What will replace the EMB145 / CRJ200 ?

Someone83 · Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:08 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
In Norway Widerøe operates a lot of Public Service Obligation routes. This airline sees a future for aircraft with less than fifty seats. I found this article about it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrive ... akthrough/

Yes, but here we're talking about even smaller aircraft that 50 seaters, often used for rather short distances

evank516 · Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:39 pm

adamblang wrote:
EAS is really going to balloon when 50 seat RJs age out.

Possibly. SkyWest's new tactic on EAS bidding and attaching themselves to UA and other large network carriers seems to allow these places to become self sustaining. If this happens, who knows, maybe they'll mature and be able to support 70 seat regional jets.

cheapgreek · Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:38 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
The EIS program is a waste as it moves so few passengers and again wasting crews flying 6-10 or so passengers as opposed to as least 50 passengers, having commercial airline service is not a right, but as long as politicians want to get reelected, the EIS program will go on but hopefully will be eliminated as wasteful spending.

As a European I am not very familiar with the Essential Air Service program. To me it looks very valuable for the people who live in isolated areas. Not everything that costs government money is a waste. Better spend it on travel for the public than on bailing out banks.

In Norway Widerøe operates a lot of Public Service Obligation routes. This airline sees a future for aircraft with less than fifty seats. I found this article about it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrive ... akthrough/

When one moves to an isolated area, its not possible to have the same level of services and other trappings of a decent sized city. Rural areas offer less traffic, more open spaces, less crime, lower real estate costs and taxes, but to expect commercial airline service is not reasonable and no airline wants to tie up planes and crews for very small loads. The USA has always had an entitlement mentality and it has spilled over into air travel. You can't have it both ways, rural and urban areas both have their advantages and disadvantages .

Flighty · Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:35 pm

NWADTWE16 wrote:
i agree that up-gauging is what will happen, and the C series stands to really benefit here. I have to cast a vote for the Q400 though, just to state that at least the way Porter has it configured, it is a very comfortable plane and their service is great. I could go 3 hours max on that.

This is an interesting point. If 70-seaters become terminally limited by scope clause, CSeries may be the next available solution (competing directly against 50 seaters because we are holding 70 seaters constant).

I believe 50 seaters have at least another 10-15 years in them too. In the early 2000s "smart people" were already saying 50 seaters would go away. But an E-145 is still significantly cheaper trip cost than a 70 seater today. Therefore it is still the most profitable aircraft to fly a 50 pax load. So it sticks around. And that won't change next year.

Delta757MD88 · Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:21 am

DarthLobster wrote:
Delta757MD88 wrote:
Following boeing's new leadership we will have the EMB145MAX

You forgot to add an -8 to it...

I knew something was missing

Theproudbird · Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:29 am

I think most people would agree that the Q in Q400 stands for catastrophe as evident buy all the wheels falling off planes not taking off or running off the runway or worse the Continental Coonection that just opted to crash and kill people on the ground as well two flight attendant friends of mine and the two pilots in command.....

sergegva · Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:36 pm

NZ321 wrote:
I see that the last 145 rolled off the production line in June 2018 for Air Hamburg. CRJ 200s a similar story.

So with an aging fleet (AA's and Expressjet's E145's are 15+ years old on average) and AA's CRJs 17 years old. Skywest's & Air Wisconsin's CRJs are of similar vintage. Is there a replacement for these aircraft or is the 50-seat sector back to props?

Anybody knows if these EMB-135BJ Legacy can easily be converted from business aircraft to regular passengers aircraft?
Because the last pax EMB 135/140/145 seems to have been delivered 5 years ago (or even 7 years ago if we exclude 5 aircraft for Intel Air Shuttle with unclear business/passenger status). Last delivery for the CRJ 100/200 is even older.

By simplifying things a little, we can say that all CRJ 100-200 & EMB 135-140-145 currently flying are already over 10 years old.

GoHokies · Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:02 pm

Flighty wrote:
NWADTWE16 wrote:
i agree that up-gauging is what will happen, and the C series stands to really benefit here. I have to cast a vote for the Q400 though, just to state that at least the way Porter has it configured, it is a very comfortable plane and their service is great. I could go 3 hours max on that.

This is an interesting point. If 70-seaters become terminally limited by scope clause, CSeries may be the next available solution (competing directly against 50 seaters because we are holding 70 seaters constant).

I believe 50 seaters have at least another 10-15 years in them too. In the early 2000s "smart people" were already saying 50 seaters would go away. But an E-145 is still significantly cheaper trip cost than a 70 seater today. Therefore it is still the most profitable aircraft to fly a 50 pax load. So it sticks around. And that won't change next year.

So you expect CRJ 200s and ERJ 140/145s that are 15-20 years old today to continue flying for another 10-15 years?

I doubt any of the US3 has one that is less than 10 years old.

Flighty · Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:41 pm

GoHokies wrote:
Flighty wrote:
NWADTWE16 wrote:
i agree that up-gauging is what will happen, and the C series stands to really benefit here. I have to cast a vote for the Q400 though, just to state that at least the way Porter has it configured, it is a very comfortable plane and their service is great. I could go 3 hours max on that.

This is an interesting point. If 70-seaters become terminally limited by scope clause, CSeries may be the next available solution (competing directly against 50 seaters because we are holding 70 seaters constant).

I believe 50 seaters have at least another 10-15 years in them too. In the early 2000s "smart people" were already saying 50 seaters would go away. But an E-145 is still significantly cheaper trip cost than a 70 seater today. Therefore it is still the most profitable aircraft to fly a 50 pax load. So it sticks around. And that won't change next year.

So you expect CRJ 200s and ERJ 140/145s that are 15-20 years old today to continue flying for another 10-15 years?

I doubt any of the US3 has one that is less than 10 years old.

Why would they not? I suppose people believe the entire 50 seat market will become unprofitable, even though it is profitable today. Do I agree? No. Some 50 seaters will fly right to their mechanical limits. Probably more will than we expect. If unlimited 70 seaters were allowed in US scope, it would hasten the end of 50 seaters. But some of these smaller markets need to be served (=they have a profitable yield). Because people need to get around. It is a fine toothed tool for legacies to balance their networks.

bigb · Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:17 pm

Keep in mind, a lot of these 50 seaters are fully paid for which and actually print money on routes that they are correctly flown on. The biggest drawback is the lack of passenger comfort (space, heating/cooling).

ExMilitaryEng · Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:27 pm

Theproudbird wrote:
I think most people would agree that the Q in Q400 stands for catastrophe as evident buy all the wheels falling off planes not taking off or running off the runway or worse the Continental Coonection that just opted to crash and kill people on the ground as well two flight attendant friends of mine and the two pilots in command.....

Wow, what should we then call the "ATR"in ATR-72 then? "Assassin Tueur Repetitif" maybe? (being built in Toulouse, French is more appropriate here :smile:

)

You don't seem to be aware the Q400 has a better safety record than its competitor, the ATR-72, right?

AVLAirlineFreq · Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:57 pm

Is it the age of the aircraft in years or number of cycles flown that matters, or both? Some of these birds have a heavy daily burden of flights.

bigb · Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:19 pm

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:
Is it the age of the aircraft in years or number of cycles flown that matters, or both? Some of these birds have a heavy daily burden of flights.

Cycles mainly

SEA · Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:25 pm

NWADTWE16 wrote:
i agree that up-gauging is what will happen, and the C series stands to really benefit here. I have to cast a vote for the Q400 though, just to state that at least the way Porter has it configured, it is a very comfortable plane and their service is great. I could go 3 hours max on that.

Bombardier would much rather cut aggressive deals on the C series right now rather than the CRJ family, but the C series is too heavy to work with scope clauses.

cheapgreek · Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:47 pm

Flighty wrote:
GoHokies wrote:
Flighty wrote:

This is an interesting point. If 70-seaters become terminally limited by scope clause, CSeries may be the next available solution (competing directly against 50 seaters because we are holding 70 seaters constant).

I believe 50 seaters have at least another 10-15 years in them too. In the early 2000s "smart people" were already saying 50 seaters would go away. But an E-145 is still significantly cheaper trip cost than a 70 seater today. Therefore it is still the most profitable aircraft to fly a 50 pax load. So it sticks around. And that won't change next year.

So you expect CRJ 200s and ERJ 140/145s that are 15-20 years old today to continue flying for another 10-15 years?

I doubt any of the US3 has one that is less than 10 years old.

Why would they not? I suppose people believe the entire 50 seat market will become unprofitable, even though it is profitable today. Do I agree? No. Some 50 seaters will fly right to their mechanical limits. Probably more will than we expect. If unlimited 70 seaters were allowed in US scope, it would hasten the end of 50 seaters. But some of these smaller markets need to be served (=they have a profitable yield). Because people need to get around. It is a fine toothed tool for legacies to balance their networks.

If fuel spikes,that would hasten the demise of many 50 seaters. If small markets cannot fill a 70 seater, then they will lose service. In the past when 19-37 seat props were parked, it meant the end for small markets, GON,BDR,and others lost all service. The airline business model has changed, no more looking for every station with a handful of passengers feeding a hub. When the hours for pilots went up, it signaled the end of using scarce crews to fly small planes when they could fly larger planes and carry more passengers.

c933103 · Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:55 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
GoHokies wrote:
A few people have commented that 70/76 seaters will replace the 50 seaters, but unless the scope clauses at the US3 change during the next round of negotiation in 2019/2020, then it is unlikely that the 50 seaters will be replaced at all. The US3 are maxed out on 70/76 seaters right now.

Exactly.

Despite the newer / more efficient (but heavier) engines available, no airlines would pay the additional costs for re-engined CRJs/ERJ145s. Most probably those would exceed the scope clause weight anyways.

As we all know, the current scope clauses authorises a much greater number of 50 seaters than 70/76 seaters. The unions will certainly not trade some 50 seaters for more 70/76 seaters as they know darn well most current 50 seaters will just die anyways.

I'm wondering if some new CRJ700s / EMB170s fitted with 50 seats (dual class) could be operated profitably on some higher yield routes? Would they be too heavy for the 50 seats scope clause? That could be a good way of replacing some of those CRJs/ERJ145s.

what about, for instance, re-engined ATR-42 with newer props?

NameOmitted · Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:18 pm

This may be where done aircraft make their inroads into civil aviation. Imagine a sub 50 seat aircraft that had one pilot, but emergency controls that would allow a standby pilot to control the aircraft remotely. If you had one standby co-pilot per, say 5 aircraft, the flight crew becomes 1.2 pilots rather than 2 pilots. That world go a long way to making thin routes work, while not having to sell the public completely on remote control.

DarthLobster · Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:50 pm

NameOmitted wrote:
This may be where done aircraft make their inroads into civil aviation. Imagine a sub 50 seat aircraft that had one pilot, but emergency controls that would allow a standby pilot to control the aircraft remotely. If you had one standby co-pilot per, say 5 aircraft, the flight crew becomes 1.2 pilots rather than 2 pilots. That world go a long way to making thin routes work, while not having to sell the public completely on remote control.

You're referring to Single-Pilot Ops, which is a can of acid-spitting radioactive worms just waiting to be opened...

bigb · Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:19 pm

NameOmitted wrote:
This may be where done aircraft make their inroads into civil aviation. Imagine a sub 50 seat aircraft that had one pilot, but emergency controls that would allow a standby pilot to control the aircraft remotely. If you had one standby co-pilot per, say 5 aircraft, the flight crew becomes 1.2 pilots rather than 2 pilots. That world go a long way to making thin routes work, while not having to sell the public completely on remote control.

Nope and nope. What actually needs to happen and I see happening is the return of props such as cessna caravans into smaller communities. It would help the Air Choice Ones, Southern Air Express if they codeshare with some majors and fly into out of hubs.

DCA-ROCguy · Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:24 pm

The industry will run into unpleasant political trouble if they decide to abandon markets that can't support 50-seat jet aircraft. Lots of elected officials have small-city constituents over two hours drive from a mainline-jet or large-RJ served airport, and they (rightly) won't cotton to being told that everything under 50 seats will be lost. The industry's failure to come up with economic 37-50-seat next-generation aircraft is a serious problem, and needs to be rectified. EAS is absolutely not wasteful spending, and if it's needed for a while, it should be kept.

Jim

cheapgreek · Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:38 am

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
The industry will run into unpleasant political trouble if they decide to abandon markets that can't support 50-seat jet aircraft. Lots of elected officials have small-city constituents over two hours drive from a mainline-jet or large-RJ served airport, and they (rightly) won't cotton to being told that everything under 50 seats will be lost. The industry's failure to come up with economic 37-50-seat next-generation aircraft is a serious problem, and needs to be rectified. EAS is absolutely not wasteful spending, and if it's needed for a while, it should be kept.

Jim

Why are small airports entitled to airline service? People moving into such small towns know what the infrastructure is and what if any travel options exist. Airlines don't design planes and OEM's have found there is no market for small 19-37 seat planes. Times have changed, the CAB is long gone, deregulation is here to stay and more people have access to commercial air travel than ever before. Its a waste of fuel, manpower, capital costs, etc to fly a handful of passengers and tie up slots at hub airports. Airlines are here to make money, not lose money on unprofitable routes that some feel they are entitled to, sort of like airline welfare. If one needs to drive several hours or take a bus to the nearest city with air service, so be it. People move to small towns for the low taxes, low housing costs, no crowded highways, low crime rates and they get all that, but flying 5,8,10 or so passengers is a waste of money and flight crews. Airlines are not welfare providers but companies that are expected to earn a profit along with a large payroll and providing air travel for the great majority of the population. Move to Podunk, know what to expect.

716131 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:46 am

Looks like the A220?

32andBelow · Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:00 am

Flighty wrote:
GoHokies wrote:
Flighty wrote:

This is an interesting point. If 70-seaters become terminally limited by scope clause, CSeries may be the next available solution (competing directly against 50 seaters because we are holding 70 seaters constant).

I believe 50 seaters have at least another 10-15 years in them too. In the early 2000s "smart people" were already saying 50 seaters would go away. But an E-145 is still significantly cheaper trip cost than a 70 seater today. Therefore it is still the most profitable aircraft to fly a 50 pax load. So it sticks around. And that won't change next year.

So you expect CRJ 200s and ERJ 140/145s that are 15-20 years old today to continue flying for another 10-15 years?

I doubt any of the US3 has one that is less than 10 years old.

Why would they not? I suppose people believe the entire 50 seat market will become unprofitable, even though it is profitable today. Do I agree? No. Some 50 seaters will fly right to their mechanical limits. Probably more will than we expect. If unlimited 70 seaters were allowed in US scope, it would hasten the end of 50 seaters. But some of these smaller markets need to be served (=they have a profitable yield). Because people need to get around. It is a fine toothed tool for legacies to balance their networks.

I think there is a better chance that the opportunity cost of using 2 pilots on these routes may not make sense going forward

32andBelow · Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:01 am

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
The industry will run into unpleasant political trouble if they decide to abandon markets that can't support 50-seat jet aircraft. Lots of elected officials have small-city constituents over two hours drive from a mainline-jet or large-RJ served airport, and they (rightly) won't cotton to being told that everything under 50 seats will be lost. The industry's failure to come up with economic 37-50-seat next-generation aircraft is a serious problem, and needs to be rectified. EAS is absolutely not wasteful spending, and if it's needed for a while, it should be kept.

Jim

Congress is going to have to change pilot minimums. That’s the real problem. There’s plenty of hardware for small markets available.

GalaxyFlyer · Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:20 am

If a market doesn’t develop enough revenue to support the service, the service (planes, crew and resources) will be deployed elsewhere, simple free market. Small cities are “entitled” to air service.

Is your position small cities don’t deserve the same standard of safety and car# large cities are due?

GF

airtran737 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:20 am

Theproudbird wrote:
I think most people would agree that the Q in Q400 stands for catastrophe as evident buy all the wheels falling off planes not taking off or running off the runway or worse the Continental Coonection that just opted to crash and kill people on the ground as well two flight attendant friends of mine and the two pilots in command.....

Neither pilot was in command. They showed terrible decision making skills and they killed everyone as a result. The captain should never have been a captain with his training record and the f/o should have called out sick.

DCA-ROCguy · Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:33 am

cheapgreek wrote:
People move to small towns for the low taxes, low housing costs, no crowded highways, low crime rates and they get all that, but flying 5,8,10 or so passengers is a waste of money and flight crews. Airlines are not welfare providers but companies that are expected to earn a profit along with a large payroll and providing air travel for the great majority of the population. Move to Podunk, know what to expect.

Nope, nope, and nope. Bad laissez-faire thinking. The tech-connected economy means that all places need air service even more than they did during the industrial era when 727's were doing hopscotch across smaller markets. Airlines are very much stewards of a social good, whether Wall Street likes it or not. Airlines absolutely have a social obligation to keep smaller markets connected, while they still make money. They just might have to make heaps of money a little bit smaller than those they've been making since Doug Parker told us they'd never lose money again. In addition, if EAS is needed for a while to help achieve keeping smaller markets more than say a two-hour or 150-minute drive from the next, then EAS should not only be kept, it should be increased.

Jim

KD5MDK · Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:13 am

cheapgreek wrote:
DCA-ROCguy wrote:
The industry will run into unpleasant political trouble if they decide to abandon markets that can't support 50-seat jet aircraft. Lots of elected officials have small-city constituents over two hours drive from a mainline-jet or large-RJ served airport, and they (rightly) won't cotton to being told that everything under 50 seats will be lost. The industry's failure to come up with economic 37-50-seat next-generation aircraft is a serious problem, and needs to be rectified. EAS is absolutely not wasteful spending, and if it's needed for a while, it should be kept.

Jim

Why are small airports entitled to airline service? People moving into such small towns know what the infrastructure is and what if any travel options exist. Airlines don't design planes and OEM's have found there is no market for small 19-37 seat planes. Times have changed, the CAB is long gone, deregulation is here to stay and more people have access to commercial air travel than ever before. Its a waste of fuel, manpower, capital costs, etc to fly a handful of passengers and tie up slots at hub airports. Airlines are here to make money, not lose money on unprofitable routes that some feel they are entitled to, sort of like airline welfare. If one needs to drive several hours or take a bus to the nearest city with air service, so be it. People move to small towns for the low taxes, low housing costs, no crowded highways, low crime rates and they get all that, but flying 5,8,10 or so passengers is a waste of money and flight crews. Airlines are not welfare providers but companies that are expected to earn a profit along with a large payroll and providing air travel for the great majority of the population. Move to Podunk, know what to expect.

In general the small towns were there first, before the airline service was started. Is your position that the people born in them should move elsewhere if they want access to hospital specialists, go talk to their elected representatives at their office, make any in person business deals, or receive services from state employees? It's a potentially logical position to hold, but you should also apply it to highway maintenance, deployment of state police, voting stations and electrical wires. Those are all resources mostly paid for by cities but consumed by rural areas because we feel like the residents there should have access to those services.

Slug71 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:10 am

This is currently what's in front of Congress,

"The bill would expand the Essential Air Service program to include rural airports like Klamath Falls’ that are heavily utilized by the military"

https://www.klamathfallsnews.org/news/m ... format=amp

I sure hope it happens. MFR is only 80 miles away, but the roads are BAD getting there in the winter. LMT also has one of the longest runways in the country. We lost both Skywest(UA) and PenAir (Who came after Skywest left, our only airline service at the time). Now we have nothing since PenAir's bankruptcy. Our tickets were roughly $100+ more than flying out of MFR, so a lot of people would fly out of there. The EAS subsidy would help with the fares at least. And hopefully attract more than just 1 airline.

cheapgreek · Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:49 pm

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
People move to small towns for the low taxes, low housing costs, no crowded highways, low crime rates and they get all that, but flying 5,8,10 or so passengers is a waste of money and flight crews. Airlines are not welfare providers but companies that are expected to earn a profit along with a large payroll and providing air travel for the great majority of the population. Move to Podunk, know what to expect.

Nope, nope, and nope. Bad laissez-faire thinking. The tech-connected economy means that all places need air service even more than they did during the industrial era when 727's were doing hopscotch across smaller markets. Airlines are very much stewards of a social good, whether Wall Street likes it or not. Airlines absolutely have a social obligation to keep smaller markets connected, while they still make money. They just might have to make heaps of money a little bit smaller than those they've been making since Doug Parker told us they'd never lose money again. In addition, if EAS is needed for a while to help achieve keeping smaller markets more than say a two-hour or 150-minute drive from the next, then EAS should not only be kept, it should be increased.

Jim

Airlines are for profit companies, not extensions of welfare programs. Tech-connected means connections are made via the internet and its impossible to provide airline service to all small towns, there are not enough planes and crews to provide such a service and it would be a drain on the airlines bottom line. Airlines are not as you say stewards of a social good, whats next, lay railroad track to every small hamlet throughout the country, provide cancer centers in every small town? People have come to expect too much in this country and thus every state and city is having serious financial problems, people scream about rising taxes, basic services being cut and yet they expect the money to come from somewhere to fly a handful of people who choose to live in an area that cannot allow airlines to operate with a profit. Air travel is not a necessity or a basic human right, as it stands now, the vast majority has access to air travel and the airlines are making a profit doing so. If air travel is that important to a person, do what you would do if you wanted better schools, better medical facilities, more options for entertainment, Move.

amcnd · Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:02 pm

The CRJ 700 with 65 seats will be the new “50 seater”. Already beeing tested via AA and OO... No manufacturing of 50 seat jets is happening...

c933103 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:03 pm

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
People move to small towns for the low taxes, low housing costs, no crowded highways, low crime rates and they get all that, but flying 5,8,10 or so passengers is a waste of money and flight crews. Airlines are not welfare providers but companies that are expected to earn a profit along with a large payroll and providing air travel for the great majority of the population. Move to Podunk, know what to expect.

Nope, nope, and nope. Bad laissez-faire thinking. The tech-connected economy means that all places need air service even more than they did during the industrial era when 727's were doing hopscotch across smaller markets. Airlines are very much stewards of a social good, whether Wall Street likes it or not. Airlines absolutely have a social obligation to keep smaller markets connected, while they still make money. They just might have to make heaps of money a little bit smaller than those they've been making since Doug Parker told us they'd never lose money again. In addition, if EAS is needed for a while to help achieve keeping smaller markets more than say a two-hour or 150-minute drive from the next, then EAS should not only be kept, it should be increased.

Jim

Airlines are not social business and in the first place airlines are difficult to profit anyway. That's why there are subsidies to attract airlines into unprofitable routes in the first place

baje427 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:04 pm

I dont see any of the US3 ever ordering a prop aircraft however, as many have stated the Q400 would be a good aircraft for most of the routes the CRJ200/E145 currently perform.

c933103 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:04 pm

baje427 wrote:
I dont see any of the US3 ever ordering a prop aircraft however, as many have stated the Q400 would be a good aircraft for most of the routes the CRJ200/E145 currently perform.

q400 is still considerably larger, isn't it

baje427 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:09 pm

The Q400 is larger however, the break even point is supposedly close to the region of the break even point for the 50 seat RJ's.

c933103 wrote:
baje427 wrote:
I dont see any of the US3 ever ordering a prop aircraft however, as many have stated the Q400 would be a good aircraft for most of the routes the CRJ200/E145 currently perform.

q400 is still considerably larger, isn't it

DiamondFlyer · Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:05 pm

32andBelow wrote:
DCA-ROCguy wrote:
The industry will run into unpleasant political trouble if they decide to abandon markets that can't support 50-seat jet aircraft. Lots of elected officials have small-city constituents over two hours drive from a mainline-jet or large-RJ served airport, and they (rightly) won't cotton to being told that everything under 50 seats will be lost. The industry's failure to come up with economic 37-50-seat next-generation aircraft is a serious problem, and needs to be rectified. EAS is absolutely not wasteful spending, and if it's needed for a while, it should be kept.

Jim

Congress is going to have to change pilot minimums. That’s the real problem. There’s plenty of hardware for small markets available.

And have the blood of the next crash on their hands? Not a chance. The ATP law is here to stay, there might be some sort of change into how to qualify for an ATP, but the ATP law isn’t going away.

cheapgreek · Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:16 pm

c933103 wrote:
baje427 wrote:
I dont see any of the US3 ever ordering a prop aircraft however, as many have stated the Q400 would be a good aircraft for most of the routes the CRJ200/E145 currently perform.

q400 is still considerably larger, isn't it

The Q400 is not on the order lists of the majors and at 70 seats its not meant for small markets. The Q400 is based on the Dash-8 which is about 30 years old and is outdated thus very few orders.

baje427 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:49 pm

I am not following your logic the 737 is also 30+ years the Q400 order book is due to its price more so than the age of the design.

cheapgreek wrote:
c933103 wrote:
baje427 wrote:
I dont see any of the US3 ever ordering a prop aircraft however, as many have stated the Q400 would be a good aircraft for most of the routes the CRJ200/E145 currently perform.

q400 is still considerably larger, isn't it

The Q400 is not on the order lists of the majors and at 70 seats its not meant for small markets. The Q400 is based on the Dash-8 which is about 30 years old and is outdated thus very few orders.

NameOmitted · Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:18 pm

BBD could sell the DHC-8 100-300 to Viking.
They could do the the 100 what they did to the DHC-6, and wham, you have a sub 50 pax aircraft.

Ain't I clever when spending other people's money? :duck:

bluefltspecial · Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:04 pm

I think this is an interesting and valid post.

I worked with Comair (OH) as my first airline in the late 90s as we were transitioning from turboprop to an all CRJ fleet. That is coming up on 20 years now. Technology in aviation, as just exploded, with everything from composites to what I would have thought would be unrealistic engine efficiency and fuel burn that currently operates now.

The CRJ at the time allowed airlines to connect smaller cities served by regional turboprops (ATR, SF34, DH8, E120) all had a limit of around 500-1200 miles, but often limited. CRJs / ERJs allowed a lot of new routes and expansion of service to cities that hadn’t seen jet service in decades and in some cases actually stimulate demand.

If you could offer a small airliner capable of offering around 50 seats (maybe even in a dual config?) with a wide cross section, of say the E190 (E2), with a composite frame/wings - making it lighter to operate, and a new engine that operates at a 30-40% less fuel burn, You’re talking about dropping the operating cost to possibly half of what the current CRJ/ERJ offer. With gas prices being so volatile, but efficiency that high, it could work.

IF, and that’s a big IF, that could be achieved, then I think that you’d see airlines willing to purchase it, one for entrants into smaller markets but also small point to point markets in smaller to medium markets where you can stimulate demand, and then as a legacy airline (or low cost airline) upgauge to larger aircraft.

Airlines like say American Airlines in the US operate with strict scope claues. Others in the US operate less strict. Some airline have been able to work with their labor groups and work in a two 50 seaters equal one 75 seater in a contract, or something along that wording. Other airlines in Europe operate “regional” jets in house along side of their larger counterparts. Thus if a true cheaper 50 seater became available, I can see airlines again wanting them to provide frequency in smaller markets, but we’ll be right back where we were before 9/11 (in the US at least) where the infrastructure to support a massive amount of new aircraft into the ATC system, as well as congested airports, just is not ready.

As for right now, though, nothing is currently planned to fill this market. Maybe Boeing and Airbus already know this and will be able to work with their smaller counterparts to create something in the market.

cheapgreek · Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:00 pm

baje427 wrote:
I am not following your logic the 737 is also 30+ years the Q400 order book is due to its price more so than the age of the design.
cheapgreek wrote:
c933103 wrote:
q400 is still considerably larger, isn't it

Apples and oranges. The fleet of mainline planes is very much larger than the fleets of props and the 737 has had four upgraded models and has sold thousands, not so with the Dash's. Also the newer RJ's are close if not equal to the Q400 in fuel burn and are faster and with the added speed can do more flight legs per day. Also the RJ's can fly above bad weather. I am trying to project what the airlines are doing today and the props are not part of their future plans. I know some get nostalgic about props but the airlines don't. Years ago a study was done regarding RJ's and props and it was found when an RJ replaced a prop on the same route, ridership went up 20%. Passengers prefer RJ's, its just the natural progression of air travel, no more steam locomotives, but now diesels and electrics. Its not the price of the Q400 that led to poor sales, the demand is just not there.

The Q400 is not on the order lists of the majors and at 70 seats its not meant for small markets. The Q400 is based on the Dash-8 which is about 30 years old and is outdated thus very few orders.

traindoc · Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:24 pm

I think that the availability of pilots will be the main determinant of the future of these smaller aircraft. In the next 10 years a lot of older mainline pilots will be retiring . And many regional pilots will be moving up to fly mailine planes. And already the regionals are scrambling for pilots. Add to that, there are much fewer military pilots now than in years past. So that source is also dwindling. That is my 2 cents.

Samrnpage · Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:55 pm

Airlines will fly once daily on a 70 seater instead of 2 times daily on a 45 seater going forward. More routes, less planes needed and more profit.

DL717 · Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:57 pm

The E175. Maybe a few Q400's, but that thing is pretty much dead now as is the ATR program.

DCA-ROCguy · Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:01 pm

cheapgreek wrote:
Airlines are for profit companies, not extensions of welfare programs. Tech-connected means connections are made via the internet and its impossible to provide airline service to all small towns, there are not enough planes and crews to provide such a service and it would be a drain on the airlines bottom line. Airlines are not as you say stewards of a social good, whats next, lay railroad track to every small hamlet throughout the country, provide cancer centers in every small town? People have come to expect too much in this country and thus every state and city is having serious financial problems, people scream about rising taxes, basic services being cut and yet they expect the money to come from somewhere to fly a handful of people who choose to live in an area that cannot allow airlines to operate with a profit. Air travel is not a necessity or a basic human right, as it stands now, the vast majority has access to air travel and the airlines are making a profit doing so. If air travel is that important to a person, do what you would do if you wanted better schools, better medical facilities, more options for entertainment, Move.

Entirely off base, as you usually are on this subject. Air travel is an essential part of the modern economy, and no, it is not properly limited to larger markets. Tech-connected also means needing human connection as part of business, not just internet connection. Airlines are exactly stewards of a social good. Railroads don't need to go to every small town because trucks can provide good connection for cargo of a similar kind.

There is no unreasonable cost expectation for airlines, governments, and communities together ensuring that smaller markets have a couple of daily RJ's to a hub. Carriers make vast profits on the majority of their systems; federal, state, and local governments can put together support programs; and, there will just plain be people who use them. It's a collaborative effort. As I said, if Doug Parker's apparently forever and ever amen huge piles of money are just a tiny bit shorter, shareholders still make oodles of money, and the air travel system is run to serve the public, which is exactly what it should be.

Jim

cheapgreek · Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:55 pm

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
Airlines are for profit companies, not extensions of welfare programs. Tech-connected means connections are made via the internet and its impossible to provide airline service to all small towns, there are not enough planes and crews to provide such a service and it would be a drain on the airlines bottom line. Airlines are not as you say stewards of a social good, whats next, lay railroad track to every small hamlet throughout the country, provide cancer centers in every small town? People have come to expect too much in this country and thus every state and city is having serious financial problems, people scream about rising taxes, basic services being cut and yet they expect the money to come from somewhere to fly a handful of people who choose to live in an area that cannot allow airlines to operate with a profit. Air travel is not a necessity or a basic human right, as it stands now, the vast majority has access to air travel and the airlines are making a profit doing so. If air travel is that important to a person, do what you would do if you wanted better schools, better medical facilities, more options for entertainment, Move.

Entirely off base, as you usually are on this subject. Air travel is an essential part of the modern economy, and no, it is not properly limited to larger markets. Tech-connected also means needing human connection as part of business, not just internet connection. Airlines are exactly stewards of a social good. Railroads don't need to go to every small town because trucks can provide good connection for cargo of a similar kind.

There is no unreasonable cost expectation for airlines, governments, and communities together ensuring that smaller markets have couple of daily RJ's to a hub . Carriers make vast profits on the majority of their systems; federal, state, and local governments can put together support programs; and, there will just plain be people who use them. It's a collaborative effort. As I said, if Doug Parker's apparently forever and ever amen huge piles of money are just a tiny bit shorter, shareholders still make oodles of money, and the air travel system is run to serve the public, which is exactly what it should be.

The reason railroads don't go everywhere is that they cannot make money on such small stops. Years ago railroads served many small hamlets and that's why many railroads have gone under and apart from the northeast and a few other heavily populated areas, trains mostly carry cargo. Airlines don't have your mind set, many small cities over the past 10-20 years have been dropped. GON lost service, HVN is 30 miles away and PVD is 40 miles away. Driving 2-3 hours for a flight is not a hardship and as time goes by, more cities will be dropped as the average RJ rises in seating capacity. Its a natural progression in the airline business, the Saab's, Dash's, Beeches, Twin otters, EMB-110's, EMB-120's are gone and never coming back. An airline is just like any other business, they are there to make money and no money can be made on serving small towns with 5-8 passengers per flight. No airline seems to be following you business plan and why not, because it fails to learn from business 101, cut your loses and concentrate on where profits can be made. Social good entities are welfare departments, Goodwill stores, food banks, charities, etc, not stock held companies. In this world not everybody can get what others have due to location, median income, population, etc. Would you insist that large chain stores set up locations at every small town? Its just not the way business works, the demand has to be there first and the demand has to be enough to warrant the expenses of building new stores. Again, move to a small town, forget the things a city offers.
A couple of RJ's to a hub would be 100 seats minimum with ridership at maybe 10-25 passengers, not a wise use of resources, fuel, aircraft, crews and ground personnel. You have your idea of how an airline should run and I have mine, which one is closest to reality?

Jim

cheapgreek · Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:57 pm

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
Airlines are for profit companies, not extensions of welfare programs. Tech-connected means connections are made via the internet and its impossible to provide airline service to all small towns, there are not enough planes and crews to provide such a service and it would be a drain on the airlines bottom line. Airlines are not as you say stewards of a social good, whats next, lay railroad track to every small hamlet throughout the country, provide cancer centers in every small town? People have come to expect too much in this country and thus every state and city is having serious financial problems, people scream about rising taxes, basic services being cut and yet they expect the money to come from somewhere to fly a handful of people who choose to live in an area that cannot allow airlines to operate with a profit. Air travel is not a necessity or a basic human right, as it stands now, the vast majority has access to air travel and the airlines are making a profit doing so. If air travel is that important to a person, do what you would do if you wanted better schools, better medical facilities, more options for entertainment, Move.

Entirely off base, as you usually are on this subject. Air travel is an essential part of the modern economy, and no, it is not properly limited to larger markets. Tech-connected also means needing human connection as part of business, not just internet connection. Airlines are exactly stewards of a social good. Railroads don't need to go to every small town because trucks can provide good connection for cargo of a similar kind.

There is no unreasonable cost expectation for airlines, governments, and communities together ensuring that smaller markets have a couple of daily RJ's to a hub. Carriers make vast profits on the majority of their systems; federal, state, and local governments can put together support programs; and, there will just plain be people who use them. It's a collaborative effort. As I said, if Doug Parker's apparently forever and ever amen huge piles of money are just a tiny bit shorter, shareholders still make oodles of money, and the air travel system is run to serve the public, which is exactly what it should be.

Jim

The reason railroads don't go everywhere is that they cannot make money on such small stops. Years ago railroads served many small hamlets and that's why many railroads have gone under and apart from the northeast and a few other heavily populated areas, trains mostly carry cargo. Airlines don't have your mind set, many small cities over the past 10-20 years have been dropped. GON lost service, HVN is 30 miles away and PVD is 40 miles away. Driving 2-3 hours for a flight is not a hardship and as time goes by, more cities will be dropped as the average RJ rises in seating capacity. Its a natural progression in the airline business, the Saab's, Dash's, Beeches, Twin otters, EMB-110's, EMB-120's are gone and never coming back. An airline is just like any other business, they are there to make money and no money can be made on serving small towns with 5-8 passengers per flight. No airline seems to be following you business plan and why not, because it fails to learn from business 101, cut your loses and concentrate on where profits can be made. Social good entities are welfare departments, Goodwill stores, food banks, charities, etc, not stock held companies. In this world not everybody can get what others have due to location, median income, population, etc. Would you insist that large chain stores set up locations at every small town? Its just not the way business works, the demand has to be there first and the demand has to be enough to warrant the expenses of building new stores. Again, move to a small town, forget the things a city offers.
A couple of RJ's to a hub would be 100 seats minimum with ridership at maybe 10-25 passengers, not a wise use of resources, fuel, aircraft, crews and ground personnel. You have your idea of how an airline should run and I have mine, which one is closest to reality?

TWA772LR · Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:27 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
DCA-ROCguy wrote:
The industry will run into unpleasant political trouble if they decide to abandon markets that can't support 50-seat jet aircraft. Lots of elected officials have small-city constituents over two hours drive from a mainline-jet or large-RJ served airport, and they (rightly) won't cotton to being told that everything under 50 seats will be lost. The industry's failure to come up with economic 37-50-seat next-generation aircraft is a serious problem, and needs to be rectified. EAS is absolutely not wasteful spending, and if it's needed for a while, it should be kept.

Jim

Congress is going to have to change pilot minimums. That’s the real problem. There’s plenty of hardware for small markets available.

And have the blood of the next crash on their hands? Not a chance. The ATP law is here to stay, there might be some sort of change into how to qualify for an ATP, but the ATP law isn’t going away.

That crash had nothing to do with ATP minimums. It was all pilot rest rules and bad training. Both pilots had more than 1500TT each (or the FO wasnt that far from it) and they failed to get out of the stall properly. Couple with both of them being commuters made it a recipe for disaster. Then ALPA saw it as a scapegoat to artificially raise the ATP minimums to artificially raise the wages for pilots and heavily lobbied Congress. They succeeded, at the expense of the industry significantly scrambling for new pilots and airlines like ZK and Penair dying off. According to capitalism, increasing requirements for licensure automatically increases wages for that group, ALPA knew that and it was that shortsightedness that has made it extremely hard to enter the pilot job market right at the beginning of a massive pilot shortage.

DCA-ROCguy · Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:35 pm

Airlines aren't following my "business plan" because they don't recognize that they are bearers of a social good as well as businesses. That's a common problem in business these days. It is one of the reasons the US elected an insane orange clown and would-be-tyrant, rather than a corporatist progressivist tyrant, president. Large corporations *must* recognize that there is a social aspect to their businesses, particularly such a crucial social good as air travel. They will continue to face political and economic trouble--like Trump's ill-considered trade wars--until they realize it. Their choice.

There is minimal cost, again, best shared collaboratively by the airlines, communities and EAS, in running a couple of RJ's to smaller markets. It may not be cost-possible to have major cancer centers or high-end department stores in every small town, because of the massive cost of providing them. That's where the trade-offs of being in a smaller community are seen--the huge-cost items. But a couple of RJ's, and a small TSA operation in a small terminal, are not huge-ticket items. They are things a community of a few tens of thousands more than a two- or three-hour drive away from a medium-size market can reasonably expect to have help from airlines and higher levels of government providing. (Sorry, someplace 40 miles from PVD is not a valid comparison, 40 miles is not hardship and I didn't claim it was.) And Doug Parker can still have his endless streams of money for shareholders. Everybody wins.

It is bad, and a failure by airframe manufacturers and airlines, that under-50-seat turboprop aircraft have not been replaced. Something like them, with better economics, darn well should be coming back, and if they don't, well, subsized 50-seaters it should be.

Jim

cheapgreek · Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:50 pm

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
Airlines aren't following my "business plan" because they don't recognize that they are bearers of a social good as well as businesses. That's a common problem in business these days. It is one of the reasons the US elected an insane orange clown and would-be-tyrant, rather than a corporatist progressivist tyrant, president. Large corporations *must* recognize that there is a social aspect to their businesses, particularly such a crucial social good as air travel. They will continue to face political and economic trouble--like Trump's ill-considered trade wars--until they realize it. Their choice.

There is minimal cost, again, best shared collaboratively by the airlines, communities and EAS, in running a couple of RJ's to smaller markets. It may not be cost-possible to have major cancer centers or high-end department stores in every small town, because of the massive cost of providing them. That's where the trade-offs of being in a smaller community are seen--the huge-cost items. But a couple of RJ's, and a small TSA operation in a small terminal, are not huge-ticket items. They are things a community of a few tens of thousands more than a two- or three-hour drive away from a medium-size market can reasonably expect to have help from airlines and higher levels of government providing. (Sorry, someplace 40 miles from PVD is not a valid comparison, 40 miles is not hardship and I didn't claim it was.) And Doug Parker can still have his endless streams of money for shareholders. Everybody wins.

It is bad, and a failure by airframe manufacturers and airlines, that under-50-seat turboprop aircraft have not been replaced. Something like them, with better economics, darn well should be coming back, and if they don't, well, subsized 50-seaters it should be.

Jim

When one starts to add up all the small towns who want air service, the cost now is not a small amount, along with that is the misuse of aircraft and flight crews who could be carrying many more passengers but are ferrying less than 10 passengers at times as opposed to 50,60,70. Airlines don't want props, they have been out of production for years. Even the 50 seat RJ's are falling out of favor, the CRJ-200 has been out of production for some years and the E-145 is a dead issue as far as new orders. Its not a failure of the airframe manufacturers, who would produce a plane no one wanted? Hoping for the return of the good old days is fantasy, even the mainline narrow bodies are being ordered in larger sizes, the 737-700 and A319 are low on the order list. Airline brass and shareholders will not sacrifice profits for money losing routes and above that is the use of planes and pilots on routes that waste the airlines resources. Airlines are not charitable organizations, with the price of fuel going up and low cost airlines growing larger, the legacy's are watching their bottom line very closely. Southwest,JetBlue, Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant all operate just mainline planes, no commuter aircraft, like it or not, some small towns will not have air service much like small towns losing train service and even Trailways and Greyhound are not large movers of people. Don't hold your breath, Its the new normal in air travel.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net