The MRJ90 and E175-E2 are done
11-26-2016, 06:33 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: 737 Left
Posts: 1,825
We may be forgetting the success that jetBlue had with the E-190 when few others were flying it. It is possible for the same thing to occur with one of the LCC's or ULCC's. It is also possible for these aircraft to be utilized in other locales by non-US carriers, or in a start up endeavor. I don't think the aircraft are done.
11-26-2016, 07:17 AM
#5
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,232
Originally Posted by TallFlyer
Easy solution: operate them on a mainline certificate.
It's no longer a simple matter of making a trip through the BK drive-through to eliminate annoying labor contract provisions.
And it's tough for mainline to make money directly operating RJ's close to 100 seats. At the 100 seat point, you have to pay another FA, and that puts the economics in a whole. This is why narrow-bodies's keep getting bigger of the years, to get further away from that 80-149 seat economic trough.
Outsourced flying is the only way to make a lot of RJ routes economical.
11-26-2016, 07:18 AM
#6
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,232
Originally Posted by zondaracer
Or lease them out foreign carriers.
11-26-2016, 07:22 AM
#7
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,232
Originally Posted by AtlCSIP
We may be forgetting the success that jetBlue had with the E-190 when few others were flying it. It is possible for the same thing to occur with one of the LCC's or ULCC's. It is also possible for these aircraft to be utilized in other locales by non-US carriers, or in a start up endeavor. I don't think the aircraft are done.
If you cut out most of the US market, and turn what you thought was a 1000 airplane production run into a 300 airplane run, you're not going to make any money. You'll be lucky to break even.
For example, the A380 with about 300 orders is billions of dollars in the hole and will never even begin to recover it's costs.
11-26-2016, 07:45 AM
#9
MK Ultra Candidate
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: Prime Leader of Boko Harumph
Posts: 1,167
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I've been saying for years that foreign airframers who gloss over scope limits when designing large RJs are making a big mistake.
It's no longer a simple matter of making a trip through the BK drive-through to eliminate annoying labor contract provisions.
And it's tough for mainline to make money directly operating RJ's close to 100 seats. At the 100 seat point, you have to pay another FA, and that puts the economics in a whole. This is why narrow-bodies's keep getting bigger of the years, to get further away from that 80-149 seat economic trough.
Outsourced flying is the only way to make a lot of RJ routes economical.
It's no longer a simple matter of making a trip through the BK drive-through to eliminate annoying labor contract provisions.
And it's tough for mainline to make money directly operating RJ's close to 100 seats. At the 100 seat point, you have to pay another FA, and that puts the economics in a whole. This is why narrow-bodies's keep getting bigger of the years, to get further away from that 80-149 seat economic trough.
Outsourced flying is the only way to make a lot of RJ routes economical.
11-26-2016, 07:50 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,262
Originally Posted by ClickClickBoom
Aircraft design/manufacture is a decades long process. Pilot contracts are short term instruments, and given the history of pilots selling their souls for a few dollars, those airplanes will fly where ever the companies that buy them, want them. Never underestimate greed.
