Landgreen From Canada, joined Jun 1999, 36 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4888 times:
From reading the Boyd aviation hot flash every Monday I hear alot of RJ bashing, but I'm not quite clear on why an RJ is that much more expensine than a Dash 8 or ATR 72 assuming they both have 50 seats. Sure, the RJ burns 1000kgs/2200lbs vs 700KGS/1500LBS Per Hour but it also takes 10 percent longer on a 1 HR leg. Maybe the Boyd group could jump in and list the reasons !
Rbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4873 times:
Taking your figures, a 1 hr trip on an RJ will burn 2,200 lbs of fuel. That same trip will take 1.1 hours on a prop and burn 1,650 lbs of fuel, or 550 lbs less, despite a longer trip time. That is a 25% reduction in fuel cost per trip, which is significant.
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4817 times:
Quoting Landgreen (Reply 2): ...ok so that's $250 bucks. Divide that by 50 seats and you get $5/seat. Gotta be more to it than that...no ?
Yes. Multiply that $5 a seat (your figure -- I'm not sure it's right) over several flights a day, seven days a week, over a large route system -- and it suddenly becomes a big number. Call someone at Horizon, which is well on its way to becoming an all-Q400 fleet, and ask them. I'm sure they're not getting rid of their RJs on just a whim. Also, keep in mind that the Q400 does this with 76/78 seats, not 50.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
KcrwFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3884 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4768 times:
Quoting Landgreen (Reply 5): ATR 72 off the WEB and CRJ from experience.
I'm not saying everyone is wrong, I'm only trying to fully understand it, thats all.
I think the Q400 burn is a little higher than an ATR too.
Arrow has a pretty good point. 25% savings multiplied over a massive network = millions and millions of dollars. There are also other costs, like maintenance and leases, which are higher on RJ's.
MMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4711 times:
I'm not sure of the weight of Jet fuel per gallon but gasoline is around 6lbs/gallon. So assuming:
$3/gallon (roughly the price most US majors paid last quarter)
85% LF on 50 seats.
The cost per revenue passenger for fuel would be
RJ: 2200/lbs / 6 x $3 / 43 (50 * 85%) = $25.58 per person
Q400 1650/lbs / 6 X $3 / 43 = $19.19 per person
(if we figure 85% of 76 seats in Q400 the cost drops to $12.69 per person.)
Either way the Q400 looks a lot cheaper on fuel burn basis, and if an airline could replace 2 RJ runs with one full Q400 then the savings really start to add up. Over a year if each aircraft made 6 roundtrips per day carrying 43 passengers with a delta of $6.39/passenger:
$6.39 x 43 x 12 (segments) x 330 days (allow for maintenance/down days) = $1,088,089 PER AIRCRAFT more expensive per year.
Before anyone jumps up and down, these are all theoretical numbers based on my assumptions, input your own assumptions, the overall answer will remain the same. A better comparison would be a CRJ700 vs Q400, that would give a better seat to seat comparison but I'm willing to bet there is a similar cost differential, maybe not quite as wide.
Legacy135 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4711 times:
This stands correct on short hops, up to an hour or so. If flights become longer, the Turboprop becomes significantly slower and then the RJ still will be the more economic choice. Here we also have to consider, that an operator normally wants to do a number of flights per aircraft/day (in Europe we normally want to do 4 return flights a day at least) to keep it ops running. If a turboprop fleet goes on longer flights, the number of flights possible will risk to drop below economic. This even happens with a Q400, although for sure, the Bombardier can do longer flights over the ATR and still be economic, as it's simply the faster aircraft.
MMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4668 times:
Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 8): This stands correct on short hops, up to an hour or so. If flights become longer, the Turboprop becomes significantly slower and then the RJ still will be the more economic choice
Even at 2 hours the Q400 is still very economical gas wise (4400/lbs vs 3300lbs for the equivalent distance) however, time does start to become more of a factor as we start looking at adding 12-15 minutes to a journey and that can add up over a day and may start impacting number of missions per day and crew hours etc. that add to the overall cost of operations.
One thing I didn't take into account was that a Q400 with only 43 people on board would likely need even less than 1500lbs/hr, still that only serves to widen the gap, hence does anyone know the fuel burn of a CRJ700 per hour for a side by side ~70 seater comparison?
Maybe not, but it's obviously wide enough for Horizon to dump their jets, as mentioned above. Plus, you factored Q400 loads at 43. Using the 85% of 76 seat figure, which you also provided, would be more appropriate. After all, CO is effectively replacing many ERJs with Q400s. Figure the additional revenue on the extra 26 seats over the ERJ-145 on top of the much lower fuel costs, and you have quite the winning combination.
CRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2307 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4508 times:
Quoting MMEPHX (Reply 7): A better comparison would be a CRJ700 vs Q400, that would give a better seat to seat comparison
A shame scope clauses doesn't allow 76-seat CRJ700 and 90-seat CRJ900 flying. I'll bet the economics will be a lot better then...?
European carriers Air Nostrum, MyAir, Air One and AtlasJet fly 90-seat CRJ900s. I wonder if BBD has asked those carriers how economical they are in daily ops, so they can eventually use it in their marketing.
Bravo1six From Canada, joined Dec 2007, 400 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4420 times:
Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 11): European carriers Air Nostrum, MyAir, Air One and AtlasJet fly 90-seat CRJ900s. I wonder if BBD has asked those carriers how economical they are in daily ops, so they can eventually use it in their marketing.
They would have a pretty good idea of what the numbers are, and it does factor into marketing and sales campaigns albeit without identifying the specific operators (i.e., X load factor over X route segment assuming X fuel price, X ticket price, X labour cost, etc.). Remember that a lot will be said about the economics of the aircraft prior to sale, so an operator is often willing to share the actual numbers in order to validate the numbers shown to them during the campaign.