Regional Jets (profitable for the system or a strain on the system)

[shon7]

With the advent of regionals and the increased frequency on certain sectors is the system (mostly airports) able to make more $$ in terms of user fees (landing fees, gate leases etc.) or are they a strain on the system.


btw -- this is NOT intended as flame. Am just curious how long before this argument starts to come up.

 

[FN FAL]

With the advent of regionals and the increased frequency on certain sectors is the system (mostly airports) able to make more $$ in terms of user fees (landing fees, gate leases etc.) or are they a strain on the system.


btw -- this is NOT intended as flame. Am just curious how long before this argument starts to come up.

No knock on you as pilot or poster, but take a look at what the FAA wants at O'hare?

 

[JetPilot_Mike]

With the advent of regionals and the increased frequency on certain sectors is the system (mostly airports) able to make more $$ in terms of user fees (landing fees, gate leases etc.) or are they a strain on the system.

Are you doing a research paper for school or something? You'll get one set of answers from the Major's board, and a different set on the Regional's board.

 

[michael707767]

With the advent of regionals and the increased frequency on certain sectors is the system (mostly airports) able to make more $$ in terms of user fees (landing fees, gate leases etc.) or are they a strain on the system.

I actually think the "system" makes less money despite the increased frequency. Landing fees are usually based on aircraft weight, with the fee heavily slanted toward charging the larger aircraft more. For example a 50,000lb aircraft should pay 1/4 the fee of a 200,000lb aircraft, but is does not work out that way. So the system is making less money despite the increased frequency.

 

[Cheesemo]

Regardless of money issues, which would take a CFO to explain, the strain on the system is real. An airport can only support X number of T/O and land events. If those events are being used by 40-70 seat jets vice 150-200 seat jets, fewer customers are being flown for the given time slots. As an earleir post stated, look at O'Hare as a prime example.


Cheers

 

[MLBWINGBORN]

One of the things that will happen sooner or later is system saturation..

With the DOTs forecast of huge increases in domestic travel its only a matter of time.

Look for a reservation/slot system like that which is currently in use in Europe.

At some point there will be a forced shift away from many smaller aircraft requiring many slots/reservations to somewhat larger aircraft.Larger aircraft will carry more passengers per slot in the system..

Those airlines that operate hub and spoke systems will be forced to change sooner than those that fly point to point to second tier airports.

After having said all the above i think the current market place will demand more RJs due to their percieved lower operating costs regardless of long term effects..

The more RJs the quicker the system will reach saturation levels and force the return back to larger seating capacity aircraft..

The cycle of too many seats and not enough people to fill them will eventually reverse and fares will rise due to unmet demand..

Its sorta a good news bad news kinda thing.

Before i hang up my bomber jacket, i think we will see the desert near Goodyear AZ filled with RJs..

Time will tell..

Mike

 

[FlyDouglasJets]

2 RJ's = 1 B737

For a saturated market with a lack of RWYS, look to Japan. In Japan, JAL flies the B747 on domestic 1hr flts.

RJ's are great, for supplying frequency, which in general, produces higher-yield Biz traffic. The down side of course, is you need 2 RJs to fly the same amount of people as 1 Md80 or 737.

Eventually, probably starting with ORD or LGA, the US domestic airports will be re-slotted. E.g. max cap 80 flts/hr for ORD btwn 0700-2200 lcl.

As pax demand increases, and the # flts/hr capped, it's only logical that airlines will be forced to either increase the fleet gauge via the capped hubs (2 RJs gone for 1 737, or 2 737s gone for 1 777), or to fly more hub-bypass (point-point) flts....or do both.

 

[RJones]

MLBWINGBORN,

It's good thinking. In any case, though, the loads would have to
justify the use of the aircraft -- they won't put on big planes if they
fly empty. Bottom line: any leased fleet is going to have higher
financing cost than an owned fleet, and new technology RJs could easily
cost $25mm per copy just like new 737s. SWA is banking on 1) maximum
flying of fully owned planes, 2) strict cost control, and 3) pax
preference for "big" Boeing jet equipment. I don't think they can go
wrong with that. They can afford to fly around with a few empty seats.
These other guys will go broke changing fleets every time the wind
changes, plus they can't even move their own crews around.

RJ

 

[surplus1]

Is it the airspace that will become saturated or the ground space?

If it's ground space, why can't we build new airports, instead of just overcrowding the ones we now have?

When was the last time that a new "major airport" has been constructed anywhere in the US?

 

[Cheesemo]

Airspace is saturated in some areas (NE corridor), but mainly it's the big hub airports and their respective TCAs. The last major airport to be built was DIA in Denver and that was a major knife fight. The Not-in-my-backyard mentality will ensure that ANY site chosen will be protested in court. Secondly, the costs are prohibitive and most city/state governments can't afford them, and the taxpayers won't pass a bond big enough to pay for one. Lastly, the majors have to pony up to make any new plan float. O'Hare is a prime example. Neither AA nor UAL are on board for a third airport in Chicago.

Cheers

 

[michael707767]

Is it the airspace that will become saturated or the ground space?

If it's ground space, why can't we build new airports, instead of just overcrowding the ones we now have?

When was the last time that a new "major airport" has been constructed anywhere in the US?

I agree, the problem is ground space. But, where, near any major city, are you going to find more ground to build an airport?

 

[boxjockey]

With free flight, direct routing, and RVSM aircraft, the airspace really isn't much of a problem at all. Surface area is the problem. O'hare is one of the most poorly designed airports I've ever flown in and out of. Proper airport design can do a lot for traffic. Ultimately more satellite airports are going to have to be expanded with eminent domain laws to meet demand. You probably won't see many new airports built in the next 10-15 years. Just my $.02.


box

 

[peter185]

So what is the best designed airport in the US. My vote is for DFW, or am I mistaken in thinking this?

 

[SWA GUY]

LAX does a great job of getting us to the A/P and out of the A/P. They handle a ton of iron and usually things go very smoothly, even when the wx is down.

My .02

HC

 

[Cheesemo]

DFW is a good design; any airport with simultaneous approach capability is a good design. LAX works so well, IMHO, because the controllers in SOCAL approach are very good at what they do.

 

[MLBWINGBORN]

As seen already at ORD/LGA.There is an upper limit for even the largests of airports using several runways.

While improvments in airspace managment will increase system performance,sooner or later the aircraft has to enter the terminal area and that is where the problems will arise.

We all have experienced what happens when you have more input than thruput at a hub airport.
The days of that type of experience being the norm rather than not is being driven by the startup craze as much as the RJs being touted as the end all of the legacy carriers..
Dumping seats into the system with smaller jets is only going to draw blood from the already bleeding legacy carriers due to the difference in startup costs.As the legacys try to compete at startup ticket levels with their RJs,more financial blood will be spilled.

The two final steps for the the process of air/ground space saturation to be accelerated are:

Delta filing for Chapter 11..

With an legacy airline the size of Delta entering 11 with cash on hand,the rest of the legacys will be forced to follow due to Deltas ability to immeaditly and totally cut costs.Think the size of Delta at C11 prices..OMG!

With either all legacy carriers near or in BK,The unions will be forced to accept more RJs on main line routes.
This..I think..will cause a shift to higher frequency but lower seating capacity on the more profitable shorter routes..
As demand returns..which we all know it will someday soon..we hope..
RJs will be added to keep up with demand due to their lower costs and labor rates..

At some point the tail will begin to wag the dog..

Slot/operation caps will force airlines to return to larger seating capacity aircraft due to the RJs not being able to move enough people per operation/slot.

"Now..What do we do with all theses RJs?"
"Somebody get me that number of that place in Goodyear AZ..quickly!"

And the cycle of airline life will continue.. going full circle once again leaving billions in its wake.
With every CEO wondering "how in the hell did I get talked into buying all these F#!#$%# RJs?".

IMHO the RJs will only be a short term improvment due to lower labor and sticker price.

The future is more in line with say 737-800s or 7e7 aircraft as demand increases with RJs having a much smaller impact than many are forecasting..

Now go outside and play..Its a pretty day and you shouldnt stay inside and read crap like this.

Mike