Originally Posted by
FlyJSH
His later question asking why a crj would be used to replace a Saab (which presumably was not profitable). While still a broad question, gave me a bit more idea what he was seeking.
Here are a couple of my theories:
1. People don't like those scary little prop planes.
2. People think getting a jet is getting a mainline plane.
3. The Saab operator may have required a higher return than they could get on said line. When the line came up for renewal, the Saab operator may have bid high to either get more out of the mainline or ditch a low profit line.
4. Maybe the route is "out in the sticks" for the Saab operator but is in the CRJs "backyard".
Interesting points, FlyJSH, it does seem counterintuitive at first!
Not specific to this situation, I'd say that #1-2 don't matter unless somehow the jet can command a revenue premium over the t-prop. Pax are going to whine about the aircraft no matter what; make the SF3 a CRJ, then they want a CR70, a CR70, then an E170, etc. So unless the jet will cover it's increased costs with substantial revenue increases, fly what makes the most economic sense.
Saab2000, you hit the nail on the head. Pro-ration of revenue on connecting itineraries is near impossible to calculate without the internal information of bookings on the flight. Don't quote me on this, but I thought it was IATA standard to base some of it on distance, dumb as it may seem. So even though your short RJ/DH8 segment commands a massive premium over just the overserved 'hub-wherever' route, the shorter one always looks like the loser, as it bears its full costs.