Originally Posted by
texaspilot76
Why does everyone on here think that 50 seaters are dinosaurs? Do you think that airlines will consistently fly 70+ seat aircraft into places like KFLO and KPGV? There's no demand for that kind of capacity in lesser populated areas like that. With the limited range and speed of turboprops (not to mention their decreasing popularity), 50 seat jets are needed to serve lower capacity markets. They're not going anywhere.
You're exactly right. The 50-seater will still continue to exist, but in a much, much more limited role.
A major problem with the aircraft is that breakeven-profit is a very narrow spectrum due to high direct operating costs, namely, high fuel burns. When the CRJ/ERJ series came on the scene through the '90's, oil was in the $20-$40/barrel range. Now we're pushing over $80. And you only have a potential of 50 passengers of which to recoup that cost from...i.e., very high CASM. Keep in mind that many of the tickets sold are on connecting itineraries. Now you're further dividing up that revenue among several segments. Flying that was a moneymaker in 2000 with these jets may no longer be so.
Your aircraft ownership costs aren't cheap, either. Now also, keep in mind that many of these aircraft were bought or financed at the top of the market 10 years ago or in the late '90s, when BBD/Embraer had huge backlogs of orders.
Statment of disclosure: I'm a Dash driver, so I'm inherently biased on this topic. But with that being said, how much more of a revenue premium can the RJ command over a turboprop on a short hub turn such as the two markets you named? Sure, every pax surveyed is going to whine about the t-prop and call the virtues of the jet, but when they're on Expedia at the "Purchase" screen, what's going to matter then?
I fully respect you PSA guys/girls....you're great people who run a great airline. I'm not bashing anyone on here or calling out anyone's aircraft, just pointing out that we're in a tough business environment.