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.

 

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.

 

Very true - forgot to mention that! Typically, however, I don't see the runway/taxiway load-bearing ability to be too much of a factor...And looking at some 10-9's, it looks like the typical gear-truck configuration of a mainline aircraft allows for sufficient load-spread...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

I understand just stating. They still need the length. There's a lot of black smoke still trailing around in the sky.

 

I Love that black smoke trail Reminds me of a Pilot's kind of Airplane...cables and pulleys, no GPS, no FD, lousy A/P...oh wait there I go again LoL

 

i've read your post (good questions) and people's responses (great answers), but i'm drawn back to your original post...what does "huey" have to do with anything? which of these "hueys" are you referencing?

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