The E145 is handicapped by its landing weight.. the CRJ200 is much better on short flights. Max landing of 47,000 vs the E145 at 42,549.

cheapgreek wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

The 100's only offer 33-34 seats, not 37 seats. In the April investor report, 7 140's will be pulled from storage and added to the 13 in use. The 145's are runway hogs, SBY has 6400 foot runway and Piedmont says it needs another 600 feet added to accommodate the 145.

Does SBY have terrain? MQ runs 145s off of 6,500 foot runways on a daily basis. COU and DBQ come to mind, but I'm sure there are others

AA operates ROA-LGA flights with 145's off a 6800 foot runway and only list 40 available seats. SBY terrain is relatively flat. Allegiant operated MD80 flights to Florida from SBY, its not the runway, its the plane.

How, then, does this allegedly terrible plane operate COU-ORD successfully every day?

amcnd wrote:

The E145 is handicapped by its landing weight.. the CRJ200 is much better on short flights. Max landing of 47,000 vs the E145 at 42,549.

Every 145 LR I've ever flown has had a max landing weight of 43,651. This number has almost never limited its payload.

Ok. Yes the LR is better. But AA doesn't have any of those...

amcnd wrote:

The E145 is handicapped by its landing weight.. the CRJ200 is much better on short flights. Max landing of 47,000 vs the E145 at 42,549.

Any sub-200 mile flight on a CR2 with an alternate and the plane basically becomes a 47 seat plane.

Cubsrule wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Does SBY have terrain? MQ runs 145s off of 6,500 foot runways on a daily basis. COU and DBQ come to mind, but I'm sure there are others

AA operates ROA-LGA flights with 145's off a 6800 foot runway and only list 40 available seats. SBY terrain is relatively flat. Allegiant operated MD80 flights to Florida from SBY, its not the runway, its the plane.

How, then, does this allegedly terrible plane operate COU-ORD successfully every day?

How many seats are permitted to be sold? As I said, the ROA-LGA flights are limited to 40 seats. Just because an aircraft can operate a route does not mean it can depart with a full passenger load. Many times on some flights passengers and or bags have to be off loaded so the flight can depart.
The 145 is inferior as far as take off distances compared to the CRJ-200 and even more so with the CRJ-700.

cheapgreek wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

AA operates ROA-LGA flights with 145's off a 6800 foot runway and only list 40 available seats. SBY terrain is relatively flat. Allegiant operated MD80 flights to Florida from SBY, its not the runway, its the plane.

How, then, does this allegedly terrible plane operate COU-ORD successfully every day?

How many seats are permitted to be sold? As I said, the ROA-LGA flights are limited to 40 seats. Just because an aircraft can operate a route does not mean it can depart with a full passenger load. Many times on some flights passengers and or bags have to be off loaded so the flight can depart.
The 145 is inferior as far as take off distances compared to the CRJ-200 and even more so with the CRJ-700.

They sell COU/DBQ-ORD to 47 (Row 18 blocked), but that's true of many routes that do not have runway length issues. Remember that ROA has a bit of elevation and warmer temps.

I'm not suggesting that sub-7,000 foot runways are ideal for the ER4, but if the ER4 cannot economically operate off of SBY's current runway, that's an issue with SBY as much as with the runway.

amcnd wrote:

Ok. Yes the LR is better. But AA doesn't have any of those...

I can't recall ever being bumped off of the jumpseat of an Eagle 145 for weight restrictions. Those 140s on the other hand were like kryptonite to my getting home!

Cubsrule wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

How, then, does this allegedly terrible plane operate COU-ORD successfully every day?

How many seats are permitted to be sold? As I said, the ROA-LGA flights are limited to 40 seats. Just because an aircraft can operate a route does not mean it can depart with a full passenger load. Many times on some flights passengers and or bags have to be off loaded so the flight can depart.
The 145 is inferior as far as take off distances compared to the CRJ-200 and even more so with the CRJ-700.

They sell COU/DBQ-ORD to 47 (Row 18 blocked), but that's true of many routes that do not have runway length issues. Remember that ROA has a bit of elevation and warmer temps.

I'm not suggesting that sub-7,000 foot runways are ideal for the ER4, but if the ER4 cannot economically operate off of SBY's current runway, that's an issue with SBY as much as with the runway.

CRJ-200 and 700's operate off ROA's runways without blocked off seats. Also Allegiant operates MD-80's to PIE and SFB non-stop from ROA. All I am trying to say is that the 145 is the poorest performer among regional jets off short runways. Many small airports do not have the luxury of runways over 7000 feet long and its the small airports that have service with 50 seat RJ's. The only reasons 145's are being added to Piedmont's fleet is that the Dash's are nearing their cycle limits and with cheap fuel prices, 145's can make money on most flights. Its not a matter of if, but when oil prices will rise and when they do, the 145's will be parked again. The days of the 50 seat RJ's are numbered, Many are still parked and the 70-90 seat class RJ's are the future. The CS-100 and MRJ-70 along with next generation E-175,E190 jets will make up most of the fleets of the majors. What some don't realize is that both the ERJ's and CRJ's were derivatives of biz jets so the end product was a compromise, it works in some markets and airports and not in others. 737-700's and A319's are better of short runways because they were designed as airliners.

cheapgreek wrote:

CRJ-200 and 700's operate off ROA's runways without blocked off seats. Also Allegiant operates MD-80's to PIE and SFB non-stop from ROA. All I am trying to say is that the 145 is the poorest performer among regional jets off short runways. Many small airports do not have the luxury of runways over 7000 feet long and its the small airports that have service with 50 seat RJ's. The only reasons 145's are being added to Piedmont's fleet is that the Dash's are nearing their cycle limits and with cheap fuel prices, 145's can make money on most flights. Its not a matter of if, but when oil prices will rise and when they do, the 145's will be parked again. The days of the 50 seat RJ's are numbered, Many are still parked and the 70-90 seat class RJ's are the future. The CS-100 and MRJ-70 along with next generation E-175,E190 jets will make up most of the fleets of the majors. What some don't realize is that both the ERJ's and CRJ's were derivatives of biz jets so the end product was a compromise, it works in some markets and airports and not in others. 737-700's and A319's are better of short runways because they were designed as airliners.

All of the legacies recognize a niche role for 50-seat jets, and we are a lot closer to having 50-seaters in that niche and only in that niche now than we were even 2 or 3 years ago. Places like SBY or CLL will not see much service on anything with more than 50 seats the foreseeable future.

It is somewhat crazy to think that as technology has advanced, there is less and less service to small airfields/markets.

Absolutely. And also kind of stupid. It's certainly not ad advancement... Sad that some smaller communities/airports will be losing service...

cheapgreek wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

How many seats are permitted to be sold? As I said, the ROA-LGA flights are limited to 40 seats. Just because an aircraft can operate a route does not mean it can depart with a full passenger load. Many times on some flights passengers and or bags have to be off loaded so the flight can depart.
The 145 is inferior as far as take off distances compared to the CRJ-200 and even more so with the CRJ-700.

They sell COU/DBQ-ORD to 47 (Row 18 blocked), but that's true of many routes that do not have runway length issues. Remember that ROA has a bit of elevation and warmer temps.

I'm not suggesting that sub-7,000 foot runways are ideal for the ER4, but if the ER4 cannot economically operate off of SBY's current runway, that's an issue with SBY as much as with the runway.

CRJ-200 and 700's operate off ROA's runways without blocked off seats. Also Allegiant operates MD-80's to PIE and SFB non-stop from ROA. All I am trying to say is that the 145 is the poorest performer among regional jets off short runways. Many small airports do not have the luxury of runways over 7000 feet long and its the small airports that have service with 50 seat RJ's. The only reasons 145's are being added to Piedmont's fleet is that the Dash's are nearing their cycle limits and with cheap fuel prices, 145's can make money on most flights. Its not a matter of if, but when oil prices will rise and when they do, the 145's will be parked again. The days of the 50 seat RJ's are numbered, Many are still parked and the 70-90 seat class RJ's are the future. The CS-100 and MRJ-70 along with next generation E-175,E190 jets will make up most of the fleets of the majors. What some don't realize is that both the ERJ's and CRJ's were derivatives of biz jets so the end product was a compromise, it works in some markets and airports and not in others. 737-700's and A319's are better of short runways because they were designed as airliners.

50 seaters are no dead. Look at DL, they've actually brought CR2's out of the desert. They simply can't replace CR2's with 700s and 900s. It's either keep the 50 seaters flying or give up a significant chunk of their feed. Sure, they've parked a ton by picking up the 717 fleet, but they're settled into where they're going to be in terms of regional feed.

Going forward, I'd expect the next real shift in regional feed being consolidated. It wouldn't surprise me to see DCI down to 3 carriers by 2020, 2 each flying the CRJ and 2 each flying the ERJ (9E, OO, YX)

DiamondFlyer wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

They sell COU/DBQ-ORD to 47 (Row 18 blocked), but that's true of many routes that do not have runway length issues. Remember that ROA has a bit of elevation and warmer temps.

I'm not suggesting that sub-7,000 foot runways are ideal for the ER4, but if the ER4 cannot economically operate off of SBY's current runway, that's an issue with SBY as much as with the runway.

CRJ-200 and 700's operate off ROA's runways without blocked off seats. Also Allegiant operates MD-80's to PIE and SFB non-stop from ROA. All I am trying to say is that the 145 is the poorest performer among regional jets off short runways. Many small airports do not have the luxury of runways over 7000 feet long and its the small airports that have service with 50 seat RJ's. The only reasons 145's are being added to Piedmont's fleet is that the Dash's are nearing their cycle limits and with cheap fuel prices, 145's can make money on most flights. Its not a matter of if, but when oil prices will rise and when they do, the 145's will be parked again. The days of the 50 seat RJ's are numbered, Many are still parked and the 70-90 seat class RJ's are the future. The CS-100 and MRJ-70 along with next generation E-175,E190 jets will make up most of the fleets of the majors. What some don't realize is that both the ERJ's and CRJ's were derivatives of biz jets so the end product was a compromise, it works in some markets and airports and not in others. 737-700's and A319's are better of short runways because they were designed as airliners.

50 seaters are no dead. Look at DL, they've actually brought CR2's out of the desert. They simply can't replace CR2's with 700s and 900s. It's either keep the 50 seaters flying or give up a significant chunk of their feed. Sure, they've parked a ton by picking up the 717 fleet, but they're settled into where they're going to be in terms of regional feed.

Going forward, I'd expect the next real shift in regional feed being consolidated. It wouldn't surprise me to see DCI down to 3 carriers by 2020, 2 each flying the CRJ and 2 each flying the ERJ (9E, OO, YX)

A main reason some 50 seat RJ's are coming back on line is the low price of oil. A decade ago 19 seat Beech 1900's were being used for small city airports. Today they are all gone. Many of those 1900 seat cities have no airline service. The 50 seat RJ's are not good on short routes, say under 300 miles and yet that is where many are being used. The trend in airlines is for higher seat capacity, Southwest has gone from the 737-700 to the 737-800 because operating costs are very similar yet the 800 holds more passengers. The CRJ-200 by Bombardier has been out of production for years and Embraer ERJ-145 orders are next to nothing. The 50 seat RJ's flying are getting close to the cycle limits where a heavy check will be due and airlines will not invest millions in old frames.
Piedmont turned down extending the cycles on the Dash-8's because it was cost prohibitive. Also the pilot shortage does not bode well for the 50 seaters. See stories below.

https://worldairlinenews.com/2016/12/23 ... next-year/
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2015/10/ ... irst-look/
http://www.aircraftvaluenews.com/values ... the-abyss/
http://www.airservicealliance.com/marke ... upgauging/

cheapgreek wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

CRJ-200 and 700's operate off ROA's runways without blocked off seats. Also Allegiant operates MD-80's to PIE and SFB non-stop from ROA. All I am trying to say is that the 145 is the poorest performer among regional jets off short runways. Many small airports do not have the luxury of runways over 7000 feet long and its the small airports that have service with 50 seat RJ's. The only reasons 145's are being added to Piedmont's fleet is that the Dash's are nearing their cycle limits and with cheap fuel prices, 145's can make money on most flights. Its not a matter of if, but when oil prices will rise and when they do, the 145's will be parked again. The days of the 50 seat RJ's are numbered, Many are still parked and the 70-90 seat class RJ's are the future. The CS-100 and MRJ-70 along with next generation E-175,E190 jets will make up most of the fleets of the majors. What some don't realize is that both the ERJ's and CRJ's were derivatives of biz jets so the end product was a compromise, it works in some markets and airports and not in others. 737-700's and A319's are better of short runways because they were designed as airliners.

50 seaters are no dead. Look at DL, they've actually brought CR2's out of the desert. They simply can't replace CR2's with 700s and 900s. It's either keep the 50 seaters flying or give up a significant chunk of their feed. Sure, they've parked a ton by picking up the 717 fleet, but they're settled into where they're going to be in terms of regional feed.

Going forward, I'd expect the next real shift in regional feed being consolidated. It wouldn't surprise me to see DCI down to 3 carriers by 2020, 2 each flying the CRJ and 2 each flying the ERJ (9E, OO, YX)

A main reason some 50 seat RJ's are coming back on line is the low price of oil. A decade ago 19 seat Beech 1900's were being used for small city airports. Today they are all gone. Many of those 1900 seat cities have no airline service. The 50 seat RJ's are not good on short routes, say under 300 miles and yet that is where many are being used. The trend in airlines is for higher seat capacity, Southwest has gone from the 737-700 to the 737-800 because operating costs are very similar yet the 800 holds more passengers. The CRJ-200 by Bombardier has been out of production for years and Embraer ERJ-145 orders are next to nothing. The 50 seat RJ's flying are getting close to the cycle limits where a heavy check will be due and airlines will not invest millions in old frames.
Piedmont turned down extending the cycles on the Dash-8's because it was cost prohibitive. Also the pilot shortage does not bode well for the 50 seaters. See stories below.

https://worldairlinenews.com/2016/12/23 ... next-year/
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2015/10/ ... irst-look/
http://www.aircraftvaluenews.com/values ... the-abyss/
http://www.airservicealliance.com/marke ... upgauging/

Citing some news stories doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. Those Expressjet 200's flown for Delta, most of them aren't even leaving service. Skywest is adding a number of them to their fleet (not sure the exact number), and Endeavor is adding at least 14 of them to their fleet. At Delta, there simply isn't room for more large RJs. Either you keep the 50 seat fleet or start walking away from cities. Sure, cheap oil is helping, but even at 100+/barrel oil, there will be 50 seat flying in the system.

AA has a bit more flexibility in that they can reconfigure the CR7's down to 65 seats, at which point they count as a small RJ, which allows them to add another 175/900 to the fleet. But scope relief is dead, will never happen again, and the longer it takes for airlines to propose it, the more former regional pilots (who were screwed into being at regionals by mainline pilots selling their souls) will be working at a major, who are less likely to sell their job down the river.

cheapgreek wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

CRJ-200 and 700's operate off ROA's runways without blocked off seats. Also Allegiant operates MD-80's to PIE and SFB non-stop from ROA. All I am trying to say is that the 145 is the poorest performer among regional jets off short runways. Many small airports do not have the luxury of runways over 7000 feet long and its the small airports that have service with 50 seat RJ's. The only reasons 145's are being added to Piedmont's fleet is that the Dash's are nearing their cycle limits and with cheap fuel prices, 145's can make money on most flights. Its not a matter of if, but when oil prices will rise and when they do, the 145's will be parked again. The days of the 50 seat RJ's are numbered, Many are still parked and the 70-90 seat class RJ's are the future. The CS-100 and MRJ-70 along with next generation E-175,E190 jets will make up most of the fleets of the majors. What some don't realize is that both the ERJ's and CRJ's were derivatives of biz jets so the end product was a compromise, it works in some markets and airports and not in others. 737-700's and A319's are better of short runways because they were designed as airliners.

50 seaters are no dead. Look at DL, they've actually brought CR2's out of the desert. They simply can't replace CR2's with 700s and 900s. It's either keep the 50 seaters flying or give up a significant chunk of their feed. Sure, they've parked a ton by picking up the 717 fleet, but they're settled into where they're going to be in terms of regional feed.

Going forward, I'd expect the next real shift in regional feed being consolidated. It wouldn't surprise me to see DCI down to 3 carriers by 2020, 2 each flying the CRJ and 2 each flying the ERJ (9E, OO, YX)

A main reason some 50 seat RJ's are coming back on line is the low price of oil. A decade ago 19 seat Beech 1900's were being used for small city airports. Today they are all gone. Many of those 1900 seat cities have no airline service. The 50 seat RJ's are not good on short routes, say under 300 miles and yet that is where many are being used. The trend in airlines is for higher seat capacity, Southwest has gone from the 737-700 to the 737-800 because operating costs are very similar yet the 800 holds more passengers. The CRJ-200 by Bombardier has been out of production for years and Embraer ERJ-145 orders are next to nothing. The 50 seat RJ's flying are getting close to the cycle limits where a heavy check will be due and airlines will not invest millions in old frames.
Piedmont turned down extending the cycles on the Dash-8's because it was cost prohibitive. Also the pilot shortage does not bode well for the 50 seaters. See stories below.

https://worldairlinenews.com/2016/12/23 ... next-year/
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2015/10/ ... irst-look/
http://www.aircraftvaluenews.com/values ... the-abyss/
http://www.airservicealliance.com/marke ... upgauging/

As long as US3 scope clauses limit large RJs to a smaller subset of total RJ fleets there will be 50 seaters, too much lift to too many viable cities to give up.

cheapgreek wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

CRJ-200 and 700's operate off ROA's runways without blocked off seats. Also Allegiant operates MD-80's to PIE and SFB non-stop from ROA. All I am trying to say is that the 145 is the poorest performer among regional jets off short runways. Many small airports do not have the luxury of runways over 7000 feet long and its the small airports that have service with 50 seat RJ's. The only reasons 145's are being added to Piedmont's fleet is that the Dash's are nearing their cycle limits and with cheap fuel prices, 145's can make money on most flights. Its not a matter of if, but when oil prices will rise and when they do, the 145's will be parked again. The days of the 50 seat RJ's are numbered, Many are still parked and the 70-90 seat class RJ's are the future. The CS-100 and MRJ-70 along with next generation E-175,E190 jets will make up most of the fleets of the majors. What some don't realize is that both the ERJ's and CRJ's were derivatives of biz jets so the end product was a compromise, it works in some markets and airports and not in others. 737-700's and A319's are better of short runways because they were designed as airliners.

50 seaters are no dead. Look at DL, they've actually brought CR2's out of the desert. They simply can't replace CR2's with 700s and 900s. It's either keep the 50 seaters flying or give up a significant chunk of their feed. Sure, they've parked a ton by picking up the 717 fleet, but they're settled into where they're going to be in terms of regional feed.

Going forward, I'd expect the next real shift in regional feed being consolidated. It wouldn't surprise me to see DCI down to 3 carriers by 2020, 2 each flying the CRJ and 2 each flying the ERJ (9E, OO, YX)

A main reason some 50 seat RJ's are coming back on line is the low price of oil. A decade ago 19 seat Beech 1900's were being used for small city airports. Today they are all gone. Many of those 1900 seat cities have no airline service. The 50 seat RJ's are not good on short routes, say under 300 miles and yet that is where many are being used. The trend in airlines is for higher seat capacity, Southwest has gone from the 737-700 to the 737-800 because operating costs are very similar yet the 800 holds more passengers. The CRJ-200 by Bombardier has been out of production for years and Embraer ERJ-145 orders are next to nothing. The 50 seat RJ's flying are getting close to the cycle limits where a heavy check will be due and airlines will not invest millions in old frames.
Piedmont turned down extending the cycles on the Dash-8's because it was cost prohibitive. Also the pilot shortage does not bode well for the 50 seaters. See stories below.

https://worldairlinenews.com/2016/12/23 ... next-year/
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2015/10/ ... irst-look/
http://www.aircraftvaluenews.com/values ... the-abyss/
http://www.airservicealliance.com/marke ... upgauging/

Apples and oranges. Did places like ABY, CLL and DBQ have 1900s a decade ago?

DiamondFlyer wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

50 seaters are no dead. Look at DL, they've actually brought CR2's out of the desert. They simply can't replace CR2's with 700s and 900s. It's either keep the 50 seaters flying or give up a significant chunk of their feed. Sure, they've parked a ton by picking up the 717 fleet, but they're settled into where they're going to be in terms of regional feed.

Going forward, I'd expect the next real shift in regional feed being consolidated. It wouldn't surprise me to see DCI down to 3 carriers by 2020, 2 each flying the CRJ and 2 each flying the ERJ (9E, OO, YX)

A main reason some 50 seat RJ's are coming back on line is the low price of oil. A decade ago 19 seat Beech 1900's were being used for small city airports. Today they are all gone. Many of those 1900 seat cities have no airline service. The 50 seat RJ's are not good on short routes, say under 300 miles and yet that is where many are being used. The trend in airlines is for higher seat capacity, Southwest has gone from the 737-700 to the 737-800 because operating costs are very similar yet the 800 holds more passengers. The CRJ-200 by Bombardier has been out of production for years and Embraer ERJ-145 orders are next to nothing. The 50 seat RJ's flying are getting close to the cycle limits where a heavy check will be due and airlines will not invest millions in old frames.
Piedmont turned down extending the cycles on the Dash-8's because it was cost prohibitive. Also the pilot shortage does not bode well for the 50 seaters. See stories below.

https://worldairlinenews.com/2016/12/23 ... next-year/
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2015/10/ ... irst-look/
http://www.aircraftvaluenews.com/values ... the-abyss/
http://www.airservicealliance.com/marke ... upgauging/

Citing some news stories doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. Those Expressjet 200's flown for Delta, most of them aren't even leaving service. Skywest is adding a number of them to their fleet (not sure the exact number), and Endeavor is adding at least 14 of them to their fleet. At Delta, there simply isn't room for more large RJs. Either you keep the 50 seat fleet or start walking away from cities. Sure, cheap oil is helping, but even at 100+/barrel oil, there will be 50 seat flying in the system.

AA has a bit more flexibility in that they can reconfigure the CR7's down to 65 seats, at which point they count as a small RJ, which allows them to add another 175/900 to the fleet. But scope relief is dead, will never happen again, and the longer it takes for airlines to propose it, the more former regional pilots (who were screwed into being at regionals by mainline pilots selling their souls) will be working at a major, who are less likely to sell their job down the river.

The fact is 50 seat RJ numbers are down, no majors have them on order. Those articles you brush over tell the story regarding 50 seat RJ's. As far as $100.00 oil, that is what started the draw down of the small RJ's. The scope clause is what is hampering Mitsubishi and Embraer sales due to the 70 seat limit and also the weight. Between 2013 and 2016, 52 cities lost all commercial service and the EAS program is being cut. Putting 3-5 people on a flight is nonsense. The airports I can think of that lost all service are Keene,Nh, Bridgeport,Ct and Groton,Ct, all served with 19 seat planes.
The number of in service 50 seaters are declining. Many are old and nearing heavy checks and that also causes airlines to park them.
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/ ... -dodo.aspx Part of article, " Delta recognized the declining viability of 50-seat jets before its peers. The company had an astounding 474 50-seat regional jets in service in 2009, but plans to shrink that fleet to no more than 125 planes by the end of 2015." Don't shoot the messenger, its just the current trend in the airline business. Another cost associated with small RJ's is that ground costs, tickets counters, etc are the same whether 50 or 70 seat aircraft are used. Its cost prohibitive to service small cities that cannot support larger planes. The airline landscape is changing on many fronts, pack in more seats, charge for everything and larger planes make more money.
Prop airliners are dead in this country and no major carrier has them on order. As soon as oil goes up, the deserts will be packed with lawn darts, history will repeat itself.