RJs --- Good or Bad... (or ugly)

[Dont call me Shirley]

This is germaine to US since our beloved airline has (BoeingBoy, please correct me if wrong) the greatest percentage of outsourced RJ flying.

http://www.northjersey.com/recreation/143791166_Worldwide_bicycling_tour_keeps_rolling_along.html

Prior to commercial airline deregulation in 1978, airlines typically flew twin-engine, piston-powered interstate aircraft, as well as four-engine intercontinental jet airliners. The traveling public living in smaller cities had limited choices, and would often have to fly multiple carriers when traveling to foreign destinations....

IMHO they have been a terrible thing, especially for mainline employees, regardless of carrier.

 

[BoeingBoy]

This is germaine to US since our beloved airline has (BoeingBoy, please correct me if wrong) the greatest percentage of outsourced RJ flying.

As a percentage of ASM's, you are correct.

Jim

 

[UPNAWAY]

At one time even Herb Kelleher said RJ's were the biggest threat to SWA. He and almost every other airline exec was wrong.

 

[necigrad]

Businesswise, for now, they're a good thing. It's more economical to fly smaller aircraft then larger to a lot of cities. I believe, however, that some of the larger aircraft that would be considered "mainline" are getting efficient enough that this may no longer be the case. It's not that simple though. You've also got to factor in customer service, performance, and appearance. When Mesa (or any other express carrier, wholly owned or not) flies for US, they fly AS US to the passengers. What an express carrier does to a customer isn't seen by the customer as being done by the express carrier. A major airline could insource regional jets, but then once you factor in the higher crew pay is it saving any money? Probably little if any. Bottom line, the RJs aren't the problem, but the way they are operated may be.

 

[SparrowHawk]

For me as a Customer I don't care for them. Neither do I care to fly into MSP and drive 3.5 hours to Fargo, ND. So they are a necessary evil.

From a more global perspective I think when/if fuel goes higher and stays there then I think you really have to question their viability especially the 50 seat ones. The EMB-170 through 195 and their Bombardier competitors still make sense. However I think you might see a return to more advanced turboprops in the not to distant future. (Q400?)

The CRJ's are the worst. I'd rather be on a Dash frankly. Heck even the Beech-1900 in a pinch. They are just NOT customer friendly in any way. Then you get into the whole labor polarization issue with contract carriers which is unhelpful at best.

Bottom line? We hate'em but we need'em.

 

[john john]

US is off the hook on a lot of issues. Stats, liability, employees, maintenance, aircraft. Among other things.
virtual airline

 

[700UW]

Do you realize US reimburses those cost to most of the express carriers?

And they own PSA who flies RJs.

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

Bottom line? We hate'em but we need'em.

I give you, SWA, who doesn't have RJs yet serves many smaller communities. and, they make money doing it. Sort of the elephant in the room when it comes to the commonly held thought that "we need 'em".

 

[SparrowHawk]

I give you, SWA, who doesn't have RJs yet serves many smaller communities. and, they make money doing it. Sort of the elephant in the room when it comes to the commonly held thought that "we need 'em".

Well....... Not exactly. WN flies to 62 cities plus or minis a few. US flies to 200 plus cities plus or minus a few.

I'd bet that of the approximately 140 additional Cities US serves that about 100 of them could NEVER support the WN business model.

 

[john john]

Do you realize US reimburses those cost to most of the express carriers?

And they own PSA who flies RJs.

What cost . I thought contract carriers were a fee-per-departure payment structure. per departure or per flight basis regardless of the number of passengers or the length of the flight with long term agreements

 

[SparrowHawk]

What cost . I thought contract carriers were a fee-per-departure payment structure. per departure or per flight basis regardless of the number of passengers or the length of the flight with long term agreements

John-John,

Some are, some aren't. I don't recall all the particulars but I think it's in the Annual Report or 10K filings. Maybe Boeing Boy can shed more light.

 

[USFlyer]

I'm in the minority I guess. I like the RJs. Easy boarding, curbside valet luggage handling, etc. I prefer the CRJ over the ERJ.

I think the question is why are these being flown by affiliates and not mainline crews. This is a question for others on this board. Back in the day, the old Fokkers were basically RJs. The smaller DC-9s were basically RJs. So the size of the plane isn't really new, just who's flying them.

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

Well....... Not exactly. WN flies to 62 cities plus or minis a few. US flies to 200 plus cities plus or minus a few.

I'd bet that of the approximately 140 additional Cities US serves that about 100 of them could NEVER support the WN business model.

You made your point and good one. WN flies to 72 cities.

However, most of those "extra" cities US flies to are using RJs, who are not restricted from carrying passengers that connect to WN. US provides the infrastructure that WN does not have to. Sounds like a good deal for WN, depending.

 

[BoeingBoy]

John-John,

Some are, some aren't. I don't recall all the particulars but I think it's in the Annual Report or 10K filings. Maybe Boeing Boy can shed more light.

All the RJ's are on fee for departure contracts and any EAS service is on revenue sharing. I think PDT (+ any other non-EAS turboprop) is also revenue sharing but would have to look to be sure.

Jim

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

All the RJ's are on fee for departure contracts and any EAS service is on revenue sharing. I think PDT (+ any other non-EAS turboprop) is also revenue sharing but would have to look to be sure.

Jim

Jim,

Does the mainline still provide unlimited and "free" fueling for the RJ?