Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
BenflysDTW
Topic Author
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:39 am

Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:25 pm

I have always questioned this over the last couple of years, and I will share some of my thoughts below.

So, why is there not a replacement? At least in the US where the majority of them still fly? I know that they will still fly until 2025 or so.

My thoughts are that the airline economics are changing. But when has it ever stopped changing right?
I just think that many of the EAS markets cannot suistain a 69+ seater.
It now seems that the airlines are focusing much more on the 100+ seat ranges over longer distances.
 
User avatar
Vio
Posts: 1583
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:23 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:54 pm

I believe the ATR 42 - 600 is around 50 seats. It's brand new... The "Next Gen" ATR
Superior decisions reduce the need for superior skills.
 
BenflysDTW
Topic Author
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:39 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:16 am

Ohhh yes. I’ve heard of it! But there still aren’t but any orders of it from the US3.
 
4engines4lnghll
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:25 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:25 am

BenflysDTW wrote:
Ohhh yes. I’ve heard of it! But there still aren’t but any orders of it from the US3.


Besides Hawaiin and Alaska, the prop days are over in the US for the larger carriers...
4engines4lnghll
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5578
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:26 am

Simple economics—50 seaters can’t generate enough revenue to cover operating expenses. That, and scope clauses in ALPA contracts incentivize larger 66-76 seaters.

No 50-seater is in production and a replacement is unlikely, unless there is a technical breakthrough lowering their cost.


GF
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1480
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:30 am

Theres the ERJ, but yet to be seen if it will be updated or replaced. I definitely think there is a marker for that seating capacity.
 
VetteDude
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:13 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:31 am

I do not like the a.net obsession with CASM. But in this case, I will say: 76 seaters offer so much better CASM because they offer so many more seats for marginal extra fuel burn. So for the vast majority of regional routes, a 76 seater is the way to go. For 50 seaters to make a big comeback, someone would have to design a 50 seater that drastically cuts fuel burn. And this design also can't be easily stretched into a 76 seater which would offer way better CASM for marginal extra fuel burn. See the loop here? It would be tough to design a specialized 50 seater. I'm sure it could be done, but I would guess it is uneconomical. Probably not much profit to be made in that market. Bombardier was lucky they had such a good base to stretch their business jet into a smashing success 50 seater, and then was also able to stretch into a very competitive CRJ 900 when the market started moving in that direction.
 
steveinbc
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 4:30 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:38 am

The whole 50 seater is entirely divorced from the economics of the route. One flight attendant can look after 50 passengers provided the aircraft is under a certain weight limit. Now this is clearly not quite as important a driver and that's why the replacement need isn't limited to a 50 seater
A319 320 321 330 340 380 B707 727 737 747 757 767 777 787 BAe1-11 Trident 1, 2, 3B Viscount Lancaster VC10 HS748, ATP DHC-1, 3 Dash-8 Dash-400 Shorts 330 360 Embraer Banderiante Brasileria 175 190 BAe146 Saab 200 DC-3 -8 -9 -10 MD-11 ATR42-72
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2587
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:55 am

Also there's a pilot shortage. A 50 seat plane has just as many pilots as a 737 or A320.

The 76 seat planes while not maxing out the numbers of passengers that can be served by 2 flight attendants, do have a domestic first class that can better use the ratio of flight attendants to passengers.
 
Moosefire
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:47 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:41 am

This really is a valid question (at least with respect to the US market. Assuming the current market dynamics continue, the legacy US pilot groups are doubtful to give an inch on scope. Considering the amount of aircraft that are allowed up to (but not above) the 50 seat limit, I’m surprised the legacies will be willling to lose that capacity once’s those fleets age-out.
MD-11F/C-17A Pilot
 
Curiousflyer
Posts: 583
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:19 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:59 am

Given the lack of pilots and the congestion in US airports and in the air, they can only make sense on niche routes. To make the economics work, I think a few airlines will get new ATRs. Basically it would be to serve destinations with limited competition and the ability to charge good fares. Maybe they make sense for smaller ski or beach resorts such as Telluride or to connect secondary airports to hubs e.g. Long Island to PHL or BOS.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5578
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:06 am

Moosefire wrote:
This really is a valid question (at least with respect to the US market. Assuming the current market dynamics continue, the legacy US pilot groups are doubtful to give an inch on scope. Considering the amount of aircraft that are allowed up to (but not above) the 50 seat limit, I’m surprised the legacies will be willling to lose that capacity once’s those fleets age-out.


Most contracts allowed upgrading to 66-76 seaters by reducing the number of 50-seaters. The industry will upgauge busy markets with small mainline (DL is doing it with A220 and B717), send the remaking 76-seaters on the best revenue producing smaller markets and gradually get out of markets that cont sustain large RJ service.

GF
 
Samrnpage
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:16 am

return on investment research is coming back not worth it. It costs a lot to build a new plane these days but 50 seater will be a low price meaning you need to sell more units than the market has.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2451
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:56 am

Also, you have the majors putting F on "70-100 seaters". That takes space. Thank goodness for someone like me who mostly tries to fly domestic F.
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13022
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:49 am

Aside from the US are even 76 seater jets selling ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:09 pm

Why would you? A 99 seater has very similar operating costs.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4150
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:22 pm

seahawk wrote:
Why would you? A 99 seater has very similar operating costs.

That depends on aircraft design?

VetteDude wrote:
I do not like the a.net obsession with CASM. But in this case, I will say: 76 seaters offer so much better CASM because they offer so many more seats for marginal extra fuel burn. So for the vast majority of regional routes, a 76 seater is the way to go. For 50 seaters to make a big comeback, someone would have to design a 50 seater that drastically cuts fuel burn. And this design also can't be easily stretched into a 76 seater which would offer way better CASM for marginal extra fuel burn. See the loop here? It would be tough to design a specialized 50 seater. I'm sure it could be done, but I would guess it is uneconomical. Probably not much profit to be made in that market. Bombardier was lucky they had such a good base to stretch their business jet into a smashing success 50 seater, and then was also able to stretch into a very competitive CRJ 900 when the market started moving in that direction.

.... Or you can design a 30-seater and stretch it to 50. Given the market space for 20-30 seat aircraft is also not filled
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 7744
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:47 pm

BenflysDTW wrote:

So, why is there not a replacement? At least in the US where the majority of them still fly? I know that they will still fly until 2025 or so.


Money!

Increasing regional carrier pilot wages (or 'pilot shortage') means carriers want to fly more passengers per pilot hour.

Better CASM of 70/76 seat jets

CASM versus fares (for carriers) versus just driving to a bigger airport for non-stops or more frequencies (for passengers).

Prospects for ROIC (return on invested capital) for plane manufacturers.

EAS routes will just get bigger subsidies (Congress spending other people's money) up to statutory subsidy caps. There will certainly be routes (and small cities entirely) that lose service. As noted above, Americans will put up with props on inter-island Hawaii and intra-Alaska because they may have no choice.

Oil dropped to under $11/barrel in 1998/99, the heyday of small RJs. How much and how long do you want to subsidize an economically unsustainable service?
 
drgmobile
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:06 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:50 pm

BenflysDTW wrote:
I have always questioned this over the last couple of years, and I will share some of my thoughts below.

So, why is there not a replacement? At least in the US where the majority of them still fly? I know that they will still fly until 2025 or so.

My thoughts are that the airline economics are changing. But when has it ever stopped changing right?
I just think that many of the EAS markets cannot suistain a 69+ seater.
It now seems that the airlines are focusing much more on the 100+ seat ranges over longer distances.


In the U.S., perhaps, but globally there is quite a demand for aircraft in this size as there is no new generation replacement for the many markets that have trouble sustaining 75-seaters. The technology has plateaued relative to the financial realities of the market today but we're in early stages of development by some well backed players for the next technological leap -- hybrid electric, single or no pilot, etc... Neither the battery technology nor the regulatory environment are ready for this yet but think 10, 20, 30 years and there's a path.
 
n797mx
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:40 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:02 pm



Here's your reason why there isn't a 50 seater replacement.
Clear skies and strong tail winds.
 
xdlx
Posts: 962
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:37 pm

A picture says a THOUSAND words..... The post 9/11 strategy to rely on these to replace B727 worked for a while. 8-10years! The regional airlines had a boom because of SCOPE and then! The bills started coming in, and the crews began to reach longevity. All of a sudden the bean counters realized not enough revenue came in with 50seats to support the cost. The operators upgraded to 70seaters to try to lower their CASM, however some of these where running 700-900nm sectors. Public started complaining about 2.5h on a CR or ER jet and the entire replacement cycle started again. The results....... a picture says a THOUSAND words!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19704
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:46 pm

For a new 50 seater, you need new engines and a new airframe. At a minimum, a new wing.

The issue is the technology for the new engines is:
1. Heavy
2. Expensive

More people required to come out ahead.

I agree with above comments on pilots. With the pilot shortage, the same pilot pool could fly 50 passengers per flight or 150. We've had poor pilot wages for decades that is ending. This is changing the optimization. To be blunt, as small communities lose service, I see a political solution happening.

xdlx wrote:
A picture says a THOUSAND words..... The post 9/11 strategy to rely on these to replace B727 worked for a while. 8-10years! The regional airlines had a boom because of SCOPE and then! The bills started coming in, and the crews began to reach longevity. All of a sudden the bean counters realized not enough revenue came in with 50seats to support the cost. The operators upgraded to 70seaters to try to lower their CASM, however some of these where running 700-900nm sectors. Public started complaining about 2.5h on a CR or ER jet and the entire replacement cycle started again. The results....... a picture says a THOUSAND words!

I would add the rise of G4 and NK upended many of the markets those 50 seats relied on having monopoly RASM. Americans started driving further as the opportunity cost was less than extreme RJ fares.

70 and 76 seaters are the market going forward.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
opticalilyushin
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:35 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:58 pm

The sub-50 seat market is hard to crack in the US due to union agreements, distances involved between airports, and even down to things like most airports having nice long runways. There is a much bigger demand for new aircraft in this size catagory in places like Scotland and Norway, where airlines are looking to replace their ageing Saabs and smaller Dash 8s with something that is suited to high cycle, multi sector hops out of short runways in extreme winter weather conditions. Perhaps places like Northern Canada, Africa, Australia and the Pacific Islands are the same?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4090
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:09 pm

No 50 seaters in part because our economy is such that 50 seaters don't produce enough cash to cover costs. Unionized pilots, heavy urbanisation, no jobs in flyover country. Many of us live in and have families who benefit from our hyper economy, but for sure the hyper economy has a lot of losers. Some see all this as no problem. I do not include myself in that group.

This is kind of a question, there is not room enough in major airports for tons of 50 seaters to feed passengers transferring on to major destinations. But bringing flyover country passengers to regional airports would be a desired solution. And there is plenty of room. First generation electric planes??
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
stinson108
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:30 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:28 pm

Could bombardier re jig the Dash 8-100
New engines
Silencing package
Glass cockpit
Call it the Q-100 NEO
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1622
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:45 pm

I understand the aviation and economic aspect of regional traffic/regional airports but it makes you wonder how much we are polluting the environment by having those people who would've walked/taken the train/carpooled to their regional airport are now driving 1-3 hours on freeways to get to the nearest mid-size/large international airport.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
RIP US Airways
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5578
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:03 pm

Only a marginally different number, as the travel would be occurring anyway. Trains might be the least polluting, but have environmental and cost problems of their own, let alone being very inflexible.

GF
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 7744
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:16 pm

opticalilyushin wrote:
There is a much bigger demand for new aircraft in this size catagory in places like Scotland and Norway, where airlines are looking to replace their ageing Saabs and smaller Dash 8s with something that is suited to high cycle, multi sector hops out of short runways in extreme winter weather conditions. Perhaps places like Northern Canada, Africa, Australia and the Pacific Islands are the same?


Sorry, but the purchase volumes in Norway, Scotland, Australia, Northern Canada... do not just justify $10 Billion in frame and engine development.
 
BenflysDTW
Topic Author
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:39 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:22 pm

So, basically local governments don’t have enough authority to motivate the US3 to stay, despite incentives.
I just really doubt that there isn’t demand for a smaller plane on key markets.
About the picture above, the same could be said in a field of AA MD-80’s except that they are actually being replaced...
 
User avatar
Amwest2United
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:36 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:28 pm

Vio wrote:
I believe the ATR 42 - 600 is around 50 seats. It's brand new... The "Next Gen" ATR


Another big issue with the ATR-42-600 is Wing Span and Jetway compatibility. With space a big limiter in the US3 hubs, the wide wingspan causes big issues, the CRJ-200 has a 70' wingspan, the ERJ-145 has a 66' wingspan, the ATR42-600 has an 81' wingspan. In addition, in the all jetway hubs, the carriers would not be able to accommodate the ATR due to the aft main cabin door. I think the aircraft would work well and is needed, but just not the fit the US3 need. My 2 cents!
Life is what happens to you while you making plans to live it!
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4090
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:28 pm

I'm a big RR fan, but maintaining rails is incredibly expensive. If you want a quick tutorial read up onall of the problems with the SW Chief. There is about a 500 mile stretch that no one uses except that east bound and west bound Amtrak each day (actually a few minor freight runs do too). This is the train between Chicago and LA.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:54 pm

Oh how times change. When the 50 seat RJs debuted, U.S. passengers marveled at how a smooth, comfortable jet was available in lieu of a cramped, bumpy turboprop. 20 years later, the 50 seat RJs are by and large revolted as they lack F, WiFi, and other amenities that even the larger RJs now offer. Recently I brought some fresh fruit aboard a UAX/OO CRJ-200 STS-SFO flight and asked the FA for a fork. Her reply? Sorry...we don't have any onboard.
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5578
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:02 pm

BenflysDTW wrote:
So, basically local governments don’t have enough authority to motivate the US3 to stay, despite incentives.
I just really doubt that there isn’t demand for a smaller plane on key markets.
About the picture above, the same could be said in a field of AA MD-80’s except that they are actually being replaced...


If the “key markets” are truly key; they’ll generate enough traffic and revenue to sustain operations of 66-76 seat RJs. But there are many markets that aren’t key except in the mind of the locals.

GF
 
ewt340
Posts: 1234
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:07 pm

The only thing that could resurrected 50 seater market is electric aircraft or at least a hybrid. Pilotless cockpit would also help (controlled by machine with a single pilot as a back up).

It's just not easy making profit with such small number of pax, the number of pilot probably is the biggest hurdle for these plane.
 
opticalilyushin
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:35 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:38 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
opticalilyushin wrote:
There is a much bigger demand for new aircraft in this size catagory in places like Scotland and Norway, where airlines are looking to replace their ageing Saabs and smaller Dash 8s with something that is suited to high cycle, multi sector hops out of short runways in extreme winter weather conditions. Perhaps places like Northern Canada, Africa, Australia and the Pacific Islands are the same?


Sorry, but the purchase volumes in Norway, Scotland, Australia, Northern Canada... do not just justify $10 Billion in frame and engine development.


10 Billion! Jeez I don't think any manufacturer would spend that much. More likely a modernised Q200 or 300, or perhaps a new Embraer 120. I spoke to Wideroe pilots once, they told me they want a new build Q200 with a Q400 cockpit
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:41 pm

There will be a next generation jet for the market seating between 19-50pax when the following occurs:
1. Single Pilot operations with reductions in the number of turns and hours the pilot can fly in a given day/week. These Pilots will be paid better to compensate for working less in a given month and their increased level of responsibility.
2. Purpose built 19pax, 30pax & 50pax with a max range below 650nmi/750mi/1200kmi. This reduced range will ensure these Single Pilot craft only serve as short range feeders from outerlying airports. The short range design will mean they carry much less fuel, thereby being lighter, more fuel efficient, lower landing fees.
3. Lighter very fuel efficient engines specifically designed for about .75mach with good turn-around capabiities to power these aircraft.
4. Advanced Avionics software geared towards maximizing the effectiveness of a the lone pilot.

Maybe some radical ideas, but you have to get fuel and fixed costs down to profitably move 50 or less people around in the sky.
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:46 pm

SurfandSnow wrote:
Oh how times change. When the 50 seat RJs debuted, U.S. passengers marveled at how a smooth, comfortable jet was available in lieu of a cramped, bumpy turboprop. 20 years later, the 50 seat RJs are by and large revolted as they lack F, WiFi, and other amenities that even the larger RJs now offer. Recently I brought some fresh fruit aboard a UAX/OO CRJ-200 STS-SFO flight and asked the FA for a fork. Her reply? Sorry...we don't have any onboard.


:lol: :lol: You are sooooo right.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:51 pm

ODwyerPW wrote:
There will be a next generation jet for the market seating between 19-50pax when the following occurs:
1. Single Pilot operations with reductions in the number of turns and hours the pilot can fly in a given day/week. These Pilots will be paid better to compensate for working less in a given month and their increased level of responsibility.
2. Purpose built 19pax, 30pax & 50pax with a max range below 650nmi/750mi/1200kmi. This reduced range will ensure these Single Pilot craft only serve as short range feeders from outerlying airports. The short range design will mean they carry much less fuel, thereby being lighter, more fuel efficient, lower landing fees.
3. Lighter very fuel efficient engines specifically designed for about .75mach with good turn-around capabiities to power these aircraft.
4. Advanced Avionics software geared towards maximizing the effectiveness of a the lone pilot.

Maybe some radical ideas, but you have to get fuel and fixed costs down to profitably move 50 or less people around in the sky.


Excellent post, realistically, waiting for single pilot ops include 19 pax aircraft. Then we will see a revival in "commuter" airlines again.

Regarding the OP, when BBD debut the RJ it was a variant of a business jet, so some of the R&D was paid for. EMB used the cross section of the EMB120, again "some" of the R&D paid for. The amount of frames needed to pay for a clean sheet aircraft is just not there in the market today. That's not including the rumored pilot shortage.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:58 pm

The reason no 50 seater is for sale is because the existing 50 seaters have adequate performance and have much cheaper capital cost than a new build aircraft.

The reason excess 50 seaters are available is because there was innovation in the 65-100 seat aircraft space, replacing many of the 50 seat aircraft that were built in a hurry in 1997-2007. This pushed the existing 50 seaters flying onto true 50 seater routes. This over saturated the 50 seat market, depressing new build aircraft prices so the manufacturers were no longer able to build more, so they stopped offering them for sale. But it doesn't mean 50 seaters don't have a purpose, or will never be built again. I reckon that is false. 50 seaters will be needed for decades to come.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3384
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:23 pm

stinson108 wrote:
Could bombardier re jig the Dash 8-100
New engines


Thats the problem though... besides the crewing costs anyways... new engines for that category just don't exist. It is still the PW100 family, GE CT7 or Allison AE2100... there hasn't been a new design turboprop for that size class.

The AE2100 was the last developed, is basically the AE3700 from the ERJ with a prop on it, and only had one limited civil airframe, the Saab 2000.

The CT7 wasn't much better in the civilian market. Saab 340 and CN235.

Leaving the PW100 series, still being put on the ATR42/72-600 (PW127) and Q400 (PW150)... updated but still a 40 year old design.

No one seems interested in developing a new Turboprop for the commuter category either.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:40 pm

Higher fuel, higher wages and fewer pilots are making 50 seaters obsolete. And of course SCOPE limits. If an airline is limited on regional jets it can operate, then having 50 seaters and less 76 seaters is not a good revenue strategy.

Remember in 1992-93 when Comair launched the CRJ-200, oil was $20 per barrel
 
N649DL
Posts: 922
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:27 pm

n797mx wrote:


Here's your reason why there isn't a 50 seater replacement.


LOL. Technically when gas prices were through the roof in 2008-2009, CO used the Q400 replaced on short haul ERJ routes out of EWR for better efficiency. As you can tell, that plan didn't last as the Q400s were being rushed out the door after the merger with UA.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 724
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:31 am

Amazing how most posters do not realize there is life outside the US. The American scope clauses, rules for the number of flight attendants or even pilots do not apply outside US borders. Large parts of the earth have very flexible rules (many times unfortunately). Pilot shortage may neither be very universal, although sometimes the trade-off is lower quality.

I can accept the general economic explanations, e.g. 1+2 or 1+1 abreast being uneconomic and 2+2 optimizing above 50 seats as well as a good supply of used planes. Also the requirement for two pilots is rather universal, and two can fly even 380 for a short distance, and in Europe pilots are very expensive, due to union extortion. When people trust robots, we can have automatic planes with one pilot as a backup.
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:18 am

ODwyerPW wrote:
There will be a next generation jet for the market seating between 19-50pax when the following occurs:
1. Single Pilot operations with reductions in the number of turns and hours the pilot can fly in a given day/week. These Pilots will be paid better to compensate for working less in a given month and their increased level of responsibility.
2. Purpose built 19pax, 30pax & 50pax with a max range below 650nmi/750mi/1200kmi. This reduced range will ensure these Single Pilot craft only serve as short range feeders from outerlying airports. The short range design will mean they carry much less fuel, thereby being lighter, more fuel efficient, lower landing fees.
3. Lighter very fuel efficient engines specifically designed for about .75mach with good turn-around capabiities to power these aircraft.
4. Advanced Avionics software geared towards maximizing the effectiveness of a the lone pilot.

Maybe some radical ideas, but you have to get fuel and fixed costs down to profitably move 50 or less people around in the sky.


When saw the following comment about BMI today:
leghorn wrote:
18 pax per plane. Paying all that airport departure tax because of the size of the planes.


The industry could really use some fuel efficient 19pax/30pax props. I'm done hoping for new 19/30/50 pax jets...
If Embraer would re-invent the 110/120 sized props....There may be a space for airlines to haul around ~ 20 passengers on short distances and make money... but everything has to be scaled for it... 37/50 pax planes (erj135/145) to carry 18pax is not scaled.

Shucks, I'd even like to see new family of commercial duty 9pax shrink / 19pax baseline / 30pax stretch turboprops..... (The capacities I've selected exists for a reason, but maybe the 9pax shrink is a non starter, perhaps 13pax is better.) But we'd really need the 4 points I mentioned above but with changes to 2 and 3:

2. Purpose built 9pax, 19pax & 30pax with a max range below 650nmi/750mi/1200km., perhaps even as low as 500nmi/575mi/925km. This reduced range will ensure these Single Pilot craft only serve as short range feeders from outer lying airports. The short range design will mean they carry much less fuel, thereby being lighter, more fuel efficient, lower landing fees.
3. Lighter very fuel efficient engines specifically designed for about .45mach with good turn-around capabilities to power these aircraft.
learning never stops.
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 4207
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:16 am

In the United States, at least, the aircraft and airline industries are failing the market badly by retiring 19-50 seat aircraft, without offering replacements. Smaller markets that could support two or three 19-seat or 37-seat aircraft a day to a hub, for instance, or thin routes between cities that could use that size increment, should not be lost. Air travel is a social good that is vital to economic development even in the Internet age, and something is very, very wrong with the current situation in the US.

Absolutely, the aircraft industry should be developing efficient new-generation 19-50 seat aircraft, and absolutely, airlines should figure out how to economically keep those routes from being lost.

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
sagechan
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:33 am

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
In the United States, at least, the aircraft and airline industries are failing the market badly by retiring 19-50 seat aircraft, without offering replacements. Smaller markets that could support two or three 19-seat or 37-seat aircraft a day to a hub, for instance, or thin routes between cities that could use that size increment, should not be lost. Air travel is a social good that is vital to economic development even in the Internet age, and something is very, very wrong with the current situation in the US.

Absolutely, the aircraft industry should be developing efficient new-generation 19-50 seat aircraft, and absolutely, airlines should figure out how to economically keep those routes from being lost.

Jim


"My tiny community should have air service" isn't really a good arguement. The issues in the US market are well stated above or why smaller planes are being reduced in amount of flying. EAS should also be tightened or eliminated. Let local communities offer incentives if they think air service is that important, unless there is a specific federal interest in a route leave AK flying to state incentives as well.
717, 733, 734, 738, 739, 744, 752, 763, 772, 77W, 789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A359, MD88, CRJ, CR7, CR9, DH1, DH2, DH3, S340, ER4, E170, E175, E190/CO, NW, US, AC, NH, AA, UA, DL, WN, WS, SK, VY, LA, QF, AR, AV, MH, KA, AS
 
sixfootscream
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:09 am

Well, here is your answer to the problem. I hope it works out.

https://www.aerotime.aero/aerotime.team ... hes-crj550
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4787
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:08 am

[*]
steveinbc wrote:
The whole 50 seater is entirely divorced from the economics of the route. One flight attendant can look after 50 passengers provided the aircraft is under a certain weight limit. Now this is clearly not quite as important a driver and that's why the replacement need isn't limited to a 50 seater

A net is so obsessed with adding a flight attendant. Thy are paid so little. 1 extra passenger would easily cover an extra FA for the flight.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:34 pm

With current scope clauses around here (+ the pilot shortage); the closest 'new' 50 seater you'll ever get is this CRJ-550.

I can't see a business case that would favor spending billions in designing / certifying a totally new 50 seater. Also current CR2/ERJ145 can be had for extremely cheap (some still having a few years before they cycle out)
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19704
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why isn’t there a 50 seater replacement?

Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:14 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
BenflysDTW wrote:

So, why is there not a replacement? At least in the US where the majority of them still fly? I know that they will still fly until 2025 or so.


Money!

Increasing regional carrier pilot wages (or 'pilot shortage') means carriers want to fly more passengers per pilot hour.

Better CASM of 70/76 seat jets

CASM versus fares (for carriers) versus just driving to a bigger airport for non-stops or more frequencies (for passengers).

Prospects for ROIC (return on invested capital) for plane manufacturers.

EAS routes will just get bigger subsidies (Congress spending other people's money) up to statutory subsidy caps. There will certainly be routes (and small cities entirely) that lose service. As noted above, Americans will put up with props on inter-island Hawaii and intra-Alaska because they may have no choice.

Oil dropped to under $11/barrel in 1998/99, the heyday of small RJs. How much and how long do you want to subsidize an economically unsustainable service?

This hits the main points. To be competitive, a new 50 seater needs a CFRP wing and new engines. Developing either costs over a billion USD. It is very difficult to pay that off with a 50 seater.

As noted, certain costs are fixed per flight between a 50 seater and 76 seater. Because of this, the cost per seat is bad on 50 seaters. Few markets in this ULCC era pay enough premium for a 50 seater. Cars are so efficient and reliable that it is better to drive 2 to 4 hours instead of a RJ flight.

However, if too many small cities lose service, expect a political solution to the pilot shortage, for it is a politically created issue.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.

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