Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Are There So Many RJs In The US?  
User currently offlinejustinlee From China, joined Aug 2012, 331 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1865 times:

I am just wondering why there are so many RJs in the US nowadays. Economically they are not so profitable as 737/320 and there are not so many RJs 10 years ago! Would you guys think it will be a trend for the global market, especially the domestic market in Europe or China?

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5771 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1872 times:

Quoting justinlee (Thread starter):
I am just wondering why there are so many RJs in the US nowadays. Economically they are not so profitable as 737/320 and there are not so many RJs 10 years ago! Would you guys think it will be a trend for the global market, especially the domestic market in Europe or China?

Greetings from the US.
In the late 90's and early 2000's, there was a push to go "all-jet." That was a small part of it... and may have been purely marketing.
The real issue here is scope clause. Pilot contracts at most carriers include verbiage that basically states, "Any aircraft larger than XXXX number of seats will be flown by mainline pilots." So, to cut costs, the airlines bought the regional jets by the dozens, and contracted out the flying to carriers like XE, OO, MQ, and the like.
Unfortunately, once fuel started coming up in price, the dang things became a very ugly economic picture, very quickly.
So, while they have their advantages, they also certainly have disadvantages.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1872 times:

The US market loves frequency over capacity, the A+B NB are a bit big and wasteful to suit frequency, a 737-700 is not ideal to fly 90 seats 20 times a day..

User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8234 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

Probably because US airline companies are generally short-sighted, knee-jerk reactionaries who will do anything to cut costs or gain a marketing advantage. Back when oil/fuel was cheap, it was easy to say "we're all jet!" but, as times has gone on, the jets are less and less profitable while the public opinion remains the same. People will avoid turboprops to the point that airlines are forced to keep jets on routes that really can't support them.

Also, the contracts put in place (like at UA) often make it very difficult to divest RJ's. I think UAL is stuck with 200 of them until 2020 or something like that.

Basically the industry here is messed up. Plus the reasons mentioned above.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlinekalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

Other factors would include population density lower than in Europe or eastern Asia - hence service to airports which serve less people; demand for frequency; and multiple different airlines.
If you have 5 airlines serving half-million area with 5 flights a day each, you suddenly realize that filling 737/320 on each of these flights becomes difficult. And it is really profitable to fly 737 only if there are butts in those seats.
Things are likely to change, as it was already mentioned, as price of fuel goes up (and number of majors/hubs goes down, I may add)


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

Quoting justinlee (Thread starter):
I am just wondering why there are so many RJs in the US nowadays.

All the reasons above, plus the fact that the US went to hard-core hub/spoke earlier than most and you need RJ-sized aircraft to make that work. Econmically, it would be better if those were turboprops but public opinion drove the airlines over to RJ's.

Quoting justinlee (Thread starter):
Economically they are not so profitable as 737/320 and there are not so many RJs 10 years ago!

You're looking at it a cost-per-flight...that's the wrong perspective. The purpose of RJ's is to get passengers from smaller locations into the mainline networks. They're quite good at that. You need to look at network revenue and network profit.

Tom.


User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12242 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1868 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting kalvado (Reply 4):
Other factors would include population density lower than in Europe or eastern Asia - hence service to airports which serve less people; demand for frequency; and multiple different airlines.

Also, Europe has a much better high speed rail system connecting smaller cities that in the US can only be connected by plane.



911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlinealevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 979 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1870 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

I read your question and thought "yes, there are a lot of RJ's in North America".

I went to Flightware and browsed by aircraft type. Mid-day here in North America, here is what came up for the most common types (keep in mind flights from more than just North America are in here) airborne right now:

A319/320 - 773
733/737/738 - 769
A321 - 147
739 - 74
CRJ1/CRJ2 - 211

Interesting the split in the 737 versus A320 family airborne right now. I didn't segregate, but I'm sure the majority of the CRJ's are in North America.



Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlinejustinlee From China, joined Aug 2012, 331 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1870 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
You're looking at it a cost-per-flight...that's the wrong perspective. The purpose of RJ's is to get passengers from smaller locations into the mainline networks. They're quite good at that. You need to look at network revenue and network profit.

That's interesting! Do you have any accounting methods to distribute network profit in order to get the break-even point and make decisions of the ticket price?


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4395 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1871 times:

The American philosophy is time is money, so frequency brings money. Other cultures know that time is the only resource that we get for free every day, that is why 60 flights between NYC and Chicago would be called an ecological crime hereover.

User currently offlinejustinlee From China, joined Aug 2012, 331 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1869 times:

Quoting alevik (Reply 7):
A319/320 - 773
733/737/738 - 769
A321 - 147
739 - 74
CRJ1/CRJ2 - 211

I checked it too. There are also 145 CR7, 100 CR9, 103 E190 and 198 E135/145. That's a big number. And from the perspective of operators, CR1/2, for example, Europeans operate about 120 but US carriers operate more than 490...


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1317 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1869 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 9):
Other cultures know that time is the only resource that we get for free every day,

Interesting perspective. Time is finite (life) , expensive (you simply cannot buy more time) and precious (most people want more time). Clearly I would disagree with you. I'm also not sure what you suggest - that people don't work or travel? That we force people not to travel - or force them to only work in a particular place. (wouldn't be surprised to see that coming actually).



rcair1
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

Quoting kalvado (Reply 4):
Other factors would include population density lower than in Europe or eastern Asia - hence service to airports which serve less people; demand for frequency; and multiple different airlines.


If you have 5 airlines serving half-million area with 5 flights a day each, you suddenly realize that filling 737/320 on each of these flights becomes difficult.

And it is really profitable to fly 737 only if there are butts in those seats.

But we have an even lower population density in Australia.

This is why the good Lord invented the ATR-42 and ATR-72. And trains.

But American passengers believe that they are entitled to board via a jetway. And the absurd decision to charge for checked luggage on formerly full-service carriers incentivises passengers to carry stuff they don't need onboard in bigger carry-on bags than they really need.

I commonly fly Indianapolis-Chicago and Innsbruck-Frankfurt, which are 178 miles and 230 miles respectively.

United uses gas-guzzling ER-145, ER-170 and CRJ-700s for this short hop.

Austrian uses a Bombardier Dash-8.

It's a really stark difference.

And demand in the USA is probably inflated by the lack of fast trains with high-quality service: Indianapolis to Chicago in Europe would be an hourly 45 minute train ride with no security hassles, but on Amtrak it is a nineteenth century once-daily 5.5 hour ride!

A very large proportion of flights from minor airports into hubs would be train rides in other countries, but the lack of passenger railway infrastructure in the USA means that vast numbers of passengers are unnecessarily shunted onto airplanes.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17445 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
And the absurd decision to charge for checked luggage on formerly full-service carriers incentivises passengers to carry stuff they don't need onboard in bigger carry-on bags than they really need.

Of course the airlines that charge the most fees are also the most profitable, but why let facts get in the way of a tired rant?

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
I commonly fly Indianapolis-Chicago

Why don't you fly WN? They don't charge for bags. Oh that's right, they are dropping INDMDW.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
All the reasons above, plus the fact that the US went to hard-core hub/spoke earlier than most and you need RJ-sized aircraft to make that work.

Most major European airports are slotted, plus most European carriers have only one hub. Those two combined push the regional aircraft size up, whereas slots are less of an issue at US airports and most carriers have multiple hubs competing for many of the same traffic flows, pushing down the size of feeder aircraft.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1865 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
I commonly fly Indianapolis-Chicago
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 13):
Why don't you fly WN? They don't charge for bags

Because I buy a First Class ticket on United (or sometimes US) to/from LAX or SFO or HNL to get there from Australia. And I'm Star Gold, so I don't pay baggage fees anyway.

But back to IND-ORD: it is really, really noticeable that many of the passengers would be on a train if this was Europe or Asia, and that an RJ's high costs are really wasted.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11559 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1865 times:

Quoting justinlee (Thread starter):
I am just wondering why there are so many RJs in the US nowadays. Economically they are not so profitable as 737/320 and there are not so many RJs 10 years ago! Would you guys think it will be a trend for the global market, especially the domestic market in Europe or China?

They have been and are prevalent in the U.S. because they offer economic benefits in various ways.

First, the vast majority of sub-100-seat jets in the U.S. are flown by non-mainline, "regional" operators who often have minimal or no union presences, extremely low ages and far more flexible work rules. That helps offset the small jets' obvious disadvantage on unit fuel consumption.

Second, regional jets have allowed airlines, in multiple cases, to either enter or maintain frequency in markets they otherwise would not have been able to profitably with larger jets, adding new incremental revenue sources to their networks and increasing the relative attractiveness of their product (in the form of more convenient schedules) to higher-yielding, more convenience-oriented business customers.

Finally, small jets have also allowed airlines to constrain capacity and keep yields high. This is a critical point often missed by those who focus only on the poor fuel economics of small jets. While they are fuel inefficient, there is an equilibrium where they can be profitable in markets where they allow airlines to keep supply (of seats) low and charge higher fares.

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
A very large proportion of flights from minor airports into hubs would be train rides in other countries, but the lack of passenger railway infrastructure in the USA means that vast numbers of passengers are unnecessarily shunted onto airplanes.

Hardly. It's not "unnecessary" - it's reality. And U.S. travelers aren't "shunted" on to planes - they have chosen, happily and willingly, to go that way for decades.

But either way, your comparison is meaningless. The only country in the world whose geography, demographics and infrastructure for long-distance, inter-city rail (real or potential) is even roughly comparable to the U.S. is China. And even there, it's hardly much of a comparison.

Most countries in the world are, compared to the U.S., tiny. And even then, there are only really a very small handful who have true, national, high-speed intercity rail networks. Almost all are in Western Europe. The reason is very simple. Those countries' populations are generally all relatively small, and highly concentrated and dense, and pretty much all the major cities are no more than 300-400 miles apart. Even in China, while the population is enormous, nearly half the country's population (and the vast majority of it's wealth) is concentrated in a narrow band hugging the coastline and extending only a few hundred miles inland.

The U.S., obviously, is quite different. The U.S. has around 50 metro areas with more than one million people, literally spread from corner to corner across the entire country, which itself spans the entire North America landmass from east to west. There are a handful of particular population concentrations - the obvious and largest example being the northeast corridor, but also the "Texas Triangle," and Southern California, to name a few. But even still, there is absolutely no economically viable way for rail to serve that type of a population dispersion.

After all, passenger rail really isn't economically viable even in the places that already do have today, and generally only via massive government subsidies. Now I know, I know - this is where the usual argument comes up about how air transportation and highways are already directly and/or indirectly subsidized. And while true, it is still no endorsement of rail. Air and highways may be partly subsidized, but highways are vastly more versatile than either air or rail (it is competitive and viably as a means various forms of transportation - personal and mass, passenger and freight, short- and long-distance), and air, while capital-intensive, is still lower cost when opportunity cost is factored in, because much of the nation's air infrastructure is already a sunk cost, and because airplanes (though admittedly not airports) can be moved somewhere else if not being used profitably, where as rail cars and lines are stuck forever.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

Quoting justinlee (Reply 8):
Do you have any accounting methods to distribute network profit in order to get the break-even point and make decisions of the ticket price?

The very largest carriers are only now trying to figure out how to do this. Dividing O-D revenue over the various flight legs is incredibly difficult because any one flight serves multiple O-D markets. The latest revenue management models try to look at what any particular seat is bringing in and look at what that seat is displacing (i.e. can't be used for other O-D markets in the network) and attempt to optimize the overall revenue for the network. So, for example, it might be more profitable overall to fly an "unprofitable" RJ that feeds passengers onto a highly profitable international long-haul than to run a barely profitable larger aircraft on a route that's carrying no connecting traffic. These type of problems are so large, and need to be done in near real-time, that tractable financial models are only now just catching up with available computer power.

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
And the absurd decision to charge for checked luggage on formerly full-service carriers

Ancillary revenue (baggage fees and the like) are the difference between profitability and loss for most of the US carriers now. In other words, if they didn't do what you deem "absurd" they'd be bankrupt.

Tom.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 16):
Ancillary revenue (baggage fees and the like) are the difference between profitability and loss for most of the US carriers now. In other words, if they didn't do what you deem "absurd" they'd be bankrupt.

I showed on another thread that the ancillary charges coughed up by Coach passengers in the USA actually don't quite cover the cost of the uniquely US-phenomenon of giving away First Class seats to frequent flyers who aren't willing to pay for them.

Ancillary charges are just another way of getting Economy passengers to subsidise First Class. It's a bit like how Mitt Romney pays a tax rate which is 1/3 of the one I pay.

But ancillary charges are neither balancing the books nor generating profits. They are simply mitigating part of airline management's deliberate self-harm.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1867 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 15):
Hardly. It's not "unnecessary" - it's reality. And U.S. travelers aren't "shunted" on to planes - they have chosen, happily and willingly, to go that way for decades.

But either way, your comparison is meaningless. The only country in the world whose geography, demographics and infrastructure for long-distance, inter-city rail (real or potential) is even roughly comparable to the U.S. is China. And even there, it's hardly much of a comparison.

Most countries in the world are, compared to the U.S., tiny. And even then, there are only really a very small handful who have true, national, high-speed intercity rail networks. Almost all are in Western Europe. The reason is very simple. Those countries' populations are generally all relatively small, and highly concentrated and dense, and pretty much all the major cities are no more than 300-400 miles apart

Even if you ignore the northeast corner of the USA - which most obviously disproves your hypothesis - you can actually make a similar argument for high-speed rail in the part of the USA I am more familiar with.

You could have Chicago as a hub airport with high-speed rail links to Cleveland, Detroit, Colombus, Cincinatti, Louisville, Indianapolis, Des Moines, St Louis, Kansas City and even Minneapolis. None of those cities is even a 3 hour high-speed train ride away. (Although they are 5-8 hours away on Amtrak!)

If this happened there would be large tracts of failed US cities which were rendered re-habitable and a city like Chicago could aspire to becoming one of the world's great cities, whereas at the moment all of those cities are in a lamentable condition.

The case of Stockton in California is an instructive example. It was an overflow dormitory suburb for San Francisco, but in the absence of mass rapid transit that meant that its inhabitants had to get up at 4 am to go to work. It is now bankrupt and dying.

But it's only 83 miles from San Francisco! In Europe those people would be boarding an 0820 train to be at work by 0900, and they'd be boarding a train back around 1700 to get home by 1730.

It's insane that you can afford hundreds of RJs making absurdly superfluous flights while many of the country's cities are moribund because they are "unlinked" to the more viable nearby cities they could and should be dormitory suburbs for. And sadly, until or unless the USA has that sort of planning and reduces its duplication of services there will be a continuation of this slow, inexorable decline.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17445 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1867 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 17):
I showed on another thread that the ancillary charges coughed up by Coach passengers in the USA actually don't quite cover the cost of the uniquely US-phenomenon of giving away First Class seats to frequent flyers who aren't willing to pay for them.

You've done no such thing. All you've shown is that you can repeat the same rant over and over again devoid of any single fact even when they're staring you in the face. There are people that pay for first class but they are few and far between, and almost always are guaranteed availability long before seats are 'given away' to frequent flyers. Where are all these people clamoring to pay for first class that you think exist? Don't you think if the airlines could find them they'd hold onto them for dear life? If there were all these paying passengers in the rest of the world, why has the F seat gone the way of the dodo in European narrowbodies? Most of Australian/NZ flying? India? Why is every carrier in Asia falling over itself to start an LCC with no F? Where are these people you speak of?

Quoting koruman (Reply 17):
But ancillary charges are neither balancing the books nor generating profits. They are simply mitigating part of airline management's deliberate self-harm.

The most profitable carriers in the world each have laundry lists of ancillary fees, and in several cases, those ancillary fees make the difference between a huge profit, and a considerable loss on the actual ticketed fare. Full stop. End of story. Case closed.

Quoting koruman (Reply 18):
It's insane that you can afford hundreds of RJs making absurdly superfluous flights while many of the country's cities are moribund because they are "unlinked" to the more viable nearby cities they could and should be dormitory suburbs for

The price of those hundreds of RJs is probably 1:100 versus the price of one high speed rail line, never mind the politics.

Quoting koruman (Reply 14):
Because I buy a First Class ticket on United (or sometimes US) to/from LAX or SFO or HNL to get there from Australia. And I'm Star Gold, so I don't pay baggage fees anyway.

So what are you complaining about then?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11559 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1867 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 18):
Even if you ignore the northeast corner of the USA - which most obviously disproves your hypothesis

It actually makes my point quite clearly.

Even in the U.S., the wealthiest and third most populous nation on earth, there is only a single rail line that can even qualify as marginally "high-speed," and even that is only a pathetic excuse (by global standards) for high-speed, and even that requires regular and substantial injections of taxpayer dollars simply to operate.

The reality of the situation speaks for itself: if high-speed rail made such sense in the U.S. - given the immense capital costs, inevitable time and litigation, general public indifference towards rail, and easy and cheap access to alternative forms of mass-transportation - why haven't more rail lines been built? Nobody seriously argues that a true national inter-city high-speed rail network would require hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars to build. But if it was such a slam dunk, why do U.S. voters seem to have zero interest in it?

The answer is simple and obvious: it simply does not make economic sense. Period. End of story.

Quoting koruman (Reply 18):
You could have Chicago as a hub airport with high-speed rail links to Cleveland, Detroit, Colombus, Cincinatti, Louisville, Indianapolis, Des Moines, St Louis, Kansas City and even Minneapolis.

Will never happen, and for very good reason. The economics simply would never work.

The capital cost required simply to build such a network would be so prohibitively expensive as to render the entire thing a non-started from the beginning. (And good luck getting all the environmentalists and NIMBYs to agree on the right-of-ways - just ask allegedly "green" California how that's going to go.)

But even if somehow that could be overcome (and it couldn't), you'd then have to figure out how to persuade enough people to patronize such high-speed trains to avoid such massive taxpayer subsidies as to, yet again, drag the entire venture down. Strike 2.

And then of course we come to the intellectual failing that undermines your entire point - the fact that none of these cities really critically needs access to each other to elevate their stature and standing. They need access to New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Shanghai, Sao Paulo, Frankfurt, etc. In short - national and global markets. A 2-hour train ride to Chicago ain't going to cut it, nor will the alleged throngs of transfer passengers utilizing the "hub" to go from Des Moines to St Louis or Louisville to Cleveland.

That is yet another reason why in the U.S. air connections have been near unanimously prioritized over rail. Air networks are inherently open, national and increasingly global. Rail - by its very nature - is an inherently local, closed system. You cannot create a rail "hub" in Boston that seamlessly connects London with Atlanta. Sure, there are ways to link air and rail but, again, the relatively low opportunity cost of aircraft (given the already long-sunk-cost of air infrastructure) vs the massive capital cost required for rail renders those types of air-rail connection concepts totally dead-on-arrival in the U.S. They may work in Frankfurt or Paris - they do not work in the U.S.

Quoting koruman (Reply 18):
If this happened there would be large tracts of failed US cities which were rendered re-habitable and a city like Chicago could aspire to becoming one of the world's great cities, whereas at the moment all of those cities are in a lamentable condition.

How laughable. The suggestion that any dying city could be saved by high-speed rail is ridiculous.

Quoting koruman (Reply 18):
In Europe those people would be boarding an 0820 train to be at work by 0900, and they'd be boarding a train back around 1700 to get home by 1730.

But this isn't Europe! Your penchant for trying - repeatedly, on multiple topics - to take things that make sense (to you) in other countries and apply them to the U.S. simply does not work. The U.S. is a different country, with a different geography, a different demography, and a different economy. Again - what works in countries as small and dense as France, Germany and Japan doesn't necessarily work in the U.S., which is seven times the size of all of those countries put together.

Quoting koruman (Reply 18):
while many of the country's cities are moribund because they are "unlinked" to the more viable nearby cities they could and should be dormitory suburbs for.

First off, the rust belt cities you appear to be referring to are not "moribund" for lack of connections. They are "moribund" due to crumbling infrastructure, an unfavorable business climate, crushing taxation, business-unfriendly labor laws, and lower-cost foreign (and increasingly domestic U.S.) competition. They are certainly not in the state they are in because they need a high-speed rail link.

Plus, your suggestion that they are "unliked" to the more viable nearby cities is totally false. Every population center of consequence in this country is linked to the outside world by, at a minimum, a highway and often an airport, too, and increasingly by innovative, flexible, customer-friendly and very affordable bus service. And that is the way that Americans want it, as evidenced by their general refusal to patronize rail or elect enough politicians to build more rail. Americans generally prefer flying or driving - not taking a train.

Quoting koruman (Reply 18):
until or unless the USA has that sort of planning and reduces its duplication of services there will be a continuation of this slow, inexorable decline.

Well I realize U.S. declinism is all the intellectual rage these days. But the argument is meaningless here. High speed rail is pretty much entirely absent from the U.S. not for lack of planning, but for lack of economic viability. If other countries have made decisions to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize inter-city rail service between their few, closely-clustered big cities, then good for them. It does not and would not work in the U.S., which is precisely why it hasn't happened here, and also precisely why instead U.S. consumers and the U.S. airlines that serve them have focused on creating broad, efficient networks of flights, with lots of planes (big and small), going to lots of places all over the country.

[Edited 2012-11-07 18:34:32]

User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5478 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1869 times:

My simple hypothesis: Well to do passengers + high demand for places like BOS, DCA, and the three NYC area airports=RJ overkill. People want to travel when they want to go and in many cases RJ's fit this model of flight scheduling/operations.


I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8959 posts, RR: 40
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

Cheap landing fees + attractiveness of frequency to the pax = reduction in average aircraft size. (not just RJs)


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 17):
I showed on another thread that the ancillary charges coughed up by Coach passengers in the USA actually don't quite cover the cost of the uniquely US-phenomenon of giving away First Class seats to frequent flyers who aren't willing to pay for them.

There is no US airline revenue management system that will give away a first class seat to a FF when there are paying first class customers (the booking limits won't allow it). As a result, the marginal revenue of a first class seat available for a FF is zero...the airline isn't getting any money for it either way. Given that the marginal cost for upgrading the FF is also zero, it's economic and accounting nonsense to suggest that this is a subsidy of first class.

Tom.


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1867 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 14):
train if this was Europe or Asia

Europe, obviously continent-wide. Asia, not so much.

Quoting commavia (Reply 15):
entire country, which itself spans the entire North America landmass from east to west.

There's a big land mass called 'Canada' that's in the way. Canada is much further east than the easternmost part of the US. And while Alaska may be further west than the US, Canada separates Alaska from most of the US. FYI, Canada is a larger land mass than the US while having 1/10th the US population. Another FYI. When Romney said (and kept saying) 'North American energy independence', he was including Canadian oil sands. Thanks for acknowledgement, Mitt.



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
25 commavia : Notice how I did not say that the U.S. covers the North American landmass. I said it spans it from east to west, which it does.
26 Cubsrule : How is it noticeable? You acknowledge that you fly FRA-INN, a route of a similar distance. You've clearly never ridden Polish or Ukranian trains.
27 koruman : Are you sure? The Tokyo-Osaka bullet-train railway is 515km long, and carries 151 million passengers per year. Four other bullet train lines carry mo
28 MaverickM11 : And yet it still has more air seats than just about any route within the US
29 Post contains images FlyASAGuy2005 : LOL Good one!
30 JOEYCAPPS : Because you don't always need a 777 to fly LAS-ONT
31 mogandoCI : I wish it's that simple. It's borderline criminal that we have U.S. carriers flying 3.5 hour flights with ERJ135s, and I've actually flown Delta CRJ2
32 DocLightning : It's interesting how on this one issue, public opinion really made a difference in type selection. Typically, airlines couldn't care less. I, for one
33 justinlee : [Edited 2012-11-08 00:07:56]
34 koruman : To add to Justin Lee's comments, Virgin Australia dumped its smaller E jets for turboprops because they were economic basket-cases. If there are enoug
35 Goldenshield : Why? You're going to get the same service in coach on the ERJ as you would on mainline flying the same sector. Heck, you'd probably get better servic
36 Post contains links commavia : Well there's no such thing as "proper urban development." Urban development occurs organically. What you call "proper" I might call "authoritarian,"
37 Cubsrule : I guess I really don't understand your point, then. IND-CHI is predominantly connecting passengers as well.
38 MaverickM11 : If it's profitable on a segment or system basis, does it matter?
39 CalebWilliams : And yet you would think we would vote accordingly. You know that, I know that, the rest of A.net knows that, but the rest of the American people don'
40 BlueLine : The 747-400D would like to have a word with you. Yes, there is a large amount of high speed rail passengers between these two cities, but there is al
41 Post contains images mayor : As opposed to a penal colony, for example? And yet it was rail that built this country. And I suspect that you never get out beyond the large metro a
42 N62NA : As commavia pointed out, do some reading on the "high speed rail line" in California. They "should be saying"... huh? The reason many towns in Califo
43 Goldenshield : You have no idea what's it's like to be in a flying coffin... And I'm perfectly okay with you not finding out.
44 N62NA : While I haven't flown in a coffin, I have been on my share of RJs. Have you flown in a coffin?
45 Goldenshield : Not a real coffin, but a plane with a cockpit of approx. 40 x 28 x 18 inches.
46 par13del : Well a question, how many carriers / airlines you have operating, lack of or minimal competition makes it much easier for one or two carriers to deci
47 freakyrat : Quoting Comavia: "Finally, small jets have also allowed airlines to constrain capacity and keep yields high. This is a critical point often missed by
48 Goldenshield : CRJs are "full sized" as well. We're not talking about scale models here...
49 Post contains images N62NA : Hehehehe. But I was talking about the passenger experience, not those in the front office. Coming soon to the USA - though not necessarily to make th
50 Post contains images Goldenshield : If it was a two-seater, the passenger experience wouldn't be much better. Besides, I'm tired of the comparisons of CRJs to flying coffins, whether in
51 mayor : I agree........if it was set up as a bizjet, they'd be saying how luxurious it is, no matter that the headroom is the same.
52 PPVRA : I think the only one who needs urgent termination is anyone making sweeping generalizations and actually proposing management act on them. The whole
53 Post contains images N62NA : Have others used that comparison? It was just something that popped into my head today, I wasn't aware of any prior comparison using the term. And I
54 freakyrat : I really don't mind them on the short flights such as SBN-DTW or even SBN-ATL. I suppose in the future Delta will up gauge to the CR7 or CR9's on thes
55 bjorn14 : Yep. Driven by the airline's marketing mantra "We're All Jet"
56 Cubsrule : Did anyone have that marketing besides MQ at ORD? I cannot recall any other carrier, and DL, NW, CO and US all kept props for more than a decade afte
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...
Why Are There Airline Ticket Offices In The Burbs? posted Tue Dec 19 2000 06:34:00 by Jfidler
Why Are There SO Many Airline Bankruptcy.... posted Tue Nov 30 1999 08:22:06 by Gundu
Are There Lots Of Slack In The DL Fleet? Opinions? posted Sat Aug 18 2012 11:56:18 by avi8
Too Many Airlines In The US posted Thu Jul 12 2012 08:13:17 by brilondon
Why Are There So Few Co-branding Liveries? posted Thu May 3 2012 09:44:25 by Gonzalo
Why Were There So Many SYR-VCV Flights Today? posted Sat Oct 1 2011 00:13:32 by SyrAlex
Why Are There Aircraft Holding Rooms In Airports? posted Thu Oct 8 2009 14:19:50 by QatarA340
Are Charter Airlines Still Successful In The US posted Tue Nov 11 2008 13:40:23 by 747400sp
Why Are There So Few Lufthansa Commercials? posted Wed Jun 11 2008 07:04:52 by LH4116
Why Gates Assigned To Specific Airlines In The US? posted Fri Mar 2 2007 05:59:17 by Haggis79