G Lee's Worst Nightmare...

[Smacktard]

This ought to make his head spin...

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/05/16/Navigation/254/206572/Fighting+back+regional+jet+manufacturers.html

Valid economics
According to GECAS data, the economics of the 50-seater remain valid, especially when compared with a 70-seat regional jet. Figures supplied by the lessor indicate that with fuel at $0.53/litre ($2.02/USgal), unit costs on a 550km (300nm) trip are almost identical for 50- and 70-seaters at a little under 10¢/km, and total dollar spend drops almost 36% from $3,725 for the larger aircraft to $2,741 for the 50-seater.

 

[ReverseSensing]

Staying out of the whole GL's-head-spinning debate, wouldn't GECAS be expected to come up with this analysis? Don't they have a lot of 50-seaters sitting in the desert looking for homes? Do they have any 70-seaters gathering dust in their inventory?

 

[Thedude]

Funny part is, 550 NM just happens to be the break point for a turbo-prop also. That article take only fuel burn into effect and doesn't compare it to anything else. Kinda one sided. But the again figures dont lie, but liers figure. There is a market for the 50 seat jet, but it is smaller than current day 50 seat opeartion and I mean alot smaller

Read the rest of the article. Even India doesnt want the 50 seat jet.

To make money there has to be a balance between RPM and CSM. The 50 seater CSM is too high for the return.

 

[General Lee]

Wow, that is great. I am sure GECAS doesn't want anymore 50 seaters parked, like all of the Pinnacle RJs in TUS. When you put a 50 seat RJ up against a LCC (like Airtran to Flint, Moline, Bloomington, Gulfport, Myrtle Beach, etc) and they are the ones setting the price (to make sure they can squeeze a profit) the RJ loses big time. (and then we at DL lose) Thanks GECAS for that unbiased study......

But, I do think those 50 seaters are GREAT for routes with absolutley NO LCC competition. ASA announced ATL to Sioux Falls, SD today. (starting in August or September) Way to go!!!


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Phony Marconi]

Yeah....now if we could only get ahold of the real data of the airline-within'-an-airline study where half-full 199-seaters are flown too-many times a day with colourful seats and tv's and overpriced airport food sold aboard and a stupid name, competing head-to-head with a viable, well-financed, morale-driven young airline.

BTW....how's SONG doing?

 

[jetfo]

Funny part is, 550 NM just happens to be the break point for a turbo-prop also. That article take only fuel burn into effect and doesn't compare it to anything else. Kinda one sided. But the again figures dont lie, but liers figure. There is a market for the 50 seat jet, but it is smaller than current day 50 seat opeartion and I mean alot smaller

Read the rest of the article. Even India doesnt want the 50 seat jet.

To make money there has to be a balance between RPM and CSM. The 50 seater CSM is too high for the return.

It's 550km or 300nm!

 

[General Lee]

Phony Baloney,

Wow, great response. Song actually has done great, and we have won many awards. The problem is that we went for the wrong type of customers. We went after Jetblue customers that pay less for tickets, ignoring our best customers that left us and went to United or American. Now, we are changing back to going for the higher paying pax, while putting the right sized planes on the routes against Jetblue. Some routes will still have 757s, but others will actually be right sized with MD88s (like BOS to RSW and BDL to PBI). That means we may actually someday make a profit on those routes. Jetblue at the same time is actually raising prices on many of its routes, and that will make those MD88 flights work, while the 757s will do more transcons to compete with AA/UA (with first class and TVs), and domestic 767s will eventually fly more lucrative INTL routes. Thanks for playing.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[LearLove]

Funny part is, 550 NM just happens to be the break point for a turbo-prop also. That article take only fuel burn into effect and doesn't compare it to anything else. Kinda one sided. But the again figures dont lie, but liers figure. There is a market for the 50 seat jet, but it is smaller than current day 50 seat opeartion and I mean alot smaller

Read the rest of the article. Even India doesnt want the 50 seat jet.

To make money there has to be a balance between RPM and CSM. The 50 seater CSM is too high for the return.

550nm seems alittle long. Maybe if all turboprops were dash8-400's or saab2000's 500 or 550nm would work, but for regular tp's like the dash8-100,200,300's, saab340's and emb-120's it more like 200-250nm. For example in the northeast trips like SYR-PHL or ROC-DCA is about where todays tp's and jets (737/Airbus or e-170/190) meet in CASM. Anything longer than this with some exceptions and the 70-120 seat jet is better.

 

[LearLove]

This ought to make his head spin...

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/05/16/Navigation/254/206572/Fighting+back+regional+jet+manufacturers.html

Valid economics
According to GECAS data, the economics of the 50-seater remain valid, especially when compared with a 70-seat regional jet. Figures supplied by the lessor indicate that with fuel at $0.53/litre ($2.02/USgal), unit costs on a 550km (300nm) trip are almost identical for 50- and 70-seaters at a little under 10¢/km, and total dollar spend drops almost 36% from $3,725 for the larger aircraft to $2,741 for the 50-seater.

i don't think the aircraft (50 ,70 or 90 seaters) should scare GL. Its where they/we decide to place thoes aircraft that should scare all of us. If only places like Delta and US Air mainline hadn't thumbed their noses at them in the early 90's we wouldn't be in half the mess we are in now. Heck keep going back to whoever had the first contract flying (Henson for Piedmont or some ALG commuter for US Air, I believe) if the "mainline" guys back then just said "NO", "if its in our paint then its on our list" then this would all have been a moot point.