I am sick and tired of being sick and tired...all I am hearing now and days is that "50 seaters are unprofitable"...and yet no one has come up with any stats on how this could be....SO FAR... Delta's "The airline said the cuts would come from parking 15 to 20 mainline aircraft and 20 to 25 regional jets. Delta also will thin frequencies and reduce point-to-point routes. " NWA is "removing 15 to 20 planes from service. Ten of those planes will be older DC-9s, the rest will be a mix of Boeing 757s and Airbus A320s and A319s." United "will remove 10-15 older mainline jets to partially offset fuel costs that could swell $1.2 billion more than planned this year." Jetblue...well.... "will sell four more Airbus A320s, on top of the six it previously announced that it would sell. In total, 10 A320s will leave the fleet by early 2009" US Airways..."will fly three fewer planes during the second half of the year than previously expected and could cut back further"

The only thing RJ related is from Delta of which we all know what happened there...MESA.

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...to be particularly honest about it...we should be wishing that RJ flying is getting cut not mainline flying because I don't know about you but that is where I wanna be.

But if anyone has any STAT's....not rumors...on how the RJ's are unprofitable...please share

 

Of course they (RJ's) are unprofitable...! Any aircraft won't make money if you sell tickets at or near a zero-margin!

Unfortunately, we'd need to raise prices to keep the RJ-dream alive. That aint gonna happen.

And the numbers are there, btw...RJ's burn a little bit less fuel to carry many fewer passengers than smaller mainline-sized aircraft (not to mention the lack of real premium seating - the cash-cow of a mainline bird). Can't argue that point.

 

How often is your RJ full...mine maybe 50% of the time...so lets but a 75% full RJ versus a 50% full Airbus..(50% because they have more seats)...which looks more profitable on paper to your share holders. What is going to sell more shares of your company...(not like airlines are selling shares anyways...but if they were)...I would buy the shares of a company that looks good on paper and are filling their seats.

On another note...STATS...now which of the above aircraft will burn less fuel at cruising altitude....Airbus 319,320....DC9...757...CRJ-200. Does anyone have those stats I know that the RJ ranges between 2400-2800 pph. Averaging about 400-500 groundspeed. Plus the crew...of course...cost less.

 

RJ's are profitable if they are properly utilized. We see what happens when airlines use them to compete in low yield markets (Indy Air), but most customers flying an RJ pay massive premiums to travel to small market airports. MLB, AEX, AGS, ILM, etc are a few examples of typically very high yield markets that RJ's serve well. Hundreds of other markets are out there that RJ's are profitable on.

At this point, there are far too many RJ's for them to all be profitable. Thus the move to reduce RJ flying. RJ's of all sizes are here to stay though. 50 through 90 seat RJ's all serve niche markets and will make money once the parent companies figure out how to use them all to their designed potential.

 

Was told once that a 50 seat RJ makes profit on every passenger count about 15....was three years ago and times have changed.

I would like to see real comparisons instead of speculation.

 

RJs could probably be used profitably if airlines charged what they needed to and never flew RJs over 1hr legs.

 

That's the problem - RJ's, like any other Jet, are more profitable as the legs get longer (spending more time in cruise). It's the time spent in the low altitudes (up and down) and the mid-altitudes of short-hops that burn the go-juice.

 

I wish I could quote your quote...but it seems like you are misunderstanding flyboydan....he just said the exact opposite.

You are saying RJs are more profitable on longer legs (because they burn less in high altitude cruise then down low)... and he is saying RJs would be more profitable if they only flew shorter routes (which is the correct answer).

 

Stage length has little to do with how profitable an RJ is. A 50 seat RJ can be profitable as long as they are used in the proper markets. Low fare routes are not good uses for RJ's regardless of stage length.

 

Absolutely correct! RJ do not need to be flying routes under an hour (some may day 1.5 hours), those routes should be T-Prop routes seeing they do a better job pushing the same number of Pax for less than 1/2 the fuel burn with minimal time difference due to it being a short leg. RJ aren't being properly utilized and for that matter most of the a/c in the 121 world aren’t as well.

BTW, you can charge more to make an RJ profitable or you can make more with a T-Prop.