CitationJason

Ah-ha! I now see! Airline economics is very much a black magic! You seem to have a good knowledge on this subjet freezingflyboy and I really appreciate that, so let me ask you this. It seems to me that the most important thing then is not really the CASM or Load Factor, but operating the most cost effective airplane and sell as many seats as possible, and as long as the revenue exceeds the cost, regardless of powerplant and type, then you make money, right?

CJ

ryane946

Until someone can figure out how to increase the efficiency of a propeller traveling at near supersonic speed, you will not see an efficient turboprop that can go Mach .80. And until someone figures that out, RJ's will continue to dominate the market.

Does anyone know much about the TU-95 Bear? This bomber could go as fast as a B-52 and it used 4 turboprop engines. Was it just incredibly inefficient, or did they develope something to solve the problems that keep propeller aircraft slow?

freezingflyboy

Don't quote me on this but if i remember things correctly...
I believe the key to keeping propeller aircraft efficient at high speeds is to develop more power from slower turning props. They do this with more blades on each engine. This is allows the propeller itself to turn slower but because more airfoils are moving through the air more thrust is developed. By turning the propeller slower you reduce problems with shockwaves forming on the propeller blades as they approach supersonic speeds. Thats how the DO328, Saab 2000 and Q400 get their speed and efficiency. True they don't reach RJ speeds but they get pretty darn close. I remember flying from Fargo, ND to Denver on both RJs and DO328s when AWAC still had them and the difference in block times was only about 20 mins. Not bad for a 700nm leg!
As far as the Bear goes, it had 2 propellers on each engine turning in opposite directions (can you imagine the complexity of the gearing on that!) So effectively each engine had an 8 (maybe 12?) blade propeller on it. Why bother getting that complex? Why not just slap 36 blades on one propeller? It turns out that when you get more than about 6 blades on a propeller you run into problems with each blade causing interference and turbulence for the blade following it. I believe that is how they were able to get so much speed out of the Tu-95 but as far as range and reliability, I don't think it was as good as the B-52.

freezingflyboy

You're pretty much right. The margin between your CASM and your revenue per available seat mile (RASM) is your yield. What airline market planners and yield managers spend all their time doing is trying to figure out how to get the most revenue out of a passenger for a seat while keeping the cost of that seat to a minimum. There isn't an easy answer to your question because the travelling public is a fickle creature. They want the cheapest ticket, they don't want to fly props, they want non-stops from every podunk airport out there, etc etc. In general yes, you want to minimize cost and maximize revenue for every seat sold and you should make money. But whos to say if and how much business you'll lose because you fly a "smelly, noisey, old prop 'plane"?

Load factor is important in context. You'll hear people talk about break even load factor and thats the number that matters. It basically is the number of seats I need to fill at my current CASM and RASM to cover the cost of the flight. Remember Independence Air? I remember reading a business plan that said their break even load factor was around 106% with all those RJs. That means they needed to fill 53 seats on every one of their 50 seat RJs to break even to say nothing of turning a profit. You don't need to know anything about economics to know that won't fly! The reason that number was so big was that their costs were spread among relatively few seats (high CASM) and the fares in the markets they were serving were suppressed due to saturation from UAL, DAL and US Airways (low RASM). Theres a reason there aren't low cost/low fare carriers out there operating RJs.

Linebacker35

Props wont make a comeback. RJ's are slowly taking away more and more of the market. The major airlines keep giving more and more of their routes to their regional RJ's. So they have lower costs and more frequency. So if anything the number of RJ's will increase more and more. Take a look at the airports now, ten years ago their were almost no RJ's at the big airports. Now look at say Chicago where the RJ's come close to out numbering the mainline planes. All the mainline airlines appear to be moving away from the unprofitable domestic flying in favor for international and cross country. Why fly a 737 between city A and City B when you can use several RJ's with their cheaper operating costs and regional pay scales.

The mainlines wont let props return, because then they would have to take back all the flying they didnt want to operate before.

727C47

Bring Back The Dc-3 !

rickair7777

The pendulum is already swinging back against the RJ's. 50 seaters are labor effecient only because regionals are able to operate them with 19 seat turboprop wages. But they are terribly fuel-ineffecient.

You obvoiusly have not flown into ROS or TUS lately; they are chock full of parked CRJ200s. Bombardier has CLOSED the CRJ200 production line. The 70 and 90 seaters are covering the bottom of the 737/DC-9 niche, you rarely see them on "turboprop" routes.

RJ's don't necessarily have to turn a profit, however. Some majors use them simply to bring passengers to their hubs. USAir used to provide the RJ leg from the northeast to to PHL at NO additional cost for passengers connecting somewhere else.

Linebacker35

Well thats a good thing..... it should go back to the way it was before. Where the regionals just did short local flying and left the rest to the mainline. I think the mainlines should take the RJ's for them selves, and have their regionals go back to turbo props and only do the very short flying. I know AC operated their RJ's(made tons of money doing it) for 1995-2005. Was there any other airlines that directly operated the RJ's?

By the way I dont know how some of the regionals got their hands on EMB 170's. Without question those belong at the MAjor airlines.

A shift back to reducing regional operation and increasing mainline operation would be great for the regional pilots now for getting hired at the majors. I wonder what effect it would have on future pilots tho

rickair7777

Well the DC-9 and the F-100 were the original regional jets, operated by several majors including AA & NWA.

The E-170 is a 70 seater, no different than the 700s as far as where they belong...now the wide bodygives them great added value, but doesn't really change where they fit into the scheme.

Transfering some flying from regionals would be better for pilots overall, especially if some 50 seaters go to mainline(doubtful). Mainline pilots have more economic leverage with their company than the typical regional guy. A few folks would get left behind at the reduced regionals, but that has always been the case.

XtremeF150

I think sending some of that flying back to mainline is a good idea too. True it will mean longer upgrades to jets for many of us, but it will also lead to better future careers when we find ourselves at a mainline carrier. As far as all this return of props stuff.... well we all know that many of the subsidized routes will always be flying small props...why, because they already have planes that might only seat 19 people that only carry 2 or 3 people on a regular basis. In fact many times these planes fly completely empty. Does anyone think they are going to start flying RJ's empty. I don't think so.
I wonder, effecient or not if a return of prop flying could bring some order back to the airline industry.

XtremeF150