Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Most Profitable 70-100 Seater  
User currently offlineAcjflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 427 posts, RR: 6
Posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3216 times:

If there is a market that calls for 70-120 passengers per flight what would be more economical to operate on that route. The A318, E-170-190, or the CRJ 700-CRJ900?

The only variable being which jet would provide the airline with the most profit assuming the jet is constantly 90-100 percent full each flight. Also assuming that the airline is willing to operate whatever jet provides them the best profit regardless of what metal they already fly.

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCadet57 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9085 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3213 times:

Profit wise id say the E170-190 series. Their very fuel efficient, popular with pax and a.netters alike and very reliable.


Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3159 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kazim Alikhan - t.dot photography
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andreas Heilmann



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © French Frogs AirSlides




Why not Turboprop.Where does the ATR 72-500 come in.
Quite common out here.
http://www.atraircraft.com/atr72500.htm

regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3122 times:

An expert writes:

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 1):
Profit wise id say the E170-190 series. Their very fuel efficient, popular with pax and a.netters alike and very reliable.

Guesswork and preferences have little to do with real airline economics.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineSanjet From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3090 times:

For a 70 seater, a Dash-8-Q400 would probably the most profitable aircraft flying with the current fuel prices. Can't go wrong with that machine.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Unmuth-VAP
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Flyoverfred




Will Fly For Food!
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2985 times:

I would guess that the CRJ-700/900 are a little more economical to operate than the E170 and E190 on comparitive routes since they are 1000-4000 pounds lighter (about 5%). That can make a big difference for fuel burn, but there are other factors that go in to operating cost.

I can almost guarantee that the CRJ-900 and E190 are more efficient than the E170 or other CRJs since stretched planes are almost always more economical since they put more seats in to the plane without increasing weight and drag proportionally. Although range and other factors do suffer.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineAcjflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 427 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2810 times:

When it comes to the turboprops - how loud are they inside? Having never flown one I haven't the slightest idea what they are like in the cabin. What are your experiences?

Also, which one tends to be quiter, the E-120 or the Q200?


User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2779 times:

Quoting Acjflyer (Reply 6):
When it comes to the turboprops - how loud are they inside? Having never flown one I haven't the slightest idea what they are like in the cabin. What are your experiences?

Some turboprops are very loud. I have flown in ATR-42s quite a bit and they are pretty loud. Same with the Saab 340. But I piloted Saab 2000s for over two years and they are very quiet. The props are designed for noise reduction as well as efficiency and turn slower than other prop planes. Additionally, the cabin has an active noise cancellation system, though it is not really needed, or that effective for that matter.

It is possible to carry on normal conversation anywhere sitting in a Saab 2000 and ironically, the quietest seats are those immediately adjacent to the propellor.

I have never flown on a Q-400, but I would like to. I am sure they are very nice.

Back to the topic, I would guess that the Q-400 is going to be one of the more profitable planes on the market based on fuel costs and general turboprop economics.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

Quoting Acjflyer (Reply 6):
When it comes to the turboprops - how loud are they inside? Having never flown one I haven't the slightest idea what they are like in the cabin. What are your experiences?

As SAAB2000 (SAAB is fully capitalized btw  Wink ) says it depends on the aircraft. Newer aircraft like the SAAB 2000 and the Dash-8 Qxxx are quite quiet, although not as quiet as turbofans. Active noise cancellation combined with quiet props makes a huge difference.

Subjectively, on a SAAB 340 I prefer to keep my noise cancellation headphones on the whole time to keep the awful drone out. On a Dash-8 Q400 I have no problems talking in a normal tone to the guy next to me for an hour.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2122 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2705 times:

If you sit near the back the 200 isn't that bad. Row 1,2 or 3 is a bit louder though.

User currently offlineTurkee From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2658 times:

Dash-8 Q400 is a beautiful turboprop, and would make a fine choice IMO.

User currently offlineAcjflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 427 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2622 times:

I appreciate all of the input. I'll be booking a flight on a Q400 soon to get the full effect.

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6240 posts, RR: 34
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2528 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
I would guess that the CRJ-700/900 are a little more economical to operate than the E170 and E190 on comparitive routes since they are 1000-4000 pounds lighter (about 5%).

BTW, the CRJ700/900 are actually up against the E170/175... not the E170/190. And, yes, on a trip basis the CRJs are cheaper to operate but...

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
I can almost guarantee that the CRJ-900 and E190 are more efficient than the E170 or other CRJs since stretched planes are almost always more economical since they put more seats in to the plane without increasing weight and drag proportionally.

... hence, you might be aware that the E170 has 10 more seats at the same pitch as the CRJ700 and therefore has better CASM than the CRJ700. Furthermore, far too many people only focus on cost and not on the revenue (e.g. what the extra 10 seats can do for your bottom line) in their discussion of aircraft. As an aside, the E170/175 does not share the same wing as the E190/195, among other optimized design features which is not the case with the CRJs.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2445 times:

You need two aircraft:

Q400 for short hops out to about 300 miles (Optional two class arrangement)
CRJ-705 in a two class config out to about 1,000 miles

Any further and you need a next generation aircraft. Both cost structures begin to break down beyond those distances because your yield to cost ratio gets very thin.

The 717 would have been there, but it's out of production. That thing is a cash cow. You can squeeze out 1,200 mile trips with the 717.

EMJ's are nice, but if the issue is counting beans, it's not your prefered aircraft.


User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2341 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 13):
EMJ's (sic) are nice, but if the issue is counting beans, it's not your prefered aircraft.

As far as I know the E175 can carry 76 pax at a comparable level of comfort (less pitch, more width, more height, more bin space, bigger windows), fly faster, offer more range (flying 1200nm is not a squeeze on that plane) than a CRJ900 with 75 seats. And from what I understand the CASM would be lower too.

Do you have any data supporting your claims?

mrock


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Most Profitable 70-100 Seater
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fokker 70/100 Tail Speed Brake posted Sun May 4 2003 16:05:01 by Panther
Fokker 70 & 100 Cabin Luggage Bin Extension Option posted Fri Feb 8 2002 12:16:35 by Keesje
Did You Know About The DC9-70? posted Tue Nov 14 2006 05:14:13 by 747400sp
18 Seater Prop Information posted Thu Oct 26 2006 06:20:27 by CamAir
Trying To Find A Fokker 100 Cockpit Poster posted Sun Aug 27 2006 02:57:55 by ANCSO
Crew What Is The Most Senior Route At Your Airline posted Wed Aug 23 2006 02:16:36 by Usair320
ATA 100 Codes For Business/Corporate Aircraft posted Tue Aug 1 2006 19:02:53 by Aogdesk
Did A Boeing 747 -100 Have Any New Tech? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 22:09:08 by 747400sp
Which Engines Are The Most Effiecien7? posted Thu Apr 13 2006 14:38:26 by Pavlin
Reverse Thrust, 737-100,200? posted Wed Apr 12 2006 20:59:51 by Magoonis

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format