Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
docmtl
Topic Author
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:04 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:17 pm

1 - Four days ago, United's CEO Scott Kirby pointed out they will cut down on the 50-seat RJs, the economics aren't there anymore. And they're currently looking for a "plane that doesn't exist...", the 50-seat replacement of these jets (https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/uni ... 46.article)

"As part of its strategy, United plans to upgauge numerous markets from older regional jets to newer, larger, but more efficient mainline aircraft.

“We’re still going to fly 50-seat jets to small communities throughout the country to make sure they’re still connected to our global hub network,” airline chief commercial officer Andrew Nocella said in June. “But we’re no longer going to use small jets to fly to large communities.”

How committed United remains to that 50-seat market remains undecided.

“We’re evaluating our 50-seat market, we’re going to be much smaller in the 50-seat market, and most of our 50-seat lift is going to be the -550, which has first class, the better product,” Kirby said, referring to the CRJ550, a premium-heavy adaptation of the Bombardier CRJ700.

“We’re still debating what the long-term future of 50 seaters really is,” he added. “The challenge is, do you want to serve places like Erie, Pennsylvania, at all, or Cody, Wyoming, or do those places just get cut off of the connectivity to the world?”

The debate is particularly acute due to congestion at hub airports, particularly Newark (EWR) in the New York City metro area, where each incoming small plane uses up a scheduled landing slot.

“They’re just not big enough to fly big airplanes to,” Kirby said.

Even with reduced flight frequencies using bigger aircraft, those cities could be effectively cut-off from the international networks.

“We’re struggling with that, we feel some obligation to keep the communities connected, but the economics ultimately aren’t going to work, and pilot shortages — you know, they’re getting squeezed.”

https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-ai ... view-iata/

2 - CRJs are no longer in production since the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries takeover, the line has been shut for good. Short-term conversions to CRJs-550s will work up to a certain point in time, but economics for smaller markets service will remain the same whichever the configuration chosen.

3 - We can also presume that United may not be that averse to turboprops either, since they've bought 100 electric-drive 19-seaters back in July from Heart Aerospace. Mesa would buy an additional 100 ES-19s, which can fly customers up to 250 miles. The plane will enter service as soon as 2026.

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustai ... 021-07-13/

4 - And oil prices are going up again, Brent was $82/barrel yesterday, and could spike to $100/barrel this winter before going back to the present level. The future is not bright

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/06/strateg ... risis.html

4 - Embraer's is offering its new E3-TP concept as a potential fit to this market, with 3-class seating and cabin comfort, low noise and 20% less fuel-burn.


So, where is this elusive "Plane that doesn't exist..." coming form ?!

Have a nice day, everyone !

docmtl
 
RJNUT
Posts: 1983
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 1999 1:58 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:26 pm

Dont know why he picked Cody which is already in a state subsidized program ASEP. and the yields have got to be great. I'm personally pinning much hope on the E3-TP from Embraer. . i also see some possible political solutions if too many "Erie's" get cut!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:35 pm

A 50-seat, Part 25 plane flown by 2 ATP Part 121 pilots simply cannot generate enough revenue for the airline or the manufacturer. The design and “bring to market” cost for a 50-seater is probably 50% the cost of a wide-body design but likely would generate 20% of the revenue for a carrier. The economics for RJs are terrible.
 
docmtl
Topic Author
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:04 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:40 pm

I forgot to add the link from Embraer's sales pitch about the RJ's replacement, sorry for that...

Here it is:

https://simpleflying.com/embraer-turbop ... stimation/
 
RJNUT
Posts: 1983
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 1999 1:58 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:49 pm

..or eventually shove down some aging-out 70 seaters into former 50 seat markets
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10169
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:49 pm

docmtl wrote:
“We’re struggling with that, we feel some obligation to keep the communities connected, but the economics ultimately aren’t going to work, and pilot shortages — you know, they’re getting squeezed.”


The answer is for dozens of small airports not too far from fair-sized airports to lose service - god, no, not an expansion of EAS.

50-seaters have poor gate/gate agent/slot productivity. They are high CASM, due to pilot labor as well as fuel. There is no business case for a multi $Billion investment in a new type. When these small-city passengers are asked to pay a lot more (for the incremental trip cost of a 76-seater that can't be filled vs. 50-seater) they are going to balk, and these cities will lose service. Think of airports within a 90-minute transit time of a top ~50 airport (something like Lexington #117 to Cincinnati #46 by domestic passenger count). People will just make the drive for non-stops, frequency, and fare competition. This has been a dynamic underway for over a decade: see DL ending service from St. Cloud (and passengers driving to MSP); see United ending service from Oxnard and Palmdale; see how WN has drawn down MHT...

General American antipathy to props in competitive markets is just insurmountable. Q400s and Saab 2000s didn't even get close to solving the problems of NVH.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14778
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:19 pm

Sure an interesting segment. A lean, mean, quiet and practical 50 seater. It seems the Embraer E3 would already be large, expensive for the requirement.

Of course you can get the ATR42-600 today. ATR even launched a new sales campaign. Not sure how it performs in terms of efficiency, performance. We would have to take a closer look.

Image
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/AT46

Wouldn't it be great if someone steps into this segment with a nimble, fast, quiet state of the art machine?
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 1078
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:28 pm

50 seat RJ replacement - Greyhound.
 
448205
Posts: 2323
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:34 pm

keesje wrote:
Sure an interesting segment. A lean, mean, quiet and practical 50 seater. It seems the Embraer E3 would already be large, expensive for the requirement.

Of course you can get the ATR42-600 today. ATR even launched a new sales campaign. Not sure how it performs in terms of efficiency, performance. We would have to take a closer look.

Image
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/AT46

Wouldn't it be great if someone steps into this segment with a nimble, fast, quiet state of the art machine?


ATR is too slow. Need Q400 speeds and ATR economy.

The speed doesn’t just affect the trip times, but also the number of segments the plane can fly a day. That drives revenue.
 
santi319
Posts: 1153
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:24 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:37 pm

keesje wrote:
Sure an interesting segment. A lean, mean, quiet and practical 50 seater. It seems the Embraer E3 would already be large, expensive for the requirement.

Of course you can get the ATR42-600 today. ATR even launched a new sales campaign. Not sure how it performs in terms of efficiency, performance. We would have to take a closer look.

Image
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/AT46

Wouldn't it be great if someone steps into this segment with a nimble, fast, quiet state of the art machine?


How is the ATR not a perfect replacement? It has 700 nm of range, if you need more than that you have the hubs to connect them through.
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:56 pm

jeffrey0032j wrote:
50 seat RJ replacement - Greyhound.

Interesting you should mention that...

A new way to connect to Breckenridge and Fort Collins - United

Image
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1337
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:16 pm

Ah 50 seaters, one of my favorite topics.

The death of 50 seaters was greatly exaggerated 15 years ago. And yet they are still here.

Why? Don’t they have high CASM? Yes. And you know what that means? Practically nothing! Biz jets have enormous CASM and they are flying off the shelves! CASM means nothing; what matters is the RASM/CASM ratio! And 50 seaters have sky high RASM. This is because of the diminishing yield versus capacity curve. That yield curve starts very, very high. Ask NetJets for their pricing.

My belief is that 70 seaters will stick around in communities that can fund them. 37-50 seaters will become a specialty market perhaps doing non daily ops on at-risk carriers. But the economics behind regional service will still pay for 50-70 seat jets for a long time.

Someday, AI will allow single pilot ops… a clean sheet dedicated 4Y 50-70 seater should be economical in the future…
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:29 pm

Net Jets and the entire charter/private jet market is booming.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:42 pm

if 19-30pax planes could move to single pilot ops in the US that could change the landscape a bit. If 50pax could move to single pilot ops in the US that would be a sea change for connecting small places to bigger airports. 19, 30 and 50 pax don't have to be Jets, but they should be fast props that can be turned around quiclky. I'm surprised that neither Embraer or ATR are pushing single pilot ops for all phases of flight for 19, 30 and 50 pax capacities and developing aircraft in a way that supports it. Even Airbus is going that route for it's proposed A350 Freighter (albiet just cruise).. Granted the Airbus experiment isn't totally applicable becuase they still need to pilots in the seat for take-off and landing.... but it still a step in the right direction. In fact, Textron isn't even going to certify it's Cessna 408 Sky Courier for 19pax in the US becuase that would then require 2 pilots... So it will remain just a 9pax/freight combi in the US to allow for single pilot operation.

I just don't see anyone developing / buying a new 50pax plane when it requires a minimum staff of 3 to fly it when you can build a 100pax plane with just 1 extra staff member to fly it while enjoying twice the potential seat revenue. However, single pilot ops would go a long way to make 19-50 viable in some instances. Maybe some argue that the level of automation required to convince authorities that one pilot can operate a 19-50pax plane safely in a variety of scenarios would increase the purchase price of the 19-50pax plane to unacceptable levels?

Who knows, but perhaps, maybe someday in the not too distance future we will be talking about CapeAir plying all over the US serving remote communities in behalf of legacy carriers everywhere in their singlepilot 9pax Tecnam P2012 Traveller, their singlepilot 19pax Tecnam P2028 Connector Aircraft, their singlepilot 30pax Tecnam 2032 Commuter Aircraft, and their singlepilot 50pax Tecnam 2036 Transporter Aircraft. Carving out a profitable niche helping smaller communities stay relevant as our cities get bigger and rural become more sparsely populated. Unfortunately, stuff of fiction... ah but fun stuff the imagination is.... Only if authorities, pilot unions and the flying public were ready for it.

Meanwhile stock in Prevost might not be a bad gamble.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23077
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:57 pm

adamblang wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
50 seat RJ replacement - Greyhound.

Interesting you should mention that...

A new way to connect to Breckenridge and Fort Collins - United

Image

LoL.
The economics of 50-seaters is tough. First DL scheduling the CR2 retirement (year end 2023) and now UA.

https://onemileatatime.com/delta-retiring-crj-717-767/

50 seaters are incredibly dependent on last minute, high yield business traffic.

So the solutions
1. A new aircraft with a tremendous CASM reduction. This, I believe, requires better fuel burn than the proposed 50-seat E3 and lower maintenance. I agree United will buy some turboprops, but I only see all electric meeting the CASM needs of this segment. 19 seaters do not require the same pilot certification as 20+ seats and that seems to be the barrier.
2. Buses. I would take that option. It is a bonus at crowded hubs of freeing up slots for mainline (ORD and EWR in particular). A much lower carbon impact.
3. Electric 19 seaters. The market isn't as well served, but premium traffic is picked off.
4. Less than daily service on larger guage aircraft.

The ULCCs are using the last to great effect. UA is just noting the reality of the future.
1. From London, HS2 will be much more attractive than current rail.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-sp ... ed_Kingdom
2. Electric 19 seaters United is buying a promised 250 mile variant. That cuts the potential F130 market as those are far cheaper pilots (no ATP required):
https://onemileatatime.com/news/united- ... quirements
3. Bus connections


United is replacing 200 regional aircraft with mainline aircraft:
https://m.marketscreener.com/news/lates ... -35740154/

We need to focus on the business case. There is no doubt the F100NG and F130NG will be light. But one doesn't focus on one optimization criteria. CASM is a problem with small aircraft.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 1078
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:59 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
if 19-30pax planes could move to single pilot ops in the US that could change the landscape a bit. If 50pax could move to single pilot ops in the US that would be a sea change for connecting small places to bigger airports. 19, 30 and 50 pax don't have to be Jets, but they should be fast props that can be turned around quiclky. I'm surprised that neither Embraer or ATR are pushing single pilot ops for all phases of flight for 19, 30 and 50 pax capacities and developing aircraft in a way that supports it. Even Airbus is going that route for it's proposed A350 Freighter (albiet just cruise).. Granted the Airbus experiment isn't totally applicable becuase they still need to pilots in the seat for take-off and landing.... but it still a step in the right direction. In fact, Textron isn't even going to certify it's Cessna 408 Sky Courier for 19pax in the US becuase that would then require 2 pilots... So it will remain just a 9pax/freight combi in the US to allow for single pilot operation.

I just don't see anyone developing / buying a new 50pax plane when it requires a minimum staff of 3 to fly it when you can build a 100pax plane with just 1 extra staff member to fly it while enjoying twice the potential seat revenue. However, single pilot ops would go a long way to make 19-50 viable in some instances. Maybe some argue that the level of automation required to convince authorities that one pilot can operate a 19-50pax plane safely in a variety of scenarios would increase the purchase price of the 19-50pax plane to unacceptable levels?

Who knows, but perhaps, maybe someday in the not too distance future we will be talking about CapeAir plying all over the US serving remote communities in behalf of legacy carriers everywhere in their singlepilot 9pax Tecnam P2012 Traveller, their singlepilot 19pax Tecnam P2028 Connector Aircraft, their singlepilot 30pax Tecnam 2032 Commuter Aircraft, and their singlepilot 50pax Tecnam 2036 Transporter Aircraft. Carving out a profitable niche helping smaller communities stay relevant as our cities get bigger and rural become more sparsely populated. Unfortunately, stuff of fiction... ah but fun stuff the imagination is.... Only if authorities, pilot unions and the flying public were ready for it.

Meanwhile stock in Prevost might not be a bad gamble.

Except you can't buy stock in Prevost, its owned by Volvo, and even in the coach segment, MCI is a bigger player.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10169
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:02 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
Ah 50 seaters, one of my favorite topics.

The death of 50 seaters was greatly exaggerated 15 years ago. And yet they are still here.


In vastly smaller numbers. DL went from five hundred 50-seaters in 2009 to just 51 by 6/30/2021. It may have taken dinosaurs a while after the Chicxulub asteroid to recognize they were dead reptiles walking - but extinct they became.

Your NetJets reference is just a distraction. You're not going to find many current UA E-145 passengers ready to pay NetJets money. NetJets flew less than 300K flight hours in 2020, so what, maybe a million passengers? Compare that number to the regional ops of AA/DL/UA scaled for 50-seater use.
Last edited by MIflyer12 on Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 1078
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:03 pm

lightsaber wrote:
adamblang wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
50 seat RJ replacement - Greyhound.

Interesting you should mention that...

A new way to connect to Breckenridge and Fort Collins - United

Image

LoL.
The economics of 50-seaters is tough. First DL scheduling the CR2 retirement (year end 2023) and now UA.

https://onemileatatime.com/delta-retiring-crj-717-767/

50 seaters are incredibly dependent on last minute, high yield business traffic.

So the solutions
1. A new aircraft with a tremendous CASM reduction. This, I believe, requires better fuel burn than the proposed 50-seat E3 and lower maintenance. I agree United will buy some turboprops, but I only see all electric meeting the CASM needs of this segment. 19 seaters do not require the same pilot certification as 20+ seats and that seems to be the barrier.
2. Buses. I would take that option. It is a bonus at crowded hubs of freeing up slots for mainline (ORD and EWR in particular). A much lower carbon impact.
3. Electric 19 seaters. The market isn't as well served, but premium traffic is picked off.
4. Less than daily service on larger guage aircraft.

The ULCCs are using the last to great effect. UA is just noting the reality of the future.
1. From London, HS2 will be much more attractive than current rail.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-sp ... ed_Kingdom
2. Electric 19 seaters United is buying a promised 250 mile variant. That cuts the potential F130 market as those are far cheaper pilots (no ATP required):
https://onemileatatime.com/news/united- ... quirements
3. Bus connections

If more Federal Infrastructural funding is diverted to building higher speed electric rail lines (not HSR but faster locomotives than normal) as seen in Europe, that will be another option.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5136
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:04 pm

Most small towns (currently served or not) are within 200-300 miles of a major airport. My suspicion is that they will not be well served until electric STOL aircraft are available. Given the much lower capital and maintenance, costs can be significantly lower; given their low noise ratings, much lower minimum speeds, and minimal airstrips space needed an auxiliary airfield will generally be available near the major airports.

Spokane, for example could be fed by most of eastern Washington and northern Idaho. That might well create enough traffic to enable Spokane expanding its operations. It probably could handle all of the traffic, as I don't think it is too busy for 'near regional' flights.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:06 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
if 19-30pax planes could move to single pilot ops in the US that could change the landscape a bit. If 50pax could move to single pilot ops in the US that would be a sea change for connecting small places to bigger airports. 19, 30 and 50 pax don't have to be Jets, but they should be fast props that can be turned around quiclky. I'm surprised that neither Embraer or ATR are pushing single pilot ops for all phases of flight for 19, 30 and 50 pax capacities and developing aircraft in a way that supports it. Even Airbus is going that route for it's proposed A350 Freighter (albiet just cruise).. Granted the Airbus experiment isn't totally applicable becuase they still need to pilots in the seat for take-off and landing.... but it still a step in the right direction. In fact, Textron isn't even going to certify it's Cessna 408 Sky Courier for 19pax in the US becuase that would then require 2 pilots... So it will remain just a 9pax/freight combi in the US to allow for single pilot operation.

I just don't see anyone developing / buying a new 50pax plane when it requires a minimum staff of 3 to fly it when you can build a 100pax plane with just 1 extra staff member to fly it while enjoying twice the potential seat revenue. However, single pilot ops would go a long way to make 19-50 viable in some instances. Maybe some argue that the level of automation required to convince authorities that one pilot can operate a 19-50pax plane safely in a variety of scenarios would increase the purchase price of the 19-50pax plane to unacceptable levels?

Who knows, but perhaps, maybe someday in the not too distance future we will be talking about CapeAir plying all over the US serving remote communities in behalf of legacy carriers everywhere in their singlepilot 9pax Tecnam P2012 Traveller, their singlepilot 19pax Tecnam P2028 Connector Aircraft, their singlepilot 30pax Tecnam 2032 Commuter Aircraft, and their singlepilot 50pax Tecnam 2036 Transporter Aircraft. Carving out a profitable niche helping smaller communities stay relevant as our cities get bigger and rural become more sparsely populated. Unfortunately, stuff of fiction... ah but fun stuff the imagination is.... Only if authorities, pilot unions and the flying public were ready for it.

Meanwhile stock in Prevost might not be a bad gamble.


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.
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:13 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
Ah 50 seaters, one of my favorite topics.

The death of 50 seaters was greatly exaggerated 15 years ago. And yet they are still here.



That fact reminds me of this: That old whack-job Mike Boyd has been preaching about the pending ultimate demise of 50-seat jets for over a decade. But if he goes to DEN...

The 50-seat jet is obsolete. I don't expect to see an all-new 50-seat jet being developed. I also don't expect the 55-seat mini-SST that (& Boyd's pet project) Boom allegedly has been "developing" will ever see service. And, while we are on the subject of small-community service, those all-electric 19-seaters on the drawing board will also probably not get beyond prototyping.

Developing new airliners (and even derivatives), be they 19-seaters, or 600-seaters, is very hard and very risky. For example, Embraer is finding that out the hard way with their struggling E2 series and Bombardier nearly collapsed trying to bring (the ultimately excellent) BCS/A220 to market. The Chinese, Russians and Japanese have also struggled to develop their new airliner offerings.

So where does it leave small community air service, especially in the USA? Some brave souls are boarding Cessna Caravans, PC-12's, C402's and Tecnam's flown single-pilot and in some cases are not even being connected to a true major airline hub (e.g. MEM, BNA, STL, etc.). Unless the small community is a "sun & fun" or ski destination (e.g. EYW, or EGE), chances are the major airlines won't be economically motivated to serve them. However, since the major US airlines were basically bailed-out during the height of the pandemic, there will be considerable pressure from Congress for those airlines to maintain branded services to certain smaller cities located in state capitols and home districts of Congressional leaders. Therefore, the major airlines have to find a solution to this coming service problem.

Ultimately, I think the only viable solution for continued major airline-branded services to smaller cities will be a return to turboprops. Where hub spokes are less than 500sm, I expect some regionals might end up being equipped with ATR's and maybe the Q400 line will be pulled out of mothballs, too. The new Embraer turboprop seems promising, but I wonder if it will be deemed to be "too big" to fit into those arcane scope clauses.

Time will tell...
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 6:10 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.


Not to mention the significant requirements for wholesale changes to aircraft certification, security and FARs.

It is a non-trivial effort.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4725
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 6:27 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
ATR is too slow.


No, it's not.

At such short sectors the speed of the aircraft hardly matters, the amount of time the aircraft can fly at cruise speed is very limited and it's not like the difference is that big. In the end the difference would be no more than a few minutes. Cruise speed only makes a difference on long haul, on short haul you got to look at things like boarding speed, climb and descend speed, etc.

However I don't think there's a future for the current model of serving many small airports with small aircraft, that's just not viable. Often there are multiple airports per region, only one of them can survive and serve the entire region. The others will permanently lose their airline service, all airline service is being consolidated at one airport. That allows airlines to use larger aircraft as they can combine the demands of multiple airports in one flight. After all if there's no flight from one airport, people will travel to the next airport from where there is a flight.
 
bigb
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 6:29 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
Ah 50 seaters, one of my favorite topics.

The death of 50 seaters was greatly exaggerated 15 years ago. And yet they are still here.

Why? Don’t they have high CASM? Yes. And you know what that means? Practically nothing! Biz jets have enormous CASM and they are flying off the shelves! CASM means nothing; what matters is the RASM/CASM ratio! And 50 seaters have sky high RASM. This is because of the diminishing yield versus capacity curve. That yield curve starts very, very high. Ask NetJets for their pricing.

My belief is that 70 seaters will stick around in communities that can fund them. 37-50 seaters will become a specialty market perhaps doing non daily ops on at-risk carriers. But the economics behind regional service will still pay for 50-70 seat jets for a long time.

Someday, AI will allow single pilot ops… a clean sheet dedicated 4Y 50-70 seater should be economical in the future…


Your RJ to NetJets comparison is way off.
Comparing schedules RJ to business jets marks is comparing apples to oranges. Folks who buy into NetJets or buy business jets can care less about CASM. They buy the aircraft that is capable of performing their desired missions that they want a aircraft for. Biggest bottom line for these folks is the cost to acquire the aircraft and costs with managing and maintaining the aircraft hence aircraft sold as shares, or dry leased out under a aircraft management firm.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 6:40 pm

The answer for ensuring service in these areas is ultimately a return to Regulation. If Spirit or Southwest or United or any other airline wants slots at EWR, LGA or any other slot restricted (read high yield) airport it could required to serve selected number of EAS type towns.

The idea that we need to find some hardware solution for what is ultimately a economic goods leveling discussion is pretty American.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14778
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 6:59 pm

santi319 wrote:
How is the ATR not a perfect replacement? It has 700 nm of range, if you need more than that you have the hubs to connect them through.


frmrCapCadet wrote:
Most small towns (currently served or not) are within 200-300 miles of a major airport. My suspicion is that they will not be well served until electric STOL aircraft are available. G


It seems the ATR fits the bill in terms of range & capacity. Speed won't be a significant disadavantage on <1 hr flight. 300kts isn't really slow.

http://www.smartaviation-apac.com/2021/ ... se-market/
https://www.atr-aircraft.com/our-aircra ... 600s-stol/

But there's obviously a reason why it has had low sales so far for passenger service.

Image
http://www.baryonaviation.com/atr-42-600.html
Last edited by keesje on Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1337
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:02 pm

bigb wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
Ah 50 seaters, one of my favorite topics.

The death of 50 seaters was greatly exaggerated 15 years ago. And yet they are still here.

Why? Don’t they have high CASM? Yes. And you know what that means? Practically nothing! Biz jets have enormous CASM and they are flying off the shelves! CASM means nothing; what matters is the RASM/CASM ratio! And 50 seaters have sky high RASM. This is because of the diminishing yield versus capacity curve. That yield curve starts very, very high. Ask NetJets for their pricing.

My belief is that 70 seaters will stick around in communities that can fund them. 37-50 seaters will become a specialty market perhaps doing non daily ops on at-risk carriers. But the economics behind regional service will still pay for 50-70 seat jets for a long time.

Someday, AI will allow single pilot ops… a clean sheet dedicated 4Y 50-70 seater should be economical in the future…


Your RJ to NetJets comparison is way off.
Comparing schedules RJ to business jets marks is comparing apples to oranges. Folks who buy into NetJets or buy business jets can care less about CASM. They buy the aircraft that is capable of performing their desired missions that they want a aircraft for. Biggest bottom line for these folks is the cost to acquire the aircraft and costs with managing and maintaining the aircraft hence aircraft sold as shares, or dry leased out under a aircraft management firm.


Ok, let me explain it. Lightsaber above said exactly what I am saying. The basis of RJ flights is not families going to MCO. The RJ flights are about last minute business travel. It is the 8-15 guys and gals on $800 fares on that airplane. Some of whom return the same day.

What puts fuel in the RJ tank is the business fares. If the flight stops, that business traffic cannot do their meetings unless they charter a jet. And some will. This speaks to the existence of $800 business fares and the people who pay them every single day.
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:05 pm

RJNUT wrote:
Dont know why he picked Cody which is already in a state subsidized program ASEP. and the yields have got to be great. I'm personally pinning much hope on the E3-TP from Embraer. . i also see some possible political solutions if too many "Erie's" get cut!


Cody also functions as a gateway to Yellowstone National Park. While BZN is by far the largest airport near that park, UA did recently add service to WYS. I also would think COD is doing quite well these days..

Places like ERI, on the other hand, could be much more challenging to make work. It's very easy to drive from Erie to BUF or CLE (which just got even more nonstop service restored). Who is going to want to pay a premium to board an RJ at ERI and then have to connect through a dump like IAD or ORD when they could drive to CLE and board a nonstop mainline flight that probably costs substantially less? For those headed to Erie, a missed connection at the hub likely means a *long* wait for the next option - or flying into a nearby airport and driving anyways.
Last edited by SurfandSnow on Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20190
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:07 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
ATR is too slow. Need Q400 speeds and ATR economy.

The speed doesn’t just affect the trip times, but also the number of segments the plane can fly a day. That drives revenue.


What is the speed difference and how much time does that equate to over a typical 50-seater route? I’d suggest not enough to make any meaningful difference.

The bigger impediment is irrational fear of turboprops by the flying American public.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:10 pm

FLALEFTY wrote:
Ultimately, I think the only viable solution for continued major airline-branded services to smaller cities will be a return to turboprops. Where hub spokes are less than 500sm, I expect some regionals might end up being equipped with ATR's and maybe the Q400 line will be pulled out of mothballs, too. The new Embraer turboprop seems promising, but I wonder if it will be deemed to be "too big" to fit into those arcane scope clauses.

The Q400 and ATR-72 are basically 76-seaters (or more, if densely packed). If you want to replace 50 seater RJs, the closest choice ist the ATR-42.

I think there will be significant consolidation among regional airports. Long drives have become less of a hassle compared to the heyday of regional flying. A single airport can easily serve a catchment radius of 120 minutes or more.

Europe and Asia have already led the way. 30- to 50-seaters have become virtually extinct save for a few ATRs. Small airports are connected to one or two hubs only, if any. The remainig traffic is split between ULCCs and charter airlines. Select high-yielding point-to-point routes get served by aging 19-seaters or business jets.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14778
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:38 pm

ATR apparently upgraded the ATR 42-600 ATR with a 600S (STOL) version, with additional shp, bigger rudder, enhanced braking and flap systems for operations from down to 800M runways.
https://youtu.be/iZiw5SPuZWY

Image
https://airwaysmag.com/industry/atr/atr-42600stol-design-industrialization/

The ATR cabin seems slightly spacier than a CRJ. https://theflyingengineer.files.wordpre ... fuse02.jpg
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:39 pm

scbriml wrote:

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


That's an overblown A.net trope.

The problem was that turboprops became increasingly unreliable for a variety of factors, and no-one in their right mind is going to buy a ticket on a unreliable airline.

There are a myriad of reasons why turboprops because synonymous with unreliability, but its a done deal now. The airlines are telling the government "we used to use our profitable routes to subsidize service, then we used our employees to do it, then we used other people's employees to do it. We are now out of people to subsidize our high yield but anorexically thin routes. So, we're going to stop."

I guess United's plan is complete with Frontier and Spirit on price and service.
 
TUSDawg23
Posts: 274
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:43 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:45 pm

The economics just aren't there with the current aircraft on the market for Hub-small town spoke. The ideal solution would probably be a single pilot 30-50 seat electric airliner with a range of 500NM, but how is any manufacturer going to recoup their cost with all the regulatory hurdles to developing a clean sheet design of this type?

The US is not Europe, particularly in the western US that is filled with sparsely populated and spread out towns. If a small town in Wyoming really wants a nonstop link to DEN, there is really no solid business case on the airline side unless there is heavy subsidies from uncle sam or the town. It would be in a small, isolated town's best interest to partner with a community in a few hours driving distance to a larger airport to setup a bus service rather than the exuberant cost of 50 seat rj that is half filled or less once a day.
 
448205
Posts: 2323
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:14 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
ATR is too slow.


No, it's not.

At such short sectors the speed of the aircraft hardly matters, the amount of time the aircraft can fly at cruise speed is very limited and it's not like the difference is that big. In the end the difference would be no more than a few minutes. Cruise speed only makes a difference on long haul, on short haul you got to look at things like boarding speed, climb and descend speed, etc.

However I don't think there's a future for the current model of serving many small airports with small aircraft, that's just not viable. Often there are multiple airports per region, only one of them can survive and serve the entire region. The others will permanently lose their airline service, all airline service is being consolidated at one airport. That allows airlines to use larger aircraft as they can combine the demands of multiple airports in one flight. After all if there's no flight from one airport, people will travel to the next airport from where there is a flight.


Short distances? Where? Europe?

In the US airlines are flying 1000+nm with 50 seat jets.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:17 pm

Varsity1 wrote:

Short distances? Where? Europe?

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


I suspect that is more the exception than the rule.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1337
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:27 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:

Short distances? Where? Europe?

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


I suspect that is more the exception than the rule.


RJ fleets do a variety of work, some short, some longer. A turboprop fleet would need to include more aircraft and more pilots to do the work an RJ fleet can do. If a more fuel efficient 50-70 seat jet is needed, that is a doable thing. Turboprops aren’t a magical solution. IMO
Last edited by LCDFlight on Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1060
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:27 pm

In the Embraer Turbo prop thread, a Embraer VP stated that they were looking at up to 40% reduction in fuel compared to a 50 seat jet. Probably shorter runs which favor propjets.

Airlines know that to meet their fantasy promise to reduce CO2 emissions 20 percent by 2030, they will have to meet the following hurdle :

2019 US Jet fuel consumption 18.27 billion gallons
20% sustainable jet fuel (SJF) 3.65 billion gallons
Price difference between Jet and SJF today $5 to $7 per gallon. If you think it will get cheaper - see the price history for ethanol
The airlines are either going to beg the Government for $18 to $28 billion dollars a year in subsidies or pay it themselves? (Or admit they weren't telling the truth)
If by 2030 the worst predictions for Global Warming are occuring, they'll be buying turbo props. We'll just call them hybrids.
 
oosnowrat
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:55 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:55 pm

mxaxai wrote:
FLALEFTY wrote:
Ultimately, I think the only viable solution for continued major airline-branded services to smaller cities will be a return to turboprops. Where hub spokes are less than 500sm, I expect some regionals might end up being equipped with ATR's and maybe the Q400 line will be pulled out of mothballs, too. The new Embraer turboprop seems promising, but I wonder if it will be deemed to be "too big" to fit into those arcane scope clauses.

The Q400 and ATR-72 are basically 76-seaters (or more, if densely packed). If you want to replace 50 seater RJs, the closest choice ist the ATR-42.


If a CR7 can be derated to a CR5, why couldn't the Q400 or ATR-72?
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:15 pm

oosnowrat wrote:
If a CR7 can be derated to a CR5, why couldn't the Q400 or ATR-72?

They could, but like UA's CRJ-550 it's not a perfect solution for every market. You either end up with a too large first class section or a lot of wasted space to stay under the 50 seat scope clause limit. It's still a much larger aircraft than a CR2 or an ERJ.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4725
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:33 pm

oosnowrat wrote:
If a CR7 can be derated to a CR5, why couldn't the Q400 or ATR-72?


Technically they could but it would not be economical to do so, the CRJ550 isn't economical either. It's essentially a CRJ700 and has the fuel burn of a CRJ700, but with fewer seats to divide that fuel burn over. The CRJ200 is smaller but has the same amount of seats, resulting in a lower fuel burn per seat.

There's a reason airlines try to cram as many seats in an aircraft as possible. If a higher number of seats is not possible, you need a smaller aircraft to fit the same number of seats.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:07 pm

jeffrey0032j wrote:
If more Federal Infrastructural funding is diverted to building higher speed electric rail lines (not HSR but faster locomotives than normal) as seen in Europe, that will be another option.


so what you’re saying is rail is not economical and should be subsidized by tax payers to compete.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:12 pm

scbriml wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
ATR is too slow. Need Q400 speeds and ATR economy.

The speed doesn’t just affect the trip times, but also the number of segments the plane can fly a day. That drives revenue.


What is the speed difference and how much time does that equate to over a typical 50-seater route? I’d suggest not enough to make any meaningful difference.

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


The embraer design does a nice job of hiding the props from the public and designing an airplane that 1500 hour FOs (the cheapest pilots) can qualify on.
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4558
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:30 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
The answer for ensuring service in these areas is ultimately a return to Regulation. If Spirit or Southwest or United or any other airline wants slots at EWR, LGA or any other slot restricted (read high yield) airport it could required to serve selected number of EAS type towns.


I suppose if the Federal government owned the airports, then yes, they would be within their authority to mandate that. But they don't own the airports.


FlapOperator wrote:
The idea that we need to find some hardware solution for what is ultimately a economic goods leveling discussion is pretty American.


Looking to the Federal government to do "economic goods leveling" is doomed from the start. So yes, a "pretty American" solution is to look to the market for the solution.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23077
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:35 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
In the Embraer Turbo prop thread, a Embraer VP stated that they were looking at up to 40% reduction in fuel compared to a 50 seat jet. Probably shorter runs which favor propjets.

Airlines know that to meet their fantasy promise to reduce CO2 emissions 20 percent by 2030, they will have to meet the following hurdle :

2019 US Jet fuel consumption 18.27 billion gallons
20% sustainable jet fuel (SJF) 3.65 billion gallons
Price difference between Jet and SJF today $5 to $7 per gallon. If you think it will get cheaper - see the price history for ethanol
The airlines are either going to beg the Government for $18 to $28 billion dollars a year in subsidies or pay it themselves? (Or admit they weren't telling the truth)
If by 2030 the worst predictions for Global Warming are occuring, they'll be buying turbo props. We'll just call them hybrids.

I think lower frequency mainline will replace many RJs.

When I look at Ethanol (Max timeline) I see a 40% drop in price from crazy initial values with a (very slow) declining trend, but still pricey. But not unmanageable pricey.
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/commodities/eh


https://www.freightwaves.com/news/shell ... sector/amp


“Currently, sustainable aviation fuel accounts for less than 0.1% of the world’s use of aviation fuel. We want to help our customers use more SAF,” Anna Mascolo, president of aviation at Shell, said in a release Monday.

As the mode of transport that emits the most greenhouse gases per ton mile, aviation is an important but difficult sector to decarbonize. Shell made it clear that the aviation industry needs to take more action to reduce emissions.

The company aims for 10% of its fuel sales to be SAF by 2030.


I expect SAF to be at a premium, but not over $5/gal by 2030. That said, with natural growth in the market, that means a substantial reduction in fuel usage (replace RJs with turboprops or buses).

So taking the price history of Ethanol, I expect SAF in 2030 to cost 1.5X to 2X the price of jetfuel. So it will be a mix of SAF and more efficient aircraft.

Or using aircraft more efficiently (lower frequency, larger gauge).

Turboprops will probably grow. So will CMCs, variable turbine cooling, greater GTF reduction (2030 too early for open rotor or Ultrafan).

Higher fuel prices are required for airline interest in new technology. I think the 50 seat market will shrink. Dramatically.

Lightsaber
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 1792
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:36 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
A 50-seat, Part 25 plane flown by 2 ATP Part 121 pilots simply cannot generate enough revenue for the airline or the manufacturer. The design and “bring to market” cost for a 50-seater is probably 50% the cost of a wide-body design but likely would generate 20% of the revenue for a carrier. The economics for RJs are terrible.

Yet, the fact remains that mainline jets over 50 seats are insanely inefficient at 300 miles or below, and barely cost even at 700 and under.

The original RJ idea was routes under 700 miles, which enabled longer - thinner routes like CVG-COS, or STL-ROC, replacing aged Small bodied DC-9’s, and a quick turn ability to make it work. They were not envisioned to be a cheap slot squat on DCA, ORD, and LGA, or be used to run 10 frequencies a day to blow out a competitor.

Regardless, CRJ’s are aging out, and good engines seems to be the biggest issue for them. The 145’s are right behind them, with no replacement in sight.

What United wants is a new 50 seater that includes room for a first class section, that they can run off the books by the lowest bidder.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:07 pm

N62NA wrote:
Looking to the Federal government to do "economic goods leveling" is doomed from the start. So yes, a "pretty American" solution is to look to the market for the solution.

And the market has spoken, whatever the long term effects for smaller rural communities. The federal government provides plenty of subsidies, though, if they consider them useful for the US as a whole. EAS is an example.

Babyshark wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
If more Federal Infrastructural funding is diverted to building higher speed electric rail lines (not HSR but faster locomotives than normal) as seen in Europe, that will be another option.


so what you’re saying is rail is not economical and should be subsidized by tax payers to compete.

HSR is precisely the wrong tool to connect smaller towns. HSR makes sense in densely populated areas like the Northeast or parts of the sunbelt but it'd be useless in the midwest. If you can't fill a 70-seat RJ, how do you expect to fill a 200-1000 seat train?
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 1792
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:22 pm

mxaxai wrote:
N62NA wrote:
Looking to the Federal government to do "economic goods leveling" is doomed from the start. So yes, a "pretty American" solution is to look to the market for the solution.

And the market has spoken, whatever the long term effects for smaller rural communities. The federal government provides plenty of subsidies, though, if they consider them useful for the US as a whole. EAS is an example.

Babyshark wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
If more Federal Infrastructural funding is diverted to building higher speed electric rail lines (not HSR but faster locomotives than normal) as seen in Europe, that will be another option.


so what you’re saying is rail is not economical and should be subsidized by tax payers to compete.

HSR is precisely the wrong tool to connect smaller towns. HSR makes sense in densely populated areas like the Northeast or parts of the sunbelt but it'd be useless in the midwest. If you can't fill a 70-seat RJ, how do you expect to fill a 200-1000 seat train?

As the former Gov of Indiana noted, the state could have saved millions just by buying every “ Hoosier State” train passenger a ticket on Southwest to Chicago, than to continue to subsidize it.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2385
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:24 pm

The replacement is one stop hops to small markets in 100-seat variants like the A220. Think late 80’s early 90’s small market scheduling patterns before a 50-seater was considered the small market pantheon.

http://www.departedflights.com/DLwinter91dom.html

http://www.departedflights.com/WA030187.html
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:32 pm

N62NA wrote:

I suppose if the Federal government owned the airports, then yes, they would be within their authority to mandate that. But they don't own the airports.

Looking to the Federal government to do "economic goods leveling" is doomed from the start. So yes, a "pretty American" solution is to look to the market for the solution.


Well, the Federal government does own the airspace and regulatory authority under which the airlines are operated.

Uh, that leveling occurs already...see point one. It is the reason these routes are operated by airlines, and not Joe Bob's Barber and Clown College Cessna 182.

If you believe that post-Regulation environment was some kind of experiment in unbridled market economics, I'm going to need to your work on that one. It was an exercise in crony capitalism.

So, I guess your solution is magic up an airplane?
 
Nean1
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

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

Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:49 pm

Good afternoon everyone,

I believe that there will be an inexorable movement of telework allowing people to move to smaller cities, with less living cost and a better quality of life. This could mean a new type of public demanding regional aviation services.

With regard to size, I believe that the optimum point will be more for the E-170 than for the E-145, not only for the possibility of having 50 seats with various classes but also for the possibility of these aircraft earning more fares transporting express packages, transforming the small ones airports in convenient logistic centers. Who knows the chances of an E3 combi?

Brazil is also a very large country and there is a growing interest in boosting inland locations by improving the infrastructure of regional airports and attracting flights, even though there are no subsidies to airlines. There are a large number of Cesna Caravans (9 passengers) being put into service with also ATR72, these on established routes. There is a captive demand and an absence of competition offering more comfortable planes, in a way that the public does not complain.

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