Less RJ flying in the future?

[VMA214]

"Sure, I don't like flying 70+ people around for $24K as an FO, but thats world that was created."


You have got to be kidding me...THIS is what you think you are worth??? And for 8 years no less...

No wonder the Management of these companies look at us, the pilots as a bunch of idiots.

 

[AA717driver]

There's plenty of blame to go around. WE--all of us have screwed up the system.

The arrogant a$$holes who thought they were too good to fly a "little" airplane and the punks who want to stick it to the mainline pilots because they don't say hi in the terminal.

The airlines love RJ's because they've used them to take flying from mainline. They love RJ's because they hire low-timers who are hungry for jet time (who among us would have rather started in a E-145 than a Be-99?) and will work for crap pay. They love RJ's because it divides us and makes it easier to perpetuate the current low pay and lousy workrules for BOTH groups.

We both aspire to the same goal--good pay and bennies and good workrules. Whether you fly 744's, MD80's, E170's or CRJ's, you just want to be happy and make a buck.

Management wants you to be miserable and make half-a-buck.

RJ's have their place. Turboprops have their place. All of us have an interest in creating jobs at the mainline level so EVERYONE can move up the food chain.TC

 

[Noserider76]

The one thing that alot of folks forget about is what else could cause the death of RJ's.

The bottom line is that there are more people flying than ever and the total number of large airports hasnt changed in this country in more than a decade.
If you started to build one today..you wouldnt get the first paying passenger to the gate for nearly 20 years.

No..It wont be pay..It will be the need to increase throughput with the current airport/airspace system.

The increase in passenger travel will continue to increase the pressure to have slot times at ALL large airports.Once that happens..The ONLY way to get more people in the system will be planes with more seats per available slot.

My guess is that anything less than about 100 seats wont even be allowed to operate at a slot controlled airport.

With the FAA already making noise about the airlines cutting back on the over stuffed schedules its only a matter of time.
Things like having twice the number of hourly departures scheduled during the first push or late afternoon push is gonna stop.

In order to move the same number of bodies per hour you need more seats with people in them.

So..The less than 100 seat RJ is a dead man walking.Its going to die for all the right reasons and those are the same reasons we all knew in the beggining.They are too expencive to operate per leg..And soon..They will be too expencive to operate per slot.

Its just a matter of time.

I agree with you but why make it 100 seats? Why not 150? Those pesky little 130 seat airplanes will be clogging up the system before you know it.

You are right though. The solution to the total lack of attention to the building of airports and aviation infrastructure will have to be a dramatic increase in guage and decrease in frequency at the busiest fields. Passenger traffic will double over the next deade or so and Congress and local government can't seem to get even the smallest things done these days. Small cities and their congressional reps will complain that they don't have direct service to LGA but there will be no other choice.

 

[BoilerUP]

There's plenty of blame to go around. WE--all of us have screwed up the system.

The arrogant a$$holes who thought they were too good to fly a "little" airplane and the punks who want to stick it to the mainline pilots because they don't say hi in the terminal.

The airlines love RJ's because they've used them to take flying from mainline. They love RJ's because they hire low-timers who are hungry for jet time (who among us would have rather started in a E-145 than a Be-99?) and will work for crap pay. They love RJ's because it divides us and makes it easier to perpetuate the current low pay and lousy workrules for BOTH groups.

We both aspire to the same goal--good pay and bennies and good workrules. Whether you fly 744's, MD80's, E170's or CRJ's, you just want to be happy and make a buck.

Management wants you to be miserable and make half-a-buck.

RJ's have their place. Turboprops have their place. All of us have an interest in creating jobs at the mainline level so EVERYONE can move up the food chain.TC

Welcome back, TC...hope training went well for ya'.

Spot-on...once again.

 

[49W]

It looks like simple supply and demand to me. You have a limited supply of seats in the current infrastructure, and an ever increasing demand for those seats. It seems the most logical way to solve this problem is to raise the price on those seats to the point where demand is lowered closer to supply. I know this is an overly simple theory and there are other variables involved and airlines fighting for market share, but it makes sense to me.

 

[cynic]

Its demand

The current demand for seats exists ONLY at the current price point. If you increase the price some of the demand will drop.

You guys would probably be better off with fewer planes, passengers and pilots because the pilots would be making more money.

Thats not necessarily the case for the airline's total profit (as opposed to profit margin) They might make more money with lots of less profitable flights. Frankly I don't know.

In other words... its not as simple as just raising the price $5.00 a ticket.

What would really fix the industry problems would be for big government to do one of two things.

1) Step in a regulate the routes and prices with the philosophy that travel is vital, just like electricity and it needs to be regulated.
2) Step out and stop bailing out broken companies. Let the big airlines go under.

The sort of regulated industry we have gets us the worst of a free market and the worst of a socialist regulated one.

 

[IronCityBlue]

True cynic, but I don't think it can be assumed that a 5 dollar fare hike will result in a massive reduction in demand. In the nation's busiest airports, I don't think it would change demand one bit. Yet airlines are afraid to do it, because theoretically all the pax will rush over to the 5 dollar cheaper airline. In theory, of course they will. In reality, when all other airlines out of those airports are operating at full capacity with demand increasing daily, there's no where for them to go. 5 bucks per head isn't going to change anyone's travel plans especially when there is no one else to fly on because everyone is full (not including Sept and October, of course).

 

[aerotang]

i dont see how leg length has anything to do with it. are you going to tell me that they should fly a 737 into a smaller airport and load it up with the standard 30 -47 people per flight just because its more than 2 hours to get to the base.

 

[sabreliner]

To start out, the RJ's should be removed from hub to hub flying. For example, if AA can only justify a 40 seat EMB between LGA and DCA, than maybe AA shouldn't be flying LGA to DCA. Doesn't make much sense to delay the 134 people on my -88 so we can follow the 10 that AA has on the EMB by 20 mins in trail...

Same thing can be said about Delta using CRJ's between JFK and BOS, or any other airline's hub to hub situation.

 

[BoilerUP]

For example, if AA can only justify a 40 seat EMB between LGA and DCA, than maybe AA shouldn't be flying LGA to DCA.

I thought AMR only used Eagle for a shuttle-like operation because they didn't have enough slots at DCA to support mainline aircraft?