Airline Pilot Central Forums - 50 seater unprofitable....HUEY!!!!!

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)

- - 50 seater unprofitable....HUEY!!!!! (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/24628-50-seater-unprofitable-huey.html)

all ya gotta do is go to the disambiguation page of wiki, not thatttt hard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Past V1 (Post 355047)

So with all this...why are we screaming that the RJ's are unprofitable? It seems that the bulk of things that are getting cut are the mainline jets

It's funny no one attempted to answer your actual question :). If I were to guess it would be because it costs the airlines in question a LOT of money to break contracts. It's easier and cheaper to park a plane they own. Just a guess.

Quote:

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.

Most airports with terminals were designed for larger airplanes. My little hometown is a turboprop-only destination today, but used to get the 727.

Many airlines have operated RJ's as hub-fillers...with little to no regard for the RJ segment's profitability. The idea was that the real money would be made on the mainline ticket once the pax reached the hub.

When I flew in the US Airways system (legacy, pre-merger) the RJ leg to the hub was often at no extra charge.

The COMAIR pilots used this same arguement in 2001...they took the approach that COMAIR itself didn't need to be profitable. They fel that the profits from mainline connecting pax would pay for their contract.

or they lose less than a larger airframes with light loads e.g. 45 in an RJ loses less than 45 in an MD80. why do it ? keep the integrity of the network in tact

I skipped a page on this thread, and do not know if it has been said before.

But could it be possible that the fee for departure scheme allows mainline to budget with more fixed cost in mind. Witht this they can budget how much their hub feeds are going to cost with little regard to revenue the generate.

I used the same idea when I bought a new car with a warranty.... sure it cost more per month, but now I could better manage my budget becasue a new car was more reliable and mx cost were slim to none. Whereas, old car, had no idea when the engine would let go, or when something expensive would break. Per month the old car was cheaper, but the liabilty of waiting to pay out a large expense was becoming too much.

I may be overstepping my bounds thinking that there is a managment group with that kind of foresight

Reeves

Reeves... Do you by chance know "David Reeves"? Not "Dave Reeves" or "David Reeve".... he is pretty particular about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuseumDriver (Post 355835)

Reeves... Do you by chance know "David Reeves"? Not "Dave Reeves" or "David Reeve".... he is pretty particular about that.

Not that I am aware of.

My Reeves came from canada, and the family ties were mostly cut before my time.

Sorry

Reeves