UA has gotten the most heat recently for overusing RJs (especially 50 seat or less), but in the 2000-2010 era, most of the US aviation industry was headed in the regional jet direction.
What would be the peak/maximum use of regional jets? I mean if UA continued down the path of a shrinking mainline fleet or another carrier followed in its footsteps how crazy could it have become? CRJs on SFO-LAX for UA, no mainline to Florida, MSP, ATL, DFW, etc. LAX-IAH/DEN (hub to hub) on an E170, retiring the A319s/A320s with no replacement circa 2014.
What about an AA DFW hub flying E175s/CRJs to both coasts (I guess they already do, SBA-DFW was on a CR9 in the past and DFW-EYW is an E175, but I'm thinking DFW-PHL or DFW-SAN on a CRJ crazy.
Could UA have happily taken almost all mainline out of routes less than 1500nm? Perhaps going as low as 350 narrowbodies with little mainline outside of NYC, hubs, SEA, BOS, LAS, SAN, and MCO?
What if DL did similiar? Or imagine a European legacy doing the same.
RJs to infinity, almost sounds like a motto from Smisek UA......but UA is finally recovering...
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: What if? RJs to Infinity......
RJ shuttle between LHR and JFK departing every 10 minutes? Assuming manufacturers will make longer range RJs if airlines want ti use them this way
-
- SumChristianus
- Posts: 1045
- Joined:
Re: What if? RJs to Infinity......
c933103 wrote:RJ shuttle between LHR and JFK departing every 10 minutes? Assuming manufacturers will make longer range RJs if airlines want ti use them this way
I think the overuse of RJs was contributed to by bad accounting at CO. Placing regional cost burdens upon mainline improved regional flying's numbers, making mainline unattractive, and when it (mainline flights) were reduced correspondingly, mainline costs appeared even higher with regional costs apportioned over a smaller amount of mainline flying. Its a vicious cycle, and while RJs enabled airlines to maintain frequency after traffic fell following 9/11, accounting regional costs disproportionately led to their rise. (or is this theory to crazy?)
Its a two way street, however, mainline costs can't be disproportianely placed upon regional numbers either.
Re: What if? RJs to Infinity......
Yuck, you have to recall that operating costs aren’t as good for RJs as is for mainline (a320, 737s mainly). You’d have some serious air traffic congestion too, and those 10 minutes would seem kinda negligible if delays happen during or after the flight;and also, do you _really_ have to arrive at such a precise time to a destination? Hourly is good enough frequency in my opinion, or if demand is high enough, 30-40 minute intervals if a bigger aircraft isn’t available (like a 767 to a 737 or a 737 to an e170). Although widebody domestic has decreased significantly since forever ago, though the MOM may change things.
EDIT: I guess hourly could only be possible if done on small enough aircraft if the route is thin. Can people just make do?
EDIT: I guess hourly could only be possible if done on small enough aircraft if the route is thin. Can people just make do?
-
- PatrickZ80
- Posts: 5801
- Joined:
Re: What if? RJs to Infinity......
It all has to do with labour cost, which is lower on regional airlines. Mainline staff is more expensive, so they outsource these flights to their regional airlines to save on operating costs. It's not their concern if the regionals make money or not, they're a seperate company so seperate finances as well. Regional airlines often get paid a fixed amount of money per flight no matter if it's full or empty, it's easy outsourcing for the main airline.
Reason to go mainline could be the need for larger aircraft, which regionals mostly don't have. This could be done for distances that can't be covered with regional aircraft, or where slots are an issue. There are quite a number of airports that are "full", no slots left available. The only way to grow there is by using larger aircraft since frequency increase is just plain impossible.
On the other hand, I remember Lufthansa CityLine had an A340 leased from Lufthansa. They were operating it for lufthansa to several destinations, I believe San Jose but I'm not quite sure. Remember Lufthansa CityLine is a regional airline operating for Lufthansa, but the wages on CityLine are much lower than on the mainline. That way Lufthansa was able to operate these flights cheaper.
Reason to go mainline could be the need for larger aircraft, which regionals mostly don't have. This could be done for distances that can't be covered with regional aircraft, or where slots are an issue. There are quite a number of airports that are "full", no slots left available. The only way to grow there is by using larger aircraft since frequency increase is just plain impossible.
On the other hand, I remember Lufthansa CityLine had an A340 leased from Lufthansa. They were operating it for lufthansa to several destinations, I believe San Jose but I'm not quite sure. Remember Lufthansa CityLine is a regional airline operating for Lufthansa, but the wages on CityLine are much lower than on the mainline. That way Lufthansa was able to operate these flights cheaper.
Re: What if? RJs to Infinity......
PatrickZ80 wrote:It's not their concern if the regionals make money or not, they're a seperate company so seperate finances as well.
Apart from when the regional is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the main airline. Still accounted-for separately, but not quite "lol like we care".
PatrickZ80 wrote:On the other hand, I remember Lufthansa CityLine had an A340 leased from Lufthansa. They were operating it for lufthansa to several destinations, I believe San Jose but I'm not quite sure. Remember Lufthansa CityLine is a regional airline operating for Lufthansa, but the wages on CityLine are much lower than on the mainline. That way Lufthansa was able to operate these flights cheaper.
You got the outcome right but not the means. CityLine has been wholly-owned by Lufthansa since 1992 and between 2015 and 2017 operated eight A343s that were given to it by LH. These were then wet-leased back to LH with CL flight crew but LH cabin crew. Routes included CUN, MLE, MRU, TPA, and PTY.
This is not all that uncommon and it's a mistake to indivisibly link labour and asset arrangements like this with the RJ.
Qantas, for example, wholly-own three "regional" airlines, subcontract B712 flying to a Cobham subsidiary, wholly-own a New-Zealand-based company that operates flights the same as mainline and provides crew to a number of actual-mainline flights, and to top it all off they even run a separate UK-based company to employ cabin crew flights out of LHR.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: eta unknown, mop357 and 35 guests