|
Originally Posted by maveric311
(Post 355403)
another downside in the 737-7 for pax's is that it cannot serve some of the smaller airports that the RJ's currently fly to.
Look at Orange County, or Roanoke (and the list goes on). Short runways, but always bustling with the likes of UPS/FedEx, WN, UA, DL, US, etc... Small plane does not always mean access to smaller fields. In all seriousness, our RJ's are far less flexible than their mainline counterparts. |
Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB
(Post 355523)
There are very, very few Airports that we operate in and out of that a mainline aircraft could not utilize. Mainline aircraft, for the most part, have the excess power to get in and out with impressive loads while we frequently find ourselves weight-restricted.
Look at Orange County, or Roanoke (and the list goes on). Short runways, but always bustling with the likes of UPS/FedEx, WN, UA, DL, US, etc... Small plane does not always mean access to smaller fields. In all seriousness, our RJ's are far less flexible than their mainline counterparts. |
Originally Posted by POPA
(Post 355529)
At the smaller airports, it's not generally the length of the runway that limits the utilization by larger aircraft. The limiting factor tends to be the load-bearing capacity. Regardless of how much power a 757 has, it will sink in a runway not built to handle its bulk.
|
You guys hit it home perfectly. Just because the ticket price for the RJ, to bring a passenger into a hub, may not cover the cost of the flight to operate, you must factor in the amount the airline probably is charging for that passenger to connect on a mainline flight, particularly international.
The mainline guys know what they are doing. They operate the right size airplane on a route that best suites the cost of operating it. If the route can only sustain 50 seats, it would cost more to operate a 70 seater on it. As for running three 50-seaters on a route instead of a 150 seat 737, you must take into account that they need that frequency due to different connections those passengers bought tickets on throughout the day. Mainline may be better off because of this since they now can offer more flights themselves, because they have maximized the passengers they have brought into their hub.
Originally Posted by HSLD
(Post 355517)
There is a context that one must understand when saying RJ's are not profitable - and that's how they are deployed under fee per departure agreements.
Consider that most RJ's are operated in fee-per-departure arrangements with fuel being a pass-through expense. This means that RJ operators get paid a set fee to operate the flight and don't pay for the gas. For the purchaser (the UAL, NWA, DAL's of the world) the fee-per-departure model is a money loser when oil is at $100/barrel. RJ's are on the cost side of the balance sheet to be certain. The question is; what is the feed worth to the network? For a network operator, an RJ flight might cost $4000 to operate (fee+fuel) but only yield $3000 in revenue (hypothetical round numbers). From a network operator's perspective RJ's are "unprofitable" with fuel at current levels and pass-through agreements.
Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB
(Post 355517)
Very true...a point not mentioned yet. The regionals are around for feed...What is the value of the feed? Those connecting pax's may bring an RJ, micro-speaking (operating in the red or at slim margin), into the black, in macro-terms.
Additionally, if United were to say that they no longer wanted to service ORD-DSM, for example...Those customers that were flying into ORD for international or other money-making routes may choose American and their Eagle feed instead. |
Load bearing capacity isn't something many are worried about (if any). Just about any airport with a terminal is capable of taking most aircraft. I don't know of any airports I've flown into for CHQ that couldn't take Boeings. The heaviest 757 has a lower load bearing than the 737-400, 600, 700, 800, 900ER and every model of the MD-80 family.
Pax loads/environment are main issues. It wasn't very uncommon for 727s to be weigh limited out west because of the heat. 6,300ft runway could take the weights just fine but they need more runway so they'd take off almost empty then head to SAT to get gas before their longer trip. |
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck
(Post 355564)
Load bearing capacity isn't something many are worried about (if any). Just about any airport with a terminal is capable of taking most aircraft. I don't know of any airports I've flown into for CHQ that couldn't take Boeings. The heaviest 757 has a lower load bearing than the 737-400, 600, 700, 800, 900ER and every model of the MD-80 family.
Pax loads/environment are main issues. It wasn't very uncommon for 727s to be weigh limited out west because of the heat. 6,300ft runway could take the weights just fine but they need more runway so they'd take off almost empty then head to SAT to get gas before their longer trip. |
Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB
(Post 355624)
Exactly - more (and larger) wheels to distribute the weight.
For the older mainline aircraft powered by turbojet/low-bypass turbofan engines, then yes, that would be a consideration for the RJ...but the vast majority of today's aircraft with 5:1 bypass are phenomenal in comparison. Nearly 80% of a high-bypass's takeoff thrust is from the N1 Fan... |
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck
(Post 355625)
I understand just stating. They still need the length. There's a lot of black smoke still trailing around in the sky.
|
Originally Posted by Past V1
(Post 355047)
50 seater unprofitable....HUEY!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-1_Iroquois http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey%2C_Dewey_and_Louie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Lewis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Huey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_P._Newton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long just curious...thanks. |
Wow dontsurf...a lot of homework there - you must be really curious?! LoL
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:36 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands