General Lee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Posts
- 20,442
Lear70,
The 50 seat RJ demise I am talking about is the ongoing troubles faced by RJ operators on routes directly competing with LCCs. There are some routes that warrent 50 seat RJs--primarily ones that do not compete with LCCs---like MSP to GSO. NW and Pinnacle can charge whatever they want on that route--and with the lack of competition from LCCs nonstop to that city----that RJ may do well. But, with the addition of all of those RJs at your hubs, comes more delays (holding in VFR, long taxi times, etc)---and there will be a point at which the losses due to excess fuel use and missed connections will cause the mainline operator to think twice about how much help the 50 seater is adding to the program. As soon as more LCCs invade MSP and DTW (only Spirit and a little Southwest action there now)--the fares will drop and the mainline people will have to use larger airplanes with more seats to compete with the lower fares. It is happening to us in ATL with Airtran, and it will happen more and more in the future. I never said that there will not be a need for 50 seaters----I think those aircraft will also be upgraded with 70 seaters because those extra 20 seats might make a difference. But, Boyd was right with his "50 seat economics" article.....(and I don't always agree with that guy)
Medflyer,
I agree with you on that--and there are some good city pairings that 50 seaters fly to with no LCC competition. You are right there. But look at CVG. 50 seat RJs go to every big East Coast City from there----and somebody who has a choice to go on an RJ through CVG to connect onto a larger plane or can go on a LCC or other Legacy mainline sized plane will probably choose the latter---and especially if he/she is a business traveller.
Bye Bye---General Lee
The 50 seat RJ demise I am talking about is the ongoing troubles faced by RJ operators on routes directly competing with LCCs. There are some routes that warrent 50 seat RJs--primarily ones that do not compete with LCCs---like MSP to GSO. NW and Pinnacle can charge whatever they want on that route--and with the lack of competition from LCCs nonstop to that city----that RJ may do well. But, with the addition of all of those RJs at your hubs, comes more delays (holding in VFR, long taxi times, etc)---and there will be a point at which the losses due to excess fuel use and missed connections will cause the mainline operator to think twice about how much help the 50 seater is adding to the program. As soon as more LCCs invade MSP and DTW (only Spirit and a little Southwest action there now)--the fares will drop and the mainline people will have to use larger airplanes with more seats to compete with the lower fares. It is happening to us in ATL with Airtran, and it will happen more and more in the future. I never said that there will not be a need for 50 seaters----I think those aircraft will also be upgraded with 70 seaters because those extra 20 seats might make a difference. But, Boyd was right with his "50 seat economics" article.....(and I don't always agree with that guy)
Medflyer,
I agree with you on that--and there are some good city pairings that 50 seaters fly to with no LCC competition. You are right there. But look at CVG. 50 seat RJs go to every big East Coast City from there----and somebody who has a choice to go on an RJ through CVG to connect onto a larger plane or can go on a LCC or other Legacy mainline sized plane will probably choose the latter---and especially if he/she is a business traveller.
Bye Bye---General Lee
Last edited: