Boyd makes good comments and the article is interesting. A lot of it is even true. It's too bad that most of us seem to read Boyd's prognostications one article at a time (and that's part of his strategy). History, however, paints a slightly different picture. Go back in to history and read what Boyd was saying 10 years ago. At that time his "love" for the 50-seat RJ was pretty much the same as his current "love" for the 70-100 seat RJ.
If you read Boyd carefully and frequently you'll soon discover that his guru status is self-proclaimed. He's not really a "brilliant forecaster" of things to come in the future. Boyd waits for things to happen and trends to develop. He then cleverly jumps on the bandwagon and announces to the world, "see, I told you so". Subtle, clever, but not "guru". This guy isn't really a prophet, he's a grandstander who doesn't mind taking credit for what's already happened.
In this article he's right about a lot of things. That's not so hard, he isn't "predicting the future", these things have already happened. At one time (which he does point out) the sky was full of DC-9's and the "regionals" were Ozark, Allegheny (the real one), Piedmont (the real one), Trans Texas, North Central, North East, Huges Air West, Mohawk, Frontier (1), Mackey, etc. All these airlines are history, merged with each other, out of business or absorbed into the larger airlines, many of which have themselves dissappeared.
The DC-9's, BAC-111's and the F-28 all had their "run" and vanished. When first announced, they too were the "wave of the future" and in fact they were, just like the Viscounts and F27's that preceded them. However, the industry couldn't operate 3,000 of them yesterday any more than today's industry can operate 3,000 50-seat RJ's. Most of them outlived their usefulness and were replaced with MD-80 series and the 737 series. Their stand-alone operators dissapeared and were absorbed into the TWA's, NWA's, USAir, CAL, and DAL. EAL, Braniff, TWA, PanAm, all died on the vine by getting to the party too late with too little. The rest reduced their narrow-body fleets and expanded into 757's, 767, and heavy metal. It's the evolution of the species. Don't forget that only "yesterday" in time there were no jets at all. The heavy iron was the L1049G/H, DC-7, B-377. We don't see too many of those now, do we? In fact we don't see any at all.
This is not a stagnant business and it never has been. The DC-3 is historically perhaps the worlds greatest airliner. But, its time is past and we don't use it anymore. That the same thing will eventually happen to the 50-seat RJ is no surprise, should not startle anyone, and does NOT make Boyd into a guru predictor of the future.
Every airplane has a market niche at a given point in time. Markets change, time changes, technology changes and so do airplanes. This isn't new and Boyd isn't a rocket scientist. His big "secret" is that he writes what everybody (with a brain) already knows but just hasn't said out loud. Give him credit for having the courage to open his mouth but don't overlook the fact that he puts his foot in it as often as all the other "gurus". Donald Trump is a guru too (in another industry) but he's also been bankrupt more than once, often lives off his creditors money, and his latest gimmik doesn't really make him an "actor" of star quality. Boyd isn't much different.
The CRJ's and ERJ's are evolving, just like all the other airplanes before them. They were not designed to operate as LCC airliners. In fact the only LCC of the time was SWA and it flew 737's. It still does. There was no AirTran/Value Jet, and no JetBlue, which just turned 5. Time will tell if JetBlue is an ugly duckling that turns into a Swan or grows up to be just another Duck.
Embraer is doing well and their timing is good. They were late with the ERJ series, which gave Bombardier an advantage with the CRJ. The Canadians decided to "stretch" the CRJ because they saw the coming market, and that was the cheapest route. However, "stretched" airframes always reach their limits sooner than new airframes. Embraer couldn't "stretch" the ERJ because it was already a stretched and re-engined Brasilia. So, they built the 170/190 series from scratch. It will be a success, for the timing is right and it is a new airframe.
This isn't much different than what happened at Boeing vs. Douglas. The DC-9 was a "new" airframe. It's been stretched to the max, Douglas has been absorbed by Boeing and there will be no more DC-9 variants in the future. The so called 717 is nothing more than a modernized DC9-30 with new engines. It's history too. Boeing hit it luckier because the 737 was not really a "new" airframe. It was a "shrunk" (instead of stretched) 707. It has now been "stretched" back to a bigger airplane than the original 707 and we call it the 738. I doubt you'll see it "stretched" beyond that.
Canadair will eventually become the "Douglas" of today. The CRJ900 is much like the DC9-90. That's the limit. Either the Canadians build a new airplane or they're out of the market. Embraer has built a new airplane and they lucked out on their timing. It will sell, just like the 737 did.
Boyd is right about the impact of the "low fares" that we are now living with; in two ways. 1) The infra structure of the legacy carriers simply does not allow them to compete in the LCC market. 2) The 50-seat RJ's were not designed for that market and cannot compete in it effectively. He didn't bother to mention the price of oil, but that is a major factor in the CASM of every airplane. RJ's are not exempt.
The "big boys" have 2 choices; change the structure and find a way to stay alive while they do it, or give up and die. No matter how low the CASM of a triple 7 may be, you can't make money flying it from ATL to SAV. You also can't make money operating a 737 1/3 empty from JFK to MCO. Not when JBlue runs a 320 on the same route charging less than $100 bucks. And, not when you have a top heavy infrastructure that supports your long-range international stuff. Even Jet Blue knows that its A320 can't "make it" with the fares they charge on many of the routes they would like to fly tomorrow. Why do you think they're buying the EMB190? It's not because they like the way it looks. The "big guys" are using the small RJ's against the LCC's not because they're stupid, but because that's all they have right now. That too will change.
JBlue doesn't have any A320 FO's making $200 and hour, flying 50 hours hard time with an "A" plan on top of it. They have zero Captains with more than 5-years seniority and even they don't make $200 an hour, don't fly only 50 hours and have no "A" plan.
Today's "legacy" airlines will eventually operate the EMB170/190 series. If they don't, they'll have to give up most of their domestic route structure to the JB's and AirTrans. However, it is not likely that they will operate these airplanes at the mainline. Why not? Because no matter what they pay the pilots, they can't lower the costs of the rest of their infrastructure to match the LCC's. Therefore, they'll either get out of that market or they will operate these airframes at their subsidiaries and subcontractors.
Boyd's right about one two things. 1) It doesn't really matter what you call an airframe. "RJ" is a marketing term, not an airframe nomenclature. That's all it's ever been. There is no such thing as an RJ and there never was. It is a small airliner designed for a specific market. If that market goes away, so will that small airliner. 2) When one market disappears a new market always emerges in its place. That has happened already and it will continue. The EMB170/190 will be the airframe of choice in the early stages of that market. Why? Because it's the only game in town at the moment. Again, it's not rocket science and it doesn't make Boyd a guru. He's merely stating the obvious. It also doesn't make Embraer the "savior" of the industry.
318/319 and baby 73's are not the best airframes. They are being used because they were the only thing available at the time and some folks, like Frontier2 and Indy didn't have the option of waiting.
The socalled RJ was the "wave of the future". Boyd simply neglects to mention that is a 10-year old prediction and one that he made himself, just like all the rest. Ten years is a long-time in the airline business and we now have a new "wave of the future", which is the 70-110 seat market. The 170/190 will ride the top of that wave and the CRJ70/900 will fill in the gaps, for as long as the wave lasts.
Many of today's 50-seaters will be replaced by this new wave and there is nothing unusual about that. Yes, some of them will wind up in Arizona parked next to the DC9's and 737's and Fokkers. Nothing new about that. It is not "doomsday", it is normal evolution.
Those carriers that operate the 170/190 will ride the crest of this wave, whether we call them "mainline" or something else (like "regional"). Those that can't won't "make it big", but some will survive. There's always some room for the little guys.
We drivers simply need to do what we can to ensure that we are sitting in those seats and not somebody else. We don't need to be crying over the "death of the RJ", we need to be flying "the new RJ". Some of us will, some of us won't. Hopefully, there will be enough of both the small and the larger "RJ's" (that don't exist) for all of us to keep our jobs.
