Tangowhisky
Topic Author
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:45 am

The 70 seat RJ sales have slowed to a trickle. The 90 seat and plus RJ sales have slowed down considerably. Considering how well Boeing and Airbus have done selling 737s and A320s, one would think that large RJ orders should not weaken. So my question is, will there be a recovery in the 90 seat and greater size RJs in the coming years?

Here is my take. In the post 9/11days, majors were transferring capacity to their regionals blaming high cost structures at the mainlines. This resulted in continuous deliveries and new orders of RJs. Some LCCs such as FlyBe and JetBlue jumped in and made large orders for 100 seaters for different reasons than the legacies. But the real market for large RJs is and was supposed to be the majors, who have now restructured and found many ways of reducing their costs at mainline. Therefore the need to transfer capacity to regionals is not what it used to be. Add to that the scope restrictions, and higher seat-mile-costs of a 90 seat RJ, I don't see mainline carriers ordering 90 seat RJs. The 100 seat and above seems more plausible and only Embraer has a truly optimized 100-120 seat mainline type of product. So my take is that, there will be fewer 70-90 seat RJ sales than the coming 110-120 and even greater seat RJs, that are right-sized for network markets.

What do you guys think?
Only the paranoid survive
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1574
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:49 am

I don't think of the E-jets as RJs. They were purpose built to bridge the gap between the RJs and 737/319 types. I also see the Ejets as a DC9/F28/F100 replacement vs being an RJ.

The CRJ900 has reached maximum length and is out performed be the newer competition. It is still selling though.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
 
saab2000
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:10 am

These larger airplanes are not 'RJ's. There is nothing 'regional' about what they do or how they do it. They should be flown by so-called mainline airlines.

There does exist a place for them, to be sure, but we have got to stop calling them RJs. Just a pet peave of mine.

I think that the industry is also slowly waking to the fact that these smaller planes have not solved anything. Rather they have caused more airport congestion.

Yesterday I operated a flight to LGA at 6:10 AM on a 50-seater. There was another flight on the same airline between the same cities at 7:00 AM. LGA is already too congested. Doesn't it make more sense to operate fewer larger airplanes a bit more spread out than hourly service on tiny airplanes with less capacity and higher CASM between already overcrowded city pairings?

I hope the trend towards all the so-called RJs ends!!!
smrtrthnu
 
dougbr2006
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:44 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:18 am

Well if you consider that Embraer have full order books until the end of 2011 I would not say that it hasn't slowed down.

There are many airlines pondering using the E190/E195 to replace the DC9 for sure, Northwest has indicated this and when they placed the order for the E170 they also had options on those plus a block of 100 other options which I would say are for the 190/195.

Now also with Varig getting there full operators certificate it paves the way for the potential order of 50 from them. Lufthansa, KLM, JAL commuter, plus many others are looking at the E190/195 as a very viable aircraft.

Today Embraer also announced that they will be hiring three to four thousand new employess to keep up with demand on the Ejets and the new line of exec aircraft.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12051
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:56 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
So my question is, will there be a recovery in the 90 seat and greater size RJs in the coming years?

NW still hasn't replaced the DC-9's!  duck   flamed 

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 3):
Well if you consider that Embraer have full order books until the end of 2011 I would not say that it hasn't slowed down.

 bigthumbsup  I didn't realize it was that booked... however...

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 3):
Today Embraer also announced that they will be hiring three to four thousand new employess to keep up with demand on the Ejets and the new line of exec aircraft.

This says they are anticipating an increase in production.  hyper  For who?  scratchchin  There are just far too many routes that make sense for a 70 to 100 seater. (I'm not a fan of the E195, but I'm quite willing to be proven wrong.) You do not hire 3,000 to 4,000 to *maintain* production.  Wink

I consider the B6 E190 deferal more of an opportunity than anything else for Embraer... this opens slots for a new order.

And you didn't mention AA. I believe AA has a market for a 100 seater. However, that requires a huge concession by the unions... until they agree to new work rules for the E190... don't expect to see Dallas flooded with them.

I also do not consider the 70 seater sales done. 50 seater? Yes. Those were overbought. Hundreds will probably be sent to the desert. But then again, the 50-seaters were bought with very short payback intervals. (Its typical on small aircraft.) I expect scope clauses to be expanded (again) and thus we'll see more E170 (E175?) flying in various airline colors. Many of which would be displacement/growth of 50-seaters.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
Tangowhisky
Topic Author
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:45 am

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 1):
The CRJ900 has reached maximum length and is out performed be the newer competition. It is still selling though.

Selling yes but the combined CRJ7/CRJ9 backlog is about 80 planes, compared to 5 times that amount for Embraer's E170 to E195 product line. My point is that these larger models are no-where close to the volume of sales that these two manufacturers experienced with the 35-50 seat jets back in the later 90s, or even an expected fraction of the combine narrowbody annual deliveries and orders A&B are getting.

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 1):
I think that the industry is also slowly waking to the fact that these smaller planes have not solved anything.



Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 2):
Yesterday I operated a flight to LGA at 6:10 AM on a 50-seater

Are you referring to 50 seat jet or is your point about "not solving anything" valid for 90 seat planes?

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 3):
Well if you consider that Embraer have full order books until the end of 2011 I would not say that it hasn't slowed down

Sure that is because they are only going to build 160 planes next year, including 50 seat jets in China. Matching production rate to market demand is the main reason. Bu that still begs the question: is the market demand abdout 200 70-100 seat jets a year or will it significantly increase?

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 4):
You do not hire 3,000 to 4,000 to *maintain* production.

Sure but, this week they also announced beefing up the after-market support with organizational changes. Then there are the Phenoms that are going to start production. So I would say that some new workers would go towards E-Jet production, but don't leave out the other large scale activities coming up.

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 3):
There are many airlines pondering using the E190/E195 to replace the DC9 for sure, Northwest has indicated this and when they placed the order for the E170 they also had options on those plus a block of 100 other options which I would say are for the 190/195.



Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 3):
Lufthansa, KLM, JAL commuter, plus many others are looking at the E190/195 as a very viable aircraft.

This is a good point. But the question is - are the E-Jet 190/195s an ideal DC-9 replacement? In terms of 1:1 seating replacement, yes. But even after the better performance an E-Jet 100 seater offers, and considering traffic growth isn't better for these current 737/A320 operators to stick with A319s and 737-700s? If Boeing or Airbus had an optimized 100-110 seat plane, I'd say the E-Jets would have a bleak future. So, I agree that they are looking at the E-190/195, but if they pass it over, then I don't see where the large orders will come from. I would only see small orders.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 4):
And you didn't mention AA. I believe AA has a market for a 100 seater. However, that requires a huge concession by the unions... until they agree to new work rules for the E190... don't expect to see Dallas flooded with them.

Agree totally. AA pilots would never allow such a plane to be flown by Eagle. So, would it make sense under mainline? AA did not go through the kind of restructuring that NW, UA, and DL went through, so it would be interesting to see what AA will do for its MD-80s and 100 seat requirements.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 4):
I expect scope clauses to be expanded (again) and thus we'll see more E170 (E175?) flying in various airline colors. Many of which would be displacement/growth of 50-seaters.

Yes. Maybe they will get the 190/195S under mainline, in exchange for more 70 seat jets under their regionals. This could be good news for Bombardier if AA get the CR7 for Eagle in exchange for many E190/195s for the MD-80 replacement.
Only the paranoid survive
 
dougbr2006
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:44 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:55 am

The investment will be around US$1 billion and there is also rumour of another exec jet launch mentioned by the president of Embraer. Maybe a second linage aircraft!

The bookings include options which Embraer strongly feel will be converted to firm orders or blocks that are available for customers that have letters of intent to purchase. The latter are undisclosed.
 
Tangowhisky
Topic Author
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:07 am

"...According to Mauricio Botelho, the investments will be used to launch products, certify current aircraft, developing technology, increasing industrial capacity and opening four service centers abroad.

"We are now going to apply the same amount of money in half the time," said Botelho at a press conference in Sao Paulo, stating that the company would hire 4,000 staff in 2007 in order to deliver orders within contracted deadlines...."

This means that much of the investment is based on fulfilling current orders, financing the increased capacity (Phenoms, E-Jets, etc.), and the costs associated with opening new service centers.

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 6):
The bookings include options which Embraer strongly feel will be converted to firm orders or blocks that are available for customers that have letters of intent to purchase. The latter are undisclosed.

Let's hope so. The Embraer stock has been moving up in small volumes lately, perhaps there are some rumours to your statement.

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 6):
and there is also rumour of another exec jet launch mentioned by the president of Embraer. Maybe a second linage aircraft!

That would be great and I think they will launch a new type of aircraft as Bothelo's words relate to that. Embraer executes well in products it launches.
Only the paranoid survive
 
CRJ900
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:05 am

European carriers may order some 90-100-seaters as the 148-189-seat-market becomes saturated while many small airports still have limited service or only 2-4 flights a week.

57 x CRJ900 are heading for Europe, potentially 26 x E195 and 30-ish(?) E190 too so far.
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5384
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:59 am

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 6):
The investment will be around US$1 billion and there is also rumour of another exec jet launch mentioned by the president of Embraer. Maybe a second linage aircraft!

Based perhaps on the E170? That would be great.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:07 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
Considering how well Boeing and Airbus have done selling 737s and A320s, one would think that large RJ orders should not weaken.



Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 5):
My point is that these larger models are no-where close to the volume of sales that these two manufacturers experienced with the 35-50 seat jets back in the later 90s, or even an expected fraction of the combine narrowbody annual deliveries and orders A&B are getting.

Faulty logic in the statements. Just ask who has been buying the bulk of 737s since 2000...

Southwest
Ryanair
AirTran
dBA
Air Berlin
WestJet
Virgin Blue
Lion Air
GOL
etc, etc,

And add in the other large buyer (Chinese airlines)...

China Eastern
China Southern
Hainan
Shandong
Shanghai
Shenzen
etc,

How many of these airlines fly RJs?

Now ask how many legacy airlines ordered how many 737s (... and not as replacements)?

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
Here is my take. In the post 9/11days, majors were transferring capacity to their regionals blaming high cost structures at the mainlines. This resulted in continuous deliveries and new orders of RJs.

The bulk of RJ sales were placed pre-9/11... not post 9/11. The transferring of capacity was already well on its way and planned for before 9/11 as the Legacies maxed RJ orders as per their respective Scope Clauses.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
Therefore the need to transfer capacity to regionals is not what it used to be.

They can't transfer capacity to the regionals (even though they want to) as you yourself say in your next sentence...

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
Add to that the scope restrictions



Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
So my take is that, there will be fewer 70-90 seat RJ sales than the coming 110-120 and even greater seat RJs, that are right-sized for network markets.

FYI, you can go to the various manufacturer's market forecasts and read the detailed market analysis for various seat categories for each market. Here are some numbers...

EMB -
30 to 60 seats - 500 (2006-2015) 1,050 (2016 -2025) 1,550 (2006-2025)
61 to 90 seats - 1,300 (2006-2015) 1,650 (2016 -2025) 2,950 (2006-2025)
91 to 120 seats - 1,550 (2006-2015) 1,900 (2016 -2025) 3,450 (2006-2025)

BBD -
20 to 59 seats - 1,100 (2006-2025)
60 to 99 seats - 4,100 (2006-2025)
100 to 149 seats - 5,800 (2006-2025)

Boeing -
Regional Jets - 3,450 (2006-2025)
90 to 175 seats - 14,440 (2006-2025)

Airbus -
50 seats - 1,207 (2006-2025)
70/85 seats - 2,784 (2006-2025)
100 seats - 2,006 (2006-2025)
125 seats - 3,508 (2006-2025)

Rolls-Royce -
30 to 50 seats - 1,310 (2006-2025)
60 to 90 seats - 4,135 (2006-2025)
110 seats - 2,592 (2006-2025)
130 to 180 seats - 12,373 (2006-2025)

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 2):
I think that the industry is also slowly waking to the fact that these smaller planes have not solved anything. Rather they have caused more airport congestion.

Yesterday I operated a flight to LGA at 6:10 AM on a 50-seater. There was another flight on the same airline between the same cities at 7:00 AM. LGA is already too congested. Doesn't it make more sense to operate fewer larger airplanes a bit more spread out than hourly service on tiny airplanes with less capacity and higher CASM between already overcrowded city pairings?

You may be interested in knowing that, according to Innovata, CRJ200s and ERJ-135s accounted for 30% of all Delta flights from LGA earlier this year (291 flights a week to 20 markets). And that 50-seat RJs accounted for 19.3% of all LGA nonstop flights, 5.2% by Saab 340s and another 1% by 1900s.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 8):
European carriers may order some 90-100-seaters as the 148-189-seat-market becomes saturated while many small airports still have limited service or only 2-4 flights a week.

There is a small chance that there may be another player entering the "RJ" field. As previously reported, FI confirmed that BBD's "former" partner is looking to launch a 70-seat and 90-seat "RJ" by 2008...



Mitsubishi Heavy Industries details plans for new MJ regional jet family, as supplier discussions commence

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...ly%2c+as+supplier+discussions.html

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
saab2000
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:50 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 10):
You may be interested in knowing that, according to Innovata, CRJ200s and ERJ-135s accounted for 30% of all Delta flights from LGA earlier this year (291 flights a week to 20 markets). And that 50-seat RJs accounted for 19.3% of all LGA nonstop flights, 5.2% by Saab 340s and another 1% by 1900s.

What's your point? Mine is that airports like LGA are badly congested, in part because airlines want hourly service rather than accepting service every two hours between city pairings. Using a larger aircraft every 90 minutes instead of two smaller ones cuts costs. I understand the desire for frequency, but sometimes it is inefficient. Or at least it seems that way to me. Paying four pilots to fly a route seems to be spendy.

I fly CRJs and think that they are a good tool for certain types of segments. The first time I flew on one was in the mid-90s on Comair from CVG-ATW. WOW!!! Sure as heck beat the ATR to Green Bay I used to go on.

But as a replacement for a mainline aircraft it is not a solution, except on some odd circumstances. These airplanes tend to be uncomfortable, with limited space for carry-on baggage. Passengers hate them. I am not an accountant or a business person. Part of my dislike for RJs is what they have done to the profession of aviation and that is not really the question here.

My point was that we don't need bigger and bigger RJs. The Embraer is not a 'regional' jet. It is a mid-size airplane intended to fill the slot below the Boeings and Airbusses.

RJs (or more accurately the misuse of RJs) have contributed to a lot of congestion problems we now face on the ground and in the air, especially on the East Coast of the US.

[Edited 2006-12-16 20:51:46]
smrtrthnu
 
emseeeye
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:50 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:20 am

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 1):
The CRJ900 has reached maximum length and is out performed be the newer competition

Where did you get this info from? From what I hear (of course I may be wrong...) Mesa actually has lower CASM on the 900's than expected. What facts are you using to base this on?
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:37 am

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 11):

I think airlines are aware of the inneficiency of flying a RJ (or any aircraft, really) twice an hour on the same route. But don't forget, they are out to make money, and if they decide to keep flying RJs the way they do, there is probably a good reason for it.

Surely it would be more profitable to fly three A380s NYC-LAX a day then several B757s/B767s a day. . . but it doesn't work that way.

Cheers

[Edited 2006-12-16 22:00:08]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:43 am

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 11):
Mine is that airports like LGA are badly congested, in part because airlines want hourly service rather than accepting service every two hours between city pairings.

LGA would be badly congested even without RJs. Take away RJs and airlines would just replace them with "mainline" aircraft (and actually increase pax terminal congestion). Airlines try to match service to demand (with an obvious eye on what the competitor is offering). Some markets require (passenger's demand) hourly, or almost hourly service through most of the business day. If one airline offers that service and another doesn't... guess which airline loses?

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 11):
But as a replacement for a mainline aircraft it is not a solution, except on some odd circumstances.

I agree if the mainline LF is there, but... if an airline doesn't reach LF breakeven on a 737 then they have no choice but to go with an RJ.

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 11):
These airplanes tend to be uncomfortable, with limited space for carry-on baggage.

The single seat row on the ERJs are not uncomfortable... certainly less so than a middle seat on a 737/757. I agree with the carry-on with both the ERJs and CRJs but the E-jets can handle carry-ons.

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 11):
My point was that we don't need bigger and bigger RJs. The Embraer is not a 'regional' jet. It is a mid-size airplane intended to fill the slot below the Boeings and Airbusses.

The line is now blurred... the CRJ700 and CRJ900 are direct competitors with the E-170 and E-175, which are all considered RJs... but the E-190 and E-195 are not considered RJs (anymore). There just isn't any clear cut definition anymore.

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 11):
RJs (or more accurately the misuse of RJs) have contributed to a lot of congestion problems we now face on the ground and in the air, especially on the East Coast of the US.

Competition has driven the proliferation of RJs (within the context of Scope Limits). In 2000, LCCs had approx 12% of the domestic market. Now it is over 30%. With a shrinking market share how does a legacy maintain service or frequencies between city-pairs as LCCs encroach and other legacies enter the same market? Just look at all the options between BOS and NYC airports. (BTW, the solution that I support to reduce congestion is industry consolidation.)
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:49 am

Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 12):
Where did you get this info from? From what I hear (of course I may be wrong...) Mesa actually has lower CASM on the 900's than expected. What facts are you using to base this on?

I don't think he was meaning out performed as in economically. I believe he was meaning in terms of a/c performance. The E-Jets have a longer range and have a higher crusing speed than the CRJ-900. The E-Jets have the advantage of being a clean sheet design (As Embraer had stretched the ERJ design as far as they could) while the CRJ-700 and 900 are stretched variants of the CRJ-100 with some technical tweaks here and there.
 
saab2000
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:18 am

Planemaker,

I do see your points, especially about competition. If one airline does something, so do the others, just to keep up.

I think consolidation will be a big factor.

Thanks for the discussion! Intellegent discussion is always welcome. I claim no divine knowledge - just the knowledge that I get from having worked in ops and flying CRJs for a living. But I don't know everything. (almost though.... Big grin )
smrtrthnu
 
AADC10
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:37 am

Aren't fuel prices hurting RJs? I can see the need since convenient schedule is the most important criteria for business travelers but price is a fairly close second. Back when most of the current RJs were ordered, fuel prices were much lower. The relatively high fuel burn per seat compared to larger mainline jets and the low ratio of pilots per seat keep the costs up. Obviously small mainline planes like the 737-500 and A319 are not much larger than a 100 seat RJ, but fuel costs have sent those planes out of favor as well.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:47 am

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 17):
Obviously small mainline planes like the 737-500 and A319 are not much larger than a 100 seat RJ, but fuel costs have sent those planes out of favor as well.

I believe you mean the 737-600 and A318.
 
SHUPirate1
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:09 am

Saab-One MAJOR problem with LaGuardia is that many of the slots at the airport are REQUIRED to be flown by airplanes with 50 seats or less.

Additionally, look up how many flights American (all Eagle) and Delta (all Connection), in addition to US Airways Express, have between Raleigh-Durham and LaGuardia (I'm guessing that's the route you were referring to from Thursday). It is absolutely ridiculous how many flights American, Continental, Delta, and US Airways have between Raleigh-Durham and Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark, expecially LaGuardia, and unfortunately, everybody is basically keeping up with the Joneses, if you catch my drift.
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1574
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:01 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 5):
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 1):I think that the industry is also slowly waking to the fact that these smaller planes have not solved anything.

Interesting. The quote says I said this, but I didn't.

Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 12):
What facts are you using to base this on?

Mesa may be getting better than expected CASM, but as I recall the Ejet has an overall lower CASM with greater uplift and range. I'm on the road right now so can't quote a source. Log on to the manufacture's sites and compare for yourself.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
 
saab2000
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:06 am

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 19):
between Raleigh-Durham and LaGuardia (I'm guessing that's the route you were referring to from Thursday). It is absolutely ridiculous how many flights American, Continental, Delta, and US Airways have between Raleigh-Durham and Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark, expecially LaGuardia, and unfortunately, everybody is basically keeping up with the Joneses, if you catch my drift.

You are right. It was RDU-LGA. We left with about 18 pax. The later flight also left with not very many. Comair left just ahead of us and we heard them on the freq the whole way.

I know it is about competition and keeping up, but the congestion at LGA and EWR would be better dealt with with some common sense restrictions. Flying empty airplanes is not good for anyone, except some manager's ego so he can say he/she keeps up with the other airlines.

Just my $.02
smrtrthnu
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5498
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:31 am

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 21):
You are right. It was RDU-LGA.

Perhaps I can try to explain RDU-NYC...

American Eagle flies a RDU/DCA/BOS/LGA shuttle..
US Airways flies a RDU-LGA shuttle also (and used to fly a RDU-DCA shuttle)
American Eagle and Delta Connection flies JFK to connect to International Banks...
Delta flies LGA for Business travelers
American Eagle flies EWR for Business travelers..

So it's about utilizing the demands of the high number of business travelers that fly to NYC and international out of RDU..

it's all quite simple.
Aiming High and going far..
 
saab2000
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:57 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 22):
it's all quite simple.

On paper it is very simple. On the tarmac when you have a departure time to LGA in 90 minutes because of airway congestion it is less simple. Or when you are nr. 37 for departure behind a bunch of other RJs which are also not full it is less simple.

Oh, and because of the frequency the market demands (yet ATC cannot deliver) sometimes two flights to the same destination operated by the same company will be sitting on the pad somewhere waiting for the EDC time. This exact scenario just happened to me the other day in GSP.

Competition and market demands are nice on paper. Give the customer what they want. I couldn't agree more. I speak simply as a realist who operates these things and deals with the frustrations created by having too many planes going to too small a place in too short a period of time.

Anyway, we digress here.

RJs have their place, to be sure. But are not the solution to everything or every whim people have.
smrtrthnu
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:16 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 10):
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries details plans for new MJ regional jet family, as supplier discussions commence

Look, a 7E7ized E-jet  Big grin
 
Tangowhisky
Topic Author
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:42 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 24):
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 10):
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries details plans for new MJ regional jet family, as supplier discussions commence

Look, a 7E7ized E-jet

The MJ seems to be more or less like an E-Jet dimensions and configuration. It's chance of a launch depends more on launch orders from Japanese carriers - in the same way the SuperJet was launched with home grown Russian carriers. Same goes for the Chinese with their ambitions to get into building commercial airliners by selling to their domestic market first. Embraer has been successful in launching a new program such as the the E-Jets without depending on Brazilian carriers.

Mitsubishi has been studying the RJ market for over 5 years now. They initially wanted to make 50 seat RJs, then they quickly realized that market imploded. Now they are looking at the larger RJs. I wonder if they would partner up with Boeing. Since Boeing pretty much has the Japanese market, and would like to keep the Japanese market, perhaps there might be some partnering discussions where the Japanese would get Boeing technologies and potentially other forms of cooperation in exchange that Boeing gets further guarantees in Japan. MHI in turn can finally get into the commercial airliner market.
Only the paranoid survive
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5498
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:51 am

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 23):
RJs have their place, to be sure. But are not the solution to everything or every whim people have.

Oh I agree.. I wish that instead of 11 daily to LGA.. AA would offer 6x on a larger aircraft.. unfortunately, they do not have the right size aircraft for that.. (ie: Fokker 100, Embraer 175/190, CR9).. and Delta doesn't have the room to do that at RDU due to gate constraints.. and US doesn't have the ???.. well, I don't understand why US doesn't do it..
Aiming High and going far..
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2167
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:56 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 10):
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries details plans for new MJ regional jet family, as supplier discussions commence

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles....html

Maybe this is the first stirrings of the next third-player in the airliner market - what's next a MJ1000 150 seater, MJ2000 250 seater and a MJ5000 VLA
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:25 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 25):
The MJ seems to be more or less like an E-Jet dimensions and configuration.

But with a 20% more fuel efficient goal.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 25):
They initially wanted to make 50 seat RJs

Actually, initally they wanted to make a 30-pax RJ.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 25):
Since Boeing pretty much has the Japanese market, and would like to keep the Japanese market

Not in the sub-100 seat market which MHI is looking at. That is all BBD.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 25):
perhaps there might be some partnering discussions where the Japanese would get Boeing technologies and potentially other forms of cooperation in exchange that Boeing gets further guarantees in Japan.

MHI has all the technology they need for the MJ... EIS wouldn't be until 2012, at the earliest. Furthermore, Boeing won't be getting into the 70-seat market.

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 27):
Maybe this is the first stirrings of the next third-player in the airliner market

MHI will probably replace BBD as the 4th commercial airframe manufacturer, but the "MJ1000" doesn't fit the competitive time frame... by the time of the first MJ EIS in 2012, A & B will have already launched their NB replacements.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12051
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:40 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 10):
There is a small chance that there may be another player entering the "RJ" field. As previously reported, FI confirmed that BBD's "former" partner is looking to launch a 70-seat and 90-seat "RJ" by 2008...

Interesting... very interesting.

I love the E-jets, but their main weakness is the engine. While the CF-34-8/10 is a reliable design, its basic concept is a little behind state of the art. I see that RR is offering a 2 stage high turbine design. This would be tough to beat as that 2nd high turbine stage improves fuel economy dramatically. Although, I'm a little suprised at only 7 compressor stages in the HPC (I would expect 8 to maximize the overall pressure ratio with two HPT stages).

Quote:
Like the shorter MJ-70, the first of the new series has a 1,950 nm design range and both have a Mach 0.78 cruise speed. Mitsubishi claims that the light weight and high lift-drag ratio wing fitted with winglets promises the best performance in its class. The company does not reveal the selected manufacturer but asserts that a brand-new engine will realize extremely low fuel and maintenance costs along with lower cabin and airport noise.

from: http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/farn/farn_06/japanese_35_D3.htm

Ok, the article notes good weights... but I'm not impressed with the range. The MJ needs to offer a bit more to compete with as estabilished of a product as the E-jets. Weight helps... but opening up new markets helps more (range, payload, economic improvements (incl. weight), or takeoff performance). I'm having trouble seeing what new markets the MJ opens vs. the E-jets? Anyone?

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 14):
Some markets require (passenger's demand) hourly, or almost hourly service through most of the business day. If one airline offers that service and another doesn't... guess which airline loses?

 checkmark  Yes, LGA and other airports are slot controlled, but not many others. Offering a good CASM aircraft that allows full participation at a rolling hub is a very valuable asset. Last I heard, 10 flights/day are still required to fully participate in a rolling hub (otherwise, there are gaps too long of a connect time to be competitive).

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 14):

The line is now blurred... the CRJ700 and CRJ900 are direct competitors with the E-170 and E-175, which are all considered RJs... but the E-190 and E-195 are not considered RJs (anymore). There just isn't any clear cut definition anymore.

Yep. The E-jets through a spanner into the works. Good for Embraer.  Smile

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 20):
as I recall the Ejet has an overall lower CASM with greater uplift and range.

Really? I've read the opposite, but I haven't seen a recent link. Does anyone have CASM's for the CR7/CR9 and E-jets? Note: I'm not talking ex-fuel CASM but the full CASM. Thanks in advance. It would be very interesting to compare the E-175 to the CR9 and then to the E190. While the CR7 and E170 are good aircraft, I believe future growth/sales will be slightly larger.  twocents 

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:39 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 29):
I love the E-jets, but their main weakness is the engine. While the CF-34-8/10 is a reliable design, its basic concept is a little behind state of the art.

I don't know if you caught this in the FI article:

GE confirms it is in "active discussions" with MHI over the MJ, but adds that "we haven't signed any legal agreement". The engine is "in the size class of the CF34-10", says GE, which adds that the MHI proposal is a completely "re-cored" variant with three-dimensional aerodynamically designed parts and material improvements in the hot section.

The question is, how much of improvement would the changes yield?

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 29):
I'm having trouble seeing what new markets the MJ opens vs. the E-jets? Anyone?

I don't think that it is a a matter of a "winner takes all" contest. There is a large enough market over 20 years for the 2 manufacturers if you look at EMB's market forecast - over 4,000 units.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 29):
Really? I've read the opposite, but I haven't seen a recent link. Does anyone have CASM's for the CR7/CR9 and E-jets? Note: I'm not talking ex-fuel CASM but the full CASM. Thanks in advance. It would be very interesting to compare the E-175 to the CR9 and then to the E190. While the CR7 and E170 are good aircraft, I believe future growth/sales will be slightly larger.

BBD does claim 10% better trip costs (monthly cash operating costs) for only the CRJ700 (it is a lighter aircraft) but... EMB says that 700 is actually only 4% better. However, even if you split the difference, the E170's CASM is still better than BBD's since the E170 seats 8 more pax (at the same 31" pitch). The CRJ900 and the E175 weigh virtually the same but EMB claims that the CRJ900 CASM is 5% higher. RE: the E190, EMB says that the E190 has only 2% lower CASM than the E175. However, it is still too early to really have any actual E175 numbers for comparison.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
Tangowhisky
Topic Author
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:27 am

MHI has a long road before it can be a serious competitor. Aside from convincing airlines that it will have better economics and performance than the current CRJs and E-Jets, it has to demonstrate that it cam provide the kind of customer support airlines expect. The later is more difficult to sell to the airlines, never mind getting it to reality. Boeing enjoys selling its jets over Airbus in Japan for reasons that go beyond which is the better product. It is actually to do with the huge trade deficit US has over Japan, and that is one reason Japan is "forced" to buy Boeing (I am not saying Boeing products are inferior - just laying out the big picture on US-Japan trade issues). In spite of this, Japan however has been successful to get work from Boeing in large packages over the years - therefore can be successful getting technical know-how from Boeing.

In the same way Airbus offered technical help for the Superjet, MHI still need to know how to be a systems integrator, how to design for fly-by-wire, and even how to offer world class product support. MHI has a long way to go before it makes its debut and will have to start in its own market. Meanwhile, if Bombardier can not figure out a way to launch the C series, they may want to go back to their roots and look at an all new 70-100 seat design (that may compete against MHI and others). By then, MHI's design may not be all that unique.
Only the paranoid survive
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:14 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 31):
Aside from convincing airlines that it will have better economics and performance than the current CRJs and E-Jets

And why wouldn't it?

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 31):
it has to demonstrate that it cam provide the kind of customer support airlines expect.

If they are good enough for Boeing, Bombardier and Embraer, why won't they be good enough for their customers.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 31):
Boeing enjoys selling its jets over Airbus in Japan for reasons that go beyond which is the better product.

What does that have to do with the MJ?

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 31):
therefore can be successful getting technical know-how from Boeing.

They already have the technical know-how, especially to build a sub-100 pax jet.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 31):
In the same way Airbus offered technical help for the Superjet

Airbus? What way?

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 31):
MHI still need to know how to be a systems integrator

They already know how.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 31):
how to design for fly-by-wire

MHI has more FBW experience than EMB did when they started E-jet development.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 31):
MHI has a long way to go before it makes its debut and will have to start in its own market.

Any possible EIS isn't until 2012... 6 years from now! And obviously they will start in Japan... why wouldn't they?

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 31):
Meanwhile, if Bombardier can not figure out a way to launch the C series, they may want to go back to their roots and look at an all new 70-100 seat design (that may compete against MHI and others).

BBD can't afford an all-new 70- to 100-seat program.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
SHUPirate1
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:35 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 22):
Perhaps I can try to explain RDU-NYC...

American Eagle flies a RDU/DCA/BOS/LGA shuttle..
US Airways flies a RDU-LGA shuttle also (and used to fly a RDU-DCA shuttle)
American Eagle and Delta Connection flies JFK to connect to International Banks...
Delta flies LGA for Business travelers
American Eagle flies EWR for Business travelers..

So it's about utilizing the demands of the high number of business travelers that fly to NYC and international out of RDU..

it's all quite simple.

Let's get this started:
EWR (13):
American Eagle: 1x ERD, 4x ER3
Continental: 1x 738, 1x 735, 6x ERJ (ExpressJet)

LGA (22):
American Eagle: 2x ERD, 9x ER3
Delta Connection: 1x CR7 (Comair), 3x CRJ (Comair)
US Airways Express: 4x ERJ (Chautauqua), 3x CRJ (Air Wisconsin)

JFK (8):
American Eagle: 5x ER3
Delta Connection: 3x CRJ (Comair)

At 43 flights per day on the route, exactly three of which are flown with planes with 51 seats or more, and 21 of which are flown on jets with 49 seats or fewer, aren't we getting a little ridiculous? I mean, Raleigh-New York is not exactly Barcelona-Madrid. Granted, RDU-New York is extreme, but it underscores the issues with New York City airspace. (other than BOS, CLT, and DCA, I believe that RDU is the only airport that all three of the largest slotholders at LaGuardia fly to on their own or capacity-purchased metal)
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5498
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:21 am

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 33):
Let's get this started:
EWR (13):
American Eagle: 1x ERD, 4x ER3
Continental: 1x 738, 1x 735, 6x ERJ (ExpressJet)

LGA (22):
American Eagle: 2x ERD, 9x ER3
Delta Connection: 1x CR7 (Comair), 3x CRJ (Comair)
US Airways Express: 4x ERJ (Chautauqua), 3x CRJ (Air Wisconsin)

JFK (8):
American Eagle: 5x ER3
Delta Connection: 3x CRJ (Comair)

Well, dont' forget jetBlue has 4x JFK... which would make it 47 flights.

But you have to remember....

1. LGA is a US, DL, and AA focus city..
2. EWR is a CO hub and was once a AA important city..
3. JFK is a DL, B6 hub and AA focus city..
4. LGA is an American Eagle and US Express shuttle..
5. RDU is an AA focus city, a DL important city, US semi-important city, and a destination for CO and B6.. the destinations have to offer options against the others.. and the others are used to connect traffic as well as O&D..

I don't really see the problem.. The basis is.. if any airline decides to up seats and lower frequency, they will get over run by the other airlines and lose market share.. and you have to realize that the majority of people flying RDU-NYC are business travelers and international connectors who pay the premium fares.. that's some hard money to give up when the difference between making a profit and a loss on a flight can be $10 total! And if that is unbelievable, compare weekday flights to weekend flights and you will see the drop in frequency.. probably by at least 40%!
Aiming High and going far..
 
SHUPirate1
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:34 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 34):
Well, dont' forget jetBlue has 4x JFK... which would make it 47 flights.

How could I forget about jetBlue?

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 34):
I don't really see the problem..

The problem is when a passenger on, for instance, AA4735 (the 5:55 PM departure from RDU, arriving at LGA at 7:35 PM), sees the plane pull back from the gate on time, and then is given a 9:00 PM Estimated Departure Clearance Time due to air traffic control constraints (usually combined with weather). The problem is simply that the frequencies into LaGuardia are, quite simply, unrealistic. Furthermore, I can't help but be worried when the slot restrictions at LaGuardia go away two weeks from today.
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12051
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:27 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 28):
But with a 20% more fuel efficient goal.

I took too long writting my reply... that's quite an improvement. Since that's greater than the 15% minimum improvement required to open up a market against an intrenched competitor... They will have a good opportunity.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 30):
The question is, how much of improvement would the changes yield?

I did note that GE was willing to re-optimize the core. The question is, how much of an optimization? Contra-rotation brings 3%, but that requires such a dramatic change in the bearings I wouldn't consider it the same core. GE might... I would consider it a new engine.

The CF-34 also needs further flow path optimization. A 2nd HPT stage reduced fuel burn 4% if all of the HPC stages are added. Maybe only 2.5% with what RR is doing... (reducing HPC stages to save weight which implies optimization for the 1 hour hop).

A pure flow path optimzation should be able to reduce fuel burn a dramatic 4% to 5%. I shouldn't be bagging on the CF34 as it is such a reliable engine... but its flow path is not well optimized for current blade designs.

So GE/RR can drop fuel burn 10%+ versus the current CF34's.  wideeyed  A GTF could probably do 4% better.  Wink This is too small of a thrust level for a triple spool.  Sad

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 30):
I don't think that it is a a matter of a "winner takes all" contest. There is a large enough market over 20 years for the 2 manufacturers if you look at EMB's market forecast - over 4,000 units.

True, but I had missed the 20% drop in fuel burn. That cost savings is enough to slam open the market's door. I was envisioning much less... which would be a tough sell.

Personally, I think the estimates for potential sales in the 100 seat market are far too low. Why? The last great 100 seater was the DC-9 and that is a 40 year old design! If the Fokkers had been more reliable, we would have seen another sales history. I see no reason why the E-jets (and potentially the MJ) couldn't shake up the industry the same way the 737NG/A320 have.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 30):
BBD does claim 10% better trip costs (monthly cash operating costs) for only the CRJ700 (it is a lighter aircraft) but... EMB says that 700 is actually only 4% better. However, even if you split the difference, the E170's CASM is still better than BBD's since the E170 seats 8 more pax (at the same 31" pitch). The CRJ900 and the E175 weigh virtually the same but EMB claims that the CRJ900 CASM is 5% higher. RE: the E190, EMB says that the E190 has only 2% lower CASM than the E175. However, it is still too early to really have any actual E175 numbers for comparison.

Thank you for the details.  bigthumbsup 
I didn't realize the E170's CASM beat the C700's CASM...  scratchchin  interesting...
It doesn't suprise me the E175 has a great CASM. It has done the classic compromise of giving up range for CASM. At high MTOW's (> 82,000lbm, e.g., the LR), its going to suffer (due to the small wing being highly loaded). But the standard E175 should be a category killer for runs up 1100nm (maybe 1200nm with winds).  Smile

If you look at the E175's payload versus range you'll see the LR's chart has noticably a steeper slope than the std. Thus implies an overloaded wing. The E170/E190/E195 make sense to me to be purchased LR or AR (190/195). But that change in slope tells me that 82,000lbm is really as far as you want to push the E175's wing. No safety concern... purely an economics concern. Yes... a nitpick. Since that covers Florida to most of what's east of the Mississippi... good enough.  Smile

http://www.embraercommercialjets.com.../emb_175.asp?tela=payload_vs_range

I'm a huge fan of the E-jets. But I have to live in the world where the product either delivers or it doesn't sell.

Since the MJ would also work at that same range and would bring improved fuel burn... Facts have officially change my mind.  hyper 

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
CRJ900
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:00 am

LH Cityline claim that the fuel consumption on their 84-seat CRJ900 can be as low as 0,035 litres per seat per km under ideal conditions (with 90 seats the number is probably even lower).

Which is pretty close to SAS' 179-seat B738 with 0,034 litres per seat per km and their 184-seat A321 which use 0,031 litres per seat per km. SAS' 150-seat MD80s burn 0,043 litres per seat per km in comparison.

Sources: www.lufthansa.com, www.bombardier.com, www.sasflightops.com

Does that mean that the CRJ900 is just about as economical to fly as the B738 and A321? Obviously there's 80 seats less to sell, but if the demand for a flight is only 80 pax, then flying 80 empty seats is gonna cost a bit too though? Not all destinations can warrant the use of a 150-200-seat aircraft...
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
saab2000
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:06 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 34):
and you have to realize that the majority of people flying RDU-NYC are business travelers and international connectors who pay the premium fares..


People who go to LGA are not connecting to international destinations, with the possible exception of Canada. Obviously JFK and EWR have a lot of international flights, but not LGA.

LGA needs to do something to ease congestion, which is an abomination. Starting a ground metering frequency (like they have at ORD) would help.
smrtrthnu
 
SHUPirate1
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:12 am

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 38):
LGA needs to do something to ease congestion, which is an abomination. Starting a ground metering frequency (like they have at ORD) would help.

They think they've found their solution...getting rid of slots in two weeks! (laughter all around)
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
bond007
Posts: 4425
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 35):
The problem is when a passenger on, for instance, AA4735 (the 5:55 PM departure from RDU, arriving at LGA at 7:35 PM), sees the plane pull back from the gate on time, and then is given a 9:00 PM Estimated Departure Clearance Time due to air traffic control constraints (usually combined with weather). The problem is simply that the frequencies into LaGuardia are, quite simply, unrealistic.

Correct!

I am a weekly business traveller and hourly service between cities that are only 1 or 2 hours flying time apart looks good on paper only. As I've stated on another thread concerning frequency of flights, high frequency flight might make sense if you could arrive at the airport 10 mins before departure - but since you cannot, most business travellers arrive 1-2 hours before the flight departs, making the argument of high frequency less relevant.

When I sit at the US gates at DCA every week, all I see is business travellers waiting around, trying to get on earlier flights, and often trying to get on later flights because of delays to their original flight. The fact that there is a flight to DCA-BOS at 6:45pm, 7:45pm and 8:45pm has little meaning to most of us guys, the inbound for the 6:45pm is 30 mins late, the outbound 8:45pm is 45 mins late, there is a 100 person line at special services .... give me a 767 at 7:30pm that you guarantee better on-time service with (and perhaps lower price of course), and I'll take it anyday.


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
warreng24
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:38 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:48 am

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 2):
Yesterday I operated a flight to LGA at 6:10 AM on a 50-seater. There was another flight on the same airline between the same cities at 7:00 AM. LGA is already too congested. Doesn't it make more sense to operate fewer larger airplanes a bit more spread out than hourly service on tiny airplanes with less capacity and higher CASM between already overcrowded city pairings?

It has been shown time and time again that the US consumer wants frequency/convenience. RJ's provide frequency.

This is the same reason mass transit has failed in this country. Consumers want to go when they want to go, hence the the obscene number of cars on the road and the empty carpool lanes.

I'm sure you could eliminate much of the congestion at many airports by consolidating 2 or 3 RJ flights into a 737. And, consolidating 2 or 3 737 flights into a 757 or 767. But, then if you do that, another airline comes in and advertises... "why wait for the 3x daily flights when we have 10x!"
 
bond007
Posts: 4425
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:57 am

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 41):
"why wait for the 3x daily flights when we have 10x!"

Answer - Because I'd rather leave 3 x daily on-time and cheaper, than be delayed by 5 of the 10 flights anyway - the end result is the same or actually better.

Most of the time it's purely psychological....now, that may work in marketing, but reality is very different.

It's NOT mass-transit. Mass-transit is turning up 2 minutes before the bus arrives for your 30 minute trip. If I could turn up 2 minutes before my flight, and the flight lasted 30 minutes, perhaps I would want hourly flights, as long as they ran on-time.


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
saab2000
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:03 am

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 42):
....now, that may work in marketing, but reality is very different.

BINGO!!!! The marketing is designed by people who don't do this for a living. (Well, I guess they live from what they do 'cuz I assume they are paid a lot better than I am.....)

But I do do this for a living and would prefer if LGA would operate smoothly and on time. This will ONLY be acheived when the FAA, the airport authority and the airlines are willing to make some changes, one of which is reducing the total number of airplanes which serve LGA in a given period of time. Guess what? That might mean less frequency and more realistic marketing and scheduling.
smrtrthnu
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5498
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:12 am

Just for my own knowledge, which routes have the most frequencies per airline? I can't imagine that RDU can be that high when comparing each airline.. there must be others with much more frequency..
Aiming High and going far..
 
bond007
Posts: 4425
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:37 am

Very few of the high-frequency routes are regionals:

frequencies very approx!

QXE PDX-SEA 25/day DHC8
AAH OGG-HNL 20/day B732
HAL OGG-HNL 20/day B712
SKW SAN-LAX 20/day E120
HAL/AAH LIH-HNL & KOA-HNL
SWA LAX-OAK 15/day B733
EGF SAN-LAX 14/day SF34

...then

USA BOS-LGA, DCA-LGA, BOS-DCA 13/day A319
DAL BOS-LGA 13/day MD88
SWA DAL-HOU 13/day B733

etc.


Jimbo

[Edited 2006-12-19 02:40:16]
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
ATWZW170
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:18 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:47 am

I have to agree with SAAB2000. Too many RJ's = too much congestion. These planes typically need to fly at higher altitudes in order to be fuel efficient (correct me if I'm wrong) - which means they have to fly higher. The turboprops can fly at lower altitudes clearing up some of the airspace. So, I have to agree with SAAB2000.

Now, lets look at the MJ - why can't they actually get into the race. Take an airline like ExpressJet, Air Wisconsin, or even Horizon. Why can't one of them be the launch carrier. Allows access to the 70-90 seat market while at the same time either retiring their 50 seaters or supplement their fleets.

I think there is a need for one more option - a few airlines have the market tied up!
Success is getting what you want...happiness is liking what you get
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:14 pm

Quoting ATWZW170 (Reply 46):
I have to agree with SAAB2000. Too many RJ's = too much congestion.

Yes, but only at a handful of airports nationwide.

At at the congested airports, eliminating hourly flights between two cities will not alleviate congestion... those slots will still be used with RJs to other destinations.

The main way to avoid congestion is to limit slots (not RJs)...

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 43):
one of which is reducing the total number of airplanes which serve LGA in a given period of time.



Quoting ATWZW170 (Reply 46):
Now, lets look at the MJ - why can't they actually get into the race.

We'll see next year.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
bond007
Posts: 4425
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:55 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 47):
The main way to avoid congestion is to limit slots (not RJs)...

Yes, I agree, which in turn may force less frequency of flights between cities.
If LGA has x slots/hour, then it doesn't matter whether they are all to DCA or 50 different airports - and it doesn't matter whether it's an RJ or a B777.

Reducing slots will (or may) though force those frequent flights to use larger aircraft - since presumably the same number of people need to get from A to B.

Those airports with congestion are generally those with frequent flights between cities, so reducing slots, even though reducing frequency, should not impact the number of destinations served - and IMO those same destinations will be served more efficiently.

Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: What's The Future For 90+ Seat RJs

Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:37 pm

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 48):
Reducing slots will (or may) though force those frequent flights to use larger aircraft - since presumably the same number of people need to get from A to B.

Those airports with congestion are generally those with frequent flights between cities, so reducing slots, even though reducing frequency, should not impact the number of destinations served - and IMO those same destinations will be served more efficiently.

It is a complex equation that only airline staff with confidential Yield and LF data would know the answer to. For example, even with reduced slots, airlines could very well drop lower yielding city-pairs in order to maintain frequency on higher yielding city-pairs.

It is sort of amazing that 1800s and Saab 340s are flying into LGA given the congestion.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein

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