RJ pilot costs

[stillaboo]

As a general rule, how many regional pilots does it take to do the work of a mainliner on the same route?

For instance, if a mainline 737 or MD-80 size aircraft is replaced by a CRJ-200 flying the same route (but more frequency to keep the total passenger volume the same), if you were to furlough the 2 mainliners, how many RJ pilots would need to be hired to replace them? Obviously more than 2, but would it be more like 6 (CRJ-200 holds about 50 pass, 737 holds about 150) or even more?

I ask b/c I was always under the impression that, if there are enough passengers to support the 73, then it is less efficient to run the RJ. So that explains RJ's on small, feeder routes. But it seems RJ's are now creeping into routes that have the capacity to support a 73. Given that RJ pilots are paid slightly more than mainliners per passenger (There are more RJ drivers bringing in $60,000+ than there are mainliners bringing in $180,000+, right?), how is it still cheaper to run the RJ?

I'm sure I'm missing something huge and easy here, but what is it?

-Boo!

Please note I am not advocating replacing mainline with RJ. I think the opposite should be encouraged, if only so I might someday be the mainliner.

 

[bvt1151]

I ask b/c I was always under the impression that, if there are enough passengers to support the 73, then it is less efficient to run the RJ. So that explains RJ's on small, feeder routes. But it seems RJ's are now creeping into routes that have the capacity to support a 73. Given that RJ pilots are paid slightly more than mainliners per passenger (There are more RJ drivers bringing in $60,000+ than there are mainliners bringing in $180,000+, right?), how is it still cheaper to run the RJ?

I'm sure I'm missing something huge and easy here, but what is it?

Yes you are missing something huge. In airline economics there is an equation called the "Frequency S Curve." Briefly, it says the higher the frequency, the more people will fly.

For instance:

If you have 150 passengers that fly ABC-XYZ, and you have a 150 seat 737, sounds like a perfect fit, right? Not quite. If you put four RJ's on the route, with the increased frequency, you will be moving at least 170 people.
Its not that it is necessarily cheaper to run an RJ than a 737 on that route, but the increase in revenue from increased frequency, and other factors RJ's bring, far outweighs the cost difference.

Another benefit to the RJ is that you can connect a smaller city to multiple hubs. Instead of Delta flying a 737 from CVG-SBN twice a day, along with turboprop feeders no bigger than 30 seats, they now fly seven RJ's to CVG and three to ATL. When SBN lost mainline service the city was ecstatic. Not only did they increase the total number of seats going out of the city, but they doubled their choices of destinations and tripled their frequencies to choose from.

So is it cost effective to replace a 737 with RJ's? Probably not.

Is it profit effective? Absolutely.

On the flip-side, if frequency is the answer, shouldn't every route be RJ's with 40-50 flights a day? ATC issues aside, the RJ would still not be logical. The "S" curve starts to level out at 10 flights a day (by that I mean after 10 flights, the increase in passengers for every increase in frequency is minimal). That means if you have 1800 people traveling between ABC-XYZ a day, put ten 200-seaters on it. ATL-MIA is a good example. Delta has nine flights daily, on nothing smaller than a 757.
Of course this isn't just an RJ issue. MD-80's replace 757's in the quest for frequency as well.
With today's industry taking a pounding like it is, airline managers have to make the red numbers smaller and the black numbers bigger. If this means replacing 737/MD-80's with RJ's, then thats business. Unfortunately, nostalgia has little effect in the business world; Ask Pan Am.

 

[CRJ puppy]

Excellent post...and quite correct.

 

[Palerider957]

An excellent post indeed. To take it one step further, RJ's are also a tactical weapon, in that you can keep the frequency but lower the number of seats to a given city if you choose. This allows you to command a higher fare per seat--until your competition steps in.

 

[stillaboo]

Re: Re: RJ pilot costs

Thanks for the info 'bvt1151'. I was aware of the frequency S curve concept, but needed a serious refresher in the specfics.

The "S" curve starts to level out at 10 flights a day (by that I mean after 10 flights, the increase in passengers for every increase in frequency is minimal).

Is this curve relevant to the total loads b/t a city pair, or specific to one carrier/codeshare's load (ie if UA and AA both account for 5 flights b/t NYC and ORD, is the S curve cost benefit exceeded if either UA or AA adds another flight, or only if each add 6 more?). Assuming it is the total flight #'s b/t city pairs, then why for instance do most carriers operate 76's, 77's, and 300's b/t JFK and London if the S curve would dictate the ideal flight strategy to be 10 747-400 flights daily? Inefficiencies in the marketplace, or a more complex issue than one cares to get into on the board for sake of length?

Just curious, nothing more.
-Boo!

 

[bvt1151]

Re: Re: Re: RJ pilot costs

There are almost an infinite different type of code-shares, most of which I'm unfamiliar with the details of. However, most (if not all) codeshares are an attempt to either increase frequency or city-pairs (or at least create the illusion of doing that). The feeder codeshares exist solely to bring passengers to fill up the mainline airplanes. Thats where my knowledge of codeshares ends. It all depends on the details of the agreement, I guess.

As far as international flying and frequency, all free-market economics go out the window. The S-curve doesn't totally apply to Atlantic flying because three things (that I can think of anyways.)
1. Range requirements - the only aircraft capable of that distance are the large ones. Not worth throwing another 300 seats on a route for the 10% increase in pax (enter 7E7?).
2. One-way roads - the atlantic routes are mostly a one-way system. Westbound in the morning, Eastbound at night. Limits the frequencies available.
3. ATC congestion - kinda self-explainatory.

Those are just operational reasons. When you start getting into the five freedoms and blah blah blah, it gets much more complicated than I can remember. I'm not up on my international airline economics, so most of this is speculation anyways. I could be totally wrong, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I am.