iahflyr

All 50 seat RJ's WILL NOT be gone by 2013. That is a false statement.

I have agreed with Boyd on the RJ glut issue for years now. Yes, many 50 seat RJ's are going away. With oil at $135 and going higher every day, many of these 50 seat RJ's are going away. Probably 70% of the 50 seat RJ's we have today will be gone in the next 10 years. But the fact remains that there is still a market for 50 seat RJ's.

RJ's were designed to serve markets that could not handle larger aircraft. Airlines used these jets for many other roles that they were uneconomical in. High frequency flights between large airports was the biggest example of improper use. This is where you will see the biggest reduction of RJ use. Routes such as LAX-PHX, ATL-IAD, IAH-DFW, IAD-(JFK,LGA,EWR), BOS - (JFK,LGA) will lose 50 seat RJ service with oil this high.

Aside from high frequency/high density airport flying, RJ's basically serve smaller communities. I put these smaller airports into two categories. High yield markets and low yield markets. High yield markets are upscale areas, large amount of business travelers, large amount of international travelers, etc... These markets will stay. Smaller markets that don't provide any of the above mentioned will see reductions. The first type of reduction will be in the amount of hubs that serve that small airport. An airline like Delta with nearby hubs in ATL, CVG, and MEM will not fly airplanes from all three of these airports to a small community. These smaller communities will probably go to 1 or 2 hub cities per airline. Many small communities will lose RJ service altogether. Maybe some of them can be supported by 19-30 seat turboprop's, or will get an EAS service. But ultimately, the number of small communities served with air travel will go down because of the price of oil.

But regardless, 50 seat RJ's will not be completely gone in the next 5 years.


Larger aircraft are coming. Major airline scope clauses need to improve. In addition to the jet seating limit (50 at CAL, 70 at UAL/AMR, 76 at DAL/NWA, and 86 at US Air), things like maximum takeoff weight, and maximum number of 70/76 RJ's flown at a regional need to be restricted. I know AMR has a limit on 70 seaters, and DAL/NWA have a limit on 76 seaters. Don't forget to add turboprop restrictions into scope clauses. The last thing we need is a 100 seat efficient turbo prop to show up at a regional. If ever there was a time to improve scope in major airline contracts, it is now. These new aircraft need to be mainline.

HercDriver130

Many of us hope you are right...... but one thing is sure in this business...there are no absolutes.

rickair7777

I agree with IAH. Regional jets were designed to serve small markets, and then got pressed into service on mainline routes.

We will see 50-seaters leaving mainline routes in droves.

As for the small markets, ticket prices will go up dramatically. This will scare away some pax, reducing frequency. If a market cannot support 45 pax per day at the new prices, then service will likely get dropped. The good news is that for many small towns, the only alternatives are to stay home or drive...if you drive, you have to put gas in the car

JoeyMeatballs

Maybe Now Is A Good Time To Stop Accepting Low Pay On The 70+ Seat Jets..................

groovinaviator

... but they are soooo shiny!

tpersuit

The only way for a 50-seater to die is if someone invents a 70-seater that burns the same gas or less. Otherwise as costs rise, passenger traffic will drop, causing larger airplanes to go away.

People have no sense with the economics of this. Some how a larger airplane that BURNS MORE GAS per hour is better on a route that has to charge more expensive tickets and less people can fly on it. Make sense?

RJtrashPilot

I wouldn't say it has to do with how much more gas an aircraft burns, per se, but rather what is the overall cost per seat mile (CASM) of that particular aircraft. While, yes, an MD-80 would burn more gas on, say, JFK-BOS than a CRJ, they also carry 2-3 times as many people, and the extra fuel burn can be mitigated by extra pax/cargo revenue, resulting in a lower CASM for the MD-80 vs the CRJ.

Fuel is one variable in the formula. Additional variables are lease rates, crew costs, mx costs, type of inflight service, just to name a few.

rickair7777

The 70 seater is more versatile. A 50 seater probably needs 45+ pax to break even, so it's only useful in a situation where you have 45-50 pax.

The 70 is slightly more costly to operate (about 12%) but carries 40% more pax. It is therefore useful for about 55-70 pax...a little more wiggle-room there.

Airsupport

i agree with most of what you say and i hope a lot of it is true. since we already have 76 planes on the regional tickets they are going to stay there. hopefully that is as high as the seats will go. and hopefully the dc9 replacement will be flown by main line pilots.

as far as things getting ugly you might be semi right. on the large scale i don't see things changing to much. we have already seen a few regionals go under, and there might be a few more on the way out. but the flying will still be there. pinnacle has 124 50 seat rj's, and will have 16 900's by the end of the year. barring some other crazy things that would have to happen that is the least amount of 50 seaters we can have. if nwa wants to take more they have to exchange them for a 900. which i see them doing once the merger is done.

no one here at pinnacle thinks its a coincedence anderson is giving us their regional flying. when he was ceo of nwa that is when we got the rj contract. now he moves over to delta and we have a delta contract. uncle phil and anderson must be buddies or have dirt on eachother.

my hope is that mainlines continue to grow so i will have somewhere to go in the future.

tprangner

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...mpaign_id=twxa

Does anybody see this to be more true than expanding RJs to 75+ seaters?