|
Originally Posted by ZeroTT
(Post 3055683)
Regardless of the answer there are a lot more to consider than variable operating expenses. Question now isn’t what makes most sense longterm but what is feasible right now given the hand you’re dealt. Maybe they cost more than an XXX, but that fleet is running up on C checks so it makes more sense to use the RJ’s. Maybe they cost more but someone is willing to pay nicely to acquire the cheaper fleet.
In normal times, frequency/convenience trumps the higher incremental cost of RJ's. During the COVID recovery, not sure how that will play out. When they get to the point where they can mostly fill up a couple daily NB's, they might prefer to do that over more frequent RJ's... if the pax put up with it. They might put up with it for a while anyway. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3057340)
The great benefit of RJ's (especially 50's) is frequency. If you have 200 pax daily you can put them on 4x RJ flights and offer convenient frequency. One stretch narrowbody could carry all those people with a far lower CASM, but no schedule choice.
In normal times, frequency/convenience trumps the higher incremental cost of RJ's. During the COVID recovery, not sure how that will play out. When they get to the point where they can mostly fill up a couple daily NB's, they might prefer to do that over more frequent RJ's... if the pax put up with it. They might put up with it for a while anyway. |
Originally Posted by Beech Dude
(Post 3057512)
I never understood the problem pax have with RJs. Any RJ I've ever flown in has been more comfortable than any NB main cabin. It probably has something to do with pax having a carryon crammed with 10 days worth of crap and then b**** about the overheads...:cool:
|
Originally Posted by Beech Dude
(Post 3057512)
I never understood the problem pax have with RJs. Any RJ I've ever flown in has been more comfortable than any NB main cabin. It probably has something to do with pax having a carryon crammed with 10 days worth of crap and then b**** about the overheads...:cool:
|
Originally Posted by DarkSideMoon
(Post 3057575)
Quicker to board/deplane too. I’d rather be in a -200 than anywhere except an exit row or a premium seat on a 737.
|
Originally Posted by DarkSideMoon
(Post 3057575)
Quicker to board/deplane too. I’d rather be in a -200 than anywhere except an exit row or a premium seat on a 737.
|
Originally Posted by Beech Dude
(Post 3057512)
It probably has something to do with pax having a carryon crammed with 10 days worth of crap and then b**** about the overheads...:cool:
|
Originally Posted by firefighterplt
(Post 3058370)
It has everything to do with this. God forbid they have to gate check their bag...
|
Originally Posted by Beech Dude
(Post 3057512)
I never understood the problem pax have with RJs. Any RJ I've ever flown in has been more comfortable than any NB main cabin. It probably has something to do with pax having a carryon crammed with 10 days worth of crap and then b**** about the overheads...:cool:
-AC does not work - have to gate check their bag -last 6 rows smell like the lav -hit their head walking down the aisle if over 5'10" -no wifi -limited snack/service options I flew the 200 for 3 years and even I hated being a pax on plane more than any other NB. always thought the crj-7/9 was a toss up with the 737/md80 and the 175 comparable to a 320/757. havent flown on a E145 in years |
Originally Posted by firefighterplt
(Post 3058370)
It has everything to do with this. God forbid they have to gate check their bag...
Gate checking is fine,what’s not is when the arrival station sends them to baggage claim just because. Had that happen multiple times at DGS stations over the past couple years Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:03 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands