Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

DAL and "flying minivans"

  • Thread starter Thread starter FDJ2
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 8

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

FDJ2

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Posts
3,908
Airlines like little jets; passengers aren't so sure

By KIRSTEN TAGAMI
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/13/04

Frequent traveler Jerry Grasso calls them "flying minivans" because they're small and seem to be everywhere these days.
Regional jets — miniature airliners that typically carry 50 or 70 passengers — now account for more than one in four of the nation's domestic flights.

That's up from 14 percent in 2001, according to a recent study by Reconnecting America, a transportation policy group.

The planes were conceived in the early 1990s to replace turboprops on short hops from small cities to hubs. But they can fly much farther and faster than turboprops, so airlines increasingly use them for flights of two hours or more.

The mini-jets' mushrooming role has created a backlash among some frequent fliers. They say the planes were a welcome upgrade from turboprops but are no substitute for full-size planes on long runs.

Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines runs both regular-size and Delta Connection regional jets on its nearly three-hour Atlanta-Montreal route. United Airlines will begin using a regional jet on Atlanta-Denver flights this spring.

Regional jets such as the widely used Canadair 50-seater have a relatively skimpy 31 inches of legroom, with no chance to upgrade to roomier first-class seats. Most regional jets are all-coach.

"I feel for the guys who are 6-foot-5. Their knees are in their eyeballs," said Grasso, who travels often for his job as spokesman for Atlanta-based Internet service provider EarthLink.

Grasso dislikes the limited carry-on space, low ceilings and what he feels is the sometimes-choppier ride of regional jets vs. midsize jets. He tries to avoid them as much as possible.

That's getting harder.

Delta, through its subsidiaries and partners in Delta Connection, has more regional jets than any other airline, said spokesman John Kennedy. Delta Connection operates more than 380 regional jets and is expecting delivery of 23 more by the end of the year, he said.

After 9/11, regional jets allowed Delta to continue serving small markets or where demand had dropped.

"In many cases, it's a regional jet or nothing," Kennedy said. Delta goes to 245 cities worldwide, and 97 have only regional jet service, he said.

As an added bonus for ailing airlines, regional jets are operated and serviced by lower-paid pilots and other employees who work for subsidiaries or affiliates of major airlines.

As travel rebounds, regional jets also are being used to bypass increasingly crowded hubs. Savannah-New York is one example of a route that has enough traffic to justify nonstop service in a smaller plane, instead of a connection at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.

Regional jets also are being used to increase the frequency of service between certain cities, something that appeals to frequent business travelers by giving them more options, Kennedy said.

Still, he said, the overwhelming majority of Delta's regional jets are used on short jogs.

Peter Lamas, who flies on Delta every other week for his work as a commercial real estate appraiser, has grown accustomed to regional jets.

"I'm 5-foot-9 and 160 pounds, so they're nice and comfortable for me," said Lamas, who lives in Tucker. "They're OK for short flights of an hour to 1 1/2 hours, like Atlanta-New Orleans."

But Tom Kerver, a Denver retiree who has traveled widely, fumes about the growing use of regional jets, especially for longer flights.

"It's like getting into a submarine," he said.

"There are no headsets, no in-flight entertainment of any sort. Tiny restrooms. The bar is limited because there's no galley space. Now they want people to sit in these things for three or four hours."

Chris McGinnis, an Atlanta business travel consultant, said he hears from frequent fliers who are frustrated that they can't use their elite status or big mileage stockpiles to upgrade on regional jet flights.

Then there's the tight quarters, he said.

"Ask any traveler who has had to sit next to an oversized seatmate on a regional jet for more than two hours, and you'll find an angry traveler."
 
THE RJDC guys want more of these, or wait---maybe they want larger 737s......Maybe we should try to get more mainline planes and the DCI guys can try to get on with Mainline ( I hope they helped our furloughs!!!).....Oh wait, we at Mainline are too expensive......Scrap that idea.

Bye Bye---General Lee;) :rolleyes:
 
If these customers are upset, they can always vote with their feet. Isn't that capitalism? Its ironic that the business traveller despises the small jet, yet at the same time, they demand frequency. Well you can't have one without the other. Go figure.

Sam
 
Sam,

Another down fall from so many RJs is the reduction in passengers they can bring to the hub. Hubs are a lot more profitable when you fill it with lots and lots of passengers, and when RJs take over mainline flights, that restricts the number of passengers at the hubs. I can understand why they replaced some mainline flights after 9-11, primarily due to lack of passengers. Now the passengers are coming back, and most of the Majors have parked or delayed deliveries of new mainline jets. Passengers will vote with their feet---right over to the more comfortable LCC mainline sized aircraft. I don't think frequency is AS important as price and comfort. If the prices go down--you need larger aircraft with more seats to help spread out the costs. You don't see many Southwest RJs--do you? They fill the planes with lots of low fare paying passengers. (and their pilots are actually paid fairly well too)

Bye Bye--General Lee;)
 
Didn't SouthWest confirm they were, (casually) looking at smaller jets?

Everytime I think the RJ is done, someone puts in a new order.
What is the labor cost to fly an RJ roughly one hour? 65 bucks or so for the captain. 35 or so for the fo. The FA, well, about 19 dollars. Wow, that's about 119 bucks. What is the price of one ticket? (very rough estimate!)

The bottom line is I hear soooo many different numbers when it comes to the RJ. I do not know what to believe anymore, but the orders still keep on coming. Me personally, when I non-rev somewhere, I am happy it's not an RJ. Ironic?

ADG
 
General is right...

As a customer in Chicago, I will gladly put up with the no assigned seat and cattle call atmosphere at Southwest (or ATA - I know they have assigned seats), and even the trek to MDW to avoid flying an RJ out of ORD if the flight is more than an hour to hour and a half. At 6'4 I don't really care about business class or first class (unless going international or transcon), but I would like to be able to sit in a seat for an hour or more without having my knees jammed under my chin. So I agree with General, the mainline, legacy carriers better start putting some bigger aircraft onto some of these routes or risk losing customers. I know most of my friends and business associates have accumulated hundreds of thousands of FF miles, and they do us no good on an RJ....Just my two cents.
 
Oh, I like this term. Let's keep it.

Flying Minivan Defense Coalition. FMDC. Nice!
 
Re: General is right...

tlax25 said:
As a customer in Chicago, I will gladly put up with the no assigned seat and cattle call atmosphere at Southwest (or ATA - I know they have assigned seats), and even the trek to MDW to avoid flying an RJ out of ORD if the flight is more than an hour to hour and a half. At 6'4 I don't really care about business class or first class (unless going international or transcon), but I would like to be able to sit in a seat for an hour or more without having my knees jammed under my chin. So I agree with General, the mainline, legacy carriers better start putting some bigger aircraft onto some of these routes or risk losing customers. I know most of my friends and business associates have accumulated hundreds of thousands of FF miles, and they do us no good on an RJ....Just my two cents.

Classic bait and switch. Accumulate your FF miles on 757's but you can only use them on an RJ. Especially when they unexpectedly put RJ service on a route normally served by mainline. And the empty seats are on, you guessed it, the RJ times. We don't do that at ATA.

P.S. Please don't be offended, I'm kinda joking. I have to defend ATA when I can. It's our new, even cheaper style of marketing
 
Last edited:
...

Didn't SouthWest confirm they were, (casually) looking at smaller jets?

Yes, but SWA was looking at the EMB-170/190, a 100-seat jet, kinda like JB. It's much like a DC-9 with the room to boot, if not better. That's hardly an "RJ." SWA would be well served to have a few of these, if they're looking at a smaller market.

The CL-65 is a much more cramped A/C than the bigger EMBs. I can't imagine 3.5 hours in one of those. Hope the backlash doesn't hurt business too badly...
 
Another down fall from so many RJs is the reduction in passengers they can bring to the hub. Hubs are a lot more profitable when you fill it with lots and lots of passengers, and when RJs take over mainline flights, that restricts the number of passengers at the hubs.

Not to mention the added congestion in the air and on the ramp. We're carrying less passengers with more airplanes. Flying from JAN to DFW at 6am, we're doing 360s in the climb for traffic into DFW. There are many financial and logistic reasons for transitioning to mainline. I bet the turn-around will come soon.
 
Believe it or not ---I still think there are plenty of good reasons to have RJs. They pretty much saved our bacon (or what's left of it) after 9-11. They are a lot more comfortable than props, and they are great route finders. They are advanced airplanes too that are sleek. But, on long flights----they are not comfortable for people larger than average size---and most Americans are larger than average (can I supersize those fries?). The average business traveller cannnot bring his work on board unless it is compact--since he can't fit his bag in the overhead bin, not to mention not being able to plug in his/her computer to a port.

I know RJs are here to stay, and that is good because of the above mentioned reasons, but I also hope more mainline sized airplanes either return from the desert (most from Delta will--except MD-11s), or get ordered or bought from the open market. (Yes, some costs need to come down first)

Bye Bye--General Lee:rolleyes:
 
Fliers don't feel cozy in small jets

By Barbara De Lollis, USA TODAY - 17 Feb

As airlines turn to small jets to service 1,000-mile routes, some passengers are reconsidering what they value most — their time or comfort. (Related story: Honda, GE build new jet engine)

Most small-jet flights remain under two hours, but a tiny number now cover distances that can take up to 3½ hours to fly. Last summer, Delta Connection began flying between Dallas/Fort Worth and Oakland. This month, United Express begins flights between Austin and San Francisco. Both flights are more than 1,400 miles long.

For travelers, this is a classic good-news/bad-news trend. Airlines are using small jets to provide non-stop flights between cities that are too far apart to be served by turboprops but lack sufficient passenger demand to support non-stop flights on big Boeing and Airbus jets. American Eagle, for instance, now flies between Fayetteville, Ark., and Los Angeles.

In some cases, passengers taking a small jet to their destination save time by avoiding a layover and a change of planes along the way. But many frequent fliers complain the time they save means a trade-off in comfort.

"It is almost impossible to work on these flights, as the seats are too close together to allow me to open my computer," says linguist Ines Lormand of Lafayette, La. "So 2½ hours in a cramped seat, no food, no entertainment, no decent bathroom. ... You get the picture."

Some frequent fliers refer to small jets as "Barbie jets," citing the smaller cabins, less overhead space and reduced passenger service compared with larger jets. They say they try to avoid the jets on longer flights because there's no opportunity to upgrade from coach to first class, meaning doing without roomier leather seats and complimentary food and liquor that might be available on a big jet.

A few companies even avoid putting their employees on small jets for longer flights.

"Our company will not book regional jets on flights over 90 minutes because of the lost productivity, general discomfort and lack of customer service," says Rick Schmidt, president of Conventional Wisdom, a convention facilities consulting firm in Winter Park, Fla. "No laptops, minimal overhead space, noise fatigue and really, really bad seats."

Fliers' resentments are percolating as small jets, and the regional airlines that fly them, assume larger roles in domestic air transportation.

Small jets have been around for a decade, but initially, they were substituting for older turboprops, which fly shorter routes. The small-jet fleet has grown substantially the past few years as struggling major airlines have turned over more domestic flights to smaller planes operated by their healthier regional-airline partners.

Regional jets have replaced big jets on more than 200 routes since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, says Orlando Netto, marketing director for Embraer, the Brazilian regional jet manufacturer.

This month, small jets will operate 30% of all airline flights in the continental USA. That's almost triple their share in February 2000, according to data provided by OAG and Back Aviation Solutions. In the same time, there's been almost a sevenfold increase in the number of small-jet flights covering distances of 1,000 miles or more.

Airline officials say the small jets' pluses are significant, especially compared with turboprops.

"They're quick, they're fast, they're convenient," says Delta spokesman John Kennedy. "They are leaps and bounds from a turboprop in terms of customer comfort and convenience."

Delta, the largest small-jet operator in the USA, uses small jets mostly on short and medium-length trips, Kennedy says. But Delta uses them on longer hauls in rare instances, he says, to increase frequency or start markets when traffic doesn't justify a 120-seat plane.

Industry experts say the trend shows no sign of abating.

"You're going to see more of it," says Tulinda Larsen, an airline consultant with Back Aviation Solutions. "The question is, what will passengers think?"

Aircraft manufacturers and airline managers are already trying to anticipate that.

By next year, US Airways and JetBlue plan to start flying new Embraer models with 70 and 90 seats that are capable of four- to five-hour flights.

Those models, Netto says, will more closely duplicate the experience of flying large jets. Airlines that fly them will be able to offer two classes of seating, power outlets for laptops and personal video entertainment screens.

In the meantime, frequent fliers like Eric Hoag of League City, Texas, say even the current models can't be beat when time matters most.

"Flying on regional jets is less comfortable than on standard models, particularly when one gets frequent upgrades to first class," Hoag says. "However, if you need and want to get from Point A to Point B in the quickest possible time, fly regional and stop complaining."
 
This is why the battleground is the 70 to 100 seat EMB 170/190. ALPA has established mainline payrates on the airplane that are $58 per hour (top CA rate) at US Air and $35 (top FO rate). At those pay rates, ALPA is not going to want to operate many of them by mainline pilots. ( After all, the E170/190 is service transparent with 737's and A318's. )

Further, the RJDC got their lawsuit filed before the statute of limitations for the CY96 scope that had ASA running 105 seat jets, unlimited 70 and 50 seaters.

If ALPA National offered some proactive leadership they could control this next wave of aircraft orders. However, reactively negotiating to obtain what the Delta MEC demands puts ALPA irreconcilably at odds with their obligation to represent Comair and ASA pilots.

ALPA is dammed unless it follows its Constitution and Bylaws, over the objections of the Delta MEC.

On a side note, it really is a shame Boeing did not come up with an airplane for this market. My understanding is that the 717 starts out about 14% less efficient per seat mile than the E170 and the number rises over distance due to the wing design. The CRJ700 is about 12% to 14% more efficient than the E170, but as these articles explain - it has a small cabin.
 
Last edited:
I see, the business traveller wants larger planes with more amenities. Gotchya. I'm sure AA will stop that full 70 seater from XNA to LAX and instead offer a 757 that it cannot fill more than a third full.

Here's the bottom line, the airlines have to put the right equipment on the right routes. It is not just Delta doing this; but everyone. Granted, there are some routes that definately should not have rj's on them. However, this is not par for the course. If you're not happy with rj service to your city, than charter your own jet! Otherwise sit your ass down and get to where you need to go....if you can fit in the seat ;-)

I am tired of people bringing up XNA-LAX, DEN-ATL, DFW-OAK/SNA as though every single route an rj flies is such. For every one of these, there are twenty or thirty flights to exotic places like Dothan, Alabama or Dubuque, Iowa. These reporters need to keep a better perspective when they write these articles. As far as the travelers attitudes, Sam Fisher got it right...
If these customers are upset, they can always vote with their feet. Isn't that capitalism?
 
General.
All due respect but your comment " alot more comfortable than props" is BS. I hear all the time from passengers on my ATR that they have more legroom, headroom and the ceiling isn't hitting them in the side of the head. It is basic numbers. I have ridden in both and I will take the ATR all day on hour, hour and a half trips before the rj.
 
i wish these people woudl shutup about having to fly AUS-OAK in an RJ. does anyone realize that if they want to take a connection on a mainline aircraft they certainly can! if you would rather do it nonstop, then welcoem aboard!
 
ATR drivr,

I have flown on your ATR-72 jumpseats from ATL to PFN and VPS and I thought the ride was smooth--up front. But, I also flew in the back of an Eagle ATR-42 from SJU to St. Croix and thought I was going to loose my lunch. The rudder movements in the back had us all turn yellow quick. I have heard the same about the back of the AT7. I still think it is more comfortable on an RJ---especially on short distances of an hour or so. But, anything more than about 90 min gets people antsy.


DrunkIrishman,

You are right, the AA Eagle CR7 flight from XNA to LAX is a good example of where to use those types of planes. Fayetteville, AR is the home of Wallmart (Rogers, AR actually I believe)--and plenty of suppliers from the West Coast probably love that nonstop and pay big bucks for it. That is a success stroy. But, when you fly the CR7 from DFW-JFK (the only DCI flight this busy Summer)---that is Marketing's fault---why can't they find more than 70 passengers to fly between two very large cities (DFW--JFK)???? There are probably more than 70 non-revs trying to get to work in JFK for Delta---besides passengers wanting to connect to Europe.....Ridiculous---and it isn't the pilots' fault either.


Fins,

You are right---the USAir MEC and maybe ALPA National will be at fault if they sign the papers to allow the EMB-170 rates to be $58 first year, and $63 for an EMB-190. That will undercut the rest of us. Also, I doubt the EMB-190 will be considered an RJ--but it looks like it will be a low paying smaller mainline sized aircraft.

Bye Bye--General Lee:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
General,
My condolence's for your lousy ride on the 42. I would be willing the bet the 72 is better. That said, I have been in the last row of your 400's going out to SLC and had the same ride. One of your 400 F/O's who was with me in the last row even said it was always like that with a bit of turb. Anyway, I will stick with the ATR as far as back seat comfort myself! I have PFN overnites all next month, come on down and welcome aboard!!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top