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

[BoeingBoy]

Jim,

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

Depends on what you mean by unlimited - for flying the designated routes fuel is a "pass through" cost that US ultimately pays. There is probably a certain amount for ferry flying fuel that US pays - to/from maintenance bases for example. There are other "pass through" costs as well - hull insurance and landing fees come immediately to mind. Seems like PDT is taking over more and more of the ground work at smaller stations, so the RJ providers would have that covered for them. The big advantage to US is having the RJ providers finance the airplanes. That makes it somewhat easier to change the Express fleet as needed without being stuck with a bunch of RJ's that don't have a potential buyer, as AA is finding now with Eagle.

Jim

 

[SS255]

I was in a mock-up of the Bombardier C Series when I toured the Bombardier factory last September. The cabin was spacious and comfortable, and the aircraft will supposedly be very fuel efficient. I'd love to see US park their CRJ 200's and Dash's in favor of some spanking' new C Series RJ's.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The C-series is really built for the smaller end of the mainline aircraft market - 100-150 seats - and not as a small RJ replacement.

Jim

 

[SparrowHawk]

The C-series is really built for the smaller end of the mainline aircraft market - 100-150 seats - and not as a small RJ replacement.

Jim

Thus the spaciousness and comfort.

I've flown as many as 700 miles in a Dash-8 and in all honesty they are just fine. Now this was an Air Canada version so it was clean and quiet and didn't sound like parts would fall off it unlike a certain US Carrier.

Based strictly on critter comforts the EMB-190 is one of the sweetest planes out there, even in the US configuration they are a splendid ride. To me they seem like the perfect plane for the short haul up and down the east coast US was noted for.

Just curious what the cost differential between say a 737 and and a 190?

 

[Jester]

That makes it somewhat easier to change the Express fleet as needed without being stuck with a bunch of RJ's that don't have a potential buyer, as AA is finding now with Eagle.

And the situation is particularly bad for the contracted express carrier as they are relying upon one airline or maybe a small number of airlines for their survival. Anyone recall Altantic Coast Airline losing its agreement with United, and desperately attempted to re-invent itself as the short lived Independence Air? Or Mesa unable to place its CRJ-200s and J.O. deciding to use them in a rather odd location in Hawaii as Go! to fly the short-hop inter island routes? Both of them were too reliant upon what would be only a half dozen airlines or be stuck parking a lot of metal in the desert.

So Analyzes Jester.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Just curious what the cost differential between say a 737 and and a 190?

Purchase price - probably somewhere in the $15 -20 million range for the E190 vs 737-700/319 but that's a pure guess since the price paid is kept pretty confidential. Of course, the 195 is a closer competitor to the 737-700/319 than the 190. The 190 is closer to, but still smaller than, the 737-600/318.

All else being equal the smaller plane would have lower segment costs but as part of a fleet would introduce costs that a 737-7 or 319 wouldn't have.

Jim

 

[PullUp]

Thus the spaciousness and comfort.

I've flown as many as 700 miles in a Dash-8 and in all honesty they are just fine. Now this was an Air Canada version so it was clean and quiet and didn't sound like parts would fall off it unlike a certain US Carrier.

Based strictly on critter comforts the EMB-190 is one of the sweetest planes out there, even in the US configuration they are a splendid ride. To me they seem like the perfect plane for the short haul up and down the east coast US was noted for.

Just curious what the cost differential between say a 737 and and a 190?

Management has been quoted saying that the 190's are saving 10 million/year in operating costs compared to the airbus on the BOS-LGA shuttle flying.
Very efficient fuel sipper. Fast: 320/.82M. And no middle seats! Airways should have 100 of them.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Since the so-called maintenance holiday on new airplanes should be ending, that's almost all pay - $30+ per hour (all employee costs) adds up pretty fast.

Jim

 

[SparrowHawk]

Since the so-called maintenance holiday on new airplanes should be ending, that's almost all pay - $30+ per hour (all employee costs) adds up pretty fast.

Jim

Interesting! So now we will see a more apples to apples cost comparison?

Also someone told me and I read that the original RJ's were configured at the 45 or 50 seat mark in order to defeat the "Scope" claises at many airlines. Any truth to that?

I also recall that Siefel wanted huge concession from ALPA to allow many many more RJ's. There is a body of evidence out there that suggests that much of the RJ development was to evade scope? Any truth to that?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Interesting! So now we will see a more apples to apples cost comparison?

Except that since no airline breaks costs or CASM down by city/hub/fleet type/etc it's still a bunch of guesses.

Also someone told me and I read that the original RJ's were configured at the 45 or 50 seat mark in order to defeat the "Scope" claises at many airlines. Any truth to that?

I've heard that about AA's first ERJ's - they were configured for less than 50 seats. DL at least did, and may still have some 45-seat CRJ's at Comair, but I have no idea if that was to stay within mainline scope or just the way the early CRJ-100's were configured.

I also recall that Siefel wanted huge concession from ALPA to allow many many more RJ's.

The east contract allows 400+ RJ's. There's never been that many - Siegel didn't stay around that long plus fuel prices started making the 50-seaters non-viable by 2004 or so.

Most "network" carriers had gotten out of the smaller mainline equipment well before the small RJ's came along - the under 100 seats and especially under 80 seats. US, with the F28's, had some of the last "RJ's" being used. I honestly think that a part of the RJ growth came from the 90's when just about everyone was making money and growing. The RJ's were replacing mostly smaller turboprops and mainline pilots turned their noses up at flying "those little jets" at wages commensurate with their seating capacity. Unfortunately, once that camel got it's nose under the tent there was no turning back.

Jim

 

[necigrad]

Also someone told me and I read that the original RJ's were configured at the 45 or 50 seat mark in order to defeat the "Scope" claises at many airlines. Any truth to that?

Wouldn't surprise many I would think. I'm pretty sure the 737-800 was right sized for WNs FA crewing, and I know the B1900 has 19 seats and a closet to avoid the FA required at 20 pax. It's no leap from there to conclude that a manufacturer would consider union contracts as well. You've also got to remember that individual airlines can configure their aircraft differently too.

 

[gabby]

Except that since no airline breaks costs or CASM down by city/hub/fleet type/etc it's still a bunch of guesses.



I've heard that about AA's first ERJ's - they were configured for less than 50 seats. DL at least did, and may still have some 45-seat CRJ's at Comair, but I have no idea if that was to stay within mainline scope or just the way the early CRJ-100's were configured.



The east contract allows 400+ RJ's. There's never been that many - Siegel didn't stay around that long plus fuel prices started making the 50-seaters non-viable by 2004 or so.

Most "network" carriers had gotten out of the smaller mainline equipment well before the small RJ's came along - the under 100 seats and especially under 80 seats. US, with the F28's, had some of the last "RJ's" being used. I honestly think that a part of the RJ growth came from the 90's when just about everyone was making money and growing. The RJ's were replacing mostly smaller turboprops and mainline pilots turned their noses up at flying "those little jets" at wages commensurate with their seating capacity. Unfortunately, once that camel got it's nose under the tent there was no turning back.

Jim

I just don't understand why you believe that 50 seat airplanes are inefficient. Show me some numbers that will prove a 737 is cheaper than an RJ.
Proof that fuel really isn't an option is that US Airways just made all our 70 seaters 63 seaters with first class.
Now the 70 seaters cost more than the 50's to operate.

People may dislike small airplanes but when i get a dead head i would rather sit in an RJ. I know i won't get jammed in a middle seat. Or have to fight for overhead space. I like the valet service for my bags. Plus the pressure controllers are a lot more friendly on a CRJ than a 737.
Sure we get complaints about our small airplanes. But really? Do you really expect a 737 out of AGS? or FLO? or CHA? or .... name your small town.
If we had 6 737 flights a day out of FAY then we would all be out of a job in no time.
RJ's make sense because the company has more flexibility with pricing and they are all 2000 MY or newer. A MD80 can't come close to the fuel efficiency. Nor a 737.
And......what mainline pilot wants to fly 6 legs a day and never leave N.C.?

 

[BoeingBoy]

I just don't understand why you believe that 50 seat airplanes are inefficient. Show me some numbers that will prove a 737 is cheaper than an RJ.

As you touch on further in your post, cost (or efficiency) means a couple of things - usually contradicting each other.

First, there is CASM, the metric used across the industry to compare airlines cost structures - how much does it cost airline A to move 1 seat 1 mile? Is that more or less than it is for airline B? In general, barring advances in technology, the more seats an airplane has the lower it's CASM. Not always 100% accurate for a number of reasons, but a good rule of thumb.

Second, there's segment cost - how much does it cost to fly airplane X from A to B and is it more or less than flying airplane Y from A to B. In general, the smaller and slower the plane the lower the segment cost.

Rule of thumb 1 (ROT1) says that everyone should fly the biggest planes they can get - eliminate everything smaller. ROT2 says that everyone should fly the smallest planes they can get - every segment would be flown at very low cost. Obviously you can't do both at the same time, so....

That is when the market being served comes into play. There's not enough traffic every day between AVL and CLT to justify flying 777's between the two - no matter how low the CASM may be you end up paying to move an awful lot of seats you can't sell so why pay to move those extra seats. So you use a 50 or 70 seat RJ. It costs more to move each seat, but it costs less to fly from AVL to CLT (segment cost) because there's a lot fewer seats plus you sell most of the seats so don't pay to move a lot of empty seats. In other words, you use the plane with the lowest segment cost that will carry the people that want to fly that segment.

On the other hand, you don't use a CRJ-200 for PHL-LHR even though the segment cost would be lower than using an A330. Using the RJ means leaving people behind because there weren't enough seats to sell, which means lower revenues. And who going to want to make 3-4-5 fuel stops on the way - you'd end up flying empty CRJ-200's to LHR.

In other words, there isn't a single perfect airplane for all markets. So network carriers use a variety of airplane types and do the best they can to match the airplane to the market - using the smallest plane the market will support to lower segment cost while at the same time using the biggest plane that the market will support to lower CASM. Then you have to throw the mission into the equation - primarily by using airplane that have the range to fly between the cities you want to serve with non-stop service.

What's hurting the 50-seaters is the price of fuel. US Express, taken all together, has a CASM of ~23 cents last year - it cost ~23 cents to move each Express seat 1 mile. Since that's the average for all the Express fleet, from under 50 seats to 80-some seats, the 50-seat RJ probably have a CASM over 25-30 cents. That CASM has to be covered by revenue, so enough people have to pay enough for their ticket to cover that CASM for whatever portion of their itinerary it involves. For comparison, mainline has a CASM of ~13 cents. So the cost of fuel is driving up the CASM and segment costs of the small RJ's faster than the bigger planes which have more seats to spread the extra cost over. So someone going AVL-CLT-LGW would be on an RJ to CLT (the lowest cost way to fly them), then get on an A330 to LGW (the lowest cost way to fly them on that segment).

Jim

 

[gabby]

I appreciate the time taken to spell it out. Not for me but everyone. Being a regional pilot we are constantly bombarded with derogatory comments regarding regional jets. They are a necessary because of your reasons above. I too would love to have them on the US Airways certificate and have them flown by mainline pilots. That ship has sailed long ago. The best thing we can do right now is hold scope and not allow any more jets to be flown at regional carriers. Even if it means the top 10% of mainline pilots get a fat raise. We at PSA have been getting some new cities to fly to but our growth has stopped. It's been over 7 years since our last new CRJ 700. I think 9 years for the 200's. So new cities are not growth for us just shuffling around flying. Most likely Airways is removing some frequency of a RJ or two and replacing it with a 319 or 320.
New cities opening is a step in the right direction for both express and mainline. What scares me about the future of regionals is that they are having difficulty finding pilots today, what happens when the retirements start? It's going to be like rats leaving a sinking ship.

 

[Keroseneuser]

What scares me about the future of regionals is that they are having difficulty finding pilots today, what happens when the retirements start? It's going to be like rats leaving a sinking ship.

It will probably benefit all of us. I for one would love to see the supposed pilot shortage that they keep predicting. It will drive up pay and will severly hurt airlines like USAirways who are low paying compared to the rest when they try to recruit new pilots etc etc. When I started 1200 hours total time was good enough to get you a nice multi engine Baron or 310 job if you were not military, by the time the 2000's rolled around kids were pissed off if they did not make Capt on an RJ by 1500 hours. Before the RJ boom if you wanted a commuter job flyingright seat in a dash 8 or beech 1900 you realistcally needed 2500 hours or so with about 1000 multi. If you wanted to fly for a mainline you needed military or about 5000+ hours or a crap load of recommendations from a bunch of mainline pilots. But even then about 3000 hours and 2000 multi with 500+ hours turbine PIC was about the bare min for a non military pilot to get on with US,AA,UAL etc.

I knew we were in for a rough go when they were having no trouble finding pilots to fly an RJ for 18k a year. It's supply and demand after all. For the time being we finally seem to have exhausted the pilots willing to spend 70 to 200k to learn to fly so they can get an 18k a year job. As long as it stays that way the companies will have to pay better to get the pilots. Both mainline and regional.

Whats really going to be interesting is the rising fuel costs combined with the shortage of pilots. In the end I don't see any way other than raising the fares to make the numbers work. Dont raise the pay=no pilots, raise the pay=have to raise revenue. However I suppose one possible soulution is to vastly cut back on the number of 50 seat jets running around. If you have a limited number of pilots but need to move the same number of passengers.....gotta have the limited number of pilots flying bigger airplanes to do it. Less RJ's and more busses and 73's.

Should be interesting in the next decade or so.