Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Insertnamehere
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:44 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 4:38 pm

scbriml wrote:
The bigger impediment is irrational fear of turboprops by the flying American public.


The fact of the matter is general Americans don't know/care what plane they fly on 99.9999% of the time. Even with searching through Google flights, the only thing that the vast majority of the travelling public cares about is the cost of the ticket.

In the case of 50 seaters, if their only option is going to be flying on a turboprop or driving to the nearest hub, more than likely they will take the turboprop.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1067
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 4:52 pm

lightsaber wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
We can agree to disagree on the Hubs. IMO the country would be well served by a reliever hub located in say STL.
Which actually gets to part of the issue here - fuel efficiency is secondary to airlines due to the rapid increase in labor costs. That equation could change if we have an fossil fuel energy shortage -w hich may be occuring as we speak.
As has been mentioned in ANet, many travelers like frequencies. 50 seaters burn a less on a trip basis. Let's say it's 2025, If only 100 business people want to fly between 2 cities per day, and jet fuel is $4 per gallon what plane do you operate - 2 flights in the new Embraer prop jet or a single flight in a A319 or 737 ?

First, they capped wells. Oil isn't pricey yet. During the downturn, it was almost free, now not yet pricey enough to expand fracking:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/new ... nch-2021-9

A big problem is the huge drop in 2020 coal production. It is easy to drop production, slow to restart and that makes oil precious that will drive up JetA.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.php

This impacts RJs as they are poor, as per a prior link (Greta line), per passenger and thus revenue.

That said, whatever is proposed must cut fuel burn tremendously, or it is a non-starter.

When prices of carbon fuels go up enough, we find solutions, e.g., SAF.

Lightsaber


Did you see the Energy Department's Secretary Graholm is considering the implications of an American oil export ban? Or tapping the SPR. Banning the export of LNG is probably next. Wow. And we are not yet out of hurricane season.

I mentioned earlier (not in this thread) that Embraer VP thought his new prop-jet would be 40% more efficient than an existing RJ. If you consider that it takes 1.2 bbls of oil to make 1 bbl of product (transportation and refining), reducing fuel burn 40% is actually reducing carbon by 48%. That is amazing and could be available in just a couple of years. And at no cost to taxpayers.
 
capitalflyer
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:43 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 6:00 pm

How many places are served by a single CR2 flight? If small towns have two or more flights, they will be consolidated on 70 seaters or planes like the A220 as possible. A return to routes like the Alaska milk run with mainline jets also seems like a reasonable solution. And, increased EAS payments. Ready, set, go to "no more government" folks. :duck:

On the topic of the planes themselves, I think two options are viable. A turbo prop (which folks will fly on if no other options) or charter bus service. Charter buses are much closer to an all-electric reality in terms of carbon footprint. Airbus already has a viable option with the size of the A319/A220. Boeing has (unsurprisingly) zero options in the 100 seat range that would make it a player in the market for either reducing frequencies or creating milk run routes.

Population is not growing in rural areas, it is shrinking rapidly. Yes some folks moved out of cities, but the long term trend is growing cities/megalopolis.

Hi speed rail is not a solution as the stations likely won't be at airports and won't stop in small towns (see Acela skipping numerous intermediate NE corridor stops). It is more likely to replace flying rather than enable it. Unless something like extending the Airtrain out to Albany is an option.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1745
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 6:11 pm

50 seaters have never been economically feasible.

But one must consider the total impact. Incremental seats feeding a hub can sometimes be justified. Also, imagine a lucrative corporate customer from a smallish city, say Elmira or Peoria or XNA.

And there is also the labor issue....50 seaters created a supply of civilian pilots to ensure that there would never be a pilot shortage at the mainline. Then again, the airlines never figured on how bitter some of these folks would be after being abused for years. It's ironic that what started out as a hedge against an organized labor group served to create a even more militant membership.
 
docmtl
Topic Author
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:04 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 6:14 pm

amcnd wrote:
It would take one regional a huge risk taking on a new 50 seat prop.. if they got a long term 15+ year contract from multiple majors to say run 25-50 (for a total of 100-150 AC )aircraft each. It could work. But say 4 small regionals fighting for 10-40 aircraft each wouldn't work… But if EMB built a 50 seat prop with 5 first class seats. Overhead bins that fit all carryons.. enough weight to double dip in cargo.. it could work…


Now this is an interesting point of yours, since cargo has grown a lot since 2020. If cargo itself offsets most fixed cost of a 50-pax regional TP or Tfan, then passenger revenue becomes net income.

Can a 50-seat RJ replacement (whether a new or old-designedTP or Tfan) be used on a Combi cargo-pax configuration AND be profitable flying into smaller markets ?

https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository ... ---report/

"Cargo remains a very strong business for airlines in 2021, the strong economy and restocking driving an increase in share of world trade, with 13.1% growth in CTKs vs the WTO’s forecast growth for world trade of 8%. Yields are also expected to remain elevated due to the slow return of hold capacity from the wide body passenger fleet. Cargo revenues are forecast to rise to $152bn (was $140bn) representing one-third of the industry’s revenues. Pre-crisis cargo represented only 10-15% of the typical airline business.
Cargo revenues are forecast to strength further this year, as demand is strong and yields remain elevated as capacity on wide-body passenger aircraft remains limited. In fact, record cargo revenues we expect to represent one-third of airline revenues, compared to their pre-crisis 10-15%. However, cargo strength will be insufficient to offset passenger market weakness. Overall, airline operating revenues will rise this year by 23%. "

docmtl
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23087
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 6:26 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
We can agree to disagree on the Hubs. IMO the country would be well served by a reliever hub located in say STL.
Which actually gets to part of the issue here - fuel efficiency is secondary to airlines due to the rapid increase in labor costs. That equation could change if we have an fossil fuel energy shortage -w hich may be occuring as we speak.
As has been mentioned in ANet, many travelers like frequencies. 50 seaters burn a less on a trip basis. Let's say it's 2025, If only 100 business people want to fly between 2 cities per day, and jet fuel is $4 per gallon what plane do you operate - 2 flights in the new Embraer prop jet or a single flight in a A319 or 737 ?

First, they capped wells. Oil isn't pricey yet. During the downturn, it was almost free, now not yet pricey enough to expand fracking:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/new ... nch-2021-9

A big problem is the huge drop in 2020 coal production. It is easy to drop production, slow to restart and that makes oil precious that will drive up JetA.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.php

This impacts RJs as they are poor, as per a prior link (Greta line), per passenger and thus revenue.

That said, whatever is proposed must cut fuel burn tremendously, or it is a non-starter.

When prices of carbon fuels go up enough, we find solutions, e.g., SAF.

Lightsaber


Did you see the Energy Department's Secretary Graholm is considering the implications of an American oil export ban? Or tapping the SPR. Banning the export of LNG is probably next. Wow. And we are not yet out of hurricane season.

I mentioned earlier (not in this thread) that Embraer VP thought his new prop-jet would be 40% more efficient than an existing RJ. If you consider that it takes 1.2 bbls of oil to make 1 bbl of product (transportation and refining), reducing fuel burn 40% is actually reducing carbon by 48%. That is amazing and could be available in just a couple of years. And at no cost to taxpayers.

Backed off SPR tapping.

https://www.metro.us/oil-prices-surge-u-s/amp/

$80/bbl is cheap. Too cheap. While most fracking is cheaper, some are at $90/bbl. Once oil gets over $120/bbl again, we won't have supply issues.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/a ... 0%EF%BB%BF

A new aircraft now takes 7 years. I wish Embraer luck and a market. I'm not sure reducing 50 seat RJ fuel burn by 40% is enough. The requirement for pilots to have an ATP is what I believe is pushing UA to electric 19 seaters.

Those electric 19 seaters, with only a 250 mile range, might be what starts a rebirth in mini hubs.

Lightsaber
 
GSP psgr
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:09 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 7:04 pm

SteelChair wrote:
50 seaters have never been economically feasible.

But one must consider the total impact. Incremental seats feeding a hub can sometimes be justified. Also, imagine a lucrative corporate customer from a smallish city, say Elmira or Peoria or XNA.

And there is also the labor issue....50 seaters created a supply of civilian pilots to ensure that there would never be a pilot shortage at the mainline. Then again, the airlines never figured on how bitter some of these folks would be after being abused for years. It's ironic that what started out as a hedge against an organized labor group served to create a even more militant membership.


A few things:

1) I'm a huge pro-labor person, but even I think the Part 121 requirements for FOs are overkill by several hundred hours. I'm perfectly fine with flying in a RJ so long as the Captain has 1500 hours and I can live with an FO having only 500 hours. Congress should take another look at what should be required and come up with something that's more practical and reasonable for the industry, perhaps targeted to aircraft of say, less than 50 seats.

2) IIRC, the whole commuter pilot to mainline hiring system got whacked repeatedly by 9/11, the Great Recession, and then on top of that the 5 year extension senior pilots got to continue flying to age 65, all of which conspired to freeze pilots at regionals much longer than was normally the case. I don't blame pilots for being bitter about the whole thing.

3) At least in the US, I could see the airline that does the bulk of the national EAS flying (that's UAX right now) biting the bullet and ordering a set of ATR-42s to do that sort of flying. I don't think we'd see all three of the big carriers here doing that though.
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 7:24 pm

SteelChair wrote:
50 seaters have never been economically feasible.

But one must consider the total impact. Incremental seats feeding a hub can sometimes be justified. Also, imagine a lucrative corporate customer from a smallish city, say Elmira or Peoria or XNA.

And there is also the labor issue....50 seaters created a supply of civilian pilots to ensure that there would never be a pilot shortage at the mainline. Then again, the airlines never figured on how bitter some of these folks would be after being abused for years. It's ironic that what started out as a hedge against an organized labor group served to create a even more militant membership.


Smallish is Joplin, Ft. Smith or a Texarkana.

XNA serves a home to three industry titans in Walmart, Tyson and JB Hunt along with a land grant University. An area projected to grow to 800K to 1 Million in the next 20 years. That's a bad example in the 50 seater debate, those planes flying here will get upgauged not eliminated.

United chose XNA as one of, if not the very first airport for their CRJ550. to serve from ORD. There's way too much high end travel to lose out on when times are back to close to normal.

United needs to go get themselves some A221s for markets like XNA to either to serve it or to push more 70/76 seaters to it over the 50 seaters.
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 7:26 pm

SteelChair wrote:
50 seaters have never been economically feasible.

But one must consider the total impact. Incremental seats feeding a hub can sometimes be justified. Also, imagine a lucrative corporate customer from a smallish city, say Elmira or Peoria or XNA.

And there is also the labor issue....50 seaters created a supply of civilian pilots to ensure that there would never be a pilot shortage at the mainline. Then again, the airlines never figured on how bitter some of these folks would be after being abused for years. It's ironic that what started out as a hedge against an organized labor group served to create a even more militant membership.


Smallish is Joplin, Ft. Smith or a Texarkana.

XNA serves a home to three industry titans in Walmart, Tyson and JB Hunt along with a land grant University. An area projected to grow to 800K to 1 Million in the next 20 years. That's a bad example in the 50 seater debate, those planes flying here will get upgauged not eliminated.

United chose XNA as one of, if not the very first airport for their CRJ550. to serve from ORD. There's way too much high end travel to lose out on when times are back to close to normal.

United needs to go get themselves some A221s for markets like XNA to either to serve it or to push more 70/76 seaters to it over the 50 seaters.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26926
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 7:30 pm

The airlines shot themselves a bit in the foot on this. In the late 90s and early 2000s heyday of 50 seaters, they couldn't stop harping about how quickly they were going "all jet." This, despite the knowledge that turboprops are 1) also jets and 2) easily as reliable, if not moreso, than "pure" jets. The reality is that the 30-70 seat market is best served by turboprops, with a certain part of that market also being served by aircraft like the E175 (mid-sized business cities to hubs and frequency fillers between large cities, especially where the flight is greater than about 250 nm). The ATR is, indeed, a great aircraft, but it has two flaws - 1) it is slow and 2) despite the fact that they improved the deice system, it still is a relatively poor performer in ice, and many of the North American communities that need turboprop service are in places where ice can and does regularly happen. The Q400 was almost purpose built for the North American market, but got caught up between the "all jet" propaganda and being operated by a dodgy carrier in the US. While it is not as fuel efficient as an ATR, the speed and performance of that airplane, combined with substantial efficiency gains over any small airline jet, made it a great tool. That is just a pity.

There is no question that a new turboprop is needed in the US market. Demand for flights at the right price outstrips the "fear" nearly anyone has about flying on a plane where some of the flying surface is outside the cowl.
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1682
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 7:47 pm

WaywardMemphian wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
50 seaters have never been economically feasible.

But one must consider the total impact. Incremental seats feeding a hub can sometimes be justified. Also, imagine a lucrative corporate customer from a smallish city, say Elmira or Peoria or XNA.

And there is also the labor issue....50 seaters created a supply of civilian pilots to ensure that there would never be a pilot shortage at the mainline. Then again, the airlines never figured on how bitter some of these folks would be after being abused for years. It's ironic that what started out as a hedge against an organized labor group served to create a even more militant membership.


Smallish is Joplin, Ft. Smith or a Texarkana.

XNA serves a home to three industry titans in Walmart, Tyson and JB Hunt along with a land grant University. An area projected to grow to 800K to 1 Million in the next 20 years. That's a bad example in the 50 seater debate, those planes flying here will get upgauged not eliminated.

United chose XNA as one of, if not the very first airport for their CRJ550. to serve from ORD. There's way too much high end travel to lose out on when times are back to close to normal.

United needs to go get themselves some A221s for markets like XNA to either to serve it or to push more 70/76 seaters to it over the 50 seaters.


Remember, United had *A LOT* of work to do with respect to restoring appropriate gauge. Some of the most outrageous, egregious examples of the airline offering terrible product to/from large or otherwise important markets over the years that I can remember being downright shocked and appalled to fly on offhand:
DEN-EGE, operated by a Mesa Dash-8-200
DEN-MKE, operated by a CRJ-200
DEN-YYC, operated by a CRJ-200
LAX-SFO, operated by a EMB-175
ORD-COS, operated by a CRJ-700
ORD-HPN, operated by a CRJ-200
ORD-RSW, operated by a EMB-175
SFO-BUR, operated by a CRJ-200

How UA ever thought it was appropriate to serve premium markets like EGE and HPN without first class is beyond me. Also, RJs on a trunk route to Florida?!?

There was and perhaps still is a lot of work to do before ORD-XNA, if you can believe it!
 
Cardude2
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon May 20, 2019 1:55 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:01 pm

N1120A wrote:
The airlines shot themselves a bit in the foot on this. In the late 90s and early 2000s heyday of 50 seaters, they couldn't stop harping about how quickly they were going "all jet." This, despite the knowledge that turboprops are 1) also jets and 2) easily as reliable, if not moreso, than "pure" jets. The reality is that the 30-70 seat market is best served by turboprops, with a certain part of that market also being served by aircraft like the E175 (mid-sized business cities to hubs and frequency fillers between large cities, especially where the flight is greater than about 250 nm). The ATR is, indeed, a great aircraft, but it has two flaws - 1) it is slow and 2) despite the fact that they improved the deice system, it still is a relatively poor performer in ice, and many of the North American communities that need turboprop service are in places where ice can and does regularly happen. The Q400 was almost purpose built for the North American market, but got caught up between the "all jet" propaganda and being operated by a dodgy carrier in the US. While it is not as fuel efficient as an ATR, the speed and performance of that airplane, combined with substantial efficiency gains over any small airline jet, made it a great tool. That is just a pity.

There is no question that a new turboprop is needed in the US market. Demand for flights at the right price outstrips the "fear" nearly anyone has about flying on a plane where some of the flying surface is outside the cowl.


The ATR-42-600 is not that slow but you are right about the de-icing. I've flown a lot out of Eugene to San Fransisco and if you take the morning flight in the winter it gets icy, but united hat solved that problem on that route, and others by having the morning and night flight always be a mainline or E-175. The mid-day flights don't really have ice issues. We must all remember that the e145 also has a winter issue (but I've forgotten what it is).

as for your q400, wasn't that sketchy airline Colgan? who let me remind you operated for CONTINENTAL NOW UNITED ( [controversial opinion] because continental took over united, not the other way around). And the great people at Alaska/horizon air (honorable mention also to island air) have gotten the reliability back. Also, the all-jet crap is pointless now, now that those annoying people have shut up and blindly book on Expedia or kayak.
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:15 pm

SurfandSnow wrote:
WaywardMemphian wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
50 seaters have never been economically feasible.

But one must consider the total impact. Incremental seats feeding a hub can sometimes be justified. Also, imagine a lucrative corporate customer from a smallish city, say Elmira or Peoria or XNA.

And there is also the labor issue....50 seaters created a supply of civilian pilots to ensure that there would never be a pilot shortage at the mainline. Then again, the airlines never figured on how bitter some of these folks would be after being abused for years. It's ironic that what started out as a hedge against an organized labor group served to create a even more militant membership.


Smallish is Joplin, Ft. Smith or a Texarkana.

XNA serves a home to three industry titans in Walmart, Tyson and JB Hunt along with a land grant University. An area projected to grow to 800K to 1 Million in the next 20 years. That's a bad example in the 50 seater debate, those planes flying here will get upgauged not eliminated.

United chose XNA as one of, if not the very first airport for their CRJ550. to serve from ORD. There's way too much high end travel to lose out on when times are back to close to normal.

United needs to go get themselves some A221s for markets like XNA to either to serve it or to push more 70/76 seaters to it over the 50 seaters.


Remember, United had *A LOT* of work to do with respect to restoring appropriate gauge. Some of the most outrageous, egregious examples of the airline offering terrible product to/from large or otherwise important markets over the years that I can remember being downright shocked and appalled to fly on offhand:
DEN-EGE, operated by a Mesa Dash-8-200
DEN-MKE, operated by a CRJ-200
DEN-YYC, operated by a CRJ-200
LAX-SFO, operated by a EMB-175
ORD-COS, operated by a CRJ-700
ORD-HPN, operated by a CRJ-200
ORD-RSW, operated by a EMB-175
SFO-BUR, operated by a CRJ-200

How UA ever thought it was appropriate to serve premium markets like EGE and HPN without first class is beyond me. Also, RJs on a trunk route to Florida?!?

There was and perhaps still is a lot of work to do before ORD-XNA, if you can believe it!


That's why they put a converted 70 seater to 50 seater on it. The Premium aspect of it vs a 145 or 200
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2554
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:42 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
I mentioned earlier (not in this thread) that Embraer VP thought his new prop-jet would be 40% more efficient than an existing RJ. If you consider that it takes 1.2 bbls of oil to make 1 bbl of product (transportation and refining), reducing fuel burn 40% is actually reducing carbon by 48%. That is amazing and could be available in just a couple of years. And at no cost to taxpayers.

Say that again???
If an RJ burns 1 bbl of jet fuel, total oil usage will be 1.2 bbls per your statement.
Now, if the new Embraer TP uses 40% less fuel (i.e. it'll burn 0.6 bbl for the same mission), the total oil usage will be 0.72 bbl (20% more for refining and transportation); that's a saving of 0.48 bbl over the 1.2 originally, i.e.... 40% less, not 48%.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1348
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:43 pm

N1120A wrote:
The airlines shot themselves a bit in the foot on this. In the late 90s and early 2000s heyday of 50 seaters, they couldn't stop harping about how quickly they were going "all jet." This, despite the knowledge that turboprops are 1) also jets and 2) easily as reliable, if not moreso, than "pure" jets. The reality is that the 30-70 seat market is best served by turboprops, with a certain part of that market also being served by aircraft like the E175 (mid-sized business cities to hubs and frequency fillers between large cities, especially where the flight is greater than about 250 nm). The ATR is, indeed, a great aircraft, but it has two flaws - 1) it is slow and 2) despite the fact that they improved the deice system, it still is a relatively poor performer in ice, and many of the North American communities that need turboprop service are in places where ice can and does regularly happen. The Q400 was almost purpose built for the North American market, but got caught up between the "all jet" propaganda and being operated by a dodgy carrier in the US. While it is not as fuel efficient as an ATR, the speed and performance of that airplane, combined with substantial efficiency gains over any small airline jet, made it a great tool. That is just a pity.

There is no question that a new turboprop is needed in the US market. Demand for flights at the right price outstrips the "fear" nearly anyone has about flying on a plane where some of the flying surface is outside the cowl.


I question the need for turboprops in the US. The big 4 carriers do not use them at all (?). This is a case of “if the market wanted them, it would buy them.” High speed rail is another great example. The private market built passenger rail across North America speedily, back when that was a thing people needed.

Turboprops do not solve the 2 pilot crew issue. They do not save enough fuel to even outweigh their slow speeds IMO, to say nothing of the negative passenger perception that will never change. I think airlines will end up seeking a great 70 seat jet or else just not fly anything. Props are even less justifiable than new build CRJ-700 in our present world. Which do have their uses to the Big 3 anyway.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2554
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:50 pm

Cardude2 wrote:
as for your q400, wasn't that sketchy airline Colgan? who let me remind you operated for CONTINENTAL NOW UNITED ( [controversial opinion] because continental took over united, not the other way around). And the great people at Alaska/horizon air (honorable mention also to island air) have gotten the reliability back. Also, the all-jet crap is pointless now, now that those annoying people have shut up and blindly book on Expedia or kayak.

Colgan Air Flight 3407 operated FOR Continental, not BY Continental; the planes were on Colgan's AOC, not Continental's. It's a common practice.
 
Cardude2
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon May 20, 2019 1:55 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:00 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Cardude2 wrote:
as for your q400, wasn't that sketchy airline Colgan? who let me remind you operated for CONTINENTAL NOW UNITED ( [controversial opinion] because continental took over united, not the other way around). And the great people at Alaska/horizon air (honorable mention also to island air) have gotten the reliability back. Also, the all-jet crap is pointless now, now that those annoying people have shut up and blindly book on Expedia or kayak.

Colgan Air Flight 3407 operated FOR Continental, not BY Continental; the planes were on Colgan's AOC, not Continental's. It's a common practice.


I know that, that was my point, they all operated for continental or themselves. They were one bad airline which [controversial statement] was used by another bad airline.
 
Ionosphere
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:46 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:26 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
challeygat300 wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:

Short distances? Where? Europe?

In the US airlines are flying 1000+nm with 50 seat jets.


What? Hardly. Delta hard-caps the CR2 at 599. UA has very very very few routes that long on 50 seaters. Actually, the longest stages i can think of are DEN-SBA or ORD-COS which are both less than 800 miles and frequently subject to switching to CR7 or E75. AA already killed the 200, with OO randomly pulling 2 of them out to fly a couple routes in ORD and PHX. 145s are not generally flying far away from hubs. Please tell us about all these 1000+nm 50 seat routes that US airlines are flying.....?


For a long time, OMA-EWR was flown on the E45X with a distance just over 1000 nmi when accounting for vectoring.

sldispatcher wrote:
I grew up in the milk run days of Delta.

Is not part of the issue we currently face is the now ‘norm’ of relative high frequency on hub and spoke pairs with only non-stop options?

Is it time or economically viable to rethink that model?


Out in the Plains and northern Rockies, I would say yes. The turnover on the flight would ensure more passengers carried. The question is that you don’t have any real new CRJs that are scope compliant other than end of the line E175s. It may also mean the end of overflying hubs.


ExpressJet used to fly IAH-BOI at 1,482 miles and EWR-MCI at 1,215 miles
 
embraer175e2
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:47 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:58 pm

The 50 seaters jets are still performing very well in the caribbean and elsewhere with thinner markets. The states and europe have big enough markets to fill 70 seat rjs.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 1802
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:09 pm

GSP psgr wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
50 seaters have never been economically feasible.

But one must consider the total impact. Incremental seats feeding a hub can sometimes be justified. Also, imagine a lucrative corporate customer from a smallish city, say Elmira or Peoria or XNA.

And there is also the labor issue....50 seaters created a supply of civilian pilots to ensure that there would never be a pilot shortage at the mainline. Then again, the airlines never figured on how bitter some of these folks would be after being abused for years. It's ironic that what started out as a hedge against an organized labor group served to create a even more militant membership.


A few things:

1) I'm a huge pro-labor person, but even I think the Part 121 requirements for FOs are overkill by several hundred hours. I'm perfectly fine with flying in a RJ so long as the Captain has 1500 hours and I can live with an FO having only 500 hours. Congress should take another look at what should be required and come up with something that's more practical and reasonable for the industry, perhaps targeted to aircraft of say, less than 50 seats.

2) IIRC, the whole commuter pilot to mainline hiring system got whacked repeatedly by 9/11, the Great Recession, and then on top of that the 5 year extension senior pilots got to continue flying to age 65, all of which conspired to freeze pilots at regionals much longer than was normally the case. I don't blame pilots for being bitter about the whole thing.

3) At least in the US, I could see the airline that does the bulk of the national EAS flying (that's UAX right now) biting the bullet and ordering a set of ATR-42s to do that sort of flying. I don't think we'd see all three of the big carriers here doing that though.

I have said since this all began that the 1500 hour rule needed an exemption for true regional operators (NOT today’s flying contractors) flying 19 pax or less.
To pick a number out of my @.., just like the FAA did, say 1200 for Captain, and 800 for FO. Everybody has to start somewhere, and that is still a huge leap from the 200 hr wonders that United was hiring to meet the diversity lawsuit goals in the late 90’s.
 
oosnowrat
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:55 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:11 pm

capitalflyer wrote:
How many places are served by a single CR2 flight? If small towns have two or more flights, they will be consolidated on 70 seaters or planes like the A220 as possible. A return to routes like the Alaska milk run with mainline jets also seems like a reasonable solution. And, increased EAS payments.


Most of the AS milk run is subsidized (EAS). I visited with one of the guys in the OO prorate department about this a few years ago. He tags/milk runs are expensive and tough to make work outside a subsidized environment. (This was with CR2s.)
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:17 pm

capitalflyer wrote:
A turbo prop (which folks will fly on if no other options) or charter bus service. Charter buses are much closer to an all-electric reality in terms of carbon footprint.

Why take a bus when you can take your own comfortable car instead? Nearly everyone in the US owns a car. And of the few who don't, how many would be airline passengers in the first place?

With driving assistants and improved connectivity, longer drives have become much less stressful than before. Buses, on the other hand, have a public image in the US worse than turboprops.
 
ADM94
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:26 pm

WaywardMemphian wrote:
United needs to go get themselves some A221s for markets like XNA to either to serve it or to push more 70/76 seaters to it over the 50 seaters.


Surprised this didn't come up sooner. That would be the easiest solution. In many ways, this is a problem of UA's own creation. Their 50-seater dependency comes from having smaller 70- & 76-seat fleets as a result of not having a ~100-seat a/c in mainline. DL & AA have successfully upgauged quite a few regional markets to large RJs over the past 5 years as their 44-50-seater fleets have been reduced, so I'm skeptical of the idea that UA couldn't do the same. There are definitely some small communities in UA's network that won't support a larger a/c, but I'd hazard a guess that those make up less than half of all of their 50-seat flying. There are now a number of routes where UA is (directly or indirectly) competing against a DL/AA 65-76-seater with a CRJ or ERJ, while they use their CR7s and E75s on many long & thin(ner) markets (eating up utilization) which could likely support a 100-seat a/c. I don't think they need more 50-seaters, they need more 70-100-seaters.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:30 pm

FlyingElvii wrote:
GSP psgr wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
50 seaters have never been economically feasible.

But one must consider the total impact. Incremental seats feeding a hub can sometimes be justified. Also, imagine a lucrative corporate customer from a smallish city, say Elmira or Peoria or XNA.

And there is also the labor issue....50 seaters created a supply of civilian pilots to ensure that there would never be a pilot shortage at the mainline. Then again, the airlines never figured on how bitter some of these folks would be after being abused for years. It's ironic that what started out as a hedge against an organized labor group served to create a even more militant membership.


A few things:

1) I'm a huge pro-labor person, but even I think the Part 121 requirements for FOs are overkill by several hundred hours. I'm perfectly fine with flying in a RJ so long as the Captain has 1500 hours and I can live with an FO having only 500 hours. Congress should take another look at what should be required and come up with something that's more practical and reasonable for the industry, perhaps targeted to aircraft of say, less than 50 seats.

2) IIRC, the whole commuter pilot to mainline hiring system got whacked repeatedly by 9/11, the Great Recession, and then on top of that the 5 year extension senior pilots got to continue flying to age 65, all of which conspired to freeze pilots at regionals much longer than was normally the case. I don't blame pilots for being bitter about the whole thing.

3) At least in the US, I could see the airline that does the bulk of the national EAS flying (that's UAX right now) biting the bullet and ordering a set of ATR-42s to do that sort of flying. I don't think we'd see all three of the big carriers here doing that though.

I have said since this all began that the 1500 hour rule needed an exemption for true regional operators (NOT today’s flying contractors) flying 19 pax or less.
To pick a number out of my @.., just like the FAA did, say 1200 for Captain, and 800 for FO. Everybody has to start somewhere, and that is still a huge leap from the 200 hr wonders that United was hiring to meet the diversity lawsuit goals in the late 90’s.


The 1500 hour standard has been around for decades, before I was flying and that’s 52 years ago. It was the ATR standard before it became the ATP. Both pilots are flying paying passengers on an AIRLINE, what’s wrong with requiring BOTH pilots to be AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOTS?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:31 pm

FlyingElvii wrote:
GSP psgr wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
50 seaters have never been economically feasible.

But one must consider the total impact. Incremental seats feeding a hub can sometimes be justified. Also, imagine a lucrative corporate customer from a smallish city, say Elmira or Peoria or XNA.

And there is also the labor issue....50 seaters created a supply of civilian pilots to ensure that there would never be a pilot shortage at the mainline. Then again, the airlines never figured on how bitter some of these folks would be after being abused for years. It's ironic that what started out as a hedge against an organized labor group served to create a even more militant membership.


A few things:

1) I'm a huge pro-labor person, but even I think the Part 121 requirements for FOs are overkill by several hundred hours. I'm perfectly fine with flying in a RJ so long as the Captain has 1500 hours and I can live with an FO having only 500 hours. Congress should take another look at what should be required and come up with something that's more practical and reasonable for the industry, perhaps targeted to aircraft of say, less than 50 seats.

2) IIRC, the whole commuter pilot to mainline hiring system got whacked repeatedly by 9/11, the Great Recession, and then on top of that the 5 year extension senior pilots got to continue flying to age 65, all of which conspired to freeze pilots at regionals much longer than was normally the case. I don't blame pilots for being bitter about the whole thing.

3) At least in the US, I could see the airline that does the bulk of the national EAS flying (that's UAX right now) biting the bullet and ordering a set of ATR-42s to do that sort of flying. I don't think we'd see all three of the big carriers here doing that though.

I have said since this all began that the 1500 hour rule needed an exemption for true regional operators (NOT today’s flying contractors) flying 19 pax or less.
To pick a number out of my @.., just like the FAA did, say 1200 for Captain, and 800 for FO. Everybody has to start somewhere, and that is still a huge leap from the 200 hr wonders that United was hiring to meet the diversity lawsuit goals in the late 90’s.


The 1500 hour standard has been around for decades, before I was flying and that’s 52 years ago. It was the ATR standard before it became the ATP. Both pilots are flying paying passengers on an AIRLINE, what’s wrong with requiring BOTH pilots to be AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOTS?
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1067
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:33 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
I mentioned earlier (not in this thread) that Embraer VP thought his new prop-jet would be 40% more efficient than an existing RJ. If you consider that it takes 1.2 bbls of oil to make 1 bbl of product (transportation and refining), reducing fuel burn 40% is actually reducing carbon by 48%. That is amazing and could be available in just a couple of years. And at no cost to taxpayers.

Say that again???
If an RJ burns 1 bbl of jet fuel, total oil usage will be 1.2 bbls per your statement.
Now, if the new Embraer TP uses 40% less fuel (i.e. it'll burn 0.6 bbl for the same mission), the total oil usage will be 0.72 bbl (20% more for refining and transportation); that's a saving of 0.48 bbl over the 1.2 originally, i.e.... 40% less, not 48%.


You are correct (senior moment). :white: The percentage remains the same but the CO released by the extra .08 barrels is real.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 8993
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:11 am

The A221 isn't a solution for the 50-seaters going away. The A221 is more or less to upgauge 76 seater routes.
However, I really don't think you are going to see any additional A221s, as the floor is effectively the A223.

DL's A221s are configured at 109 and their A223s are at 130.
The A223 is effectively an A319 in terms of capacity.
There is little incentive to obtain the smaller gauge A221 versus the A223.

The economics of 100-seaters at mainline are niche. Mainline pilot wages, mainline work rules, mainline labor costs in totality are challenging at best.
The 717 situation at DL was unique and a stop-gap to help upgauge out of a myriad of 50 seaters. Those will be gone in a few years, and DL will effectively only have 45 A221s. The 100-seaters work in places that can command a high yield, and DL is more or less using them to replace 76 seaters in competitive markets and into competitor hubs.
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:42 am

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
The A221 isn't a solution for the 50-seaters going away. The A221 is more or less to upgauge 76 seater routes.
However, I really don't think you are going to see any additional A221s, as the floor is effectively the A223.

DL's A221s are configured at 109 and their A223s are at 130.
The A223 is effectively an A319 in terms of capacity.
There is little incentive to obtain the smaller gauge A221 versus the A223.

The economics of 100-seaters at mainline are niche. Mainline pilot wages, mainline work rules, mainline labor costs in totality are challenging at best.
The 717 situation at DL was unique and a stop-gap to help upgauge out of a myriad of 50 seaters. Those will be gone in a few years, and DL will effectively only have 45 A221s. The 100-seaters work in places that can command a high yield, and DL is more or less using them to replace 76 seaters in competitive markets and into competitor hubs.


I believe the incentive is that United can add more 76 seaters.under scope if they add the A221 to mainline if I remember the labor contract right.


Since this article, the Union has not moved:
Kirby: Broadly, we have a big order. We’ve taken a couple, but we have 161 firm deliveries of 737s coming. We’ve got a bunch of 787s coming. We continue to look at more options for both narrow and widebodies. We’re pretty active in the used aircraft market right now. We’re working on some used aircraft deals that might bring more airplanes.

In the longer term, we’ve got to decided whether we’re going to buy 100-seat airplanes or larger narrowbodies. Really depends on negotiations.

Skift: I thought you’ve argued you’d never buy 100-seaters because the economics don’t work.

Kirby: I didn’t say never. I’d say it’s probably not the best option, but it depends on the scope negotiations. Today, we could go buy 100 seaters instead of 737s and that unlocks scope for us. Probably a better answer is to buy 737s and unlock the scope, but we’re working with our pilots on that. I think, ultimately, we’ll get to the right answer. Longer term, the replacement of the 757 and 767 is on the horizon. It’s not just on the horizon, it’s in the here and now, and we really don’t have a great option for that. Longer term, by the time we get out of the middle of the next decade, we’re going to probably start replacing the 777-200s.

[Editor’s note: Scope refers to the union contract United maintains with its pilots. Under the current deal, United can only add more 76-regional jets, which are flown by contractors, if it also adds 100-seat jets flown by United pilots. Kirby seeks to alter the language so United would be allowed to add more 76-seaters if it buys 737s, which have more than 100 seats.]

 
N1120A
Posts: 26926
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 2:48 am

Cardude2 wrote:
N1120A wrote:
The airlines shot themselves a bit in the foot on this. In the late 90s and early 2000s heyday of 50 seaters, they couldn't stop harping about how quickly they were going "all jet." This, despite the knowledge that turboprops are 1) also jets and 2) easily as reliable, if not moreso, than "pure" jets. The reality is that the 30-70 seat market is best served by turboprops, with a certain part of that market also being served by aircraft like the E175 (mid-sized business cities to hubs and frequency fillers between large cities, especially where the flight is greater than about 250 nm). The ATR is, indeed, a great aircraft, but it has two flaws - 1) it is slow and 2) despite the fact that they improved the deice system, it still is a relatively poor performer in ice, and many of the North American communities that need turboprop service are in places where ice can and does regularly happen. The Q400 was almost purpose built for the North American market, but got caught up between the "all jet" propaganda and being operated by a dodgy carrier in the US. While it is not as fuel efficient as an ATR, the speed and performance of that airplane, combined with substantial efficiency gains over any small airline jet, made it a great tool. That is just a pity.

There is no question that a new turboprop is needed in the US market. Demand for flights at the right price outstrips the "fear" nearly anyone has about flying on a plane where some of the flying surface is outside the cowl.


The ATR-42-600 is not that slow but you are right about the de-icing. I've flown a lot out of Eugene to San Fransisco and if you take the morning flight in the winter it gets icy, but united hat solved that problem on that route, and others by having the morning and night flight always be a mainline or E-175. The mid-day flights don't really have ice issues. We must all remember that the e145 also has a winter issue (but I've forgotten what it is).

as for your q400, wasn't that sketchy airline Colgan? who let me remind you operated for CONTINENTAL NOW UNITED ( [controversial opinion] because continental took over united, not the other way around). And the great people at Alaska/horizon air (honorable mention also to island air) have gotten the reliability back. Also, the all-jet crap is pointless now, now that those annoying people have shut up and blindly book on Expedia or kayak.


Continental was actually consumed by United, just like US Airways was consumed by American. That upper management came from the smaller carrier doesn't change that, but whatever.

But yes, Colgan was a poor choice and the already looming pilot shortage, even with the old rules that wouldn't have made a single difference in that accident as it was two ATP rated pilots flying, and dirt pay and work rules led them to have a captain that was repeatedly failing checkrides flying passengers. That certainly didn't help, and the UA people made the short sighted move to dump the Q400 instead of moving them. Fuel had gotten much cheaper again and the RJ addiction was back.

The ATR is slow, however, for the kind of distances flown in the US. This isn't island hopping or covering relatively small distances with poor road access. The Q400 is much faster, allowing for real competition against the pure jets it is FAR more efficient than.
 
Cardude2
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon May 20, 2019 1:55 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:06 am

N1120A wrote:


Continental was actually consumed by United, just like US Airways was consumed by American. That upper management came from the smaller carrier doesn't change that, but whatever. .


When I was saying that, I meant in reality all the management from Continental replace the management at United and got rid of stuff over time like United livery, it’s panache, it’s stock name, it’s CEO, etc. all that was left was the united name. Not even fly the friendly skies was left over as shown in 2016 by and equally bad carrier to colgan air, The bankrupt but trying to restart Expressjet.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:15 am

GSP psgr wrote:

1) I'm a huge pro-labor person, but even I think the Part 121 requirements for FOs are overkill by several hundred hours. I'm perfectly fine with flying in a RJ so long as the Captain has 1500 hours and I can live with an FO having only 500 hours. Congress should take another look at what should be required and come up with something that's more practical and reasonable for the industry, perhaps targeted to aircraft of say, less than 50 seats.


Based upon what criteria?

2) IIRC, the whole commuter pilot to mainline hiring system got whacked repeatedly by 9/11, the Great Recession, and then on top of that the 5 year extension senior pilots got to continue flying to age 65, all of which conspired to freeze pilots at regionals much longer than was normally the case. I don't blame pilots for being bitter about the whole thing.


I know lots of these people. It sucked for them big time, and many are stuck at regionals or non-Major employment by the hiring practices of the the Majors. Honestly, IMO, much of the safety record of the regionals can be attributed to these dudes stuck at less than desirable employers.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1900
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:25 am

Part of the problem is consolidation. The larger market cap majors have return on equity and other ratios where it just doesn’t make sense. Unless you are earning very high revenue per passenger, the smaller planes don’t make sense for the majors. The CRJ550 is an interesting take on 50 seats but no doubt the low acquisition cost being a used CR7 makes that economical. There is going to need to be a dramatic breakthrough on economics to shift the paradigm.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26926
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:30 am

airzona11 wrote:
Part of the problem is consolidation. The larger market cap majors have return on equity and other ratios where it just doesn’t make sense. Unless you are earning very high revenue per passenger, the smaller planes don’t make sense for the majors. The CRJ550 is an interesting take on 50 seats but no doubt the low acquisition cost being a used CR7 makes that economical. There is going to need to be a dramatic breakthrough on economics to shift the paradigm.


The CR5 exists due to scope issues. It has the side effect of becoming a 50 seat airplane, reducing FA costs. They can use the airplane to backfill yield needs in markets that support it.
 
sldispatcher
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:55 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:49 am

For me, the turboprop issue is really one of noise, boarding method, interior outfitting/comfort level.

The SAAB 340’s were horrible flying toasters in the South in regards to heat and humidity.

Look at how different an E-175 is compared to an E-145. Not even in the same ballpark for passenger experience.

So the new Embraer has a chance with jetway boarding, great environmental controls and an interior to wow folks.
I’ve seen some snarky comments about the E-175, but I prefer it to most 3x3 mainline jets for under 2 1/2 hr flights.
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 4:11 am

lightsaber wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
First, they capped wells. Oil isn't pricey yet. During the downturn, it was almost free, now not yet pricey enough to expand fracking:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/new ... nch-2021-9

A big problem is the huge drop in 2020 coal production. It is easy to drop production, slow to restart and that makes oil precious that will drive up JetA.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.php

This impacts RJs as they are poor, as per a prior link (Greta line), per passenger and thus revenue.

That said, whatever is proposed must cut fuel burn tremendously, or it is a non-starter.

When prices of carbon fuels go up enough, we find solutions, e.g., SAF.

Lightsaber


Did you see the Energy Department's Secretary Graholm is considering the implications of an American oil export ban? Or tapping the SPR. Banning the export of LNG is probably next. Wow. And we are not yet out of hurricane season.

I mentioned earlier (not in this thread) that Embraer VP thought his new prop-jet would be 40% more efficient than an existing RJ. If you consider that it takes 1.2 bbls of oil to make 1 bbl of product (transportation and refining), reducing fuel burn 40% is actually reducing carbon by 48%. That is amazing and could be available in just a couple of years. And at no cost to taxpayers.

Backed off SPR tapping.

https://www.metro.us/oil-prices-surge-u-s/amp/

$80/bbl is cheap. Too cheap. While most fracking is cheaper, some are at $90/bbl. Once oil gets over $120/bbl again, we won't have supply issues.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/a ... 0%EF%BB%BF

A new aircraft now takes 7 years. I wish Embraer luck and a market. I'm not sure reducing 50 seat RJ fuel burn by 40% is enough. The requirement for pilots to have an ATP is what I believe is pushing UA to electric 19 seaters.

Those electric 19 seaters, with only a 250 mile range, might be what starts a rebirth in mini hubs.

Lightsaber


I would call them micro hubs. An example would be for United to create a micro hub in Memphis. Currently United runs the small tubes from places like Meridian MS and Hattiesburg MS over to IAH. The ES 19 will not cover that. Create a micro hub that collects places like Chattanooga, Columbus Ms, Hattiesburg MS, Meridian MS, Jackson MS, Paducah KY, Huntsville AL, Fort Smith, ect, ect, ect and deposit them in MEM to feed ORD, IAH, DEN, EWR, IAD, SFO to help feed larger aircraft and expand service from MEM to all the major United hubs and Air Canada's Toronto service.
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 4:20 am

N1120A wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
Part of the problem is consolidation. The larger market cap majors have return on equity and other ratios where it just doesn’t make sense. Unless you are earning very high revenue per passenger, the smaller planes don’t make sense for the majors. The CRJ550 is an interesting take on 50 seats but no doubt the low acquisition cost being a used CR7 makes that economical. There is going to need to be a dramatic breakthrough on economics to shift the paradigm.


The CR5 exists due to scope issues. It has the side effect of becoming a 50 seat airplane, reducing FA costs. They can use the airplane to backfill yield needs in markets that support it.


Quite Frankly, losing a CRJ550 for a 76 seater that requires bag checks at the gate would be a step back. I wonder how the higher fuel costs are effecting the economics of the 550.

https://youtu.be/lEsm4p4dv2o
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5138
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 1:15 pm

It might be useful for us to have a thread on how to fly people to that micro-hub, which usually is a city not just with the major flying there, but usually a regional hospital and medical center that provides the advanced treatment that cannot be provided in rural and more isolated areas. My point is that it would be good policy to have a robust transportation system throughout the US. Items to consider:

Buses, vans, and Uber type transportation are important. Autonomous vehicles may play a role, but what usually is lacking is that none of this is built into a system. There are likely to be at least a dozen people who travel daily for work to that larger city, and there are dozens more who want to get to that city and then get home again. Local governments could play a role in making it easier to connect drivers and people wanting a ride. Safety, insurance, licensing, convenience both for the driver and passengers are issues. Another issue is public transit in the US does a terrible job at the 'door to door' aspect. It is not an impossible problem to solve, but we do very little to make it happen.

Planes: I do not see turbojets or turboprops being cheap enough to buy and maintain in most cases. There should be a discussion of just how some of the models can fly some of the routes we are interested, and do so economically. They can do some, but I doubt if anything other than all electric could be cheap enough to buy and maintain.

Pilots. We all agree 3 people working on a regional plane are too expensive to the operation to work from places with fewer people flying. One pilot, no other crew can be done in some situations now, the number of passengers on that plane, by regulation, needs to be raised to at least 19. Logically the towns and villages would award scholarships to some of the best highschool and college graduates in that area, and a 'home town boy or girl' would be 'our' pilot. The pilot will be paid about the same as a licensed RN, from the beginning, but would not be paid like a surgeon later on. He or she would have agreed to a certain number of years service in exchange to those scholarships. If they want to go to greener pastures, whatever major airline wanted them could buy that contract out.

The most highly paid person for transportation in the area would be the person who coordinates all of this and ensures workers just work, passengers just get accomodated, and the system operates with the least amount of hassle for everyone. Blizzard, hurricane, earthquake or fire, even plague: What has to get done gets done.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23087
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 2:07 pm

Insertnamehere wrote:
scbriml wrote:
The bigger impediment is irrational fear of turboprops by the flying American public.


The fact of the matter is general Americans don't know/care what plane they fly on 99.9999% of the time. Even with searching through Google flights, the only thing that the vast majority of the travelling public cares about is the cost of the ticket.

In the case of 50 seaters, if their only option is going to be flying on a turboprop or driving to the nearest hub, more than likely they will take the turboprop.


While I don't care about the type, a have quite a few relatives who had such bad experiences on turboprops (noise or turbulence) they will not fly one again. One relative will fly in a nearby airport by jet and then has driven as much as 400 miles to avoid a turboprop.

That said, it would depend on the E3s properties. It won't look like prior turboprops and if the noise and turbulence is under control (active control?) they'll do well. The reality is, a slower flying aircraft will always feel turbulence more as well as a smaller aircraft, whose wing is unlikely to have the chord to span across some turbulence vortices as well as less weight, it going to be tossed around more.

Now most Americans haven't flown a turboprop, so they have no bias anymore. :spin: So if the next turboprop lacks the noise and something to help mitigate the turbulence than the resistance will be far less.

If one airline has a turboprop and the other jets, the jet

sldispatcher wrote:
For me, the turboprop issue is really one of noise, boarding method, interior outfitting/comfort level.

The SAAB 340’s were horrible flying toasters in the South in regards to heat and humidity.

Look at how different an E-175 is compared to an E-145. Not even in the same ballpark for passenger experience.

So the new Embraer has a chance with jetway boarding, great environmental controls and an interior to wow folks.
I’ve seen some snarky comments about the E-175, but I prefer it to most 3x3 mainline jets for under 2 1/2 hr flights.

You describe why turboprops are avoided by some. The E-175 is a very nice plane. I prefer fast loading.

This link goes into what passengers do not like about RJs
https://www.bbc.com/news/10476908

Dragging the bag through puddles... yep, makes it feel less glamorous. Passengers really prefer jetways. Not by a little either.
Passengers do not like the cramped cabins and demand large overhead bins, so here the E3 does have a nice advantage over prior turboprops.

That leaves the engines. I have watched multiple people, multiple times go into panic when they get near a propeller. Those scare people (when they should be just as afraid walking in front of a gas turbine..)
So if the E3 puts the engines in the back, that solves that issue, a noise issue, and personally, it looks more modern.

A prop on a wing will transmit far more vibration to the cabin than an engine on a pylon. Not to mention gas turbines remain better balanced with time than a prop (the greater diameter means any ding or dirt accumulation off balances it more). Engine pylons are designed to have dynamic frequency characteristics so they they cannot transmit along the vibration from the engine to the attach point. It simply cannot be done with a wing mounted engine where the wing is designed for aerodynamics, control surfaces, anti-ice, and fuel carrying. You can change a lot in a pylon for vibration frequency as it is a conduit for wiring, fuel, air pipes (less today), and to hold a structural weight inside of an aerodynamic fairing that may or may not be structural where today's aircraft are getting simple electrical anti-ice that is easier to design for the dynamics.

Passenger have a much higher expectation of NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness) than prior generations. Since several single engine turboprops due well in the business market, I can only assume new propellers and design techniques are far improved over older designs.

We'll see, fuel and labor must both get better. Labor will be improved by maintenance and improved ground handling.

Lightsaber
 
JA
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:25 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:30 pm

I heard an estimate that the CRJ550 cost 29% more per seat to operate than a CRJ200, but a lot of that would be offset by the revenue premium from the first and E+ sections.

Frankly, the pilot shortage is more of an issue than the acquisition cost of a new CRJ550. I am sure Bombardier would make a Challenger 550 "corporate shuttle" in that configuration at an interesting price, but the pilot shortage would reduce the number of CR5s that could be reasonably staffed.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 4:22 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
It might be useful for us to have a thread on how to fly people to that micro-hub, which usually is a city not just with the major flying there, but usually a regional hospital and medical center that provides the advanced treatment that cannot be provided in rural and more isolated areas. My point is that it would be good policy to have a robust transportation system throughout the US. Items to consider:


An area like Saranac Lake, NY fits that description as it's the most advanced and viable hospital serving the entire Adirondack Mountain region (which is a very big area with slow winding roads... it quickly dispels the idea that all of NY is just NYC extended). Folks have alternatives in Albany, Saratoga, Glens Falls, Utica, Rome, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Watertown, Pottsdam, etc... But they are like a big U surronding that massive land area serviced by smaller roads (I-87 just skirts the right side of it close to the NY border). So yeah, if you live in those aeas the Medical Cneters and Clinics at Saranc Lake are important. Saranca Lake area played a very big role in combating TB, so it's respected and sees traffice between it, Boston, NewYork, etc.. It's the kind of area that will always need viable air service, even if it's just EAS... I'm sure this same scenario plays out in Mn, Mt, Wi, Wy, etc... and to a lesser degree in wVA, VA, Ky, etc

I think the US Gov't is trying to play a meaningful role in not completely cutting off smaller communities... But those smaller communities have to take steps to apply for the grants, attract airlines, etc... I doubt we will have a USAir (no pun intended, well maybe I do like the cheeky reference) gov't subsidized airline operating under a masterplan of sorts... The current model, EAS, it probably the best that we will do. However, the Gov't and even FAA could play a role in seriously looking at funding development of a new, fuel efficient, next generation small capacity planes w/ith more flexibility in single pilot ops to make serving these communities more attractive for airlines.

fmrCapCadet, I'd love to see a thread dedicated to figuring out how to service smaller communities without telling eveyone they have to begin (butt crack of dawn) and end (late after sunset) every major trip with a 2 1/2+ hour car ride.
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 4:45 pm

JA wrote:
I heard an estimate that the CRJ550 cost 29% more per seat to operate than a CRJ200, but a lot of that would be offset by the revenue premium from the first and E+ sections.

Frankly, the pilot shortage is more of an issue than the acquisition cost of a new CRJ550. I am sure Bombardier would make a Challenger 550 "corporate shuttle" in that configuration at an interesting price, but the pilot shortage would reduce the number of CR5s that could be reasonably staffed.


GoJet is currently the only airline operating the CRJ550. Their fleet consists of 52, with 8 more CRJ550-converted, ex-Mesa CRJ700's still to be delivered. Ultimately they will have 60 of the CRJ550's. No CRJ550's are new builds, all are conversions of CRJ700's. The average airframe age of the variant is 16.8 years. Since Mitsubishi closed on the purchase of the CRJ program from Bombardier in 2020, Mitsubishi decided to build out what was on order, but not to seek new business for the time being. However, could United could coax them back into production with another large CRJ550 conversion order? Time will tell...

As for Bombardier, they have exited the airliner business with their sales of the Dash-8 program, the CRJ program sale to Mitsubishi, as well as Airbus' takeover of the BCS/A220 program.

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/GoJet-Airlines

The issue for the CRJ550 is that United only wants to pay CRJ200 rates to fly them, rather than the higher, CRJ700 rates. Of course United could make Air Wisconsin & Commutair "an offer they can't refuse" and convince them to fly the type along side GoJet. However, their bigger regional partners, SkyWest and Mesa aren't biting on that offer.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3957
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 5:00 pm

amcnd wrote:
It would take one regional a huge risk taking on a new 50 seat prop.. if they got a long term 15+ year contract from multiple majors to say run 25-50 (for a total of 100-150 AC )aircraft each. It could work. But say 4 small regionals fighting for 10-40 aircraft each wouldn't work… But if EMB built a 50 seat prop with 5 first class seats. Overhead bins that fit all carryons.. enough weight to double dip in cargo.. it could work…


SkyWest and Republic are quickly becoming the super regionals (not fully subsidiaries of one airline), especially OO.
 
744SPX
Posts: 613
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 5:00 pm

What about the SAAB-2000? That's 50-58 seats and even faster (370 knot high speed cruise) than the Q400. Plus at 31,000 ft it has the highest service ceiling of any turboprop under 100 seats (flying over weather) and the climb performance to get there as fast as an RJ. A re-engine (with Pratt's NGTP) and possibly re-wing could make it a killer in this market.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23087
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 6:31 pm

744SPX wrote:
What about the SAAB-2000? That's 50-58 seats and even faster (370 knot high speed cruise) than the Q400. Plus at 31,000 ft it has the highest service ceiling of any turboprop under 100 seats (flying over weather) and the climb performance to get there as fast as an RJ. A re-engine (with Pratt's NGTP) and possibly re-wing could make it a killer in this market.

It needs a re-engine, a re-wing, new avionics, and better sound protection for the passengers. You might as well design a new aircraft. Now the E3 can piggyback on E2 avionics and body (including sound insulation). So it just needs new engines (ideally at a location that allows jet bridges), wing, and tail. But it is being treated as if a new program, just with hand me down cost savings.

It has been over 20 years since a Saab 2000 was produced. That means we won't see a restart in production.

Lightsaber
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 6:40 pm

RJNUT wrote:
Ionosphere wrote:
Is there really that much of a prop avoidance from US pax? I know the Colgan and American Eagle crashes didn't help. It seems like the ATR-42 would be an excellent replacement on routes under 400 miles.

every Q400 flight i was ever on(old Frontier Lynx and CO Express) was 100 per cent full. As someone mentioned earlier,it's a a tired a.net trope. The turboprops do get biased in the search engines as in" avoid props" filter, but still doesn't completely deter..


My personal opinion is we will see a resurgence in the US of props because I, too, think it’s an overblown a.net trope (although based on some truth). Look at Silver expanding with ATRs. My mother who I dislikes props thought the new ATR was a great ride and wouldn’t hesitate again. A new prop will have better economics hopefully to allow service to small, non-EAS markets that will see strong adoption by US3.
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 6:58 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Completely agree with that comment Widerøe are using some Finnair ATR's on a few routes in Norway, including the Molde Bergen route I fly frequently, it's about 15 minutes slower than the Q400 that usually flies the route. It does have nicer cabin and larger overhead bins but I'd rather have a faster trip.

Why didn't Widerøe change the schedule?
 
IADCA
Posts: 2410
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 7:51 pm

WaywardMemphian wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:

Did you see the Energy Department's Secretary Graholm is considering the implications of an American oil export ban? Or tapping the SPR. Banning the export of LNG is probably next. Wow. And we are not yet out of hurricane season.

I mentioned earlier (not in this thread) that Embraer VP thought his new prop-jet would be 40% more efficient than an existing RJ. If you consider that it takes 1.2 bbls of oil to make 1 bbl of product (transportation and refining), reducing fuel burn 40% is actually reducing carbon by 48%. That is amazing and could be available in just a couple of years. And at no cost to taxpayers.

Backed off SPR tapping.

https://www.metro.us/oil-prices-surge-u-s/amp/

$80/bbl is cheap. Too cheap. While most fracking is cheaper, some are at $90/bbl. Once oil gets over $120/bbl again, we won't have supply issues.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/a ... 0%EF%BB%BF

A new aircraft now takes 7 years. I wish Embraer luck and a market. I'm not sure reducing 50 seat RJ fuel burn by 40% is enough. The requirement for pilots to have an ATP is what I believe is pushing UA to electric 19 seaters.

Those electric 19 seaters, with only a 250 mile range, might be what starts a rebirth in mini hubs.

Lightsaber


I would call them micro hubs. An example would be for United to create a micro hub in Memphis. Currently United runs the small tubes from places like Meridian MS and Hattiesburg MS over to IAH. The ES 19 will not cover that. Create a micro hub that collects places like Chattanooga, Columbus Ms, Hattiesburg MS, Meridian MS, Jackson MS, Paducah KY, Huntsville AL, Fort Smith, ect, ect, ect and deposit them in MEM to feed ORD, IAH, DEN, EWR, IAD, SFO to help feed larger aircraft and expand service from MEM to all the major United hubs and Air Canada's Toronto service.


This post reads a lot like a solution ("hub in Memphis") in search of a problem. I live in CHA (and am still a UA Gold despite the bare-bones UA service here), and my reaction to that post is that there is no way I'd use that unless I were going to one of the single-connect cities or to Memphis itself. At that point you're just adding a double-connect including two 19-seaters to get to most destinations. Why would I do that when I can take a 20-minute flight on a 717/CR7/CR9 to go one stop to anywhere via DL?

If you're going to use the 19-seaters as the core focus of a particular hub, it's going to be like the Comair CVG operation was: focusing on regional-to-regional connections. You'd want them stationed at a mid-size city nestled within an area of a ton of mid-size cities, with some reason you can't drive between them and no convenient connection via a major hub. To me that seems like more of a possibility for PIT/CLE/CVG type places. Memphis just doesn't have enough population/money nearby to make that operation scalable, I don't think.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14834
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:12 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Not going to happen, it’s mostly politics, but some safety risk arguments behind the politics. Pilot failure/incapacitation is assessed at 10E-5, so there needs to be two pilots to meet the 10E-9 standard for single point catastrophic failure you need two independent pilots. Politically, we are willing to accept exposing 9 or fewer passengers to the greater risk associated with single-pilot failure.


You've got it backwards. The AI is the pilot flying, the human is there just in case.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 10:39 pm

One thing to keep in mind, Scott Kirby could easily go to his manufacturer of choice and pay for the development of a clean sheet 50-seat RJ. If each of the US3 orders 200 aircraft, it should keep the production line running for a couple of years.

The aircraft doesn't exist because airlines aren't buying it. And airlines aren't buying because the economics don't make sense. It's hypocritical of airline CEOs to put the blame on the manufacturers, as if they'd immediately place an order if only someone offered a new RJ. If they were that desperate for a 50-seater to serve small communities, they could go to ATR, but they aren't.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: 50-seat RJ replacement: "the plane that doesn't exist..."

Sat Oct 09, 2021 10:50 pm

Aesma wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Not going to happen, it’s mostly politics, but some safety risk arguments behind the politics. Pilot failure/incapacitation is assessed at 10E-5, so there needs to be two pilots to meet the 10E-9 standard for single point catastrophic failure you need two independent pilots. Politically, we are willing to accept exposing 9 or fewer passengers to the greater risk associated with single-pilot failure.


You've got it backwards. The AI is the pilot flying, the human is there just in case.



AI to meet single-pilots operational safety standard is way too expensive for 19-seaters, likely so for 50-seaters.

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