cumulonimbus
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:13 pm

Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:36 am

As the above question states. Is there going to be any Market for the turboprop and 50 seat RJ's in the future? With the sucess of the new E-Jets It would seem not. What is your opinion?

Mike
 
stirling
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:39 am

Regional Jets? Possibly.

Turboprops? I don't think so. (until such time manufacturers develop jet engines with operating economics that match that of a turboprop.)
Delete this User
 
Lubicon
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 5:13 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:42 am

There will always be a market for turbo props. There are many airports worldwide that have runways that are not suitable for jets. No turbo props means no service to those airports.
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:45 am

It's all to do with distance and most efficient altitudes also.
Turboprops are more efficient at lower altitudes and therefore the much shorter routes.

...although I just got a B737 from GSO - CLT on a 20 min flight, 16000ft....and I would argue I'd rather drive anything shorter than that!

Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5486
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:24 am

I am no expert, but my guess would be this..

Turboprops <50 seats.. probably will turn Elvis and be done.
Turboprops 50 & 70 seats.. still a market for those as long as they get more quiet
RJ <50 people.. probably turn Elvis and be done
RJ 50 & 70 seats.. still a market for those but should be maintained at small Regional airports (50 seaters) and midsize airports (70 seaters)
E-jets 75-110.. the cycle returns and will probably be the big thing for the next 20 years
Jets 100-120.. (318, 736) should probably die out to the E-jets, but only if range on E-jets can get an extra 500 nm...
Aiming High and going far..
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:29 am

Quoting Cumulonimbus (Thread starter):
With the sucess of the new E-Jets It would seem not.

The E-Jets are really there to fill the void left by the DC-9 and F100 type airplanes. That is a mainline market.

The age of the 50 seat RJ is quickly coming to an end, as their horrible economics and affect on capacity at airports is giving airlines massive headaches. The turboprop, however, is a much more efficient monster and have become almost as fast and just as comfortable as their purejet cousins. I actually think there will be a turboprop renaissance, which has already started with the increased popularity of the Q400
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:44 am

Quoting Cumulonimbus (Thread starter):
Is there going to be any Market for the turboprop and 50 seat RJ's in the future?

3 Letters: C-L-E. ERJ heaven!
This Website Censors Me
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7798
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 3:09 am

The turboprop market is experiencing a rebirth and is about to explode with growth. The regional jet market at less then 1 hour is not a profitable one, and as far as time... turboprops offer nearly the same, or in some cases even quicker gate to gate times for a cheeper operating cost.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:03 am

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7):
The turboprop market is experiencing a rebirth and is about to explode with growth. The regional jet market at less then 1 hour is not a profitable one, and as far as time... turboprops offer nearly the same, or in some cases even quicker gate to gate times for a cheeper operating cost.

No kidding. While customers care about silence and the "it's a jet" feeling, they care mostly about price. Turboprops are a much better proposition for short flights under 50-60 pax. Also, they are getting much queieter. Compare a Dash-8 Q400 with a SAAB 340!
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:37 am

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7):
The turboprop market is experiencing a rebirth and is about to explode with growth. The regional jet market at less then 1 hour is not a profitable one, and as far as time... turboprops offer nearly the same, or in some cases even quicker gate to gate times for a cheeper operating cost.

While there may be a renaissance of turboprops in terms of comparative sales (i.e. 2006 turboprop sales vs 2003 turboprop sales) it is a fact that the existing RJs are not going anywhere soon. Will many go to the desert? Yes, very likely. However, when a company can choose between a new turboprop and a used RJ that is significantly cheaper, all bets are off.

Not good for the residual value of the <50 seaters, but they will not be "replaced" by new turboprops.

Remember: fuel is expensive, but cost of ownership is also a huge slice of operating costs. With the current RJ glut the cost of aquiring second hand RJs will become attractive to many - despite them being gas guzzlers.

mrocktor
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:51 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):
Compare a Dash-8 Q400 with a SAAB 340!

Hell, compare a Q400 with a CRJ200

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 9):
Remember: fuel is expensive, but cost of ownership is also a huge slice of operating costs

Props are cheaper to buy as well as being much, much cheaper to fly
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:05 am

The 50 seat Regional Jet is in a death spiral. The market for much of the world in regards to them is just about saturated. The turboprop is about to make a big comeback if fuel prices stay where they are. I think some airlines that operate RJs on short routes will soon abandon the use of RJs on those routes in favor of turboprops.

There are cities that without turboprop airliners would not have any sort of service at all. There is still a small market for the under 30 seat turboprops, but the majority of this market is for used a/c.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11865
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:17 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 4):

Turboprops <50 seats.. probably will turn Elvis and be done.
Turboprops 50 & 70 seats.. still a market for those as long as they get more quiet
RJ <50 people.. probably turn Elvis and be done
RJ 50 & 70 seats.. still a market for those but should be maintained at small Regional airports (50 seaters) and midsize airports (70 seaters)
E-jets 75-110.. the cycle returns and will probably be the big thing for the next 20 years
Jets 100-120.. (318, 736) should probably die out to the E-jets, but only if range on E-jets can get an extra 500 nm...

ERJ170, I agree with you... mostly. I think the 50 seat RJ market is saturated. As Ejets come online, airlines will want to dump about half of the 50 seaters. The CR7 and CR9 have neither the range nor comfort to garner any of my interest. Oh, on certain routes they have good economics; just not enough routes for me to understand adding another sub-type.

I would argue that the E-jets need 800nm more range.  bigthumbsup  That would give US coast to coast against 95% of the winter winds.  Smile

And if I'm wrong, I'll just equate rhinestones with rivits and take that as the definition of going Elvis!  duck 

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 11):
The 50 seat Regional Jet is in a death spiral. The market for much of the world in regards to them is just about saturated. The turboprop is about to make a big comeback if fuel prices stay where they are. I think some airlines that operate RJs on short routes will soon abandon the use of RJs on those routes in favor of turboprops.

I agree EXCEPT that I feel that the auto/SUV has replaced the turboprop on many of the short routes. Airlines will continue to get out of the <400 km market. Since turboprops lack the comfort/speed for any routes > 750 km, that leaves a narrow niche (one manufacturer, maybe two).

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
AirWillie6475
Posts: 2372
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:45 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:38 am

"The CR7 and CR9 have neither the range nor comfort to garner any of my interest."

I have flown a 737 and a crj900 for 2.5 hours and I loved the CRJ more than the 737. I don't understand why people hate the crj so much they are not any different than a 737 on economy. These ones had better room also and not as many people. I don't think the crjs will ever go away maybe the props will.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:54 am

It goes down like this:

30 Seaters - All varieties - Stick a fork in 'em. They're done except for cargo.

40/50 Seat Jet - Stick a fork in them too.

40/50 Seat Turboprop - Q300/ATR-42 with a bit more speed is needed, but it'll do to replace the noisey E-120's. J41's and SAAB 340's in rural markets.

70 Seat Turboprop - The new cash cow, the ATR is way too slow for the route flexibility required in most route structures. 70 seats for the same cost as a 50 seat RJ, and the same speed for the majority of the routes a 50 seat jet is used for.

70 Seat RJ - The medium range cash cow (500-1000 miles). Balance these with 70 seat and 50 seat TP's and you'll make some money.

90/100 Seat RJ - Niche aircraft. More beneficial to the customer to have more 70/50 seat flights than one or two 100 seat flights, too little demand for them from major players in point to point markets. JetBlue will regret this purchase. This covers the E-175/190/195/A-318/717/737-600/CRJ-900 and likely the C-Series.
 
toltommy
Posts: 2497
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:04 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:17 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14):
It goes down like this:

30 Seaters - All varieties - Stick a fork in 'em. They're done except for cargo.

40/50 Seat Jet - Stick a fork in them too.

I'd agree, except for one question. What are you going to do with small markets that currently have turboprop service? NW still has a lot of prop flying that won't be profitable with a 44 seat CRJ. CO has moved props back into markets that won't support props. The new fare structures won't support jet service. Maybe flying a jet isn't as important as it once was?
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:18 am

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 15):
I'd agree, except for one question. What are you going to do with small markets that currently have turboprop service?

50 seat TP's.
 
toltommy
Posts: 2497
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:04 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:24 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 16):
50 seat TP's.

I hear you. But a 50 seat turboprop has too many seats for many markets. Now what? How do you keep service to many markets that are too big for EAS, but too small for a 50 seat turboprop?
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5486
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:28 am

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 17):
I hear you. But a 50 seat turboprop has too many seats for many markets. Now what? How do you keep service to many markets that are too big for EAS, but too small for a 50 seat turboprop?

Turboprop break even is different than a RJ... A 50 seat turboprop at $100 probably only needs to fill about half the plane to break even.. so props can fly less than full and still fulfill their function..
Aiming High and going far..
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:19 pm

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 17):
I hear you. But a 50 seat turboprop has too many seats for many markets. Now what? How do you keep service to many markets that are too big for EAS, but too small for a 50 seat turboprop?

A very small percentage use the 19 seaters. Most now use 30 seaters. the 50 seater is simply a growth aircraft. The 19 seater routes would be picked up as one stop routes. The economics just don't work anymore for anything new with less than 50 seats.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6459
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:07 am

Ever tried to place an order for a brand new ATR? It's an 18 month wait... LOL

50 seater props will always be needed. You can serve a 200NM sector out of a 1000m runway... Long gone are the days of 50 seater props needing 1500m runways...

For 200 - 500NM sectors...
Your ATRs and DHC8s will cost about 30 USD per seat hour (ACMI + fuel). That'll be about US 8 cents per seat kilometer.

Your RJs will cost about 11.5 cents per seat kilometer...

We haven't even included overheads into it...

The question is... are the customers prepared to pay for it? How much extra are they really willing to pay for it?

Don't forget that these RJs will require 1850m runways... and require stronger runways than the props... which is another cost that will have to go down to the ticket price somewhere along the line (airport nav/landing/parking charges)... that'll add a few cents to the tickets...

But hang on... 1850m runways? Hell I can give my pax jet service for 7 cents per kilometer!

So, I can have the same yield on a 732/3/5/6/7 at 75% load factor as on a CRJ200 with 100% load factor...

In my opinion, the 50 seater RJs will be dead... the traditional gap will reappear again... The incoming 2nd generation RJs needs to have seat kilometer costs that are closer to 120 seater aircraft or at least match the traditional 70-100 seaters (F70/F100) or they too will die.

As of using 20 seaters? Well, unless you have to... why use them? Anyone fancy paying 2x the RJ ticket on a 20 seater?

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
flybeq400
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 12:46 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:02 am

Turboprops are looking stronger than the have for a long time.

From my point of view the best options right now are:

Q400 (70+ seats)
E190/5 (110+ seats)
738 (175+ seats)

Now, there aren't many gaps to plug in that line up. The 738 will almost always win on CASM, but the E190s are looking good, and Q400's can deliver amazingly low b/e even at 55% load factor. Problem is between the E190/5 and the 738. Smaller 737's dont have as good CASM as far as I know. Maybe the A319/20 sneaks in between those there.

As for RJ's - I never really saw the point other than for mid-range thin routes; but it'd have to be quite thin and quite long to use that over a double daily Q400 or a once daily E190/5, IMHO.
 
HorizonGirl
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:59 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:08 am

I have the feeling that the Q400 will be successful for a long time.


Devon
Flying high on the Wings of the Great Northwest!
 
boeingpride800
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:05 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:09 am

Anymore hopes for the Beechcraft 1900?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:10 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14):
but it'll do to replace the noisey E-120's. J41's and SAAB 340's in rural markets.

Brasilias and SF340s are 30 seaters, not 50 seaters.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
mandala499
Posts: 6459
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:16 am

The B1900D still got a chance... Mainly in terms of safety... It's controllable in a single engine climbout, unlike the Casa 212s...  Sad For a 20 seater they are comfortable. I don't know how their seat costs are but just hearing their long term charter rates comparing with other types make my head spin  Sad

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:44 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 24):
Brasilias and SF340s are 30 seaters, not 50 seaters

That's why I said the 50 seater is a growth aircraft. By the time those three all retire 7-10 for the most recent builds, demand will be there for 50 seats. Just like 50 seater routes will demand 70 seaters and so on.

Quoting BoeingPride800 (Reply 23):
Anymore hopes for the Beechcraft 1900?

Beech is advertising only used aircraft and haven't sold any in quite some time. My guess is the 19 seater is dead.
 
frugalqxnwa
Posts: 550
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 3:18 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:34 pm

Turboprops: future could be bright for the right size of aircraft

<20 seats might come back in a few years, but will probably be a niche market (1900/Metro/J31 replacement)

30 seats will continue, but probably only as a niche market

50-70 seats will have very good sales for short routes, especially if fuel prices stay high and the aircraft can provide jet or near-jet speeds like the Q400

Regional jets: future depends greatly on the size of aircraft

50 seats or less will die off unless there are new types that are just as or more efficient than turboprops (787ish technology, after miniaturization)

70-90 seats will be hot sellers in the medium to transcon market, depending on economics

>90 seats could sell well, if the aircraft have the right range, flexibility, and efficiency
 
GQfluffy
Posts: 3072
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:25 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:00 pm

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 4):
Turboprops <50 seats.. probably will turn Elvis and be done.

LOL! Not HARDLY! GQ operates a dozen-ish turboprops. And we've made a profit for last 6 quarters in a row. There is no other airline that operates in the Montana Backwoods. We're it. And we'll be here A LONG TIME.

EMBQA. Welcome to my respected users list.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7):
turboprops offer nearly the same, or in some cases even quicker gate to gate times for a cheeper operating cost.

VERY true. We can turn a Fairchild Metro/Beech 1900D with two people in less then 10 minutes. That includes fuel, boarding (average of about 7 people), bags, and awi (on the Metros). Can't do that with too many jets.  box 

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 26):
Beech is advertising only used aircraft and haven't sold any in quite some time. My guess is the 19 seater is dead.

Maybe in the bigger areas. GQ is working on dumping their Fairchild Metros and replacing with 1900Ds. Montana is 19 seater heaven!  bigthumbsup 

fluffy
This isn't where I parked my car...
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5486
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:55 pm

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 28):
LOL! Not HARDLY! GQ operates a dozen-ish turboprops. And we've made a profit for last 6 quarters in a row. There is no other airline that operates in the Montana Backwoods. We're it. And we'll be here A LONG TIME.

GQfluffy,

That may be the case for your airline, and that is very great. For real. But for the big picture in the future, small turboprop aircraft will probably be an ancient history.. like the 8-track cassette player. The niche for these type of aircraft is very, very small... and can easily be switched to larger turboprop with much better cost-saving economics.. I mean, if you can fill a 19-seat aircraft 5 times a day, then you can probably get enough passengers on a 50-seat aircraft 5 times a day and still break even.. while having the ability to add more passengers on a smoother ride and a quieter cabin... but that is just my thinking **disclaimer**
Aiming High and going far..
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:17 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
Props are cheaper to buy as well as being much, much cheaper to fly

Really? I don't have access to figures, could you post the price of a new Q400 and that of a 10 year old ERJ/CRJ200 for comparison? Just wait until Independence Air goes under and you'll see how cheap second hand RJ's can get.

mrocktor
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:40 am

Quoting FlyBeQ400 (Reply 21):
Smaller 737's dont have as good CASM as far as I know.

They have an excellent CASM, hence why so many have been sold. It is a combo or CASM and Trip costs. The 736/A318 are not that great, but the 73G is just fine

Quoting FlyBeQ400 (Reply 21):
Maybe the A319/20 sneaks in between those there.

The A319 (except at U2) is actually smaller than the 73G, while the A320 is smaller than the 738. The 73G has lower CASM than the A319, so the A319 does not sneak between. The A320 does, at about 10 seats less than the 738 and 30 seats more than the 73G (34 seats more than the A319).

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 28):
Maybe in the bigger areas. GQ is working on dumping their Fairchild Metros and replacing with 1900Ds.

Too bad. Metros and EMB-110s seem to have many more fans than 1900s
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:09 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 30):
Really? I don't have access to figures, could you post the price of a new Q400 and that of a 10 year old ERJ/CRJ200 for comparison? Just wait until Independence Air goes under and you'll see how cheap second hand RJ's can get.

Even at the cheaper price you can't offset a $25M 70 seater (Typical Q400 price - loaded with HUD) and a $12-15M 50 seater when you're burning nearly 200 gph of gas more. Most of the 50 seaters are leased which means the capital cost isn't going to change a whole lot even with devaluation. Add to that the typical route of 400nm and the speed doesn't offset anything either. As far as the Q400 on these routes, you're higher faster, cruising earlier, burnign less fuel, and carrying more pax. You have to get a 27% cost improvement out of the CRJ-200 to match the seat cost of the Q400. Imposible at this point, if ever.

[Edited 2005-04-21 20:11:59]
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7798
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:31 am

Not good for the residual value of the <50 seaters, but they will not be "replaced" by new turboprops.

Not new, but I think you'll find they will be replaced by second market turboprops. I have a very good friend that is on the leasing side of the business, he told me they are busier now then they have been in 7 years.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
GQfluffy
Posts: 3072
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:25 pm

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:04 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
Too bad. Metros and EMB-110s seem to have many more fans than 1900s

True. But with the altitude we have here and the possible high temps, the Beech's are just a smarter move. I've had a Metro (Metro 23) leave here once with 5 people, 5 bags, and 1100 lbs of fuel. They still needed two shots of awi to get off the ground. A nice plane, but just not enough performance.  frown 

fluffy
This isn't where I parked my car...
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Is The Turboprop And 50 Seat RJ Dead?

Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:41 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 32):
Even at the cheaper price you can't offset a $25M 70 seater (Typical Q400 price - loaded with HUD) and a $12-15M 50 seater when you're burning nearly 200 gph of gas more. Most of the 50 seaters are leased which means the capital cost isn't going to change a whole lot even with devaluation. Add to that the typical route of 400nm and the speed doesn't offset anything either. As far as the Q400 on these routes, you're higher faster, cruising earlier, burnign less fuel, and carrying more pax. You have to get a 27% cost improvement out of the CRJ-200 to match the seat cost of the Q400. Imposible at this point, if ever.

You can get a new ERJ for $12-15M. I'd imagine that, once they start being parked, the 10yr old planes will be available for maybe a third of that. To be honest I would think that a 10 millon dollar difference in aquisition cost would easily offset the difference in operating costs. Of course I don't have real figures to analyze, which is why I am willing to beleive you. Still, you could have posted this reasoning in the fist place instead of the one liner  Wink

Comparing the aircraft for 400nm sectors also skews the balance toward the props, though many operators really have a large majority of short routes.

mrocktor