Why So Many RJ's? Help Me Understand?

[SolidCactus]

Ok so my question is this... Why does US (and the other legacy carriers) run so many RJ's and Q 400's? Wouldn't it make more sense and possibly cost less to replace some of these with 737's?

Lets take my home airport for example. AVP (Scranton PA). I'm taking a random day... Saturday June 21. We have 3 RJ flights in the morning to PHL. Basically 6, 8 and 10 AM. Now here are 150 seats, basically taking off and landing SIX times. These RJ's fly back and forth. Wouldnt it be cheaper to fly one 737 than three RJs?

In the afternoon we have a 4, 9 and 11. Same deal, and then the 11 would basically park overnight.

Wouldnt it make a lot more sense to have larger aircraft park overnight at smaller airports? It has to cost less???

This doesnt even take into account our CLT flights...

There has to be a reason that this system is the way it is??? Help me understand it?

 

[Itestwell]

Ok so my question is this... Why does US (and the other legacy carriers) run so many RJ's and Q 400's? Wouldn't it make more sense and possibly cost less to replace some of these with 737's?

Lets take my home airport for example. AVP (Scranton PA). I'm taking a random day... Saturday June 21. We have 3 RJ flights in the morning to PHL. Basically 6, 8 and 10 AM. Now here are 150 seats, basically taking off and landing SIX times. These RJ's fly back and forth. Wouldnt it be cheaper to fly one 737 than three RJs?

In the afternoon we have a 4, 9 and 11. Same deal, and then the 11 would basically park overnight.

Wouldnt it make a lot more sense to have larger aircraft park overnight at smaller airports? It has to cost less???

This doesnt even take into account our CLT flights...

There has to be a reason that this system is the way it is??? Help me understand it?

Doesn't this have to do with the contracts US has with Mesa? Essentially, US is stuck with the RJs until the contracts run out?

 

[tadjr]

3 RJS = 1 Mainline, but many customers lose out over the cut in frequencies. Maybe some dont want to go at 6 or 8 and prefer to sleep in and do 10. If we only ran the 6am, then noon, we'd lose some people to other carriers that want the 10 and run several flights. OTOH, with cuts coming, people are going to have to make choices and there are going to be fewer flight times to chose from. The old days of fly anything and everything just to offer service is coming to an end at a city near you.

 

[N965VJ]

Ain’t it funny how the cost savings have come around and bit the airlines in the rear?

 

[AtlanticBeach]

One of but not the only reason for a 50 seat RJ to even exist is that it was designed to be a "Scope Buster" that would allow the Majors to fly to smaller cities more profitably. In the days of relatively cheap fuel the Labor savings more than offset the increased fuel consumption. Now I'm guessing the flight crew could work for free and they would still be more expensive at current prices for Jet fuel.

When a 737 flight deck crew was making $300K with benefits and fuel was $30 a barrel, a 50 seat RJ with a junior crew was cost-effective. The current economics eliminate that advantage and further increase CASM due to many other factors.

 

[twoturnin]

The "weedeaters" should be the first to go----dont think the CPSM are very good on those things---Boeing Boy I think has shot these numbers out before----the D-8's CAN haul bags and pax----back in F100 days the K- - - station manger was running crew to motel and told of "weedeater" captain just tickled that they were getting all the new flying to them----{like PINEY said scopebusters}--manager told him "kid do you want to fly real airliners or peashooters the rest of your career--the kid shut up. My .02$ Two

 

[cynic]

Doesn't this have to do with the contracts US has with Mesa? Essentially, US is stuck with the RJs until the contracts run out?

These are air whiskey flights into PHL, but US has the same problem with long term contracts there.

 

[sharktooth]

When a 737 flight deck crew was making $300K with benefits and fuel was $30 a barrel, a 50 seat RJ with a junior crew was cost-effective. The current economics eliminate that advantage and further increase CASM due to many other factors.

A 737 flight deck crew, making $300K, with benefits was costing the company $2.50 per available seat, per hour. A 50 seat RJ cost the company $2.00 per seat, per hour. With RJ operating costs per mile much higher than a 737, I am not so certain how crew costs figured into the mix.

The 737 has much better margins as far as fuel, range and payload capabilities.

I feel there were other, over-riding factors for choosing an RJ vs a 737 or DC-9. I think that cheap money led to relatively lucrative deals for airlines, buying new airframes, selling to leasing companies with rather rich lease-back terms (six million dollar zero-time airframe fully up to FAR DC-9 vs twenty four million dollar brand new foreign built airframe that carries less payload not nearly as far, somehow, I think there was a loophole or two being exploited there - I am certain Johnny O. could explain it). :huh:

 

[gaucho99]

Specifically for US Airways....we have too many RJ's. But without them, we would not even be in existence. It was part of the agreement that financed the merger between US and HP and without that financing, neither airline would exist today. So, it depends on how you look at it. You can say they are killing us by having them or you can say we would have died long ago without them.

 

[SS255]

SolidCactus, I knew the second I read the thread title, without even looking at who started it.....that it was you!!!

But you raise a very good point. AVP used to have at least 4 or 5 mainline fights a day to PIT and PHL, in addition to a few RJ's. Now it's all RJ's to PHL and CLT. I'm sure this is not the only US station which has gone all RJ.

 

[sharktooth]

Specifically for US Airways....we have too many RJ's. But without them, we would not even be in existence.

What?

Perhaps you did not see my post above where US could have had zero-time DC-9s for $6 million but opted for $24 million emb. carrying less passengers shorter distances.

I would suggest that the DC-9 option would have placed US on much more firm financial footing than now exists, but then, some executives would be a lot poorer now, too.

 

[Rico]

It's mainly because the quality of the mainline product slipped so far, that it was akin to riding on a Greyhound Bus. At that point, people began to care less if they are placed in a minivan... (at least not enough to quit flying) As long as that ws the case, then mainline flying was ripe for displacement.

It also has to do with the fact that with the smaller jets, they could now encroach upon the established markets of the competition. A small jet, with lower overhead could make inroads into markets that would have required too much cost to expand into with the mainline product.

Now US Airways did not do that as much, if anything their response was to counter RJ growth by the competition, with Mainline shrinkage and replacement with outsourced RJ's. This was done mostly because it was the only obvious method to a mentally challenged management suite to reduce "some" costs... (salaries, equipment) The short stage lengths and congested airspace that US Airways operated in made it more difficult to fend off competitors able to utilize better Hubs or direct routing between destinations.

So now what...?

Well, ask yourself why most of these carriers are deciding not to merge.

Because they are looking at the numbers, and realize that the best time to merge has already passed. Now it is a matter of waiting for the weaker carriers to go into bankruptcy, and then "Easternize" the remaining assets of value.

That will not include the current contracts for fleets of 50 seaters (nor the survival of any wholly owned subsidiaries flying RJ's). If anything, many of the small jet airlines will also suffer the same liquidation fate. Only some of the larger RJ's will be picked up by the small number of remaining "regional" vendors (but not the people) to service the surviving large carrier (yes, there will no longer be multiple carriers in many markets).

So that will take care of your "too many RJ's" problem. Just give it a little more time.

 

[cynic]

What?

Perhaps you did not see my post above where US could have had zero-time DC-9s for $6 million but opted for $24 million emb. carrying less passengers shorter distances.

I would suggest that the DC-9 option would have placed US on much more firm financial footing than now exists, but then, some executives would be a lot poorer now, too.

Considering the price of fuel, it's a good thing that they didn't go with the DC9s.

 

[sharktooth]

Considering the price of fuel, it's a good thing that they didn't go with the DC9s.

Anyone know the fuel burn difference between the two aircraft and relate that to lb. per n.mile per available seat?

Then compare to the difference between financing $6 million and $24 million.

 

[Singleflyer]

Up until recently NW always claimed the of 9s were money makers because they owned them outright for years, and they extra fuel burn made up for the lease payment. ABut that was when oil was about $60.00 a barrel.