50 Seat RJs going away= no one wants

[scarlet]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...carriers-cull-50-seat-jets-nobody-wants-.html


Majors going back to larger aircraft.

 

[tailhookah]

The Boyd Group has been predicting this for well over 6 years... now that UAL/CAL and the new DAL have set the stage for less flights and higher fares, we'll see them get rid of these things faster. Many 50 seaters were used on routes just to compete w/ other airlines... now w/ 2 major paint schemes either gone or going away we'll see less choices and less flights on the slow markets.

tail

 

[Yuppyguppy]

the 70-120 seat market will be going to the majors soon...I know for a fact UAL wants them

 

[Midnight Flyer]

Majors going back to larger aircraft.

About time they start parking these junky disposable sardine cans.

What's that saying...When the last RJ is parked in the desert, a DC-9 will be there to bring the crew home.

 

[Quimby]

Bring back the turboprops.

 

[BoilerUP]

Bring back the turboprops.

THIS.

I wonder who the person at Delta is that decided to eliminate ASA's ATRs and then Mesaba's Saabs...seems like there are plenty of existing markets in Delta's system that would be fantastic for turboprop service, especially those of the modern 50-70 seat Q300/400 or ATR 42/72-600 variety.

 

[livin'thesim]

Agreed. "Turbopop avoidance syndrome" notwithstanding.


I love props - they are the perfect aircraft for many markets, the only real problem is that many pilots think that props are for boats.

Oh well.

 

[Dizel8]

The Saab 2000 seemed like a great a great airplane, just showed up at the wrong time.

Certainly there are plenty of routes that supports T-props whereas the economics of an RJ just doesn't work out.

 

[FLYLOW22]

All flying done my the mainline.

Props are for boats.

 

[Dizel8]

Don't agree with the prop stance, but the first part sounds good. One joins as an FO on the prop, retires as CA on the 777/787/A380/A350/SST/Intergalactic Mark 4 Hypersonic Space Jalopy/Enterprise Class Starship!

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Props are for boats.

Isn't that the mentality that got us into the RJ problem in the first place?

Turboprops are great at a certain market. Whether or not they should be mainline, I don't know. I'm pretty sure that there have been a few airlines in the past that did just fine with props.

Maybe if we got past the "Turboprops are for boats" mentality, and solve the PR issues by calling them "UDFs" or "Ultra-Bypass" or whatever the you and the public want, mainline could capture that market, too.

 

[waveflyer]

What crank said-
mgmt and # crunchers can decide what airplane- one seniorit list flies it

 

[weasel_lips]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...carriers-cull-50-seat-jets-nobody-wants-.html


Majors going back to larger aircraft.

THAT IS GREAT NEWS!

RJ's....They should all be turned into beer cans ASAP.

 

[FLYLOW22]

Isn't that the mentality that got us into the RJ problem in the first place?

Turboprops are great at a certain market. Whether or not they should be mainline, I don't know. I'm pretty sure that there have been a few airlines in the past that did just fine with props.

Maybe if we got past the "Turboprops are for boats" mentality, and solve the PR issues by calling them "UDFs" or "Ultra-Bypass" or whatever the you and the public want, mainline could capture that market, too.

I guess my memory is longer than most... I remember past 1991 and Comair. Look at the historical photos up at many airport around the country next time you have a minute. DC3's, Connies... the Fokker F70. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_70. US Air ALPA screwed the pooch on that, giving up that jet/jobs.

I remember when there were no dirty little secret regional airlines flying passengers around who thought they bought a ticket on Delta but were flying on something much different.

I flew with many pilots over the years whose commercial flying career began flying a small prop recip for a major carrier and ended flying a widebody heavy jet... for the same company.

If pilots drove more flying towards large mainline airplanes (70 seats) I think quality of life and career earnings for those in that sector would improve dramatically.

I can't stand 50 seat jets. I can't stand getting a wet plane checked bag back, the bathrooms I have to lean backwards in to pee straight down, bumping my head 3 times taking my jacket off, the seat cushions, the loud gear coming down, the lack of overheads, 150 kts Vapp speeds cause the company didn't consider slats necessary... I enjoy J31s, 1900s, SF340s, dHC-8's and ATRs even less. I fly on them all going and coming from work. 70 seats in a modern jet is comfortable.

Let me put it this way. I'd pay more any day to fly on a 70 seat plane vs. a 50 seat jet.

I'd pay more over that to fly on the airline I bought a ticket on vs. a contract carrier. Now THOSE are the fees airlines should focus on. Not baggage fees, aisle seat fees, etc.

 

[Jetjockey]

I'm surprised Southwest doesn't really attack this 'outsourcing' angle. I know for a while they ran ads that went along he lines of real size big 737 jets. I agree most people would pay more to know the ticket they buy is done on all Mainline aircraft.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

What appears to be happening is simple. It is a slight ******************** to larger jets. The 76 seat jet is a seat restriction on a jet that can fly 86/88 passengers in its one cabin confguration.

Looking at DAL mainline 319/320's and their decision to pull First Class seats in favor of a few more Coach seats may be an indication of things to come. I could not be overly surprised to see a request for a slight changer in these 76 seat jets total allowable seat limit. Take a few FC seats out (2-4) and up the max to 80. Just a thought I had as airlines try to eek out every cent of every jet.

With them taking these premium seats out of the 310/320, 777, 767-300, and 744 in favor or more coach seats in some, and lie flats in another, it appears that they have now determined that too much of the premium seats end up being a bad thing for them. Ergo, the desire to up the seat counts on these large RJ's by a few to further insulate these jets from becoming totally unprofitable.

I could be totally wrong, but this is the next logical step to me.

 

[ground stop]

there will always be a need for the smaller seat aircraft inorder to serve the smaller markets. you try putting a 70 seat or larger aircraft into ithaca, ny four times a day and see if that is profitable. people like the frequency of flights, too. that said, i don't care what propels the airplane i fly, i just care about whats on my paycheck. call it a jet-prop, jet-aided prop, whatever. "fupm", is all i got to say.

 

[NuGuy]

I'm surprised Southwest doesn't really attack this 'outsourcing' angle. I know for a while they ran ads that went along he lines of real size big 737 jets. I agree most people would pay more to know the ticket they buy is done on all Mainline aircraft.

Heyas JJ,

I have often wondered exactly the same thing myself. Given their propensity for off-beat ads, a "Buy a SWA ticket, and you fly SWA" ads almost write themselves in the current situation.

MY guess, and it's only a guess, leads to 3 possibilities:

1) SWA doesn't want to "poison the well" for the day when THEY might want to outsource their flying

2) Their particular demographic target won't respond to that kind of advertising. The business frequient flyers would have already have bailed if the RJs were an issue and the Clampetts don't really care what they fly as long as the price is right (IE low).

3) It's some kind of handshake agreement made at annual meeting of whatever is the modern equivilent of the "Conquistadors de Cielo"

or some combination of the above...

Nu

 

[FLYLOW22]

I'm surprised Southwest doesn't really attack this 'outsourcing' angle.

They should. But the positive tact is usually more productive.

 

[General Lee]

there will always be a need for the smaller seat aircraft inorder to serve the smaller markets. you try putting a 70 seat or larger aircraft into ithaca, ny four times a day and see if that is profitable. people like the frequency of flights, too. that said, i don't care what propels the airplane i fly, i just care about whats on my paycheck. call it a jet-prop, jet-aided prop, whatever. "fupm", is all i got to say.

How about you put them into Ithaca twice a day, and then see how profitable it gets? Or, throw in 1 DC9-50 and then 1 70 seat RJ. That's how you do it! IF there is more need in the meantime, throw in a Beech 1900. 50 seat RJs all need to GO.


Bye Bye--General Lee