50 Seat RJs---Are they the Future

[SanJuanPlebe]

The RJs are the darling of industry right now since demand is down and they can provide frequency/lift for a discounted rate.

My concern is specifically with the CRJ 50 seaters. The seats are not as comfortable as the 700 seats, and the window is so low that you will need to see a chiropractor after the flight.

If the economy continues on its upswing, doesn't it make sense that the RJs will be replaced with larger, more comfortable aircraft? (e.g 737, Airbus, MD80)

Next time you ride on a 200, check out your comfort level. And with these planes doing 2+ hour flights, well, I just think eventually price versus comfort is going to come to a head.

Am I off base here?

The Plebe

Yeah, I was duped, I voted yes for the Mesa Contract

 

[General Lee]

No. 100 seaters are. They are for more efficieant and the pay rates will bew a lot lower than regular mainline planes.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[jtf]

I agree that 100 seaters will probably have a big future (up to 200 at JetBlue alone), but now the biggest jump is for 70 seaters and they are starting to get some big orders now. I'd guess that a lot of 50 seat options will be converted to 70 seaters since they will be more efficient money makers for the routes that 50 seaters are replacing mainline aircraft on already.

 

[jarhead]

SanJaunPlebe

You make an assumption in your post which is not true. You state that the 50 seat RJ has a "discounted" rate. This is false. I can fly from MSP to CVG on a Comair 50 seat or 70 seat RJ, or a Delta mainline 737-800 or an MD-88. They all have the identical airfares for the pax. You need LCC that gives the legacy carriers headaches now, with lower fares across the board.

 

[mckpickle]

Seems to me back in the late 90s the airlines were trying to get rid of smaller planes because a 30 seat a/c took up a valuable arrival and dep slot. So if things get really busy again I think the airlines will be more apt to put a 73 on the route instead of takeing 2 slots up with rjs. Now Im not talking about slot controlled airports. Just someplace like EWR that when really busy can have huge delays.

Plus, this month every monday I fly IAD to IAH. Thats like 3 hours plus. Thats a long time to be in RJ. I can't help but think that when people have a choice they will start avoiding RJs like they once did with turbo-props.

 

[General Lee]

As Jetblue and Airtran get bigger the business traveler will have to make a decision---either to fly a longer flight (2+hours) on an RJ or take a Jetblue A320 with a TV system or an Airtran 717 with the nice clean air system inside. Their choice will be obvious unless the Majors start to bring back larger planes with more room and things like Live TV etc....100 seaters will give more room and the look of a mainline aircraft.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[KingAirer]

We are forgetting the CONNECTION Factor. If i am going to flying from Myrtle Beach to New York, Ill have a few choices. But I am certainly going to fly the RJ nonstop rather than connect with Airtran through ATL. I think the public hates connecting more than they do RJs.

 

[General Lee]

Kingairer,

You are correct. I think that makes sense. But, having RJs flying between two large cities with over a million people each doesn't make sense. But, your example does.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[climbhappy]

Could it be , that flying an RJ between two cities with over a million people is done purely from an accounting perspective. after all, if you farm it out, (even with a wholly owned), the burden of depreciation,fuel ,all those costs against overhead, doesn't impact like a fee per departure would?

After seeing some of the views from wall streeters, namely a jp morgan analyst who was quoted earlier in the year as having announced the demise of the 50 seat rj, I am convinced that a massive uptic in demand would create huge problems for independents, when opting for the planes parked in the desert, mainline fleets would start growing ; and the independents start shrinking or go it alone like ACA.

 

[PilotRon]

I think the niche for the 50 seat RJ's will be frequency. Mainline flights will begin to grow, (eventually); however, they will never be at the frequency between city pairs as they were in the past, ie. hourly service. They may try 1 mainline then 2 or 3 RJ's between as fillers.

You will also see RJ's continue to be used for start up service as well as in cities with less traffic. The RJ is here to stay, both the 50 seat, 70 seat and 90 seat. The 50 seat will become the Beech 1900 of the future. OK before you BE1900 drivers get upset, there will be a future for Turboprops into small cities that are prohibited from jet service due to runway length or other exceptions, but that will drop to very few due to the ability of smaller RJ's such as the EMB-135 which is flown into Key West and other smaller airports.

What we are witnessing is a complete overhaul of the airline industry. I know many of you are looking to flying for a Major Airline, and I hope that you all get your chance, but I think that it will be a long time before that might happen. It is important for Regional airline pilots to begin thinking longer term when dealing with contracts etc. Some may find themselves employed at regionals for their carreer.

Just my $.02

 

[bogberto]

My uncle quit flying UAL (on certain routes) and switched to HP because he hates the RJ that much. Then when HP put us on a few of the same runs, he did whatever was necessary to avoid the RJ again (which tended to interrupt his FS2004 time).

I also think that the 35-50 seaters will start to lose their glamour. Spoke with a frequent flyer a few months ago who raised a valuable point: why be a frequent flyer if that RJ has no first class?