not really wisecrack answers. just pointing out that there too many factors to have one answer.

I bet Bombardier couldn't even give an answer.

BTW, I would also recommend spending hours on the interstate rather than take airlines today, CRJ-200 or 737.

Let's take a look again at a few of the answers....

USN, you may not like the format or tone of the replies, but there are several good points and all valid.

The original poster submitted a question that was so broad, a bit like asking "how big is Big?" We who answered were grabbing at straws trying to guess what he was getting at.

His later question asking why a crj would be used to replace a Saab (which presumably was not profitable). While still a broad question, gave me a bit more idea what he was seeking.

Here are a couple of my theories:
1. People don't like those scary little prop planes.
2. People think getting a jet is getting a mainline plane.
3. The Saab operator may have required a higher return than they could get on said line. When the line came up for renewal, the Saab operator may have bid high to either get more out of the mainline or ditch a low profit line.
4. Maybe the route is "out in the sticks" for the Saab operator but is in the CRJs "backyard".

Or mainline has to give flying to the CRJ because of a contract. Example: 3 roundtrip flights of less than 60 miles on a CRJ from PHL-ABE and a Dash 8 doing 3 roundtrips from LGA to BGR, a 2 hr stage for a prop. You just have to go with the flow and let the powers at be run the show and just ask yourself why.

Interesting points, FlyJSH, it does seem counterintuitive at first!
Not specific to this situation, I'd say that #1-2 don't matter unless somehow the jet can command a revenue premium over the t-prop. Pax are going to whine about the aircraft no matter what; make the SF3 a CRJ, then they want a CR70, a CR70, then an E170, etc. So unless the jet will cover it's increased costs with substantial revenue increases, fly what makes the most economic sense.


Saab2000, you hit the nail on the head. Pro-ration of revenue on connecting itineraries is near impossible to calculate without the internal information of bookings on the flight. Don't quote me on this, but I thought it was IATA standard to base some of it on distance, dumb as it may seem. So even though your short RJ/DH8 segment commands a massive premium over just the overserved 'hub-wherever' route, the shorter one always looks like the loser, as it bears its full costs.

It really is a simple question. The only thing that is specific would be the company actually flying the aircraft. It's all based on CASM and RASM. That will give you the break even load factor. Doesn't matter what people pay for the flight. It's all about what the flight costs. For example it you take a jetBlue A320 it's CASM from what I remember is around 8-9 cents. That is how much it costs to fly one seat one mile on average. So it costs the company roughly $90 to move one seat a thousand miles. Mulitply that times 154 and you get about $14000. That's what it costs the carrier to fly that aircraft 1000 miles. All factors are included in that cost. As you can see, profit margins are not that great since they don't charge very much for tickets.