thelowfarehero
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 3:55 am

RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:16 am

It seems to me all these Regional Jets are congesting just about every airport I go to. If the airlines have to run such high frequencies with them, why not reduce flights and use larger planes. I took off from LAX the other day and waited about 35 minutes to take off, there were a ton of United Express, and American Eagle RJ's and Props, at least 13 before our position. Just a bit frustrating.
I HAATE AA!
 
commavia
Posts: 9629
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:19 am

That's what the flying public wants, so that's what the flying public gets.
 
thelowfarehero
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 3:55 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:29 am

Thats B.S. I dont know of anyone who actually WANTS to fly one one of those, or have heard anone make a request to fly on one. Maybe you do, but my consensus from the general public is a bit different, they prefer larger roomier aircraft.
I HAATE AA!
 
UAL Bagsmasher
Posts: 1839
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 1999 12:52 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:39 am

The flying public bitches about not wanting to fly on "an old noisy unsafe propeller plane." So now they get their wish with RJs.
 
erikwilliam
Posts: 2122
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:30 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:43 am

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 2):
but my consensus from the general public is a bit different, they prefer larger roomier aircraft.

sorry man, the average flier knows close to nothing about the plane.
They are not like us, that know even the type of brake discs the plane has.
Off course everybody likes the larger ways of transport, do you prefer drive a Mini or a BMW 7 series?But sometime you can´t drive a 7 because you can´t afford the gas, simple as that.
Dida, Cafu, Lucio, Roque Junior, Roberto Carlo, Emerson, Ze Roberto, Ronaldinho, Kaka, Adriano, Robinho, Ronaldo
 
DAL767400ER
Posts: 5084
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:47 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:44 am

The travelling public demands as much frequency as possible, hence the airlines give it to them to attract their business. Never mind the fact that there are many communities especially in Cali with service to LAX that can only be sustained thanks to such rather small planes. IIRC, United Express has actually reduced a lot of frequencies out of LAX, not sure about American Eagle though.
 
ClearedDirect
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 10:57 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:47 am

I think it is more like "Why don't they fly to MY HOMETOWN? Why do I have to drive all the way to (insert big airport here)? We have an airport - why don't they use it?

Thus the great flexibility of the RJ. I mean seriously - if you put yourself in Joe Public's shoes and you have a choice of flying in a 19-30 seat turboprop or a 50 seat RJ - which are you (they) going to choose?

CD
 
ssides
Posts: 3248
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 12:57 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:48 am

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 2):
dont know of anyone who actually WANTS to fly one one of those, or have heard anone make a request to fly on one.

In Europe and Asia it's a bit different, but I guarantee you that the US business traveler would much rather have 8 daily departures on RJs rather than 3 or 4 on MD-80s.
"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:51 am

High frequency service (read as "more flexibility in the customers' flight choices") generally necessitates smaller aircraft. Most customers want a flight schedule that works around thier life. Different types of passengers prefer different times. In an attempt to keep as many customers satisfied (with the service schedule) as possible, you have to have a wide variety of choices to offer people. I am willing to bet that most, if not all, of your 35 min taxi was built into the flight flight's block time.
Proud OOTSK member
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:55 am

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 2):
Thats B.S. I dont know of anyone who actually WANTS to fly one one of those,

I do. The ERJ-145 is my favorite type. No middle seats, the A seat is great, and sure beats any props that we'd get here otherwise... or a NW DC-9.

Quoting ClearedDirect (Reply 6):
I think it is more like "Why don't they fly to MY HOMETOWN? Why do I have to drive all the way to (insert big airport here)? We have an airport - why don't they use it?

Thus the great flexibility of the RJ. I mean seriously - if you put yourself in Joe Public's shoes and you have a choice of flying in a 19-30 seat turboprop or a 50 seat RJ - which are you (they) going to choose?

Precisely. If I want to fly I want to fly from my town, which is now ABE. I don't want to drive the 2+ hours (w/ traffic) it'll take to get to EWR/PHL. The fact of the reality is there wouldn't be enough traffic here to support 737's everywhere, and would you rather have half empty 737's everywhere or full RJ's?

Maybe when you big-city people get your heads out of your... nacelles... you'll realize that not everybody is flying between million-population markets, therefore RJ's need to exist to serve the mid-sized markets... the ABE's, DSM's, and DAY's of the world. If we only want to fly between the top 50ish sized cities in the US, we'll fly that all-737 airline everywhere. Sorry, the point of flying for me is to spend as little time as possible in my own car, and as much time letting the airplane haul me around. Driving to the big city would defeat that. I'm sorry that we're "clogging up your airports." Maybe if your residents would wake up you could add on to/build new airports and they wouldn't be "clogged up" because of those of us in the smaller cities.
 
JMV
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 4:22 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:57 am

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 5):
The travelling (sic) public demands as much frequency as possible,

There's the key, along with wanting more direct flights between city pairs. Certainly they would prefer a larger aircraft, but are willing to compromise in order to get schedule flexibility and direct flights.

Alas, they, the traveling public, are a fickle lot. Even though they want frequency, direct flights, and cheap fares, they also whine a great deal about small regionals, cramped full size aircraft, and the loss or lack of service. Funny how quickly they forget they get what they pay for.
Google begins where my brain ends! ©
 
vfw614
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:58 am

The former CEO of DUS airport was famous for unnerving Lufthansa by repeatedly complaining in public about Lufthansa clogging the airports limited runway capacity with "Challengers" - he meant Lufthansa's CRJ.....
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18098
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:58 am

Quoting Ssides (Reply 7):
I guarantee you that the US business traveler would much rather have 8 daily departures on RJs rather than 3 or 4 on MD-80s.

But hang on. I would much prefer Virgin Atlantic to charge $1000 r/t Upper Class LAX/LHR but it ain't going to happen.

Since most RJ flights within the US feeder system lose money, why should the business traveler expect that all his dreams can come true?

There are very few "business travelers" for whom an hour wait at an airport is the end of a deal - or, if it is, what would happen in the case of an mx or wx delay?

If providing those additonal frequencies to the business traveler is clogging airports and helping to send the airline bust, I don't see the point.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
ssides
Posts: 3248
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 12:57 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:58 am

The number of RJs and "customer flexibility" is also due to the hub-and-spoke operation (altough the advent of RJs has allowed some markets to circumvent hubs).

For example, my hometown airport of ABI has 6 daily RJs and 2 daily Saabs to DFW. Given those numbers, it could probably support one or two MD-80s per day to DFW (for the moment, forget that use of such an aircraft on such a short route would be wildly inefficient).

However, 90% of ABI passengers connect at DFW to a further destination. Having 8 daily flights instead of 2 allows AA to funnel connecting passengers in a much more efficient manner.
"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
 
commavia
Posts: 9629
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:02 am

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 2):
Thats B.S.

Sorry, but that's reality.

In today's competitive environment, consumers have made their preference loud and clear: they care about two things, and one more than anything else. Consumers care only about fares, and to a slightly lesser extent, schedule frequency. RJs help on both fronts, as they usually have lower operating costs than mainline jets (thanks largely to the lower wages associated with regional operators) and they obviously help with frequency, as you can fill 6-8 RJs in place of 3-4 737s.

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 2):
I dont know of anyone who actually WANTS to fly one one of those, or have heard anone make a request to fly on one.

Well, as long as they "request" to have dirt-cheap fares and high frequency schedules to get exactly where they want when they want to get there, they are -- in effect -- choosing RJs. As long as this is how consumers behave, RJs upon RJs is what they are going to get.

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 2):
Maybe you do, but my consensus from the general public is a bit different, they prefer larger roomier aircraft.

Again, with all due respect, that's B.S. Not only do most people, as others have said, not really have a clue about what plane they are on, but most will not wait for a "larger roomier aircraft."

If a business traveler's meeting gets done early, they get out to the airport, and see that there's a flight in 30 minutes on an RJ, or a flight in two hours on a 737, they must wait in order to get their "larger roomier aircraft." But, the reality is, they won't. They will get on the RJ, suck up any potential loss of room or comfort, because they want to get home!.

And, by the way, as for those who say RJs are so uncomfortable -- I have never flown on the CRJ line of aircraft, but have been on many Embraer ERJs, and have never really found them uncomfortable. The leather seats are great, I find the legroom to be more than adequate, and the bathroom is huge. The only real drawback is that the ceiling is a bit low, and there aren't huge overhead bins, but you can gatecheck bags and pick them up right after you deplane.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 12):
Since most RJ flights within the US feeder system lose money, why should the business traveler expect that all his dreams can come true?

Most lose money? American Eagle is profitable. So is Continental Express. Both are primarily RJ operators. Many RJs make money.

[Edited 2005-08-17 23:06:40]
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:10 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 14):
Many RJs make money.

Yes. If they weren't, you wouldn't have Chautauqua, Mesa, AWAC, etc. fighting over business.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18098
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:14 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 14):
Most lose money? American Eagle is profitable. So is Continental Express.

United has said that their Express operation costs them between $45 million and $50 million a year.

Frontier has said that their Express operation, using the larger CR7's, is stand alone profitable for maybe a couple of months of the year.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 14):
RJs help on both fronts, as they usually have lower operating costs than mainline jets

Um - I cannot speak for AA or CO - but most airlines that I know of report a CASM of between 14 and 16 cents for their RJ's.

This compares with a mainline CASM of around 8 cents.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
irelayer
Posts: 929
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:25 am

Out of LAX there are plenty of places that are served that will NEVER deserve mainline service, but for whom an air link is essential b/c there is such a huge gap between SoCal and NorCal. Places like Fresno, SLO, Santa Barbara, Yuma, Bakersfield, Lodi, Monterrey are served with RJ's and props because there is a market for it. People are willing to pay 100R/T, for instance, to get from LA to Monterrey, b/c the other option would be LAX-SJC, and then a 1.5 hour drive to Monterrey. Also traffic is so bad in LA that a short hop like LAX-SAN (a 15 minute flight) becomes more and more appealing as the traffic gets worse. There are a large number of people that commute between these two places on a regular basis, and on a weekday, getting into and out of the LA area can be a nightmare at pretty much anytime during the day.

Same thing with ORD. A lot of the traffic at ORD is regional. A huge amount. And the frequencies are insane. But UAX and Eagle fly to places that are pretty isolated but that can support RJ service. Like Sioux City, Lincoln, Carbondale, almost everywhere in Iowa, etc etc...

Face it, the airlines will run routes that feed their hub operations, and they will respond to market demand, however small, to do that. And to do that they need to be connected to almost every center of population, so that they can ensure that if someone from Sioux City wants to go to Europe, they can. UAX might lose money on the first domestic sector, but it will most certainly make money on the long-haul sector.

-IR
 
CORULEZ05
Posts: 1250
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:39 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:39 am

Quoting Erikwilliam (Reply 4):
sorry man, the average flier knows close to nothing about the plane.

The average flier doesn't need to know much about planes to prefer the larger jets over smaller ones. More of a psychological thing than a true mechanical point. Obviously the RJ's and other small planes are safe but some people don't see it that way. Purely psychological really.....

Quoting Erikwilliam (Reply 4):
Off course everybody likes the larger ways of transport, do you prefer drive a Mini or a BMW 7 series?But sometime you can´t drive a 7 because you can´t afford the gas, simple as that.

RIGHT......so the $70+k price tag has nothing to do with their decision/ability to purchase the car? Seriously, based on your statement, who would say no to getting a 7 series for a dirt cheap price based on higher fuel consumption???? Give me a break..... Yeah sure

[Edited 2005-08-17 23:46:41]
Fly jetBlue today!!!!!!!
 
ptcflyer
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 12:03 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:43 am

Stats show that the average CASM is 14 - 16 cents per mile... making the RJs not as economical. I wonder if anyone has really calculated the CASM of the RJs once all of the additional costs that are shifted to the mainline due to delays on the ground and in the air are added to the equation.

The net-net is that there is often a lot of subsidization for that "regional" feed into a particular airlines' hub. Given the state of the airline industry... I wonder how long they will afford to subsidize the "frequencies" and feeder flights to less than economical destinations?

When you add the total CASM of the RJs plus the incremental costs on the rest of the mainline fleets due to too many aircraft... and not enough runways.... At some point, it would seem like that huge number of RJs would be scaled back, or consolidated onto larger aircraft where possible.

Like Meals, Pillows, Magazines.... perhaps granular flight frequencies is a perk that airlines should look at reducing.... to maximize operating profitability
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18098
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:50 am

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 15):
Yes. If they weren't, you wouldn't have Chautauqua, Mesa, AWAC, etc. fighting over business.

The reason that they are fighting for business is that their profit is (usually) built in.

The major they fly for pays them on a "cost-plus" basis - that is, whatever it costs the regional to provide the service, plus a defined profit margin.

This is how ACA got to have all that money in the bank that they have burned through with FlyI.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
legacy135
Posts: 966
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 11:06 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:56 am

Demand creates market and market also creates a demand. So it is just one of the rules of selling, offering 8 times 50 seats is easier to sell than 4 times 100. People want flexibility and airlines are responding to this demand by offering a lot of flights by RJ's. Then travelers also don't want to wait around a long time id they have connecting flights. So if an airline wants to stay in the market they need to come up with frequencies. If they can sell it they will do it, otherwise somebody else will do it and take them the customers away.
 
SHUPirate1
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:57 am

Gentlemen, look at the wholly-owned regionals' numbers. The fact is, as of the latest DOT releases (Q1 2005), both ASA and Comair made slight profits, and American Eagle had a profit margin that would make the Southwest's and jetBlue's of the world jealous. These numbers are available to the public...take a look...

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-5...e_files/airlinefinancialreview.htm
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:14 am

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 2):
Thats B.S. I dont know of anyone who actually WANTS to fly one one of those, or have heard anone make a request to fly on one. Maybe you do, but my consensus from the general public is a bit different, they prefer larger roomier aircraft.

Tell that to the city that went from 2-3 737's a day to 8-10 RJ's a day allowing them more flexibility in their tavel plans.

Oh yeah.. and what SHU said.

[Edited 2005-08-18 00:16:37]
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18098
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:37 am

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 22):
and American Eagle had a profit margin that would make the Southwest's and jetBlue's of the world jealous.

But that is not stand alone. Much of that traffic - and thus the profit - is feed into mainline.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
grrtvc
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 1:15 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:39 am

I would have to agree that the RJ are filling up the airports but I don't completely agree that they are "clogging" airports. An airfield only has so much capacity. It would only hurt the airlines to have more aircraft to handle at one time. Not to beat up on the FAA but some of the congestion at airports is not the fault of the airlines but rather the throttle points, i.e. FAA. But there is blame to pass around to everyone including the general public for not support airport expansion where needed. "Why am I tenth in line but don't build that runway because a deer might have to move and my house is too close."

I remember a certain CEO of certain LCC in the US that was considering making this an issue. His basis was basically that RJ operators cause delays at airports due to the increase in the amount of service they provide over larger aircraft, i.e. 4 RJ's for every 1 B738 (or so). And in addition, that the landing fees are less because of the lighter a/c. Not too sure how accurate that is or I may have miss stated that. But the guy has been around the biz for awhile. To my knowledge he never has moved forward with it though.

The other factor of the RJ issue is that RJ routes were being developed before the summer of '01. Note I say summer of '01 because even though 9/11 hurt the airlines it wasn't the cause of the downturn in the airline industry. It only helped to push them over the edge. The RJ deployment was already underway and the traveling public was getting used to added routes and frequencies. This was when the airlines could recoup the costs in higher fares and such. No days the fares are dirt cheap and really what is being saved by removing a mainline a/c from a route and replacing it with 2 RJ's.

Probably not a lot of fuel savings. Not saving on inflight labor (pilots and flight attendants), etc.

Basically the traveling public has become accustomed to the increased frequencies and would be T's off if it went away. If an airline was to reduce service now someone else would most likely fill the slot and the pull-out airline would lose it's customer base.

Just my two cents.

GRRTVC
 
ssides
Posts: 3248
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 12:57 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:43 am

Quoting Mariner (Reply 16):
United has said that their Express operation costs them between $45 million and $50 million a year.

Well, when UA's mainline operation is losing around $1 billion a year, $45-$50 million doesn't sound so bad.

Quoting Ptcflyer (Reply 19):
Stats show that the average CASM is 14 - 16 cents per mile... making the RJs not as economical.

That's because, despite the expansion of RJs into larger and longer markets, they still fly shorter routes, and carry fewer passengers, than mainline jets. Due to their size and range, mainline jets' CASM will always be lower ... but they are also harder to fill. Show me stats on RJs' revenue ASM and we'll see if there's an argument there.
"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18098
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:45 am

Quoting Ssides (Reply 26):
Well, when UA's mainline operation is losing around $1 billion a year, $45-$50 million doesn't sound so bad.

That's funny. And true - I can't argue with that.  Smile

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:47 am

Regional jets are flown by affiliate airlines staffed with cockpit and cabin crews working for less money.....that is part of the reason as to why so many routes are now flown with regional aircraft. If pay scales for regional and mainline crews were ever equalized, I think that we would see a shift back to mainline services in many markets with flights operated by larger airplanes and fewer frequencies.

[Edited 2005-08-18 00:48:01]
 
SHUPirate1
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:50 am

Quoting Ssides (Reply 26):
Show me stats on RJs' revenue ASM and we'll see if there's an argument there.

I don't have the RASM, but I do have the yields handy:

Executive: 49.02 cents per RPM (60% loadfactor)
American Eagle: 25.79 cents per RPM (65.8% loadfactor)
Comair: 21.92 cents per RPM (64.3% loadfactor)
Atlantic Southeast: 19.4 cents per RPM (70.5% loadfactor)
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:59 am

Some people will complain about how tiny or loud an ERJ135 or CRJ is. At least until they ride on a Jetstream 31 or Beech 1900. I've even heard people whine about how small a 737 is. They seem to want only 777s or 744s flying into airports like Charlottesville, VA or Monterey, CA.  Confused

In my experience, almost all customers seem fine with ERJs, CRJs, Brasilia's, and Q400s. This is especially true when you realize that it's impossible to have your bag lost.  Smile

My only issue with CRJs is that they seem really gutless out of airports like SLC. I've never seen the Great Salt Lake so well in my life.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5258
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:11 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 14):
Consumers care only about fares, and to a slightly lesser extent, schedule frequency.

If this was true, why hasn't DL blown Airtran out of the water in Atlanta? DL matches Airtran fares and DL offers much higher frequency than Airtran. Yet, Airtran has grown and made money while DL has struggled. If you look at the LCC's, they by and large offer less frequency on most routes, yet they are doing far better than the legacys.

Frequency is important, but only to a certain extent. Excluding a small number of core business routes (DCA-LGA, ORD-LGA), most business travelers only need 4-5 flights a day to give them the necessary flexibility.

If high-frequency, high-CASM RJ service was such a money-maker, then DL should be the most profitable airline in the world. Cleary, they are not.

I'm not saying RJ's are all bad. They are fine for small market pairs that can't support 4-5 mainline planes, but flying 8-10 RJ's on a route is a waste of money. You could more cost effectively deliver the same amount of capacity at a lower cost and with better service by flying the route with 4-5 mainline planes.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:27 am

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 31):
Yet, Airtran has grown and made money while DL has struggled.

Delta isn't struggling in Atlanta. Other hubs, yes.
 
thelowfarehero
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 3:55 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:29 am

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 31):

Couldn't have been said any better!  thumbsup 
I HAATE AA!
 
commavia
Posts: 9629
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:39 am

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 31):
If this was true, why hasn't DL blown Airtran out of the water in Atlanta?

Because FL is competitive on frequency. Sure, DL may offer 8-10 flights a day in a market, or up to 30 or 40 in some key markets, but FL still is able to offer relatively competitive schedules in most markets where it goes up against DL -- morning, late morning, midday, afternoon, evening and late evening flights. In addition, FL's low fares (at profitable levels -- that's the key for DL!) don't hurt.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 31):
Frequency is important, but only to a certain extent.

Notice how I said:

Consumers care only about fares, and to a slightly lesser extent, schedule frequency.

Please, FlyPNS1, don't misunderstand me -- I know that fares come first. In this industry, the three most important deciding factors are always price, price and price. For the majority of travelers, the fare is the only factor they really pay all that much attention to. However, schedule frequency is also right up there as one of the most important factors for travelers.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 31):
If high-frequency, high-CASM RJ service was such a money-maker, then DL should be the most profitable airline in the world. Cleary, they are not.

That's pretty syllogistic reasoning -- RJs are profitable, DL flies lots of RJs, therefore DL should be profitable, and thus because DL is not, RJs are not profitable. The reason DL is losing so much money has been discussed at great length in many other threads here, and I think RJs are only a small part of much bigger problems.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 31):
They are fine for small market pairs that can't support 4-5 mainline planes, but flying 8-10 RJ's on a route is a waste of money.

It's less of a waste of money than flying 4-5 half-empty mainline jets.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:39 am

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 33):
Couldn't have been said any better!

RJ's aren't the problem. High densiity market cherry picking by a handful of LCC's is. They bleed pax from the mainline routes which used to be full. Now you basically have 737/A320's feeding RJ's rather than 757/767's feeding 737's. Airlines have a hell of a time filling 160 seat aircraft because of those lost passengers. As a result... Revenues dip due to lost demand and fares increase to make up for the loss. It's a pretty simple equation.
 
thelowfarehero
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 3:55 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:53 am

heres an example.....HP flies many CRJ flights to it's LAS and PHX hubs from larger markets like LAX...are you telling me they cant fill a 733 or A320 to those cities....I won't book them because if that..Id rather fly WN or B6 when I do because it is much more comfortable. Now thats just a personal opinion.

But as a pilot, it is very irritating to fly into some major airports that run many commuting flights. For those of you who are just passengers, you know how irritating it is when you want to get on your way, but you are wondering why it is taking so long to get airborne. We have schedules we have to run on to, and to stay ontime after being held for so long, we burn alot of fuel we should not have to on the ground, as well as increasing cruising altitude air speed. Im just saying that from a pilots perspective.
I HAATE AA!
 
SHUPirate1
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:05 am

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 36):
heres an example.....HP flies many CRJ flights to it's LAS and PHX hubs from larger markets like LAX

Define "many"...looking at next Wednesday's schedule, Mesa doing business as America West Express flies one CRJ-900 between LAS and LAX, and one CRJ-200 between PHX and LAX, and both are flights to rotate the equipment for America West's LAX focus city. I wouldn't call that "many"...
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:13 am

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 36):
Im just saying that from a pilots perspective.

Enough said. Thanks for playing.
 
CORULEZ05
Posts: 1250
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:39 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:27 am

Smaller aircraft are definetly clogging up airports. I mean, they don't seat that many people so they need to operate more flights to accomodate all the customers. I am of course talking of planes such as 50 seaters etc. This is why I see the Embraer 190 as a great option. Smaller plane yet with a great capacity. They can serve the "less popular" routes but with less frequencies.
Fly jetBlue today!!!!!!!
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:13 am

Quoting CORULEZ05 (Reply 39):
This is why I see the Embraer 190 as a great option. Smaller plane yet with a great capacity. They can serve the "less popular" routes but with less frequencies.

Let's try these theories for size.
How about instead of 7x DH-8/RJ on PHL-ABE we change it to 1x A330.
Instead of 3x SF-340 on ABE-PIT we change it to 1x E190
Instead of 4x CRJ-200 on ABE-CVG we change it to 1x 738

We could cut frequencies all day, pax counts would drop, and airlines lose more revenue. If we cut RJ's/Props the whole airline system becomes "That all-737 airline" with service to what... 5 dozen cities, total? That'll put a boatload of more cars on the highways (or rails) and cause a need for SIGNIFICANTLY more infrastructure. Are you willing to pay those taxes?? Note: Highways will be paid for on higher fuel tax.

It's not going to work, sorry. The only routes it makes sense on are maybe the LGA routes, where you have Comair, US-Express, and others running competing RJ's basically flying in formation their schedules are so tight. Some coordination amongst them, could cut 3 RJ's per hour down to 1 mainline. The LGA slot rules kinda promote this theory already, but it doesn't work much. Do you want fierce competitors to give up huge revenue sources?? That's not going to happen either.

The only thing that could happen is airlines start using props for routes under 2-300 miles more often. It wouldn't help congestion, but it would help fuel burn at the very least. Plus props could use the smaller runways at some airports.

Want congestion cut? Bring more slot rules. PHL, FLL, and ORD should be the first victims, instead of it just happening in an ATC Wx/Ground stop situation... which comes as soon as these airports go MVFR lately.
 
commavia
Posts: 9629
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:06 pm

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 36):
are you telling me they cant fill a 733 or A320 to those cities

No, what I am telling you is that HP obviously feels that for its current schedule PHX-LAX, at that particular time of day, an RJ is better suited to the market than a 737 or A320.

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 36):
I won't book them because if that

You're in the minority. I believe that most people would not care either way, especially on such a short sector as the 1:20 LAX-PHX flight, and that at least many -- if not most -- people would not even know the difference either way between a CRJ900 and a 737-900. As I said before, many -- if not most -- people today look at one thing and one thing only: price. The aircraft type is probably not one of the more important deciding factors for most people when booking a ticket.

Quoting CORULEZ05 (Reply 39):
Smaller aircraft are definitely clogging up airports.

But what's so bad about that? Since when is the natural evolution of the competitive free market a bad thing?

People said the same thing back in the 1970s and 1980s, with the rise of the DC9, then the 737 and MD80 -- that the "smaller planes, more flights" mantra was going to clog airports and ruin dependability.

Airlines all over dramatically reduced the number of seats per departure and increased frequency. AA, for example, went from 3 daily nonstop flights between Dallas and New York in 1963 to 6 in 1963 and 11 by 1983. Today they have over 20. That's the natural growth and evolution of the market -- customers demand frequency, so schedules move from DC10s to 737s or MD80s, and now from 737s or MD80s to RJs.

And what happened? Airports built more runways, built more terminals, built more gates, airlines grew rapidly, thousands of new jobs were created, economies boomed. If frequency is what customers want, and the only way airlines can deliver it is by reducing aircraft size, why should any entity -- the government, interest groups, etc. -- artificially strangle the market or change its competitive dynamics?

Instead of complaining about the congestion RJs cause, let's build more runways across the U.S. so that the market can naturally take effect. And let's start with building a few at ORD!
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:12 pm

The only thing people care about is if the plane is jet powered.

CO stated at the FT meet in April that their numbers show that people will standby interchangeably between mainline and RJs -- but the same as not true of propellor aircraft.

Besides, RJ's open us a lot of destinations that wouldn't otherwise have service.

Steve
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18098
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:36 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 41):
No, what I am telling you is that HP obviously feels that for its current schedule PHX-LAX, at that particular time of day, an RJ is better suited to the market than a 737 or A320.

That assertion may be right - but in a negative sense.

HP CEO Parker is on record as saying that they have too many aircraft in their Express fleet, but that they have to be used.

Mr. Parker is tied to an old contract with Mesa that was signed by his predecessor, Mr. Franke, in the glory boom-boom days of RJ's.

And Mr. Parker is stuck with all these aircraft that he doesn't necessarily want, and has to use somehow, rather than leave them sitting around.

It would cost a lot to break the contract - money he does not have - but he may have found a way around it with the merger.

We'll see.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:38 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 34):
That's pretty syllogistic reasoning -- RJs are profitable, DL flies lots of RJs, therefore DL should be profitable, and thus because DL is not, RJs are not profitable. The reason DL is losing so much money has been discussed at great length in many other threads here, and I think RJs are only a small part of much bigger problems.

Look at Continental Express... CLE has ERJ's as far as the eye can see, it's kind of hard to find a mainline jet at quick glance there. But who was profitable this last quarter? CO and AA. Moral of the story: You can run RJ's and still make profits if your management is competent enough.
 
SHUPirate1
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:47 pm

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 44):
But who was profitable this last quarter? CO and AA.

Even more ironic is that when the DOT reports the separate American Airlines and American Eagle numbers, they will likely bear out, as the Q1 numbers did, that American's profits are almost entirely tied to their Eagle operation. American posted a small operating profit in Q1, and their Eagle operation had a MASSIVE (by airline standards, 13.5% in a generally-down quarter is pretty significant) profit margin...twice as high as jetBlue and Southwest! Just a small educated hunch that Q2 will show even better numbers for American Eagle. It's the contract/fee-per-departure model that is sucking most of the majors dry. Heck, even Delta's tremendous losses cannot be traced to their wholly-owned regionals, as both ASA and Comair posted small operating profits (4.9 mil for Comair, .6 mil for ASA) in Q1 2005.
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
commavia
Posts: 9629
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:47 pm

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 44):
Look at Continental Express... CLE has ERJ's as far as the eye can see, it's kind of hard to find a mainline jet at quick glance there. But who was profitable this last quarter? CO and AA. Moral of the story: You can run RJ's and still make profits if your management is competent enough.

True enough, CO and AA are both profitable, and both have RJ operations either through wholly owned carriers (Eagle) or contract carriers (ExpressJet).

However, I still personally feel that AA's and CO's success -- relative to the other carriers -- is due much more to the second part of your point -- the "management [that is] competent enough" and less to their RJ operations. RJs are a piece of it, but it's not as if AA and CO are making money solely because they run RJs.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18098
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:47 pm

Okay - if, as some would have it, RJ's are, in themselves and with decent loads, profitable, what's with Independence Air?

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Independence:Air.htm

"Independence Air officals stated before launch that estimated CASM costs (CASM is how much it costs an airline to fly one seat one mile) were to be at about $0.22. "

That was for the RJ fleet, the fleet that had been operating as UAX.

"The CASM for the Airbus is projected to be much lower, in the range of JetBlue's ($0.065 per mile)."

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
SHUPirate1
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:58 pm

Quoting Mariner (Reply 47):
Okay - if, as some would have it, RJ's are, in themselves and with decent loads, profitable, what's with Independence Air?

I'm not saying that the RJ is, in and of itself, profitable, particularly in and of itself. However, it is an integral part of the mainline network, as American has shown. I don't think anybody has attempted to state that an airline can be built entirely on regional jets, in fact, a certain airline with the "information" logo has shown that an airline can't. However, the regional jet isn't as bad as it is cracked up to be, especially if you can get solid yields on that regional jet, as (and American Eagle has shown this) long as they are used the right way. The fact is, however, that the fee-per-departure model simply DOES NOT work, but the wholly-owned model has shown the exact opposite when used as filler within the mainline structure to serve smaller communities that would not be economical with a 737-700, an A319-100, or an MD-80.
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
emiratesa345
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 10:11 am

RE: RJ's Clogging Up Airports

Thu Aug 18, 2005 1:03 pm

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 2):
Thats B.S. I dont know of anyone who actually WANTS to fly one one of those, or have heard anone make a request to fly on one. Maybe you do, but my consensus from the general public is a bit different, they prefer larger roomier aircraft.



Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 36):
heres an example.....HP flies many CRJ flights to it's LAS and PHX hubs from larger markets like LAX...are you telling me they cant fill a 733 or A320 to those cities....I won't book them because if that..Id rather fly WN or B6 when I do because it is much more comfortable. Now thats just a personal opinion.

But as a pilot, it is very irritating to fly into some major airports that run many commuting flights. For those of you who are just passengers, you know how irritating it is when you want to get on your way, but you are wondering why it is taking so long to get airborne. We have schedules we have to run on to, and to stay ontime after being held for so long, we burn alot of fuel we should not have to on the ground, as well as increasing cruising altitude air speed. Im just saying that from a pilots perspective

You can't possibly be a pilot and spew such non-sense. Surely you would have some knowledge about the purpose of regional jets, markets, frequencies and such?

Mark
You and I were meant to fly, Air Canada!