Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Hangar Talk
Most Efficient Regional Plane >

Most Efficient Regional Plane

Search

Notices
Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere

Most Efficient Regional Plane

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-20-2011, 01:43 PM
  #1  
On Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 18
Default Most Efficient Regional Plane

Hey guys,
I was wondering, in all of your opinions, which regional plane is/was the cheapest to operate and made the airlines the most money. Is it something like the ERJ, CRJ, Dash 8, Saab? I don't want to start a fight about which plane is the best out there because we all have our own thoughts but I'm wondering on which aircraft was the big money maker.

Alex
FlyGuy0507 is offline  
Old 06-20-2011, 01:51 PM
  #2  
pants on the ground
 
mmaviator's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: back seat
Posts: 1,359
Default

Originally Posted by mmaviator
Saw this on twitter....

On static display at #PAS11: The #CRJ1000 NextGen, the lowest operating cost #aircraft in its class Bombardier - International Paris Air Show Le Bourget #avgeek

http://paris.aero.bombardier.com/pdf..._Factsheet.pdf
I posted this on another thread. They say it's the most efficient, lowest operating cost.
mmaviator is offline  
Old 06-20-2011, 01:54 PM
  #3  
Roll’n Thunder
 
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: Pilot
Posts: 3,891
Default

Originally Posted by FlyGuy0507
Hey guys,
I was wondering, in all of your opinions, which regional plane is/was the cheapest to operate and made the airlines the most money. Is it something like the ERJ, CRJ, Dash 8, Saab? I don't want to start a fight about which plane is the best out there because we all have our own thoughts but I'm wondering on which aircraft was the big money maker.

Alex
You can't really cross-compare between 2 totally different aircraft because it really depends on the route. I'm not sure which aircraft burns the least fuel/hr, but as far as making money, there are a whole lot of variables to consider. Distance and demand come to mind first. MEM-PIB (Pine Belt) used to always be on a Saab 340. I don't know about the loads then, but now that we are doing it on a CRJ-200 I haven't seen anything close to a full plane. Not saying it doesn't happen from time to time, but in general that route is much better suited to a turboprop than a jet. Delta apparently doesn't care though and is willing to waste money throwing a CRJ-200 down there 2-3 times a day.

On the flip side MEM-ICT (which I think we no longer do) is way too long of a flight for a prop, but we were usually full on the -200. Pretty solid bet that it at least broke even most of the time. Some short routes are always full and have lots of high fare business passengers (GSP-ATL comes to mind) so putting a larger regional jet or even a mainline aircraft many times makes sense.

Now comparing different airplanes of similar characteristics is a different story. I don't really know whether a Saab or a Dash is better on a given route, or a CRJ/ERJ either. I've heard the CRJ is better, but I don't have numbers to back that up.
tennisguru is online now  
Old 06-20-2011, 03:05 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MEMpilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 204
Default

I am ignorant of the topic, however I would take a guess that a Q400 is up there in efficiency. It seats as many as an RJ, runs on turboprops, and hauls ass for an aircraft of its kind.

Sounds like the variables are there for it to be cost-effective, but again I am no engineer...
MEMpilot is offline  
Old 06-20-2011, 03:27 PM
  #5  
The NeverEnding Story
 
BoilerUP's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,618
Default

Efficiency doesn't really mean much if you ignore the capital costs of purchasing/leasing the thing...
BoilerUP is online now  
Old 06-20-2011, 03:57 PM
  #6  
Day puke
 
FlyJSH's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Default

What is the mission? What is the pay load? What is the range?

A taxi is more efficient moving one person three miles, but a Greyhound bus is more efficient moving forty people 300 miles.

A 747 is very efficient at moving 400 people 4000 miles, but it makes a very poor JFK-LGA shuttle.
FlyJSH is offline  
Old 06-20-2011, 04:01 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Fly IFR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: X
Posts: 343
Default

I have heard very good things about the CRJ-900 in the field of efficiency. Don't know if it still holds true to today's standards however.
Fly IFR is offline  
Old 06-21-2011, 01:07 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TonyWilliams's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Self employed
Posts: 3,048
Default

Boeing 737 is my vote.
TonyWilliams is offline  
Old 06-21-2011, 04:41 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 115
Default

the Q-400 is a very efficient t-prop. now if they could just get the MX reliability fixed
ridered is offline  
Old 06-21-2011, 08:52 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TonyWilliams's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Self employed
Posts: 3,048
Default

Originally Posted by Fly IFR
I have heard very good things about the CRJ-900 in the field of efficiency. Don't know if it still holds true to today's standards however.

My last company operated both the CRJ-900 and Boeing 737 series. I'm confident that a 737 can beat any CRJ in cost/seat mile. The B737 is definitely a regional plane (as opposed to long range aircraft, like B777, etc).

But you'se guys probably mean "fee for departure" model in USA only airlines, right?
TonyWilliams is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DWN3GRN
Major
18
06-12-2009 04:47 AM
groovinaviator
Regional
24
02-11-2008 03:34 PM
papacharlie
Regional
39
01-27-2008 05:01 PM
AFPirate
Regional
6
11-26-2007 11:39 AM
fireman0174
Major
7
05-02-2006 04:36 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices