Originally Posted by
Thedude
You can't look at fuel cost alone. We could just talk about acquisition cost to begin with and with all the other operating expenses is where the RJ looses its shine. Some number cruncher did a cost analysis and found to run 1 RJ cost almost the same as to run 1 737-300. I wished I had those numbers to really digest them.
I didn't look at fuel cost alone.
I provided you objective
total per-hour direct operating cost figures for a CRJ-200 and a 737-700 (CL850 & BBJ) from Business & Commercial Aviation...fuel is but portion of that expense.
Over a 1000nm segment, B&CA says a CRJ-200 has $5503.75 in total direct operating costs (fuel $3892.94 @ $4.90/gal) where the 737 has $9960.53 in direct operating costs (fuel $7636.69 @ $4.90/gal).
Acquisition cost? A 50-seat RJ costs somewhere around 33-40% of what a 737-700 costs based on list prices...and we both know airlines don't pay sticker on any aircraft purchase. With a higher acquisition price comes higher total capital costs (more interest expense, etc).
I think the "number cruncher" figures you are referring to is probably looking at cost per available seat mile (CASM), which is where any 50-seater looses the economic battle to larger aircraft every day and twice on Sunday.
While not exactly the same metric, consider the CRJ2's hourly cost of $2216.28/hr; with 50 filled seats it gives you a per-seat hourly cost of $44.33...compared to the 737's DOCs of $4065.52 and 147 filled seats giving you a per-seat hourly cost of $27.66.
Of course, you've got to fill a certain number of seats to make the larger aircraft truly less expensive than the smaller one; in this case, 92 passengers or more passengers in the 737 is less costly than a full CRJ2.
Bottom line? RJs will start to go away and be replaced with larger aircraft, and frequency will suffer...but for well into the future there will be markets that need and demand 50-seat jets because they simply cannot support the break-even factor on larger aircraft.