The 50 seaters will go away when the leases are up and they are no longer economical to fly. But for now many airlines and leasing companies still owe millions on these things and so they'll be around for a while longer.

I do think they'll slowly disappear as nobody is making them anymore (thankfully) and they'll be replaced with larger machines.

But I would expect 50-seaters to be around for another decade, at least. Probably much longer.

 

They will go away at some point, but the nice thing for now is that with a lot of leases coming due operators can secure them for very very competitive costs since a lot of companies don't want 'em. Which as a result makes them profitable to operate on a lease or even outright purchase.

 

As long as there are B1900s out there. There will be something bigger out there.

They just might service new markets where it's still uneconomical to send the boeings.

 

Which will in turn replace a 737-500 with a 70 seater on a 1 for 1 if scope is relaxed.

 

But the problem is many of the mid size city routes that used to be 73s and F100s have been replaced with the damn 50 seaters. Yes, frequency has increased on those routes but the overall number of seats available has gone down in the market I live in. I do not enjoy riding 2 hrs on a full RJ that has no seat padding on a market that used to be a 73 route.

 

When was this? I've been at AWAC for 3 years, I've had exactly one time where I've been unable (filed under 3585 with 50 people and bags all the way from PHL to MCI) that I've had to kick people off the plane. The CRJ when used correctly is not a bad plane at all.

 

In the market you live in, sure. In other markets, it simply depends on other variables like season, or if it's being used to simply add capacity without adding much cost.

Have you rode in the back of a CAL aircraft? The seats in the back of my company's "regional" aircraft suck.

The seats in the back of a CAL aircraft suck worse.

I'm not sure if it's "being used correctly" is the proper term. Or if it's simply more dependent on the specific operator's performance data vendor, etc. On some of the LAX routes that XJT flew, they had no problem filling the plane up, where as ASA planes couldn't. RNO being one example.

Conversely, XJT has some screwed up enroute performance issues. A SKW 200 could be taking off ahead of us, going to the EXACT same place. They could accept a direct, we couldn't due to a SE ceiling over mountainous terrain issue.

 

Thats what they said about the Shorts 360, and the Beech 99 and the Metroliner and the Nord 262 and the Banderante and the Convair and the.........................

 

That is part of the problem, it cost as much to run a 50 seater as it does a 733. The finical whiz kids are finally starting to figure that out and the RJ is quickly losing it status as darling of the airlines (managers). So, I could run 1 73 or 2.5 RJs to achive the same pax count. No cost savings there and thus your cost savings argument doesn't hold water. Somehow I think you remember the demise of Independence and their jaunt into the RJ only world.



Since I commute internationally and begin the trip out of a mid-size city, I ride on RJs all the time. I also avoid RJs as much as possible. RJ seats tend to be narrower and much more uncomfortable than a small narrowbody jet seats. You can quote seat pitch all day but RJ seats suck and that is being nice. I'll take a rear seat in a DC-9-10 over a RJ any day.

 

He doesn't mean riding, as in buying a ticket, he means non-revving, as in getting a free ride to work. A free ride he's complaining about. Maybe he should just pry open his wallet, buy hs own ticket, and avoid RJs altogether if they're that bad.