Having watched the price of oil continue to rise and flirt with the psychological $100 mark,I've started wondering how this impacts the viability of operating smaller regional jet aircraft. It's common knowledge that the seat mile costs are higher on smaller jets and that has me wondering if they are still profitable to operate? I understand they commonly play a role in feeding large network carriers under capacity purchase agreements and their value is seen in how they support the network. I cannot help but feel those same network carriers must be watching the fuel bills very closely as they are normally pass-through costs. There must be a point where the network carriers cannot raise ticket prices enough to compensate for the higher seat mile costs of these smaller jets.

How much more fuel efficient are turboprops than regional jets? Personally, I like the ATR and Dash-8 better than any RJ, and if they save a good chunk of money, why aren't more airlines purchasing them?

Surely Bombardier or ATR could design a faster, quieter more fuel efficient turboprop that would blow airlines away with their cost savings... I'm just surprised no manufacturer has jumped on the gun on this one.

Anyone think there's going to be a turboprop uprising?

Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 1): Anyone think there's going to be a turboprop uprising?

I personally don't think so. The general public doesn't think that turbo props are safe right now. They are alot louder, and are somewhat slower than the rj's. People want faster service, and want to fly on a shiny new jet.

Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 2): They are alot louder, and are somewhat slower than the rj's. People want faster service, and want to fly on a shiny new jet

Alot of the public seem to look at Dash 8's and ATR's as small planes ive heard heaps of people say "ooo who would want to go on a small prop plane?" etc.

Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 2): I personally don't think so. The general public doesn't think that turbo props are safe right now. They are alot louder, and are somewhat slower than the rj's. People want faster service, and want to fly on a shiny new jet.

Do you really think the general public bases decisions on whether or not to purchase a flight on the aircraft? On many websites you purchase the ticket, and if you're going to be on a turboprop, they don't put up any red flags. Most passengers don't know what plane they're getting on until they're literally boarding it. Their mindset - as long as it gets me there for the price I paid, I'm good.

I'll take any prop anyday over a RJ. But that is just me. I love props.

Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 4): Do you really think the general public bases decisions on whether or not to purchase a flight on the aircraft?

That may work for those who actually believe that the general public can differentiate a 767 from an A330 on a transoceanic flight...

...and while I'm aware that price will typically come close, I've also seen more than enough instances of people paying at the airport to avoid props (easily distinguishable) or even more prevalently-- asking a booking agent "are you sure this is a jet and not a propeller thingy?" before booking regional shorthaul.

Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 1): How much more fuel efficient are turboprops than regional jets? Personally, I like the ATR and Dash-8 better than any RJ, and if they save a good chunk of money, why aren't more airlines purchasing them?

Turboprops with always be more fuel efficient over jets on distances under 300nm with only a small time penalty. Turboprops provide great lifting capabilities over jets for the fuel burn. The reason why the airlines got caught up in this whole regional jet mess is do to the media major attention to turboprops winter (icing) horror stories and the crashes that resulted from them back in the early to mid 1990s. The public's perception, was misguided, on propeller driven aircraft is that they are dangerous to fly on and crash a lot versus the "honorable, no crash" record of anything with jet engines on them. The airlines saw what was happening and listened, against their economics, to the public and brought the regional jet craze on themselves. Of course they had no idea that oil prices would ever get to where they are so this only trumps their "smart" move. For those producers of turboprop aircraft, I believe they need to put themselves in a position to educate the public on the safety, efficiencies, and modernizing of turboprop aircraft in today's society. In summation:

Dear Flying Public:

Stop listening to the Media!!!!!!!


Yours truly,
Not the Media

Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 4): Do you really think the general public bases decisions on whether or not to purchase a flight on the aircraft?

I have seen first hand many times where people boarded our 1900Ds only to walk off seconds later in sheer terror, like they saw a ghost, and cry out that they will not fly on this tiny airplane. How big to they look from the terminal windows 8ft above the airplane? I mean the flight to Appleton (ATW), 90% of the people who came off were going there, is only 20mins flight time from MKE. Guess they'd rather drive 2hrs instead.

Umm, there is that commercial for WN that runs with the spin the wheel for plane type. The airline crew shouts "big plane, big plane, big plane" and then the wheel lands on a small plane and everyone is disappointed. WN uses people's dislike of small planes as a marking gimmick.

Quoting SkyexRamper (Reply 8): I mean the flight to Appleton (ATW), 90% of the people who came off were going there,

Funny thing is, the 1900D is a very serious and high performance aircraft. People think it's a tin can. Hello, it's a 20 pax airplane that can cruise in any weather at 300 mph over 1,000 miles. It's a very good aircraft!!

I still can't believe that the airlines bought so many big jets in the first place. If i ran an airline such as United. If there were 10 flights a day going to LAX from SFO and vise versa, i would cut the number to 5, and replace a small 737 with a 757 or a 767. I dont know if it would make any difference, but i like 767's!!! So there is my little spin on this issue. And plus small RJ's cause people to complain about traffic waiting times at airports.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10): Hello, it's a 20 pax airplane that can cruise in any weather at 300 mph over 1,000 miles.

19 seats and realistically only about 500nm max with any kind of profitable load. But yes, the flying public is very clueless.

Quoting Apollo13 (Reply 11): If i ran an airline such as United. If there were 10 flights a day going to LAX from SFO and vise versa, i would cut the number to 5, and replace a small 737 with a 757 or a 767. I dont know if it would make any difference, but i like 767's!!!

The reason why airlines don't do that, cutting down flights, is because they have the bright idea to give the public a lot of different departure times so that the public is happy and can choose when to fly. The flying public asks for an the industry almost always gives.

Quoting Apollo13 (Reply 11): If i ran an airline such as United. If there were 10 flights a day going to LAX from SFO and vise versa, i would cut the number to 5, and replace a small 737 with a 757 or a 767.

...which is probably among the many reasons why you don't run such an airline  

The USA and Europe are not like Asia-- can't fly high amounts of widebodies on shorthauls and expect to be profitable... too many road/railways. If you did that here, you'd only see your competitors rush in to fill any potential gaps in the market with narrowbody/RJ frequency, and trump that up in any upcoming rounds of corporate contractual negotiations.

Quoting Skyexramper (Reply 7): Dear Flying Public: Stop listening to the Media!!!!!!!

Hear hear. In the vast majority of cases involving the aviation industry, the media could more accurately be referred to as "The Aviation Tabloids".

Quoting SkyexRamper (Reply 8): I have seen first hand many times where people boarded our 1900Ds only to walk off seconds later in sheer terror, like they saw a ghost, and cry out that they will not fly on this tiny airplane.

To be fair, that reaction isn't solely due to the presence of propellers on the aircraft. Much of it is simply due to the size of the aircraft.

Remove the engines and hang a couple of small turbofans on the back, and I bet we'd see the same reactions.

2H4

Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 2): I personally don't think so. The general public doesn't think that turbo props are safe right now. They are alot louder, and are somewhat slower than the rj's. People want faster service, and want to fly on a shiny new jet.

Turbo props are already seeign a comeback..ATR is looking at a new larger model. The twin otter may be brought back...Until SAS's DH4 problems, the -400 was seeing an excellent year...turbo props are making a comeback

Well this thread hasn't even tried to answer the question posed by the OP.

My view is that the airlines will begin leaning heavily on their larger aircraft and hubs to assure the best RASM/CASM profile. That means looking at non-performing hub overfly routes with smaller aircraft. If the route can't make money with a CRJ or ERJ and can't hope of doing so with a larger aircraft, it will be dropped and the traffic moved via hubs on aircraft with available seats. Where an ERJ or CRJ is a spoke, and a monopoly spoke at that, fares will rise disproportionately, but a lot of people have to travel. The same applies to markets flown by props, because every type of aircraft in the US domestic market faces higher fuel costs. Jet fuel spot prices are at record levels. There is a correlation between the declining US dollar and fuel prices generally. If the dollar continues to slide, and foreign governments shift into other, more stable currencies, jet fuel prices will move towards $3 a gallon (remember when they were 20 cents a gallon briefly in 1999? I'm not kidding). In foreign markets with appreciating currencies, the impact will be slight. In the US, whether one drives, flies, takes the train or bus, the full impact will be passed through and people will have to decide whether to take a vacation in Florida or Jamaica or keep filling their SUVs.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 14): To be fair, that reaction isn't solely due to the presence of propellers on the aircraft. Much of it is simply due to the size of the aircraft.

I agree. When people get on my plane they comment on the size. I've had people get off because it was too small. I had a flight going to JFK and some grumpy old lady asked if these little planes were safe. My response: I've haven't crashed yet today. I had a good laugh, but I could tell it didn't reassure her.

It is bad enough to fly DEN-SLC on an CRJ-200, now I need to fly on a EMB-120? How long will that take?

Quoting ADent (Reply 18): It is bad enough to fly DEN-SLC on an CRJ-200, now I need to fly on a EMB-120? How long will that take?

The Greyhound station is right across the street. Take your pick.  

We fly the CRJ on lots of very short routes out east. Some are appropriate for the CRJ but many are not.

My airline does not buy our own fuel and has implemented no fuel-saving program. There are savings to be had, but until the airlines decide to do something, nothing will be done. We NEVER have ground power hooked up. Our APUs run on the ground all the time except when they are on MEL. I could go on.

Anyway, there is little doubt that the 50-seat RJ has peaked and is already in decline. But the airlines that spent billions on them need to get something for their investment.

I do think that as prices go up we may see some of the frequencies replaced with larger aircraft.

Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 4): Do you really think the general public bases decisions on whether or not to purchase a flight on the aircraft? On many websites you purchase the ticket, and if you're going to be on a turboprop, they don't put up any red flags. Most passengers don't know what plane they're getting on until they're literally boarding it.

Yes, I think there is a large segment of passengers who bill purchase......or not purchase, based on the airpcraft.

About three years ago my wife and several people from her company were taking a business trip to Atlanta to Akron. They go online to book tickets and their two choices were Delta or Airtran. Ticket prices were within $20 of each other. My wife, being the good Delta wife that she is, wanted to buy tickets on Delta. But the other four people immediately recognized from the flight number alone that the flight was not operated by Delta and would be an RJ. They bought tickets on Airtran instead.

Now when a group of business travelors is savvy enough to recognize from the flight number that they will be flying on an RJ, then yes I think they care about the aircraft and I think they will book away from an RJ when able.

Quoting SkyexRamper (Reply 8): I mean the flight to Appleton (ATW), 90% of the people who came off were going there, is only 20mins flight time from MKE. Guess they'd rather drive 2hrs instead.

Actually, it's at most an 1.75 hour drive from Appleton to the Milwaukee Airport unless there are winter weather problems or a major accident.

The reason most people rather drive to Milwaukee is that you can drive to Milwaukee, check in, clear security, and get to your flight elsewhere faster than you can by going to the Appleton airport and catching a commuter plane. Add the fact that the overall airline ticket price is a lot less too.

If I'm flying from Appleton (and I have flown from Appleton) - I'm going to Chicago or Minneapolis for my next flight. Not Milwaukee.

But, back to the future of turbo-props:

I think the Mfr's should invest in more soundproffing and they would have a real winner. I think there is a great future for them.

Quoting SkyexRamper (Reply 12): I still can't believe that the airlines bought so many big jets in the first place

Well theres a reason for that, and that is why you are seeing much larger aircrafts on shorter routes, example, EWR-MCO. Continental used to fly a 737-800 but now B757-200. Another example, EWR-SJU. Used to be B737-900, but now B757-200

the reason is because they are trying to get more passengers on flights and bigger aircrafts to save fuel. I seen dramatic changes from continental.......you wonder with the fuel going up what will happen to EXPRESS-JET, and CONTINENTAL EXPRESS.

Regards

Tyler

Quoting Bucky707 (Reply 21): Anyway, there is little doubt that the 50-seat RJ has peaked and is already in decline. But the airlines that spent billions on them need to get something for their investment.

Excellent point. I remember reading on another blog not too long ago about the massive investment many carriers (and their small lift partners) made in the ERJ, CRJ, FRJ, ARJ, and E-jet series of aircraft...the question may boil down to two simple facts:

(1) although turboprops like the ATR and Q families consume less fuel, will they save enough fuel to "pay" for themselves (purchase price of the aircraft, time & money spent training flight & ground crews, time and money spent re-configuring gate envelopes/jet bridges, etc.) ?

Quoting Bucky707 (Reply 21): My airline does not buy our own fuel and has implemented no fuel-saving program. There are savings to be had, but until the airlines decide to do something, nothing will be done. We NEVER have ground power hooked up. Our APUs run on the ground all the time except when they are on MEL. I could go on.

(2) Many small lift providers which operate on a fee-per-departure basis may not have fuel-saving programs in place as their larger network partners may have not insisted that they do so. It may become incumbent upon the larger network carriers to promote "smart spending" at their small lift providers...or, as some are beginning to do, transfer more flying to "at risk" contracts which force the small lift provider to take greater ownership of their expenses.

Quoting Continental180 (Reply 23): Well theres a reason for that, and that is why you are seeing much larger aircrafts on shorter routes, example, EWR-MCO. Continental used to fly a 737-800 but now B757-200. Another example, EWR-SJU. Used to be B737-900, but now B757-200 the reason is because they are trying to get more passengers on flights and bigger aircrafts to save fuel. I seen dramatic changes from continental.......you wonder with the fuel going up what will happen to EXPRESS-JET, and CONTINENTAL EXPRESS. Regards Tyler

That quote isn't from my posting, it's from apollo13's above me..odd.

Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 4): Most passengers don't know what plane they're getting on until they're literally boarding it.

But the bigger question is this: will they come back for more?

I would love to see more and bigger turboprops, I like their handling in the air and the sound they produce much better than the vacuum cleaner style you hear on those boring A320/737   ... ok I mean on short hops of course.
There's nothing like a take off in a Dash 8 Q400...
But I guess I stand quite alone with my opinion...

This type of post might lead one to ask when NW will retire the DC-9 finally, although it will not be me to suggest it.  

Seriously, though, the DH4 is a great aircraft and is very quiet. Despite the SAS problems, this plane should see the biggest demand. Everyone who knows anything about comfort seems to hate the CRJ-100/200 and perhaps the outcry from the public, as well as the fuel costs will cause a drop in these aircraft flying as long as it makes sense to the airlines. Other than that, I think things will remain as is. Like mentioned above, no one likes to board the little planes. But most of the general flying public are a bunch of dummies, too, who are sheep who are led by the hand by a biased media.

Of course, when I see the ATR, I cannot help but think of Roselawn, IN. I mean, how many people remember that far suburb of Chicago, but that's the effect the media has even on a person who knows a little more about aviation.

Quoting Skyexramper (Reply 7): Dear Flying Public: Stop listening to the Media!!!!!!!

Or better listen to serious media...


PH

Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 2): People want faster service, and want to fly on a shiny new jet.

I've met quite a few people who can't even recall if the plane they flew on was a jet or a prop ... 

Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 2): The general public doesn't think that turbo props are safe right now

Quoting Skyexramper (Reply 7): Turboprops with always be more fuel efficient over jets on distances under 300nm with only a small time penalty. Turboprops provide great lifting capabilities over jets for the fuel burn. The reason why the airlines got caught up in this whole regional jet mess is do to the media major attention to turboprops winter (icing) horror stories and the crashes that resulted from them back in the early to mid 1990s. The public's perception, was misguided, on propeller driven aircraft is that they are dangerous to fly on and crash a lot versus the "honorable, no crash" record of anything with jet engines on them. The airlines saw what was happening and listened, against their economics, to the public and brought the regional jet craze on themselves. Of course they had no idea that oil prices would ever get to where they are so this only trumps their "smart" move. For those producers of turboprop aircraft, I believe they need to put themselves in a position to educate the public on the safety, efficiencies, and modernizing of turboprop aircraft in today's society. In summation: Dear Flying Public: Stop listening to the Media!!!!!!!

All I can say is AMEN AMEN AMEN to this..................
The airlines now have to live with this situation that they created themselves....
I often wonder how if for example, AA flies with 90% of their Eagle flights in the Domestic US....how they explain to their passengers that fly thru SJU that they might be flying on an ATR!?!??!

Passengers are just misinformed and mostly by choice....They would rather believe that propeller planes are unssafe than trying to understand them...

Quoting SkyexRamper (Reply 8): I have seen first hand many times where people boarded our 1900Ds only to walk off seconds later in sheer terror, like they saw a ghost, and cry out that they will not fly on this tiny airplane.

I am not surprised by that kind of reaction. What the hell do these people expect? What have we leade them all to believe? Could part of the problem also be the Code Share alliances? I think that a part of the problem is that airlines no longer promote their airlines like they used to with an actual public relations department...Something to proudly proclaim their different types of aircraft with pictures and or brochures. Screw the online crap......that still does not alleviate the potential and unfounded fear that people have against propeller planes....

IF people are using the SAS/Q400 problems to validate their opinions about Prop planes, thats just rediculous.....Personally I think those problems are more "Airline Specific" related than anything....

We here( amongst us her ein A.net) even have an irrational fear or predjuice of commuter props like the Beech 1900D or similar....Try flying on a Cessna 402 or Navajo....You think they 1900D is small..

Some of MY best flgihts were on Commuter planes with some of the worst ones on a large jet......I guess its all in how we look at it.....When you live in rural America, youy tend to be more accomodating to smaller aircraft because thats what you have.....When you live in a major airline hub city, you are spoiled by jets....and heaven forbid you should have to step onto a commuter...lest your freak out and shit your drawers......

As for the RJs....If anything, the JetA prices are the reasons airlines need to start reducing frequencies and putting lareger planes on these routes (not all)...With all these extra flights, they are just wasting fuel......

Access-Air

Quoting SkyexRamper (Reply 8): I have seen first hand many times where people boarded our 1900Ds only to walk off seconds later in sheer terror, like they saw a ghost, and cry out that they will not fly on this tiny airplane.

That brings back similar memories working at FL when they had the JetConnect ops with the CRJ's. On at least a coulple of occasions, just when I was ready to push back the CRJ, the captain would tell me over the headset we got claustrophobic passenger onboard that wanted to get off. Since we used a jetway with the Harvey bridge adaptor to board the JetConnect CRJ's the passenger may have not realized that they were getting on a RJ instead of a 717 and freaked
out when the door closed. We would just put that passenger on the next mainline 717 flight.

Quoting 717-200 (Reply 32): That brings back similar memories working at FL when they had the JetConnect ops with the CRJ's. On at least a coulple of occasions, just when I was ready to push back the CRJ, the captain would tell me over the headset we got claustrophobic passenger onboard that wanted to get off.

In this case I dont blame the passenger.....the CRJs are cramped unless you are a Hobbit....or an extra from the Wizard of Oz's Munchkin land.......Or an Oompa Loompa......

Access-Air

Well, they're not making them anymore. And it won't be long 'til airlines start scrapping them. Honestly, some of the first CRJs are very high cycle and high hour airframes now.

Already there are more CR7s and CR9s. Not much better than the -100 and -200, but at least a bit. And much better airplanes with lower CASM. I would be curious to know how much less fuel is burned per seat on the CRJ-900 vs the CRJ-200

Quoting 9252fly (Thread starter): There must be a point where the network carriers cannot raise ticket prices enough to compensate for the higher seat mile costs of these smaller jets.

keep in mind depending on the carrier the RJs burn and carry less fuel for trips on a per seat basis (personally I did do some comparisons on the CR7 vs the md80)... so if anything the bigger jets might suffer first given that the demand would shrink with higher fares..

Quoting HPAEAA (Reply 35): RJs burn and carry less fuel for trips on a per seat basis (personally I did do some comparisons on the CR7 vs the md80)...

Nah, RJs burn less per _trip_ but more per _seat_.

I agree with your statement, that, given $200 oil for example, certain routes that had 110 pax previously will only have 85 pax now, due to increased fares. In that case, an A319 can be downgraded to a CR9 or E-175, saving fuel per trip.

This type of scenario means that high oil prices will not automatically kill the RJ. It will hurt it slightly but also help it from above.

50 seat RJs have certain applications where they are the only tool available. If people must pay a $50 surcharge to operate the RJ, they will pay it. CRJ-200s and E-145s allow certain flights that would be impossible otherwise (+400mi routes with ~70 seats demand at high fares). The RJ will continue to prosper in its natural habitat, no matter what oil prices do.

After all, driving becomes unattractive too with $5 gas. RJs typically get around 35 MPG per passenger. So that means for a party of 1 or 2, riding an RJ still beats driving. For a party of 4, a car is definitely the most fuel efficient choice, with most cars busting above 100 MPG per passenger.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 36): Nah, RJs burn less per _trip_ but more per _seat_.

hmm... new planes possibly...I seam to remember crunching the numbers on the CR7 and MD80 on AA between CMH and ORD a while back when I was still there... Took the planned, Est Burn, and est Arrival... to adjust for capacity I doubled all of the CR7 Numbers... it was something like 78 percent the est burn, 80 percent the planned fuel... the 50 seater changes the numbers a bit... but I'm not sure that it would be that drastic... never ran the numbers, could be that it does make a difference... I think a serious consideration is that the fuel burn per minute might be less, but especially on long trips the Big jets have to carry a couple thousand pounds extra reserve fuel, which increases the burn per trip.. so, in short (after my ramblings)you might be right on a pure efficiency point, however I bet once you consider flight requirements I think it's a little more skewed...

Quoting Flighty (Reply 36): 50 seat RJs have certain applications where they are the only tool available. If people must pay a $50 surcharge to operate the RJ, they will pay it. CRJ-200s and E-145s allow certain flights that would be impossible otherwise (+400mi routes with ~70 seats demand at high fares). The RJ will continue to prosper in its natural habitat, no matter what oil prices do.

sadly I agree.. I only hope to get some more mainline or at least Ejets out of NY...