Well I know you cant believe everything you hear but everyone I know with the CL-65 type rating can testify that they have been told it only takes 20 seats to ballance the books.

But I usually dont consider tenth party sources as facts.

40% Break even load factor?
 

You really need to start comparing apples to apples here. If I charge 5000 for a DAL-HOU R/T, then 1 seat will pay for the a/c.
If I charge 99 dollars for that same flight, then I break even only when its full.

RJ economics make sense up to time x, (about 1.5 hours based on a study I did for a Euro carrier-when fuel was 18/barrel) beyond that its not that efficient.
If the market only has 45 pax a day, then it makes no sense to put in a 737 to fly that segment. But by the same token, if I need 3 RJs in and out of the city pair, thats when it becomes questionable.

RJ's started life by supposedly taking a marginal market and allowing it to grow for bigger a/c. Now obviously with the RJ glut, they are trying to compete with larger a/c. A recent trip of mine had me fly from Texas to YYZ.The next day I am in Mexico, then in LAX. None of these city pairs are "marginal".

I think that there is a need for RJ's by all mainline carriers. The problem is not that we have too many RJ's(we do) the problem is we have too many airlines.

Also,the Low Cost Carriers can come in and -here is the kicker- not provide a much cheaper seat, but provide more capacity which in a supply and demand market keeps prices low. Try a search on one of the online travel sites and compare prices. They are not that far off between low cost and legacy.

I think limiting an airline to x seats per a/c doesn't help anyone. What we should hope for is for this sub-contracting of flying to stop. And (let me get my nomex on before everyone flames away) a shrinkage in capacity.
And if the shrinkage occurs, there will be hundreds if not thousands of un-employed and under-employed pilots out there. The fact that any airline has such huge amounts of apps on file pretty much means that they can dictate pay and benefits. Just like an RJ glut, we have a pilot glut.
-----Closes lid on bomb shelter. Fire away.

Nice post
 

I enjoyed reading your post KPT. I think you have a good point that RJ's allowed airlines to serve marginal markets, and that probably led to more pilot jobs.

My problem with the large RJ's is that regionals are operating large RJ's that are replacing mainline jets. I think these 90 seat jets should exist, but I think probably anything 75 and under should go to regionals, and anything 76 or up should go to major airlines at major airline pilot pay.

Heres the problems with 90 seat airplanes at the regional level...there are very few pilot groups who will hold the bar high enough on pay.

You have Mesa, Repubic, PSA all willing & fighting with each other to fly 70 and 90 seat airplanes for crappy pay. Hell, Co-Ex, Piedmont (if you break it down by seats), Airwilly, and a few others make more flying 50 seat airplanes than what those guys make for the bigger ones.

But the majors love it, if they can have the regionals fight over bigger airplanes for making WAY less than they should. . .then they're winning! I could care less if I'm flying a C152 if you're going to pay me what I expect to make for it.

I agree with ryane946 110%.

I don't agree you should set an arbitrary number like 76, why 76?? But yes, I also agree they shouldn't be at the regional level. I was EXTREMELY happy when US Airways said that the E190 will be at the major level, untouchable to the likes of repubic or mesa. I just wish they would have taken the CRJ900 too, not sure of why they made the distinction.

I think your missing the very important point of scope and that's "in the service of".

Your correct that an airline may "fly what it wants", but at the risk of destroying a marketing/code share agreement. Take any regional flying "in the service of" any major. They can't fly an aircraft in that service barred by scope of a pilot contract.

So, to me the million dollar question is why can't major mainline carriers find a way to keep it all in the family and fly RJ's themselves instead of farming it out to a second party? Why can Air Canada do it, but no one else can?

It's not that they CAN'T, it's because they DON'T WANT TO. Why pay a mainline guy mainline pay to fly a 90 seater when there is a regional guy just itching for a chance to fly that 90 seater for roughly half the rate? This is exactly what the mainline carriers want. Sub-contract out the work to the lowest bidder, its the American way...

Well, I mean just like the other aircraft in the fleet, make the pay comesurate with the size of the aircraft. Im sure a mainline pilot is smart enough to realize that he will not be paid the same to fly a CRJ as he would to fly a 737. Just like a 737 driver knows he's not going to be paid the same as a 777 driver (unless he flies for WN). Scope clauses are a headache in that they are an artificial cap on the number of seats an aircraft can have and how many of that type can be flown, which means the airline is not able to effectively match capacity with demand. Like I said, Air Canada obviously found a way to make it work.