jayspilot
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:32 pm

50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:33 pm

I light of recent continued posts regarding FLYI and their fleet of CRJ's not doing well financially and people bashing their company for trying to compete in a free market economy I have come up with a question could have a very large impact on every us airline large and small.
Please read this entire question before bashing me or thinking this post is dumb or whatever.
~~question part one...how Much does it cost in direct operating costs to operate a CRJ-200 or E-145 (same number of seats) consumers think they are the same half the time.
I want a figure that includes average payrates for pilots, (figure 55 an hr for the captain and 35 for the FO and 24 for the FA). I know those rates are lower then some carriers and higher then others SO if you must tack on a few bucks an hr to reflect what you think is average pay go right ahead. I can just tell you that I can burn more money in jet fuel and engine wear not doing a flex power takeoff then 5-10 bucks in labor costs SO I think its really not that important.
Big questions in this cost are what rj operators are responsible for their own aircraft leases, insurance, debt payments,reservation systems, who pays their own FUEL bill, does their own marketing, does their own maintance, dispatching, or crew scheduling. Even comair and asa have most of those services covered by Big D but I'm not exactly sure what else besides these: I know reservations, marketing, and fuel for sure.

Lets see if we can have a real discussion about this, not simply bashing of the CRJ's and ERJ's

Can anyone provide accurate comparisons between the CRJ200/700/900 or the EMB145/170/190 (I know they are not the same airframe) just trying to figure out a CASM comparison with direct operating costs.

Also feel free to compare the ATR42/72, DHC-8, SF340/200 and anything else anyone feels like. Same number of seats, just people afraid of a propeller!

This should be interesting and I'm open for direct comments to me too. I personally used to fly a crj200 and have moved onto bigger iron but hold that time in my barbie jet and a key part of my career and am sick of people bashing certain companies when everyone doesn't understand how the cost break down works.
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5498
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:48 pm

I too have a qeustion for that..

What's the break even for the 50/70/90 seaters..

I know that at $100, the Q400 break even if 35 seats and at $75, the break even is 50 seats.. what is is for the 50/70/90 seat jets?
Aiming High and going far..
 
User avatar
canadianpylon
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 10:18 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:06 pm

I was checking around Q400.com, and read somewhere (I think it was a testimonial) that the Q400 and CRJ200 have the same operating costs, but the Q400 carries more pax.

I'll have to dig up the link...

CanadianPylon
Always looking for the longest route with the most transfers.
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5015
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:53 pm

The CRJ-200 is very payload sensative, being that a load of 50 passengers, plus 2 bags each will get the plane to MZFW easily under normal conditions. The aircraft will seeing MTOW hits at many airports starting at about ISA+5, and to compound the problem, will not climb past FL330 at about ISA+15. Together, these problems compound each other.

Assuming full MTOW, a CRJ-200 can have MZFW, plus 6,000 pounds of fuel before the fuel eats into the payload. A flight of 1,200 miles will burn around 5,900 pounds of fuel, assuming that the plane can get to FL370. During the summer, with the ISA+15 conditions, the burn increases signifigantly since it can only climb up to FL330, jumping the burn up to about 6,800 pounds. If an alternate is needed at the destination, that's even more payload that cannot be taken.

The CRJ-700 is a completely different animal. It carries more passengers, and has a better takeoff profile at higher altitudes like DEN with ISA+15. With segments under an hour for ISA+15, the aircraft still carry a full payload plus fuel; however, on longer segments, the payload begins to be eaten into again. During normal non-summer conditions, the CRJ-700 is a proven workhorse. It can carry the a full payload, with enough gas for about 3.5 hours before it begins to eat into payload.

I know I didn't give you specific numbers, but there are too many variables. :P
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
jayspilot
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:32 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:07 am

I can dig out my old manual too and give you restrictions on the CRJ200 all day long. The problem and question at hand is how efficient either of those jets are as well as the embraers. Are they truely efficient and revolutionary or are their costs just not accurate to compare due to all the stuff I posted above that all the RJ operators don't pay for.
I don't disagree that the crj-700 is a great jet to fly and perform, but does it truly do it profitably compared to the embraer and Boeing, and airbus alternatives or does it just allow less seats on longer legs?!? i'm not trying to fight i'm just want to see some facts.
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5015
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:15 am

I couldn't tell you, since I've never worked EMB jets, nor Boeings, or Airbus for that matter. Just those CRJ's and props.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5498
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:33 am

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 3):
however, on longer segments, the payload begins to be eaten into again.

a la RDU-DEN on UAX until it was discontinued..

too long of a route for such an aircraft.. passengers and bags were being left behind just for the flight to make it to DEN.. and this shuffle cause the flight to be late the majority of the time.. they should have just bit the bullet and put a 733 on the route..
Aiming High and going far..
 
kcrwflyer
Posts: 2550
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 11:57 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:35 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 6):
a la RDU-DEN on UAX until it was discontinued..

too long of a route for such an aircraft.. passengers and bags were being left behind just for the flight to make it to DEN.. and this shuffle cause the flight to be late the majority of the time.. they should have just bit the bullet and put a 733 on the route..

yah, i heard it was doing pretty well, why not throw a 735 on that route?
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:43 am

There was already a post with similar information...
CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ (by Jmc1975 Jun 2 2005 in Civil Aviation)

"RJ Direct Operating Cost Average per block hour:

Do328J $1200

ERJ-135 $980
ERJ-140 $989
ERJ-145 $1150
ERJ-170 $1764

CRJ-200 $1259
CRJ-700 $1478
CRJ-900 $1942"
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:45 am

Direct Operating Costs (US Average):

328Jet - $1,376
ERJ-135 - $1,071
ERJ-140 - $1,051
ERJ-145 - $1,242
CRJ-200 - $1,360 (FlyI - $1,188 - Better Utilization)
CRJ-700 - $1,759
CRJ-900 - $2,358
ERJ-170 - $1,551
Q400 - $1,735
 
SLUAviator
Posts: 292
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:30 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:46 am

The reason the regionals fell in love with 50 seaters was they could breakeven with only 26 passengers. In the new age of $60/barrel oil, the breakeven point is probably near 28-30. If you need 30 people to breakeven, that is a 60% load factor. That translates into a plane that is not that cheap to operate. The 70 seaters are obviously more expensive to operate. The additional costs are offset with first class seats much like UA is doing. With first class, a CRJ-700 holds 66 people--and that in turn means a lower weight and lower operating cost.
What do I know? I just fly 'em.......
 
jayspilot
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:32 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:19 am

Thanks for those numbers of operating costs. I'm still surprised that the Q400 is so high.
On a side not for BELF (break even load factor) how can 60% be the true number when FLYI operating the same thing has BELF's in the 90%+ range. same jet and crew costs as every other crj200 operator.

Here is my thought and I'm really open for suggestions. With a load factor of 60% or whatever is determined to get the figures provided above what does that account for in how much of the actual cost of running the airline is built in.??????? Built in or not to those numbers!!?!?
In the case of FLYI they have like 56 crjs now and 12 busses and I guess there example is proving that you need more larger planes to offset the cost of expenses like fuel, reservations, advertising ext.. These large dollar items are not paid for by the regionals and I really would love to know if they are counted in those numbers listed above..

I guess we are seeing that a 50 seater jet is too expensive to operate on a stand alone basis.
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5015
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:25 am

If you think about it, the cost of having high-paid unionized pilots and flight attedants adds a great deal to the operating cost, too. Now, I'm not saying that a union is a bad thing, but being paid 737 wages to fly a CRJ is way out of line.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:28 am

Quoting Jayspilot (Reply 11):
Thanks for those numbers of operating costs. I'm still surprised that the Q400 is so high.

Horizon is the only operator and their maintenance costs look a little high at $460 an hour so it's a bit deceiving. If there were more operators, the average would be lower, probably around $1500.
 
jayspilot
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:32 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:36 am

how do you get 737 rates when looking at the crj200 goldenshield? when i left zw the captain rates were totally in line with the average rates from mesa to comair and nothing is even close to a 737 rate. Usair pays their guppy guys 125 an hr at max years they are the lowest, southwest pays 180+. No crj operator including comair passes 105 even after 20 yrs. huge costs i'm talking about are reservations systems, fuel, advertising, ect.. I agree labor costs a lot but none is getting overpaid flying regional jets, infact it is the opposite but thats not this thread. if you want to talk about that let me know when and where and i'll be typing away on that too.
back to the topic at hand.
the only two crj operators that i know of in the US that do those are Midway and FLYI.. one has failed and the other is well proving the point about the crjs not being self supporting.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:58 am

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 8):
There was already a post with similar information...

CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ (by Jmc1975 Jun 2 2005 in Civil Aviation)

"RJ Direct Operating Cost Average per block hour:

Do328J $1200

ERJ-135 $980
ERJ-140 $989
ERJ-145 $1150
ERJ-170 $1764

CRJ-200 $1259
CRJ-700 $1478
CRJ-900 $1942"

The numbers posted on this thread are the most recent. Those are Jan-Mar 2005 numbers. The ones above are Apr-Jun 2005.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:11 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 15):
The numbers posted on this thread are the most recent. Those are Jan-Mar 2005 numbers. The ones above are Apr-Jun 2005

I'm not surprised my numbers wouldn't include June considering they were posted in June. I just remembered seeing that post and figured I'd find it for you guys not knowing if someone would find newer data later  Smile It still shows though that the ERJ's are cheaper than CRJ's though.. (and more comfortable for the pax IMHO... especially lone flyers)

Thanks for the updated figures Boeing7E7!

Do you, or anyone, have similar data showing mainline jets, other props, etc? Would be interesting to take those block costs and then divide them by total seats for someone like WN or FlyI and see how much more costly these RJ's are than similar layout mainline jets.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:22 am

WN:

737-300 - $2,178
737-700 - $1,708

FLYi:

A-319 - $2,559
CRJ-200 - $1,354 (This is a correction from above - ASA is $1,188)

Other interesting numbers:

YX:

717 - $1,987
328Jet - $1,117
BE1900 - $685

F9:

A-318 $ 2,020
A-319 $ 2,359

[Edited 2005-07-29 19:24:51]
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12031
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:39 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 9):
CRJ-900 - $2,358

Boeing 7E7, first, thanks for the numbers. One question, do you know why the CRJ-900 costs are more per seat than the CRJ-700 and even the CRJ-200 while what I've read it should be lower!

Quoting Jayspilot (Reply 11):
I guess we are seeing that a 50 seater jet is too expensive to operate on a stand alone basis.

True with some exceptions. There are routes that will support an RJ. The Boyd group predicted enough to keep 1,000 to 1,200 RJ's flying. Not the current 2,000! RJ's do seem to be too small to support the full overhead.

I'm surprised the E70 is cheaper than the CRJ-700. Does anyone know why? They have the same engine, so half of the mx costs are identical... Just curious. Tornado 82's numbers are more in line from what I've seen prior except the E170 numbers seem a little high.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5015
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:14 am

Quoting Jayspilot (Reply 14):
how do you get 737 rates when looking at the crj200 goldenshield?

It was an analogy.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5498
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:36 am

siince the numbers are out there..

Can someone go all the way up from the 318 to the 777?
Aiming High and going far..
 
jayspilot
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:32 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:04 am

i'd like to see the numbers from small turbo prop Beech 1900 straight through to the 747. Does these numbers reflect the large increase in the cost of fuel?!
 
777XI
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:39 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:11 am

Boeing7E7, where did you get your numbers?

Some of mine from DOT are extremely different than what you have up there. Just trying to figure out where the numbers went wrong.

777XI
life is a journey, travel it well.
 
access-air
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 5:30 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:16 am

Now tell me why was the real reason AirTran stopped using the CRJs of Air Wisconsin? Wasnt it because they could run a B717 for the same costs and double the capacity???

To me the real issue is that the regional jets are just not what they should be for comfort of passengers. Maybe if you are transporting a bunch of grade school kids on field trips...Would any of us want to fly on say a Fokker F27 or ATR-42 for the flight length that we see some of these Regional jets flying?
It seems to me that the cross section of a CRJ200/700/900 is about the same as and ATR or Fokker. The arrangement on the EMB-135/140/145 series in my opinon much better with its 1x2 seating. Same for the D0328Jet. These planes were not intended on flying near transcontinental routes. They were intened to replace PROP PLANES on routes flown by PROP PLANES.
Its funny, if you take a 50 passener Convair 580 and sit it next to a 50 seat CRJ, the Convair is almost twice its size and probably more spacious inside. Yet we see no one making a 50 passenger aircraft that comes close to the size or spaciousness of the Convair. My question is why not????
I flew in January on both the CRJ and the EMB 145 and the difference in like Night and Day.
I think sooner or later the regional jets will find their place in history. Someone please give Barbie's Plane back to her!!!!

Access-Air
Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
 
irelayer
Posts: 930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:42 am

Also the reason that flyI's BELF is so high is that they charge next to nothing for their short CRJ flights. Adding to the ridiculousness is that when I was pricing SAN-JFK for Labor Day, almost everyone was cheaper than flyI, and they had one connecting flight per day to B6's three direct ones. So they're business model needs some adjusting, to say the least. It is pretty bass-ackwards. They should focus on flying to less cities but with more frequency, cutting the transcons (IAD-SFO, IAD-LAX, IAD-SAN), on which they are competing with every single US airline, and utilizing their A319's more and dumping more of their CRJ's. They charge 278 full fare for LAX-IAD while JetBlue charges 218 base fare LGB-IAD, has more frequencies, free TV, are an established and known quantity, and run bigger planes. It takes an entire working day for one A319 (5.5, 1 hr turnaround, 5.5 = 12)...to make it cross country and back, just to make that 278 per passenger. Wouldn't that plane be better used elsewhere?

Not to play armchair CEO here (sorry :P), but the whole operation stinks. I love their livery and the spirit of their plan, but the cards are stacked against them in a big way, and have been from the beggining.

-IR
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:05 am

Quoting 777XI (Reply 22):
Some of mine from DOT are extremely different than what you have up there. Just trying to figure out where the numbers went wrong.

I have raw Form 41 data and a dataminer.
 
777XI
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:39 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:14 am

hmm...I thought some of my numbers from the Form 41 data were fishy...I'll re-work them.

777XI
life is a journey, travel it well.
 
ckfred
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:53 am

That is a question for which the answer can be very had to pinpoint. In the AMR Corp. annual report, the CASM for AA mainline was listed. I think it was around $.10, but I would have to look that up.

But there was no corresponding CASM for Eagle. Conisdering that Eagle has taken over so many routes that used to be flown by mainline, but competes against other carriers that fly only mainline jets, it would be interesting to know how profitable RJs are.

A friend of mine who is a pilot with AA has heard from several knowledgable people that the CASM for the F100 was less than the Embrear 145, despite the fact that F100s had crews with higher rates of pay. He wouldn't bet a large sum that the statement is accurate, but he is very sure that the F100 was very competitive in terms of CASM.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:12 am

Break even for the E-Series:

E170 - 51% load

E175 - 51% load

E190 - 54% load

E195 - 53% load

Source: http://www.embraer.com

Guys, check out Embraer's updated website. Lot's of new and good stuff:

Direct link to E-Series page:

http://www.embraercommercialjets.com...t/ejets/default.asp?tela=economics
Cheers,
PPVRA
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5498
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:47 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 28):
Break even for the E-Series:

E170 - 51% load

E175 - 51% load

E190 - 54% load

E195 - 53% load

Those figures are considering what price range per seat?
Aiming High and going far..
 
flyibaby
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:23 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:34 pm

Quoting IRelayer (Reply 24):
Also the reason that flyI's BELF is so high is that they charge next to nothing for their short CRJ flights. Adding to the ridiculousness is that when I was pricing SAN-JFK for Labor Day, almost everyone was cheaper than flyI, and they had one connecting flight per day to B6's three direct ones. So they're business model needs some adjusting, to say the least. It is pretty bass-ackwards. They should focus on flying to less cities but with more frequency, cutting the transcons (IAD-SFO, IAD-LAX, IAD-SAN), on which they are competing with every single US airline, and utilizing their A319's more and dumping more of their CRJ's. They charge 278 full fare for LAX-IAD while JetBlue charges 218 base fare LGB-IAD, has more frequencies, free TV, are an established and known quantity, and run bigger planes. It takes an entire working day for one A319 (5.5, 1 hr turnaround, 5.5 = 12)...to make it cross country and back, just to make that 278 per passenger. Wouldn't that plane be better used elsewhere?

No. Fact is...on nearly a daily basis those west coast flights with what you deem exorbatant fares are all selling out. The cheap seats are gone. Their's aren't because they have to sell more than we do to run at 100% capacity on those routes. People are still picking us though, because as I said, the planes are predominately sold out. It makes more sense to run these routes because rather than run the plane in an over-crowded market..ie IAD-ORD as an example...and charge $79 a ticket and hope to fill 3/4 of the seats, they can control the seat inventory and pricing alot easier and make the same revenue on two flights as it would take for that IAD-ORD flight at a freq. of say two flights and the same utilization time.

Not to play armchair CEO here (sorry :P), but the whole operation stinks. I love their livery and the spirit of their plan, but the cards are stacked against them in a big way, and have been from the beggining.

The only part that stinks is having to deal with the RJs. I will concede to that point.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 3):
Assuming full MTOW, a CRJ-200 can have MZFW, plus 6,000 pounds of fuel before the fuel eats into the payload. A flight of 1,200 miles will burn around 5,900 pounds of fuel, assuming that the plane can get to FL370. During the summer, with the ISA+15 conditions, the burn increases signifigantly since it can only climb up to FL330, jumping the burn up to about 6,800 pounds. If an alternate is needed at the destination, that's even more payload that cannot be taken.

Um, don't mean to dissapoint you, but most airlines don't operate the CRJ2/A at anything greater than FL280. It does have a service ceiling of FL410 but since the majority of CRJ2/A flights are done with a range of 1,000NM it doesn't offer a huge advantage performance wise to take the increased burn on climb with weight to save on enroute burn at a little bit of a lower altitude that is most likely not as congested as a higher jet route. Besides, most airlines are tricking the computer flight plan into thinking its a different temp so as to only run the engines at 85% N1, thus a lower fuel burn, and less wear on the engines.
 
SkyWestFan
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 11:15 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:41 pm

Anyone know the cost for operating a Metro III/23?

MarcF
Fiji. Its like sex - but better.
 
syncmaster
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 9:55 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:53 pm

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 23):
These planes were not intended on flying near transcontinental routes. They were intened to replace PROP PLANES on routes flown by PROP PLANES.

CRJ's were designed for point-to-point service and to extend the reach from hub airports. Bombardier makes no mention whatsoever of the CRJ being designed to replace turboprops.

The size difference between most turboprops in use in the United States and the CRJ-200 is quite a bit.

From Bombardier's web site:

"The Bombardier CRJ200 can extend the range from hub airports or bypass congested hubs for more non-stop services between cities in smaller markets. The aircraft complements some bigger jets by flying their routes at off-peak times of day, allowing airlines to maintain the all-important flight frequency."

Link: http://www.bombardier.com/

That being said, what is the 'best' way to use a CRJ-200/700/900?

-Charlie
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:16 pm

Quoting CanadianPylon (Reply 2):
I was checking around Q400.com, and read somewhere (I think it was a testimonial) that the Q400 and CRJ200 have the same operating costs, but the Q400 carries more pax.

more seats for same operating cost = lower CASM.

Quoting SLUAviator (Reply 10):
The reason the regionals fell in love with 50 seaters was they could breakeven with only 26 passengers. In the new age of $60/barrel oil, the breakeven point is probably near 28-30. If you need 30 people to breakeven, that is a 60% load factor. That translates into a plane that is not that cheap to operate. The 70 seaters are obviously more expensive to operate. The additional costs are offset with first class seats much like UA is doing. With first class, a CRJ-700 holds 66 people--and that in turn means a lower weight and lower operating cost.

The average cost per hour of the CR7 is only 200 more than the CR2, yet it holds 20 more passengers. Not bad at all if you ask me.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5015
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:46 pm

Quoting Flyibaby (Reply 30):
Um, don't mean to dissapoint you, but most airlines don't operate the CRJ2/A at anything greater than FL280.

If you are talking about a CRJ with no RVSM and no FMS, then yes, you are right; however, I am talking about a CRJ that is RVSM capable.

ACA's ordered their CRJ-200's with 3A engines, and that aircraft can still get to FL300 in ISA+15 conditions; however, the vast majority of the other airlines out upgraded their engines to 3B, or the 3B hot and high models. If you ask me, it's those airlines that didn't upgrade the engines that are crying.

If you are referring to the not-so-hot climb characteristics of the CRJ with certain engines, then yes, it's not wise to go plan above a certain altitude. Running a CRJ high than FL300 for an hour flight isn't really a good idea burn wise. Could it climb higher than that? Certainly, but sometimes the route is going to be capped by ATC anyhow.
Running a flight at FL370, compared to FL270 with a non RVSM aircraft offers HUGE fuel savings.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
jayspilot
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:32 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:53 pm

unfortunatlly to correct the flyi information the reason flyi is restricted to fl280 is that they don't have the $$$ to comply with RVSM and are restricted for that reason not b/c of aircraft efficiency. formally being based in the same airport and flying to the same cities and them, the CRJ/200 cannot get to 410 but loves fl310 to fl330. on most flts fl280 is fine but going to to jax or ord flying in the mid 30's would be nicer and save money but thats not happening.



BIG QUESTION. and the origional one for this thread... i want to see true costs, not off the manufacturers website info b/c in the case of the crj200 for instance, it can't even make FL410 with people, and unfortunatly there was a fatal crash involving a crew that was not aware of how truely dangerous it was to fly a jet the manufacturer said was ok to fly at FL410 there. i feel real bad about that crash personally.

maybe when the crj was certified it was ISA-30 or somthing over northen canada but flying at anything above FL370 does not work period..
 
flyibaby
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:23 am

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sun Jul 31, 2005 1:19 am

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 34):
If you are talking about a CRJ with no RVSM and no FMS, then yes, you are right; however, I am talking about a CRJ that is RVSM capable.

I totally forgot to mention the restriction with RVSM. Exceptions however have been granted lately to allow crjs to climb to FL330 to "pass" traffic but they have been limited in where and how long. I don't think that there are any CRJs without FMS. I mean c'mon, they only really have two backup "steam" gauges in case the FMS goes out.

Quoting Jayspilot (Reply 35):
unfortunatlly to correct the flyi information the reason flyi is restricted to fl280 is that they don't have the $$$ to comply with RVSM and are restricted for that reason not b/c of aircraft efficiency. formally being based in the same airport and flying to the same cities and them, the CRJ/200 cannot get to 410 but loves fl310 to fl330. on most flts fl280 is fine but going to to jax or ord flying in the mid 30's would be nicer and save money but thats not happening.

This is incorrect. FLYi applied for RVSM for the CRJs, but like many other carriers was denied RVSM back earlier this year. The CRJs have all nessacary equipment to make it RVSM capable. The AirBus operation however was approved RVSM. Its definately not a money thing, I think the FAA wanted to see a more indepth training program for CRJ RVSM.
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5015
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: 50 Seat RJ Real Operating Costs?!?

Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:03 am

Quoting Flyibaby (Reply 36):
I don't think that there are any CRJs without FMS.

I don't either, but they are on the MEL. The pilots must fly via VOR's and airways, just like any other /A aircraft. This does not exempt them from RVSM though.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos