Scope impact on regionals
03-15-2021, 11:18 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,219
Originally Posted by Excargodog
My personal opinion? Regional flying of smaller jet aircraft is likely going to be decreasing anyway - the first casualty of trying to control carbon release. A220 and 319 NEO service on a less frequent basis will replace higher frequency smaller aircraft and likely a return to smaller turboprops and/or small electric aircraft for EAS and other low volume ops. Similarly, except perhaps for international ops you will see more flights direct to and less feeding of hubs. The quickest way to reduce carbon footprint is to make the system more efficient and feeding hubs - often at right angles (or worse) to the intended destination isn’t an efficient use of fuel compared to nonstop.
03-15-2021, 11:29 AM
#22
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,501
Originally Posted by rickair7777
The LCC/ULCC who are doing the direct thing are simply filling in that niche of mid-size towns that can support direct flights, nothing new, it started with SWA. And even then the have "focus cities", aka mini hubs. There's a whole bunch of small towns which cannot support direct flights, and never will. That's what hub n spoke does. Unless the fed is OK with cutting the small towns off. They clearly weren't okay with it last time they granted CARES aid to the airlines.
03-15-2021, 11:38 AM
#23
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,275
Originally Posted by Excargodog
Except what they are “OK” with doesn’t change the geometry a bit - not if they truly want a smaller carbon footprint. Current regional flying just won’t provide that result. Lower frequency would, small turboprops would, electric eight or twelve pax short range aircraft would. But flying someone 100-200 miles south or north so they can land, taxi in at a crowded hub, unload, then reload, taxi out at a crowded hub, to then travel 1500 miles East or West is going to be pretty counterproductive if you are trying to save on carbon footprint.
Reduced frequency only works up to a point: six flights/day vs. three is a competitive advantage, but the pax would tolerate 3/day of that was the only option. But three flights/week is a non-starter in the US, we're too busy. In the developing world it's OK to have 1-3 flights/week, slower pace of life, a couple extra down days to groom your camel and chew khat is no big thing.
03-15-2021, 02:29 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off Rarely
Joined APC: Feb 2019
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by Excargodog
Except what they are “OK” with doesn’t change the geometry a bit - not if they truly want a smaller carbon footprint. Current regional flying just won’t provide that result. Lower frequency would, small turboprops would, electric eight or twelve pax short range aircraft would. But flying someone 100-200 miles south or north so they can land, taxi in at a crowded hub, unload, then reload, taxi out at a crowded hub, to then travel 1500 miles East or West is going to be pretty counterproductive if you are trying to save on carbon footprint.
03-15-2021, 04:11 PM
#25
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,501
Originally Posted by Skylarking
Serious question, does anyone know how a 50 seat RJ compares with a reasonably modern car? Which has a bigger carbon footprint per mile? If we curtail the short haul 50 seater flights, I'm guessing we'll just incentivize driving? Might be a good thing (carbon footprint wise) if pax travel from COS-DEN in a packed 15 pax shuttle-van. Maybe not such a good thing if the pax all drive their F-150 to DEN.
slow from 50 mph to a stop to pick up (or drop off) one passenger, then accelerate back up to 50-70 mph. Just figure the energy requirements of that - and it’s all fossil fuel - and then repeat that for Cutbank Montana and every other little whistle stop on the way to Seattle. DO THE MATH.
Congress doesn’t really give a rats rear about CO2 release. They just want the votes of those who do give a rats rear about carbon release who they can play like the fools they are.
03-15-2021, 06:21 PM
#26
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 99
03-15-2021, 06:54 PM
#27
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,944
My opinion. Later in this decade, bridging the gap between the 76 seat RJs and the A320 & 737 metal will be new A220s and used A319s (I doubt Airbus will want to build new A319s when they are selling the A220s.). Those look like the ideal fit at the bottom of the majors (AA terms it Group 1 pay, with the A320s & 737 as Group 2 pay).
50 seat reduces to much fewer, replaced by 76 seat lift. Much of current 76 seat will be replaced by A220s.
Not only carbon footprint, but gate availability and as the pilot shortage reemerges.
That is what my crystal ball says.
50 seat reduces to much fewer, replaced by 76 seat lift. Much of current 76 seat will be replaced by A220s.
Not only carbon footprint, but gate availability and as the pilot shortage reemerges.
That is what my crystal ball says.
03-15-2021, 09:31 PM
#28
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,501
Originally Posted by TransWorld
My opinion. Later in this decade, bridging the gap between the 76 seat RJs and the A320 & 737 metal will be new A220s and used A319s (I doubt Airbus will want to build new A319s when they are selling the A220s.). Those look like the ideal fit at the bottom of the majors (AA terms it Group 1 pay, with the A320s & 737 as Group 2 pay).
50 seat reduces to much fewer, replaced by 76 seat lift. Much of current 76 seat will be replaced by A220s.
Not only carbon footprint, but gate availability and as the pilot shortage reemerges.
That is what my crystal ball says.
50 seat reduces to much fewer, replaced by 76 seat lift. Much of current 76 seat will be replaced by A220s.
Not only carbon footprint, but gate availability and as the pilot shortage reemerges.
That is what my crystal ball says.
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/pass...y/a319neo.html
03-16-2021, 04:52 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 3,657
Originally Posted by Excargodog
Actually, Airbus IS making new A319 NEOs. NK has a number of them on order:
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/pass...y/a319neo.html
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/pass...y/a319neo.html
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
