Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
OSL777FLYER
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:11 am

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

Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:44 pm

The 50 seat jets that are in service today are not economically viable. And with scope clauses generally being allowed up to 76 seats, there really is no incentive for a new 50 seat jet. The ERJ-175 for instance gets better fuel economy. I think that the routes served by the 50 seat aircraft will just upgrade to aircraft in the 70 seat range for the future. At least in the U.S.

Turboprops are another matter. In the U.S. they are just not appreciated by passengers or airlines. In Europe, it is a whole different matter. I can understand some of the reluctance in the U.S as they use 50 seat jets on sectors up to 3 hours, something which is not done in Europe. I remember the longest I saw was LH cityline flying MUC-OSL back in the day with CRJ-200's. 2:10 scheduled time.

On sectors up to 500NM Turboprops will make the most sense. Now also with ATR's and Q400's approaching "jet speeds" they are a viable option.

I have heard that ATR could be looking at producing a STOL version of the ATR-42. Something which would be great for instance for Widerøe who currently fly Dash8-100's and 300's into the PSO routes in Norway. These aircraft are "becoming of age" and no replacements are available.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

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

Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:44 pm

ODwyerPW wrote:
The industry could really use some fuel efficient 19pax/30pax props.

Check out Cessna's Sky Currier: https://cessna.txtav.com/en/turboprop/skycourier
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3525
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

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

Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:29 pm

There aren't too many areas where a 50-seat plane can be flown profitably and where higher seat counts are too much plane. Those markets are primarily in areas like Canada, Scotland, and the Pacific. It should be known that Embraer still builds new E145s, and that Viking Air is considering whether or not to restart Dash 8-300 production (Viking Air had earlier re-started Dash 6 production and Ikhana offers a zero-time option on the same model).

The BCS1/3 could further fragment that market, as the Moxy concept would likely fly mainline planes to airfields where one used to see only 50-seaters.

That said, what about a longer jet that is a 50-seat passenger plane AND can carry cargo, but isn't as heavy as the 737 and is has more range than the DH8D Combi?
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

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

Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:53 pm

AFAIK there is plenty of aircraft in the 9-19seats FAR part 23/ EASA CS23 specification range. But all 20-50 seat aircraft have gone out of production. The smallest plane above 19seat is indeed the 48seat ATR42. Sometimes it's configured with 30seats and cargo containers for 700kg cargo (~1500lb) [the CargoFlex option].
The next are An-140/74A (~52seats), RAI N245/N250, Xian MA60/600/00 (~60 seats).
The next are 70seat: ATR72, CRJ550/700; E170/E175 (I view E-jets as two families E170/175 and E190/E195, the E2-jets E190/E195 are a third family)

I find it really odd that there isn't a replacement for the ~800 operational 20-50 seaters.
(ERJ's; EMB-120; Do328, Saab340, BA Jetstream 41, DHC-8 100/200/300; CRJ-100/200; Fokker 50, An- 24)
Some market forecast predict that the whole segment will vanish. Personally I think the small regional turboprops and jets are needed to connect less populated area's.

The ATR, CRJ's, ERJ's and E-jets are used in Europe I think the fleet accounts >500 planes. Airlines like: Alitalia CityLiner, Air Europa Express, Flybe, (Air France) HOP!, KLM Cityhopper, BA CityFlier, (IBERIA) Air Nostrum, Wideroe; use the regional airplanes and are like the US regional airlines. (and FlyBMI used to be)

On the bright side, recently new engines became available for mid, super-mid and large exacutive jets. EU Cleansky has a dedicated regional program. And I think electric or hybrid aircraft are very suited for these small regional aircraft.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

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

Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:11 pm

I know a airport in the Netherlands: Groningen Airport Eelde [GRQ] that is really needs more efficient smaller airplanes. I think many scandinavian airports also would benefit from lets say the reintroduction of the Do328/428 Jet and Fan.
I think Bombardier made a strategic mistake by shutting down the Q200, Q300 and CRJ200 (though the later is doubtful).
I agree that Embraer still can deliver ERJ's but they haven't done it for many years if I'm not mistaken.
 
OSL777FLYER
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:11 am

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

Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:04 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I know a airport in the Netherlands: Groningen Airport Eelde [GRQ] that is really needs more efficient smaller airplanes. I think many scandinavian airports also would benefit from lets say the reintroduction of the Do328/428 Jet and Fan.
I think Bombardier made a strategic mistake by shutting down the Q200, Q300 and CRJ200 (though the later is doubtful).
I agree that Embraer still can deliver ERJ's but they haven't done it for many years if I'm not mistaken.


I agree with you on the turboprops. With regards to the Do328/428. Due to low capacity and high fuel price, It was doomed. However, To have Q200's and 300's with better technology would have been great. Since no aircraft with STOL capability exists for these.

In your other post, interestingly you mentioned the EMB-120, Dash-8, Do328, Dash-8, Jetstream 41 and SF-340 were all great aircraft, BUT were all killed off by the regional jets. Especially in the U.S. (apart from the EMB-120 which flew until about 2 years ago and some SF-340/Dash-8 in some areas. I simply do not know why people are so adverse to turboprops.

I personally must admit I love the DHC-8-300. Yes, it is a little noisy at take-off, but what an aircraft. Roomy cabin, gets into small airports without any problems.

Would have loved to see it come into production again, but something tells me that is just a dream.
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:29 am

NameOmitted wrote:
ODwyerPW wrote:
The industry could really use some fuel efficient 19pax/30pax props.

Check out Cessna's Sky Currier: https://cessna.txtav.com/en/turboprop/skycourier


19 pax 1100 hp props!
learning never stops.
 
airlineworker
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:20 am

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:30 am

The CRJ-550 should replace current 50 seaters and with premium seating, yields can be higher than current 50 seaters. It also would be much better off short runways than the CRJ-200 or the ERJ-145. The days of props is gone, that ship has sailed. Airlines in the states don't want them and neither do passengers. Anything less than 50 seats is doomed.
 
User avatar
SASViking
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:06 pm

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:38 am

OSL777FLYER wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I know a airport in the Netherlands: Groningen Airport Eelde [GRQ] that is really needs more efficient smaller airplanes. I think many scandinavian airports also would benefit from lets say the reintroduction of the Do328/428 Jet and Fan.
I think Bombardier made a strategic mistake by shutting down the Q200, Q300 and CRJ200 (though the later is doubtful).
I agree that Embraer still can deliver ERJ's but they haven't done it for many years if I'm not mistaken.


I agree with you on the turboprops. With regards to the Do328/428. Due to low capacity and high fuel price, It was doomed. However, To have Q200's and 300's with better technology would have been great. Since no aircraft with STOL capability exists for these.

ATR have talked about a "ATR 42-600 STOL" capable of operating to/from runways down to 800 meters (2625ft) and should be in talks with several interested airlines. Also Aegean/Olympic operates the "ordinary" ATR 42-600s into airports with extremely short runways (less than 1000 meters/3300ft). So the replacement is there, however a brand new ATR should be very expensive from what I've heard.
Types flown: A319, A320, A32N, A321, A332, A333, A343, AT43, AT75, AT76, B717, B732, B735, B736, B737, B738, B752, B753, CRJ9, DC10, DH4D, DHC3, E135, E145, E175, E190, E195, F100, MD11, MD81, MD82, MD87, RJ1H
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:01 am

airlineworker wrote:
The days of props is gone, that ship has sailed. Airlines in the states don't want them and neither do passengers. Anything less than 50 seats is doomed.

There are probably 500 prop aircraft in regularly scheduled service in Alaska. Yeah, they're mostly Cessna and King Air, but their day is far from gone.
 
kbmiflyer
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:47 pm

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:25 am

airlineworker wrote:
The CRJ-550 should replace current 50 seaters and with premium seating, yields can be higher than current 50 seaters. It also would be much better off short runways than the CRJ-200 or the ERJ-145. The days of props is gone, that ship has sailed. Airlines in the states don't want them and neither do passengers. Anything less than 50 seats is doomed.


The CRJ-550 is not a 50 seat replacement plane, it is a 76 seat plane with 50 seats so United can get around pilot scope clauses. It will not be more profitable than an ERJ-145 or a CRJ-700.
 
User avatar
JBo
Posts: 1745
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:23 am

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:49 am

Something that I didn't see mentioned while I was skimming through this thread (so if I missed it, apologies), but another huge factor regarding the gradual elimination of smaller regional aircraft from the U.S. market are the changes in pilot requirements for Part 121 operations that came after the Colgan Q400 crash several years ago.

The entry-level requirements to fly for a Part 121 carrier increased significantly as far as required certifications and minimum flying hours. That made the pool of qualified pilots significantly smaller, and those pilots are now getting their experience with Part 135 operators, or other operators. Which also means that, with the increased experience required upfront, the regionals are paying more for new-hire pilots, which also affects the operating economics of their aircraft.

Along with that, turboprops are generally far more cheaper and economical than jets at the 50-seat and smaller size category, but there is a hugely negative stigma against props in the U.S. air travel market. The boom of CRJs in the '90s is akin to the boom of SUVs in the same time period; they became hugely popular because they were bigger and more comfortable but still affordable to operate, and then oil prices jumped way up and skewed everything.

Unfortunately I think it's unlikely that we'll see a resurgence of turboprop regionals in the U.S., even with advances in technology. At least, I think it's highly unlikely that we'll see the US3 bring props back into their regional operations.

If anything, as the US3 phase out their 50-seaters, I wouldn't be surprised if within the next decade or so we start to see some independent regionals rise up to fill in the service gaps to the smaller communities left behind, possibly with codeshare/interline agreements at hubs to connect to the mainlines ... bringing everything full circle to the early post-deregulation days.

But that depends entirely on what happens with the economy and technology in general between now and then.
I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:18 am

kbmiflyer wrote:
The CRJ-550 is not a 50 seat replacement plane, it is a 76 seat plane with 50 seats so United can get around pilot scope clauses. It will not be more profitable than an ERJ-145 or a CRJ-700.

For United, those fifty CRJ-550s will definitely be more profitable on selected "premium heavy" routes currently served by CR2/ERJ-145s.

It could also free up some E175/CRJ900s for better use, when those are slightly too much airplane for a route.

Finally, it will ensure a more constant product for the whole journey. It should have a cascading effect on the whole network - profit wise.

I'm convinced United made in debt calculations before going into that CRJ-550 conversion.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:47 am

Is it just the case of, not financially viable?
I mean, to think about it, they still need to use 2 pilots. Compared that to slightly larger jets with 70+ seating capacity.

Most 50-seater jet tend to be the base model for the aircraft type. The 70-seater tend to be stretched version which in return give them better fuel efficiency. And with such small number of passengers, those tiny differences Really Counts.

The only thing that could sustain 50-seater aircraft is Turbo-props or Premium Heavy configurations. Otherwise, it might not be profitable enough for airlines to use.

Beside, how many small cities around the world that needed daily flights with dozens of business class and premium economy on such small plane? A few, but not a lot.
 
airlineworker
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:20 am

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:18 am

NameOmitted wrote:
airlineworker wrote:
The days of props is gone, that ship has sailed. Airlines in the states don't want them and neither do passengers. Anything less than 50 seats is doomed.

There are probably 500 prop aircraft in regularly scheduled service in Alaska. Yeah, they're mostly Cessna and King Air, but their day is far from gone.


I was referring to major airlines as props have vanished from the airline scene. B-1900's, Saab 340's, Dash-8's, EMB-110 are no longer profitable for the majors as they waste cockpit crews flying a handful of passengers when they can move 50 or more passengers. Just as mainline aircraft are getting larger, so it goes for the regionals. Alaska is not a fair comparison to most of the 48 states.
 
airlineworker
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:20 am

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:27 am

kbmiflyer wrote:
airlineworker wrote:
The CRJ-550 should replace current 50 seaters and with premium seating, yields can be higher than current 50 seaters. It also would be much better off short runways than the CRJ-200 or the ERJ-145. The days of props is gone, that ship has sailed. Airlines in the states don't want them and neither do passengers. Anything less than 50 seats is doomed.


The CRJ-550 is not a 50 seat replacement plane, it is a 76 seat plane with 50 seats so United can get around pilot scope clauses. It will not be more profitable than an ERJ-145 or a CRJ-700.


A first class ticket will yield more than several coach tickets and that's where airlines make a large part of their profits.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-o ... ss-tickets
Quote, "American Airlines says 25% of its fliers account for 70% of its revenue.
First-class and business-class passengers make up only 8 percent of international travelers but account for 27 percent of revenue, according to the International Air Transport Association. Boeing Aircraft Company estimates that 15 percent of global passengers account for 50 percent of airline revenues."
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4089
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:31 pm

I am expecting, but not in my lifetime, a revamp in short regionals. Likely hybrid, one pilot, capable of autonomous flight and landings, no FAs. Trips limited to 2 hours. Most accidents for GA are weather related. Regs will require very limited automated physical of pilot, acceptable weather for 3 hour window, diversion airstrips 20-30 minutes throughout flight. Most of the bits and pieces are here now, but it will require 20-25 years to put it together. I may be pessimistic by five years.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
JHwk
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:10 pm

The most logical development for a smaller commuter plane is electric. Develop the service with shorter ranges, a little bit longer turn times, and maybe a few tax incentives and it will happen.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13829
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:35 pm

The ATR 42-600 is a modern 50 seat turbo prop out there for sale.

https://www.seatmaestro.com/airplanes-seat-maps/japan-airlines-jal-atr-42-600/

It has good performance, efficiency, glass cockpit, it has a backlog.

Image

They're aren't sold by the hundreds though..

Silver is a new operator in the US.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13829
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:13 pm

& it does have a sporty TO.. https://youtu.be/hKu9EXJosLA?t=300
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:01 pm

Maybe we should bring the Viscount back into production. :stirthepot:


Now ducking for cover...
 
iceberg210
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:11 pm

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm

keesje wrote:
The ATR 42-600 is a modern 50 seat turbo prop out there for sale.

...

They're aren't sold by the hundreds though..


The question I always have to wonder however is does it sell poorly because the demand for the 72 is higher and the profit is higher so it makes it so ATR when they're filling a production slot would MUCH rather fill it with a 72, or is it that there just is no 50 seater demand. I'll be curious what Viking does or doesn't do with the Q300, but I think the thing that would help best understand the demand is if someone launched a 30 seater base 50 seater stretch (not that it'd be worth it probably) because then we'd better understand exactly how much demand there actually is for an optimized 50 seater. (ie 145NG or something or 120 stretch)
Erik Berg
“Little by little, we advance with each turn. That's how a drill works!”
 
mhkansan
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:02 pm

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

Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:42 pm

I am upset about the lack of high-efficiency turboprops in US Aviation. I think the ATR is a wonderful aircraft, and new-built ATR-72 and ATR-42, or new Q400s, would be a great fit for the US industry. Once fuel becomes closer to the $100/$120 barrel range, US airlines might take a much more critical look at the props. Right now, the costs of ownership are so low for the jets, and parts and labor are easy to come by. Also, there is better pilot and aircraft utilization with the regional jets. Naturally, rising pilot wages at the regionals are moving airlines towards larger jets, but I think its only a matter of time before turboprops come back in vogue in the USA. I firmly believe that the so-called turboprop avoidance disappears when the ticket prices are cheaper than the competition flying with jets.

ATR has also put a lot of time and effort into building the ATR cabin into a palateable offering for US airlines: They have a version with a premium cabin, jet bridge-capable boarding, and an aft-cargo configuration. The newer versions also have APUs. One of the biggest problems with the older -200s at American Eagle was that the "hotel mode" on those engines drove lots of the maintenance issues.
 
sincx
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 5:01 pm

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

Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:13 am

Want more 50 seaters? Get the FAA to approve single pilot operation for 50-seaters.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4203
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

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

Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:03 am

keesje wrote:
& it does have a sporty TO.. https://youtu.be/hKu9EXJosLA?t=300


Flies well too :cloudnine:


iceberg210 wrote:
The question I always have to wonder however is does it sell poorly because the demand for the 72 is higher and the profit is higher so it makes it so ATR when they're filling a production slot would MUCH rather fill it with a 72, or is it that there just is no 50 seater demand. I'll be curious what Viking does or doesn't do with the Q300, but I think the thing that would help best understand the demand is if someone launched a 30 seater base 50 seater stretch (not that it'd be worth it probably) because then we'd better understand exactly how much demand there actually is for an optimized 50 seater. (ie 145NG or something or 120 stretch)


It is lack of demand. ATR would love to build them. Lately they have been building a few customer-less planes.


mhkansan wrote:
ATR has also put a lot of time and effort into building the ATR cabin into a palateable offering for US airlines: They have a version with a premium cabin, jet bridge-capable boarding, and an aft-cargo configuration. The newer versions also have APUs. One of the biggest problems with the older -200s at American Eagle was that the "hotel mode" on those engines drove lots of the maintenance issues.


Those options were always available though. Nobody requested the forward door since the early 90s, and nobody ever brought the APU option. The -42 won't be jet-bridge capable though, not enough space ahead of the engine.


SASViking wrote:
So the replacement is there, however a brand new ATR should be very expensive from what I've heard.


ATRs are incredibly cheap, but everything is relative of course. An airline that relies on 50 seaters will probably find it very expensive.
 
mhkansan
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:02 pm

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

Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:58 am

VSMUT wrote:
Those options were always available though. Nobody requested the forward door since the early 90s, and nobody ever brought the APU option. The -42 won't be jet-bridge capable though, not enough space ahead of the engine.


In DFW, American Eagle used to drive jet bridges to aft passenger door on the ATR-72. There's not enough room in DFW to do that today, but I wonder if it would still be possible on the smaller aircraft.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

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

Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:44 am

Any flight that can justify carrying 50 passengers is likely* of a distance where the better solution is either high-speed rail or better high speed motorways.

The best solution to every transport problem is not always an aircraft.


*In cases where you are island hopping, then you use whatever - and you have a relatively captive market anyway as your competition is a boat.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4203
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

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

Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:14 pm

mhkansan wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Those options were always available though. Nobody requested the forward door since the early 90s, and nobody ever brought the APU option. The -42 won't be jet-bridge capable though, not enough space ahead of the engine.


In DFW, American Eagle used to drive jet bridges to aft passenger door on the ATR-72. There's not enough room in DFW to do that today, but I wonder if it would still be possible on the smaller aircraft.


How did they manage that? The ATR rear entry door is the drop-down with built-in stairs type of door. The railing on one side is easily lowered, but the other side is more or less permanently fixed.


Amiga500 wrote:
Any flight that can justify carrying 50 passengers is likely* of a distance where the better solution is either high-speed rail or better high speed motorways.


Not really practical for visitors from abroad. You can't exactly take your car with you. Won't help people who can't drive either.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 7731
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

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

Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:38 pm

mhkansan wrote:
Right now, the costs of ownership are so low for the jets, and parts and labor are easy to come by. Also, there is better pilot and aircraft utilization with the regional jets. Naturally, rising pilot wages at the regionals are moving airlines towards larger jets...


You just cited a bunch of reasons why props, and 50-seat aircraft generally, find no new buyers in the U.S.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

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

Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:50 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Not really practical for visitors from abroad. You can't exactly take your car with you. Won't help people who can't drive either.


Hence why I mentioned two options, one private transport, one public transport.

How many routes would be between locations that are suitable for 50 seat services that would have high percentages of people that cannot drive and cannot hire a car and would not be served via rail? You're well into niche territory there.
 
airlineworker
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:20 am

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

Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:34 pm

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


The airlines don't want smaller planes but want larger RJ's to better utilize flight crews amid a pilot shortage. The OEM's don't see a viable market for such a small plane, thus its a dead issue. Airlines want to serve viable markets that can earn money, not welfare routes that lose money. Can I move to a small town and expect all the benefits of a large city, I.E. Sports teams, 4 lane highways, large medical facilities, malls, multi screen cinemas, etc? No, it's the same with airline service that by the way is not a right, but small towns have their own advantages, no traffic, low crime, etc. Can't have it all, air travel is a business, not a social good.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13829
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm

airlineworker wrote:
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


The airlines don't want smaller planes but want larger RJ's to better utilize flight crews amid a pilot shortage. The OEM's don't see a viable market for such a small plane, thus its a dead issue. Airlines want to serve viable markets that can earn money, not welfare routes that lose money. Can I move to a small town and expect all the benefits of a large city, I.E. Sports teams, 4 lane highways, large medical facilities, malls, multi screen cinemas, etc? No, it's the same with airline service that by the way is not a right, but small towns have their own advantages, no traffic, low crime, etc. Can't have it all, air travel is a business, not a social good.


New engine technology slashing fuelburn while keeping noise in hand might enable improved economies.

E.g. pistons driven turbofans, if speed can be limited and mainframe / wing optimized for that options might become feasible late next decade.

I guess thermodynamics, pressures and temperatures would be available that are hard to match in a turbine engine..

Image

https://www.bauhaus-luftfahrt.net/fileadmin/user_upload/CCE_Data_Sheet.pdf
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

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