frmrdashtrash

I don't think many see it the same way, but to me a 70 seat Q400 is just as big a threat as an RJ. It hauls plenty of people, isn't much smaller and doesn't burn much gas. I can see other mainline aircraft being replaces by 400s, and I wonder how "scoped out" the airplane is.

Bombardier pulled the plug on the other Dash 8 models so other than ATRs, there isn't much out there to build a turboprop fleet with.

jayray2

This is one of the articles that talked about it.

Holding Pattern | ATW Online

And you kind of proved my point. Yes, maybe the 70-100 seaters are the replacement but two problems. The leases on the hundreds of 50 seaters flying around now and scope (if you are correct about the AA scope line being drawn and also don't forget Delta is maxed out on 76 seaters). That is why one could argue that the 50 seaters are not going anywhere for a while.

DryMotorBoatin

boys boys boys...while im on your side, for those of you who think that jet/50 flyin is goin back to the majors i suggest this...wish in one hand and sh-t in the other, see which one fills up first. end of story.

FlyJSH

Yes and no. A Q can carry a bunch of people, but unlike the 50 RJ, it cannot reasonably carry them more than about 6-700 miles. While I would like to see Qs flown by the main line, they are not the same threat that 50 seaters with 1000-1200 mile range are.

Scope should be SEAT MILES not just SEATS.

frmrdashtrash

You raise a good point, but... An RJ isn't much good for over 500 miles either from a passenger standpoint. I've never flown one, but it seems like they leave people behind (CRJ50's) when you need an alternate and you're going farther than 500 miles or less than 200 miles. A Q400 is still a good 737 replacement for shorter flights.

You're dead on with mileage scope to an extent. There are longer flights out there where an ERJ-XR fits the bill, but LAX-IAH isn't it.

BoilerUP

In my experience, the CRJ-200 is MUCH more limited on shorter flights with a full boat and distant alternate than it is on longer flights due to MLW considerations.

When I was at AWAC (been almost 3 years now), I flew DCA-MCI many times against winter headwinds at 3 hours block and don't remember having an issue carrying 50 pax, a jumpseater, and 50+ bags as long as the alternate was IRK/FOE/COU.

Aviatormar

3 years at AWAC, I have only left 2 people behind at the gate. Boiler is exactly right, short flights with a full boat and an alternate, then one has to get "creative" on how to deal with it. The CRJ200 is a great plane for long and thin routes, such as DCA-MCI. While it might not be comfortable, it does its job just fine on such flights.


My hope as an RJ FO is really quite simple. I want all scope back at a major first and foremost. However, the next big thing on the horizon is the MPL (Multi-pilot License-or reduced barriers to entry into this career). Here lies a huge problem that I don't think is on enough people's radars.

iahflyr

I am sorry, but that is a HORRIBLE opinion to have...
Majors fly jets
Regionals fly prop's

It sounds like the same thinking major pilots had 10 years ago...
Majors fly big jets
Regionals fly small jets

But then the definition of a small jet evolves over time and the number gets out of control.

The Q400 is a pretty advanced aircraft, but there are still some advances that can be made in turboprop technology, and you may see a turboprop commuter with very similar performance to a CRJ-200 at a fraction of the cost.

Now imagine a major airline wants to farm out a good chunk of their domestic feed, but now they can do it to a regional with aircraft that has performance similar to jets, but is very efficient (unlike a CRJ-200) and can actually be profitable. Or even worse, imagine a 150 turboprop. A 200 seat? You see where I'm going.

Airlines make money based upon number of butts moved. Make scope contracts based upon number of butts moved or something very similar (like gross weight). Majors fly jets and regionals fly prop's will lead to a similar collapse of the quality of pilot jobs just like Majors fly big jets and regionals fly small jets did.

thepotato232

To this largely undereducated observer, it seems that there will still be a niche for the 50-seat RJ, but we'll see less and less of the application of these RJs to the mindless increase of frequency between two hubs, or a hub and a second-tier city. Right now, these aircraft are used on routes for which they were not designed or originally purchased because management has decided that the flying public will ******* a collective brick if they don't have forty flights a day between PHL and CLT, or what have you. A generation of airline managers who never should have passed high school freshman Econ decided that three RJs in place of one 737 on these routes works better for everyone. Now that this position is untenable, we have an opportunity.

If pilot groups at the majors were to retake all aircraft above 50 seats while market forces conspire to limit the role of 50 seaters to honest-to-god "regional" markets, it would be a brilliantly effective maneuver that would shift the balance of power in labor negotiations towards pilots for the first time in well over a decade. This in and of itself leads me to believe it won't happen, but still... a boy can dream.