference to a 6 foot 3 former football player).

I avoid them at all costs



Things that fly, Girls and Planes...
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7276 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 5):
AA is using their E145s for alot of flights in excess of 2 hours. This is probably in part because of their pilots' contract scope clauses.

As with Continental. My most recent trip on them was ORF-IAH and THAT was torture. It was not fun but luckily I was on the single side but was still something I wouldn't do again. 3hrs on a 50 seater is NOT cool!

[Edited 2010-12-08 20:40:42]


What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 702 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7270 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2):
2.5 hours on a 145 or CR2 should be classified by tue Geneva Convention as cruel and inhuman punishment.

CR7 and 9's aren't much better if you are in coach. Cramped, claustrophobic flying coke cans. Awful way to travel. DL lose a lot of my business (or WN gain depending on your point of view) precisely because DL use lots of RJs on the routes I usually fly.


User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7255 times:

Quoting BD338 (Reply 8):
CR7 and 9's aren't much better if you are in coach. Cramped, claustrophobic flying coke cans. Awful way to travel. DL lose a lot of my business (or WN gain depending on your point of view) precisely because DL use lots of RJs on the routes I usually fly.

I guess it's a matter of opinion. Although the actual fuselage diameter of the CR7/9 is the exact same as the CR2, anyone that flies all enough knows that there is a noticeable difference between the 700s/900s and 200s. The cabin does feel more roomy and a tall guy myself, I usually have to stoop on the CR2. On the others I don't and the sidewalls are pushed out further offering more room.

Then again, I fly F most of the time anyway so I still get my free booze and biscoff cookies 



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 702 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7205 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 9):
I guess it's a matter of opinion. Although the actual fuselage diameter of the CR7/9 is the exact same as the CR2, anyone that flies all enough knows that there is a noticeable difference between the 700s/900s and 200s. The cabin does feel more roomy and a tall guy myself

Agree, there is a difference between a CR2 and a 7/9 but if the option is a 737/A320 or a CRJ then the mainline wins everytime for me, I'm tall as well and fly every week, I like the extra comfort of a less claustrophobic cabin. The DL Biscoffs are good though!


For the future, I hope the concept of taking a biz jet and selling it as a commercial jet goes away and someone comes up with a slightly wider/taller fuselage that at least gives the illusion of something bigger, the ERJ170 etc. is OK.


User currently offlinebrandonfs88 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7153 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Saabs worked good on shorter routes, but them again DL is getting rid of them......

User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 908 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6880 times:

When oil will go back to $30, and surface transportation (cars, trains, ferries) will be less competing, it may be worthwhile to come up with all new engine and airframe designs. But indicators are otherwise. The long term prospects for 50 seat jet market is not good. Turboprops will become niche players as surface transportation is its enemy. The expansion of fast rail service especially in Europe and developing countries will be the enemy


Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlinetoltommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3288 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6865 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 7):
As with Continental. My most recent trip on them was ORF-IAH and THAT was torture.

I agree, at least with the UA merger you might see a more appropriate aircraft (like a 170) on such a long route. Of course there is that pesky contract issue to work thru first.....

I was a CO Plat living near CLE when CO got jungle jet fever. I jumped to NW for mainline aircraft and FC upgrades after a similar long haul on a 145. Once was enough for me!


User currently onlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4234 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6810 times:

The one thing is though that the CRJ's that are flying are getting up there in cycles and are really having major mx issues. At my carrier, its not unusual to see 10 airplanes out of service at any one time, and that is 1/7th of our entire fleet.

User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6717 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 14):
The one thing is though that the CRJ's that are flying are getting up there in cycles and are really having major mx issues. At my carrier, its not unusual to see 10 airplanes out of service at any one time, and that is 1/7th of our entire fleet.



Very good point and what I was really alluding at.

I understand improved trans between out-lying cities and major ones. Within the U.S. fast rail service is still a joke and largely political. I don't see anything meaningful happening before the RJs start to fall apart in the skies. Simply put, I just don't see the market disappearing. The turbo-prop is another story. The 50 seat Dash would actually be a great a/c for DL right now for routes operated by the CR2s under say 300/350 miles but there is no a/c currently in production to fit this market and there is no prospect for new designs as far as I know.

[Edited 2010-12-09 10:48:42]


What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineNW747-400 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6666 times:

As a matter of personal opinion, I believe we'll see the 50 seat jet market morph into a large turboprop market. As of now, the only players are Bombardier with the Q400 and the venerable ATR family. When the time comes for an RJ replacement design, I expect to see a brand new family of efficient, fast turboprops.

I think Bombardier could have a good start by launching a NextGen Q200 and Q300 program. Include some Q400 design features such as the noise reduction technology, NextGen cabin, avionics, then offer an engine with improved performance/efficiency and beef up the payload and range. A Q2/3/400 family could really put a dent in the RJ business. Offer a great deal of commonality including parts and pilot qualification, and I think we have a pretty good recipe.

Delta has really moved in the direction to make a turboprop replacement feasible by regulating all 50 seat jets to segments less than 750 miles, and the overwhelming majority are less than 600...perfect turboprop stomping grounds.

Maybe its all wishful thinking on my part. I'd love to see a surge in the turboprop market.


User currently offlinefutureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2602 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6632 times:

FWIW, I heard that CO put an E145 and a Q400 on an EWR-CLE flight as a comparison. The Q took about 15min longer than the 145, but carried 24 more passengers on something like 1/3-1/2 the fuel burn. Its break even is also way down there for a 70 something seat airplane.


Life is better when you surf.
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6592 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Whenever the subject of turboprops comes up, someone inevitably mentions that customers dislike flying on them. I don't disagree that the general public probably prefers jets, but I have yet to see any independent studies or evidence that proves an airline's use of turboprops actually drives customers to other carriers.

And I believe that we've reached a point where any existing distaste of propellers will now be completely and totally overshadowed by the multitude of other miserable aspects of modern airline travel. Unnecessary molestation in the name of "security", for example. Anyone complaining about the presence of propellers will likely be reminded that that's the least of their worries, and will likely resign themselves to the reality that props keep costs down.

In other words, people will grumble about "old-fashioned" propellers, but I highly doubt a significant number will alter their spending habits as a result...particularly if the physical space can be made less like a CRJ-200, and more like an EMB-170.



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6523 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

It would also be interesting to learn how much of the "prop-o-phobia" can actually be attributed to the presence of propellers. I'm willing to bet much of it is actually the result of passengers associating the presence of propellers with the generally small and cramped size of many turboprop cabins.


Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12217 posts, RR: 35
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5531 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 3):
Yes, it is. Not sure what steps other majors have/are taking but again, DL has limited all a/c under 65 seats to 750 miles or less.

I think to be technical the statement was F on all flights over 750 miles...so if they put F on the 200, I guess they could fly them  



911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineNW747-400 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5231 times:

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 20):
I think to be technical the statement was F on all flights over 750 miles...so if they put F on the 200, I guess they could fly them  

This reminds me of a study UA was conducting about installing an F cabin on the CR2. The idea at the time was brought on by some surprising figures that the 6 F seats on the ExPlus product were generating somewhere in the ballpark of 20% of the revenue for the fleet. The configuration was going to be something like 6F/38Y for a total capacity of 44. This was approximately 2007 timeframe. Anyone remember that?


User currently offlinestlAV8R From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5123 times:

Quoting KGRB (Reply 4):
What turboprop? Other than the ATR-42, I can't think of one in the CR2's size range that's still in production.

Not that I want to see it but there is always the Q400.


User currently offlineGoblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5050 times:

I think it would be a real shame to lose the 50-seaters. I like as much variety of a/c when i'm at an airport and i'm sure it's very convenient for pax who have to travel somewhere that's too far away to drive and faster/easier to fly.


From the airport with love
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4635 times:

Unit costs:

E-Jets: US$28.5–40.0 million (2010)

Q400: USD$27 million

I know these are just list prices, and from Wikipedia so it's even less reliable, but that makes the Q400 sound like an expensive plane. Lower operating costs sure, but it's also nearly half the performance.

Anyone have more reliable data?



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
25 IMissPiedmont : The best regional jet solution is a good train. Airliners are a dying species except for transoceanic travel. Sorry, just a fact that we all need to f
26 Dash9 : Please explain what is 'performance' and how you calculate it. Airspeed? Range? CASM/RASM? other? There are numerous performance measurement in this
27 Tangowhisky : The best way to get an idea on list prices is look at recent sales, find the press release and figure it out that way. I agree with you to a point. B
28 Kcrwflyer : They can take 70 something people off about 3,000ft. and fly them for 2 hours at near RJ speed... where is this thing lacking? As far as regional air
29 Post contains links and images Northwest727 : That is because the CR7/9 is roomier than the CR2. The reason is that the floor was lowered in the CR7/9, and I believe in further in the 1000, so th
30 PPVRA : The E70 was designed for with more range at a similar MTOW. 1,400kms less. It's where its niche is of course, and it does it very well. But the price
31 KarlB737 : I agree with DLPMMM on how short hops should be handled however brandonfs88 pulls in a sad reality. Personally I believe it is tragic that the correc
32 SchorschNG : And the noise. Early turbo-props are a punishment to fly in. Newer aircraft with 6-bladed propellers are a different thing. Nobody shall overestimate
33 FlyASAGuy2005 : Thanks for that. I guess it's all an optical illusion both inside and OUT. I say that because if I didn't know any better, I would have figured the f
34 FlyASAGuy2005 : Also something to think about. I remember someone gave me a really good explanation on why the 30-50 seat prop segment died. Not really anything about
35 CharlieNoble : I'm not discounting your point out of hand because I don't know enough...but I don't see how this is reality, in the US at least. The first issue is
36 planemaker : In 10 years an all-new single-pilot RJ design might be possible. Technology isn't the issue... it is the acceptance that is the issue. They did... th
37 PC12Fan : As nearly everyone in A.net knows, it's not the aircraft, it's the airlines configuration thats the problem.
38 FlyASAGuy2005 : What do you mean exactly?
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...
GRU The Airport Of The Future! posted Sun Feb 7 2010 18:01:11 by VC10er
Primary Regional Jet Operators Around The Globe posted Mon May 25 2009 23:08:00 by BritJap
Airport Of The Future Commercial posted Thu Oct 4 2007 15:17:45 by Nonstopnyc
Airport Of The Future Commercial posted Thu Oct 4 2007 15:14:27 by Nonstopnyc
Allegiant Mgmt. Presentation W/hints Of The Future posted Fri Sep 28 2007 23:58:55 by FATFlyer
Lincoln, Nebraska - Biz Jet Capitol Of The World posted Sun Sep 16 2007 05:30:51 by IPFreely
Cabin Of The Future, Airbus (Pictures) posted Fri Sep 14 2007 17:32:03 by ENU
Randy's Blog: 747 Is The "Shape Of The Future" posted Sat Dec 9 2006 09:25:32 by Leelaw
Braniff's View Of The Future Of Air Travel posted Tue Oct 10 2006 15:52:30 by OPNLguy
The "Hijack-Proof Aircraft" Of The Future posted Wed Sep 20 2006 23:01:04 by Vio