Goodbye Regionals?

[TurboAWD]

If the industry was going to mostly all smaller aircraft does anybody think Boeing would be building the 7E7? Don't they do market research before taking on a project like that? Not being scarcastic! Just an observation.

Take a look at the 7E7 range. It IS a small jet, relative to the A330/340, B747 that it can replace. The 7E7 is the point to point solution for Int'l flying, as opposed to the A380, which is the extreme version of hub-hub flying.

To the person who thinks Boeing made a mistake not making a superjumbo, I have to dissagree. Boeing didn't think that there was no market for superjumbos, just not enough for two competing designs to recoupe the MASSIVE development costs. And they probably figured no matter what they did, Airbus was going to build one. Which puts them in a great position to develop the 7E7, and Airbus will have nothing to compare with that for a while.

Lastly, I agree, RJ's are being widely mis-deployed. The longer routes need ariplanes like the EMB170/190 or B717, and the shorter stuff needs props (DHC-8 2/3/400's). They are also used to much to feed hubs instead of bypass hubs.

 

[upndsky]

New aircraft development takes lots of money and time, so manufacturers like Boeing or Airbus are limited to one or two new projects (ie. 7E7, A380) and updating/refining existing ones (ie. 777, A318/319/320/321). They have pretty much conceded the RJ market to Bombardier and Embraer. Boeing and Airbus have tried to tout the 717 and 318, respectively, as large "regional" jets, but have met with very limited success, primarily due to scope restrictions (at least in the US).

Just because Boeing has decided to focus on its bread-and-butter market (the 200-400 seaters) does not mean that smaller RJs are on the way out. There is a line in the sand with Boeing and Airbus on one side and Bombardier and Embraer on the other. That line may get wiped away one day, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

[House_X]

I think the 7E7 is really not that big of a deal...no big leaps in technology or concepts. I was very excited about the Sonic Cruiser...that would have put Boeing back on top as a world leader in civil aviation...if Boeing didn't waste profits going after projects like the joint-strike fighter, they could have developed the Sonic Cruiser.

Contrary, Airbus is taking risks and is focusing on it's core market customer, the airline industry...the A380 is selling well. I think airlines will look at the 7E7 and see that it's efficiency vs procurement costs does not justify it's purchase when compared to the A330. I'm sure Airbus is working on an airplane to counter the 7E7...possibly an improved version of the A330.

I want to see Boeing back on top...but they need to put civil avaition back into it's core focus and take bolder risks.

 

[House_X]

[

 

[mooser]

Re: Bass Ackwards...?

I don't think that spells the end for Regionals, if anything the complete opposite. The industry appears to be headed that way: More frequent regional flights means the same number of seats available to the public at more convenient times. I think someday we'll see nothing but GIANT airplanes flying from LAX-ORD, etc., and everything else being run with RJ's. Unfortunately that spells the end of the $300,000/YR airline captain guy we all signed up to be.

Never say Never

Mooser

 

[Snakum]

135 air taxi operations of the 70's are now 121 regionals today...and I still won't ride on them no matter how much the turd got chocolate covered in the push for "one level of safety".

Are you seriously suggesting that Comair, COEX, ACA, et al are unsafe?

"Surely you can't be serious?"

Minh

 

[Ganja60Heavy]

Regional / Major

Dudes:

Let's keep the big picture slightly in focus:

-->Go back in time 20 years.......

"Regional" was an invention of deregulation when turboprops fed the hubs. Pilots flew for nothing for a few years to build time.

"Scope" was not intended to limit regional flying, since there was little threat that management would buy 1000 Brazilias and replace 767's.

-->Now consider the present:

"Regional" means B-scale pay to do Major-type work in planes restricted in size/number by "scope" clauses. Scope has been re-interpreted now that regional planes are growing in size and speed, and spreading their low-wages into Major terrirory.


The regional-major dichotomy is manifest as fighting among pilot groups, which is the perfect diversion for management as they persue their agenda. Management does not give a rat's ass who flies their planes. The result should be clear:

Weakening of pilot unions and PERMANENT lower wages for pilots.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

While 911 put the forecast back a few years, the FAA expected domestic traffic to doube by 2010. You can't do all that with RJs...you will need larger aircraft. Even with RVSM the system will not be able to accomodate thousands of 50-seaters. The future is NOT smaller aircraft...they have their place in the big picture but aren't the answer for everything.

The real obstacle to moving to 1000's of RJ's isn't airspace, it's ground space. There aren't enough runways at most of the large airports as it is now. If you take away that one 757 flight running between DEN and ORD and replace it with 4 CRJ200's you now need either 4 runways at both airports that can be used simultaneously or you aren't departing the same amount of people at the same time. How many new runways have opened at hub airports in the last couple years? Detroit is the only one I can think of.
It's just like so many other things in America. Yea, I want disposable diapers for my kid but don't you dare put a landfill in my county. Cheaper gas please, but don't build any more refineries to produce more gas, and no I'm not getting rid of my Escalade. I want cheap airfare and convienent times of departure. But I don't want an airport built near my house.
Those perks have a price. If you aren't going to pay it you shouldn't get the perks.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

While 911 put the forecast back a few years, the FAA expected domestic traffic to doube by 2010. You can't do all that with RJs...you will need larger aircraft. Even with RVSM the system will not be able to accomodate thousands of 50-seaters. The future is NOT smaller aircraft...they have their place in the big picture but aren't the answer for everything.

The real obstacle to moving to 1000's of RJ's isn't airspace, it's ground space. There aren't enough runways at most of the large airports as it is now. If you take away that one 757 flight running between DEN and ORD and replace it with 4 CRJ200's you now need either 4 runways at both airports that can be used simultaneously or you aren't departing the same amount of people at the same time. How many new runways have opened at hub airports in the last couple years? Detroit is the only one I can think of.
It's just like so many other things in America. Yea, I want disposable diapers for my kid but don't you dare put a landfill in my county. Cheaper gas please, but don't build any more refineries to produce more gas, and no I'm not getting rid of my Escalade. I want cheap airfare and convienent times of departure. But I don't want an airport built near my house.
Those perks have a price. If you aren't going to pay it you shouldn't get the perks.