Originally Posted by
Thedude
That is part of the problem, it cost as much to run a 50 seater as it does a 733. The finical whiz kids are finally starting to figure that out and the RJ is quickly losing it status as darling of the airlines (managers). So, I could run 1 73 or 2.5 RJs to achive the same pax count. No cost savings there and thus your cost savings argument doesn't hold water.
I think Boiler did a pretty good job of shooting this one down for me.
Originally Posted by
Thedude
Somehow I think you remember the demise of Independence and their jaunt into the RJ only world.
Indeed I do. They, along with XJT simply proved that on a fuel burn level, the economics of 50 seat aircraft simply don't work when the price of fuel skyrockets. But neither is a DC-9. I guess it's all perspective, but is an Airbus an RJ?
Originally Posted by
Thedude
Since I commute internationally and begin the trip out of a mid-size city, I ride on RJs all the time. I also avoid RJs as much as possible. RJ seats tend to be narrower and much more uncomfortable than a small narrowbody jet seats. You can quote seat pitch all day but RJ seats suck and that is being nice. I'll take a rear seat in a DC-9-10 over a RJ any day.
Funny you mention this, but the previous aircraft I flew did no sh1t have the WIDEST seat of anything that DAL had to offer for coach. Ain't that funny? Wider than the MD, 75/76, etc. That plane was ACTUALLY used the way RJ's were meant to be. Doesn't matter, being wedged between two fat bastards sucks anyway you cut it.