Most Efficient Regional Plane
 

Hey guys,
I was wondering, in all of your opinions, which regional plane is/was the cheapest to operate and made the airlines the most money. Is it something like the ERJ, CRJ, Dash 8, Saab? I don't want to start a fight about which plane is the best out there because we all have our own thoughts but I'm wondering on which aircraft was the big money maker.

Alex

I posted this on another thread. They say it's the most efficient, lowest operating cost.

You can't really cross-compare between 2 totally different aircraft because it really depends on the route. I'm not sure which aircraft burns the least fuel/hr, but as far as making money, there are a whole lot of variables to consider. Distance and demand come to mind first. MEM-PIB (Pine Belt) used to always be on a Saab 340. I don't know about the loads then, but now that we are doing it on a CRJ-200 I haven't seen anything close to a full plane. Not saying it doesn't happen from time to time, but in general that route is much better suited to a turboprop than a jet. Delta apparently doesn't care though and is willing to waste money throwing a CRJ-200 down there 2-3 times a day.

On the flip side MEM-ICT (which I think we no longer do) is way too long of a flight for a prop, but we were usually full on the -200. Pretty solid bet that it at least broke even most of the time. Some short routes are always full and have lots of high fare business passengers (GSP-ATL comes to mind) so putting a larger regional jet or even a mainline aircraft many times makes sense.

Now comparing different airplanes of similar characteristics is a different story. I don't really know whether a Saab or a Dash is better on a given route, or a CRJ/ERJ either. I've heard the CRJ is better, but I don't have numbers to back that up.

I am ignorant of the topic, however I would take a guess that a Q400 is up there in efficiency. It seats as many as an RJ, runs on turboprops, and hauls ass for an aircraft of its kind.

Sounds like the variables are there for it to be cost-effective, but again I am no engineer...

Efficiency doesn't really mean much if you ignore the capital costs of purchasing/leasing the thing...

What is the mission? What is the pay load? What is the range?

A taxi is more efficient moving one person three miles, but a Greyhound bus is more efficient moving forty people 300 miles.

A 747 is very efficient at moving 400 people 4000 miles, but it makes a very poor JFK-LGA shuttle.

I have heard very good things about the CRJ-900 in the field of efficiency. Don't know if it still holds true to today's standards however.

Boeing 737 is my vote.

the Q-400 is a very efficient t-prop. now if they could just get the MX reliability fixed

My last company operated both the CRJ-900 and Boeing 737 series. I'm confident that a 737 can beat any CRJ in cost/seat mile. The B737 is definitely a regional plane (as opposed to long range aircraft, like B777, etc).

But you'se guys probably mean "fee for departure" model in USA only airlines, right?

I wonder how the EMB-170,175,190,195 models are faring? Last I heard they're supposed to be pretty good.

Regarding fuel efficiency, I think whenever planes will get the new P&W geared turbofans they'll win the cake. Although, the defining factor among that group is which plane has the slickest airframe.
Pratt & Whitney: Commercial Engines - PurePower PW1000G

For airlines better fuel efficiency means nothing though unless other operating costs and investment costs stay the same or reduce as well.

Not to be snotty, but define "regional"

Pure jet engines are significantly more fuel thirsty than turboprops for a given distance travelled. Turboprops are generally much slower than jet aircraft. Is efficiency as it is used in this thread a specific fuel consumption question or a time is money question?

I would think that if fuel goes up and stabilizes in the $150/barrel range, you will see lots of unducted fan (turboprop) aircraft on the drawing board.

They burn more fuel per seat than their similar-sized CRJ competition.

But they can also carry a heavier payload. But I guess it would not matter if it's operated on a fee for departure basis

I heard a story today from a somewhat reliable source that some carriers have expressed an interest to Embraer to start making the Brasilias again. Supposedly they (Embraer) are investigating this. I think now that the problems with the earlier versions have been addressed it could be a viable, efficiant short/medium haul option. Sure be interesting to see if anything comes of this..:D