What is more appealing is having less flights with more seats. (70 or ninety seaters). We all know the 70 and 90 seaters are much more economical, we don't need to argue that. Less flights would prevent the 12 passenger example. It's just a matter of time until more 70 and 90 seaters are out there to drive out the 50 seat market. We also know the majors are more favorable to 70 and 90 seaters than 50 seaters and they are doing everything they can to cut down on fifty seat operations. The price of oil has nothing to do with it, now it's the economy. The airplanes aren't getting filled 100% of the time, which is the ultimate goal. If the economy was good, the price of oil would be high anyways, so what's the difference? At the end of the day the most efficient airplanes with the most passengers win, and it isn't the 50n seaters. For those of you who know already I'm sorry for saying this but the 700 doesn't burn much more than the 200 and it's 10 times the airplane and carries more people and almost never has weight and balance issues.

 

What you call "life" is changing everyday. You think our major partners are sitting in their boardrooms looking at these numbers and saying, "oh well 12 pax, that's just life. We can just swallow another 10,000 seats this month afters all that money we lost last year." During a tight time like this numbers and statistics are under the microscope more than ever. Just because oil is cheap now doesn't mean greener pastures are ahead. We all know it can go back up anytime. Sorry but things are changing as we speak. For all of you thinking there is a ray of sunshine coming to put 100% of these 50 seaters in full swing due to Mesa or any other carrier going under you are sadly mistaken. The only ray of sunshine is age 65 retirees coming up in 4 years.

 

The CRJ7 is almost the same as an CRJ2/ERJ as far as cost. The 900/175s are probably a little more efficient. However, most airlines have scope that limits the number of 50+ seats. There will always be more 50 seaters. They're nice and shiny but every CRJ900/E175 you see out there is a reminder that our perspective for a nice career at the majors will take that much longer to achieve.

 

Ahhh the EMB175 burns 30% more fuel than the CRJ 700. But they look more like a 737 so that is OK.

 

Actually it's 1.4 x the airplane

 

hard to fill an extra 20+ seats in this economy... 50 seaters might make sense in many markets until this recession turns the corner. I dont get paid enough to speculate what will be more cost effective...