Confused - CRJ VS. Turboprop Profitability?
 

In one of my classes today, we discussed SJS (shiny jet syndrome), and talked about how it really is degrading to everyone in the job market today that pilots get paid nothing. One of the things that came up is how regionals still remain profitable, and how they made there profit. Our professor described how CRJ's are the most unprofitable airplane of all time, period, and turboprops were the way to go. He told us that most regionals have agreements with majors say that the majors pay for fuel and related expenses, and that the CRJ fleet would be unprofitable if on its own, as proven in Independence Air's case. I would like to know from real life experience, is it really true of how unprofitable this airplane is said to be? Can it really never take off with a full load of passengers, cargo, etc.? Why did the airlines leave the turboprop behind? Look forward to hear what everybody has to say.

I think the main reason that the airlines went to Jets vs. TProps is due to the public's perception that jets are safer. An old vs. new technology concept, jets are new props are old so jets must be safer etc. when actually the opposite is true. I think you are starting to see airlines accept the realization that TProps are the way to go as you are seeing some of the majors put them back on routes.

Because the public doesn't want to see propellers spinning when they look out the window. The common thought is a jet is better, no matter what the circumstance.

This is all IMHO...

The 50 seat CRJ is extremely inefficient. It'll burn 3000 #/hr at cruise, the EMB190 burns around 4000# at cruise and seats TWICE as many people! Not such a big deal when gas was $0.25/gal, now it's over $2.00/gal.

That being said, the 50 seat RJ was a loss-leader in that airlines wanted to feed their passengers into hubs - CLT, ORD, JFK, what have you. These passengers then paid a premium to fly to destination such as the Caribbean, Europe, the West/East coasts, etc. Without feed, the legacies/network carriers don't have a need for their narrow and widebody fleet.

The RJ was also marketed as a "premium" product, one in which the airlines could charge more for its service. They thought that people cared about flying on props. In fact, some do, and won't ever book a flight on a TP. However, most people are price sensitive and as such book the cheapest flight, and don't care too much about what type of equipment is being flown.

Some routes are profitable, one in particular I can think of would be ORF-DCA. US Air must make a killing. All government/contractors flying between Washington DC and Norfolk, VA (a very large Naval base). It's done on RJ's.

exactly....look at piedmont and horizon, both of which fly the dash 8. Both make a killing.

But you wouldn't know it by looking at or flying pdt's tired fleet. Where's the paint? Forget the paint, can someone just clean the cockpit?

Piedmont making money isn't the same. Piedmont makes money thru a shell game with US Air since they are a wholly owned. And I doubt they "make a killing" since they are just feeder people in/out of hubs. How many people realistically want to go Allentown to Philly and terminate there? My guess would be 90%+ are thru passengers.

Turboprops mainly serve as a cheaper feeder service, not many are doing point to point stuff with terminating passengers.

I understand the 50 is inefficient. But saying turboprop operators make the most in incorrect. SKW Inc is the largest operator of RJ's in the world. They have over 340 RJ's (410+ a/c total) and there 4Q06 profit after tax was over $70M. They were one of the most profitable airlines in America last year.

It comes down to the codeshare agreement.

i flew 938 today...what a disgusting mess.

SkyWest making money doesn't make the aircraft efficient, which is what we are talking about here.