So many 50 seaters
 

Does it worry anybody else that the new ASA will have something like 354 50 seaters? I thought that mainline didn't want them anymore. What's going to happen when the contracts are up? Isn't United contract up soon and are they going to renew those contracts? What do you guys know/think about this?

New ASA 10 year CAL contract adds 15 more 50 seaters once the merger is complete. Stipulation in the contract that CAL can replace 50 seaters with 70 seaters 1 for 1 if scope relaxed. I wouldn't be worried about it at all.

I don't care about the 50 seaters, I fly the "-9"... High roller!

also considering XJT was very close to signing a deal with US Airways replacing dash's and crj's with emb 135's and 145's. XJT/ASA is also the sole operator of the 145 XR with a higher GTOW, longer range, and better maintenance performance then the CRJ. I think if you had to be in the 50 seat game then this is where you want to be.\

They are also dirt cheap on the used aircraft market right now. They are desperate to unload some of these used 50 seaters.

Everyone talks big about the demise of the 50 seat RJ yet they never do seem to actually leave.

SkyWest Holdings is now the proud owner of 496 50 seaters. I sure hope that the market isn't dead...

it's been said before and i'll say it again...there will always be a market for 50 seaters

Yup. People just blindly listen to the crap that's spewed about everything in this business. They can say they want rid of these things all they want. The fact is they have nothing to replace them with. You cannot operate a 70-90 seat airplane on many of the routes currently served by a 50-seat product. And if you retire the 50 seat jet and pull out of the market that won't support anything bigger, you are leaving money on the table. And there are A LOT of those markets out there. Settle in to your 50-seater, it'll be around for a while.

Mainline, I assume you mean delta, is not getting anymore. New ASA is just moving into "new united" side of things. And the previous united contract we had is pretty fresh. In fact before this XJT thing came up we were already adding frames to the United side of the operation.

The DC-9? Cool!

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.........................
:rolleyes:

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.

I personally find CRJs more comfortable than ERJs; the single-seat aisle of the ERJ is nice but the fuselage rolls too much for my comfort and I'm only 5'11"-180lb.

I'd rather be in any RJ for a couple hours than a center seat on any "mainline" narrowbody...

If the 50 seater is the new b1900 then we are in trouble. But I just don't see that happening. Average price for fuel for a one hour leg per pax on the crj is $18. Fuel can double and it will still be affordable.

No, it doesn't...and it doesn't take a financial whiz kid to simply look at fuel burns alone (not even considering capital costs or depreciation) to know that.

Not exactly apples-to-apples for airliners, but the 2010 Business & Commercial Aviation Operations Planning Guide shows the Challenger 850 (nee CRJ-200) with an operating cost of $2216.28/hr and the BBJ (nee 737-700) @ $4065.52/hr given a fuel price of $4.90/gal...which is probably double or more what airlines pay.

Now, if you're talking about the cost involved moving a total number of pax seats...then yeah, 3 RJs for a single 733/737 doesn't make any financial sense at all unless an airline can enhance revenue due to more frequency options, which most can't.

I did one of those kinda trips when I was at AWAC from PHL-MSP for the NCAA Basketball tournament; 3 CRJ2s left PHL within 15 minutes of each other heading to MSP because Airways didn't have a narrowbody available.

If this was directed at me, I do mean riding an a purchased ticket that my employer(s) pay for.
I am an elite member in all 3 airline alliances. I made Platinum on Delta, Gold on AA and Gold on UA last year.

You can't look at fuel cost alone. We could just talk about acquisition cost to begin with and with all the other operating expenses is where the RJ looses its shine. Some number cruncher did a cost analysis and found to run 1 RJ cost almost the same as to run 1 737-300. I wished I had those numbers to really digest them.

Does an RJ have its place? Yes, of course. But not flying 2+hr legs or hub to hub flying as they are doing now.

So with fuel and direct operating costs almost triple that of emerging technology you think they'll still be affordable? Add MX costs on top and you have the same thing as 727 trying to compete with a 737NG.

http://www.mba.aero/presentations/04...ket_update.pdf

Fast forward to page 17.

Hang in there until you make it to page 25.

I didn't look at fuel cost alone.

I provided you objective total per-hour direct operating cost figures for a CRJ-200 and a 737-700 (CL850 & BBJ) from Business & Commercial Aviation...fuel is but portion of that expense.

Over a 1000nm segment, B&CA says a CRJ-200 has $5503.75 in total direct operating costs (fuel $3892.94 @ $4.90/gal) where the 737 has $9960.53 in direct operating costs (fuel $7636.69 @ $4.90/gal).

Acquisition cost? A 50-seat RJ costs somewhere around 33-40% of what a 737-700 costs based on list prices...and we both know airlines don't pay sticker on any aircraft purchase. With a higher acquisition price comes higher total capital costs (more interest expense, etc).

I think the "number cruncher" figures you are referring to is probably looking at cost per available seat mile (CASM), which is where any 50-seater looses the economic battle to larger aircraft every day and twice on Sunday.

While not exactly the same metric, consider the CRJ2's hourly cost of $2216.28/hr; with 50 filled seats it gives you a per-seat hourly cost of $44.33...compared to the 737's DOCs of $4065.52 and 147 filled seats giving you a per-seat hourly cost of $27.66.

Of course, you've got to fill a certain number of seats to make the larger aircraft truly less expensive than the smaller one; in this case, 92 passengers or more passengers in the 737 is less costly than a full CRJ2.

Bottom line? RJs will start to go away and be replaced with larger aircraft, and frequency will suffer...but for well into the future there will be markets that need and demand 50-seat jets because they simply cannot support the break-even factor on larger aircraft.

Finally! Someone thinking right. I Jumpseat on CAL twice a week and trust me they will fight to the death it seems like to keep scope. If they "relax" then all our futures will be regional carriers or flying 100+ seat Jets for 30 an hour. Wait... That's already happened.

It's called long term job security, and the possibility of a job at the majors for the regional guys. So by all means, take the 50 seaters, take them all!

Agreed. I commute on a CRJ-200 frequently on a route which makes perfect sense. I commute GRR-DCA on a Pinnacle or Mesaba CRJ and it is an ideal plane for this thin route. The flight is almost never full but full enough to support the premium ticket prices it likely commands as a way for folks to bypass DTW and take a direct flight.

It's about 1:20-1:35 depending on direction of flight and winds. ERJ or CRJ would be perfect. I do question it's place though when I am launching from PHL-MCI in the dead of winter and looking at 2:45 or even 3:00 on the FMS and every single seat is full. That, folks, is a long flight on a 50-seater. Too long.

I think Boiler did a pretty good job of shooting this one down for me.

Indeed I do. They, along with XJT simply proved that on a fuel burn level, the economics of 50 seat aircraft simply don't work when the price of fuel skyrockets. But neither is a DC-9. I guess it's all perspective, but is an Airbus an RJ?

Funny you mention this, but the previous aircraft I flew did no sh1t have the WIDEST seat of anything that DAL had to offer for coach. Ain't that funny? Wider than the MD, 75/76, etc. That plane was ACTUALLY used the way RJ's were meant to be. Doesn't matter, being wedged between two fat bastards sucks anyway you cut it.

50 seat market:
 

One of the best 50 seaters was the Nihon YS-11, and it wasn't that long ago when Piedmont first purchased them for $1M apiece, and was flying them off of shale runways. It was fast, and quiet inside (not out) and had ample room, we had a bunch at PBA in the 80's. "It cost as much to run a 50 seater as it does a 733"? Guess again, the DOC's on the 733 are double that of the RJ, right down to the landing fee schedule at MAssport. Obviously you don't flight plan your RJ for 5000#/hr burn, plus there are two more salaries in back of the 733, and two higher salaries up front. Not certain about Boeing leases, however Jet Blue 320's will cost you $375,000/mo.

Along with the 75 replacement aircraft!

I'm not convinced the CRJ200 or the larger ones are not immune to the ERJ enroute performance issues.

50 seat economics depend on several things...

- Lower labor cost.
- Value of frequency to the consumers.
- Reasonable fuel costs

In the current environment, labor cost is low, fuel is not too bad, and pax value good frequency.

These are things which could screw up that equation in the future...

- Significant increase in regional labor costs...fat chance, although inceasing longevity due to no growth/movement will make a dent.

- Increasing fuel costs...this could make it more economical to run larger planes with less frequency. Pax will pay for frequency, but only up to a point.

- Congestion...slot limitations would force a shift to larger airframes. This WILL happen eventually, just a question of how long.


For right now, 50 seaters still work, and as long as people have leases to cover they will keep operating them. If the lease is payed off and you can make a little profit, might as well keep operating them too.

Honesty, I'm not either.

However, when I was in class in May I asked B.C this question; How come the WHOLE time we were out on the west coast I never heard a SKW plane decline direct routing, as well as why they could take the RNAV SIDs out of SLC and we couldn't.

His answer, "they're behind the scenes flight ops engineering is different than ours".

Different or better? I just guessed that their PIO is more lenient or its just getting swept under the rug.

I'm not sure. And until the day that I hope never comes that I'm flying a CRJ over mountainous terrain, I won't care.

Point I was making was that even when two different companies are operating the SAME aircraft type, what the plane can actually do in real life and what each of their performance data says they can do are not always the same.

At my former employer, AWAC's CRJ's could go into places that ours couldn't Why, simply because they were using a different (and probably more expensive) vendor.

Thread drift complete.

You left out:

SCOPE CLAUSE

As long as places like CAL continue to hold the line, there will be a market. I know a lot of folks here are salivating at the opportunity to take mainline jobs away, but let's focus on the real factor, Scope!

50 seaters are a lot like a sticky booger, no matter how much you flick you just can't seem to get rid of them