Fuel Price effect on 50 seater jet and its viability

[PhilosopherPilot]

I'm well aware of the concept of at-risk flying. First, I don't believe it's profitable. Second, it's a tiny portion of your overall revenue. Skypest would not exist were it not for FFD flying. Therefore, no profit for mainline, useless airframe.

But the regionals as a whole save Delta money by keeping labor costs down. If a guy works for SkyWest for 6 years then goes to Delta they save that 6 years of longevity. It's larger than just direct profit/loss.

 

[Trip7]

Strange as it may seem, it's not unprofitable for us to run ours, last I looked. Shocking, isn't it?

You talking about the pro rate flying? Because obviously the fee for departure flying is profitable because Skywest get paid the same regardless if the plane is empty or full.

One would need to look at the mainline partner's revenue management numbers to determine profitability since they sell the tickets and pay for the fuel

 

[deadstick]

Saw retail Jet A for $3.79/gal last week. Wish I could tanker more!

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

But the regionals as a whole save Delta money by keeping labor costs down. If a guy works for SkyWest for 6 years then goes to Delta they save that 6 years of longevity. It's larger than just direct profit/loss.

They can keep labor costs down just the same with a 70 seater, but actually generate a profit (or at least break even). The majors are ready to be done with 50 seaters, unless costs can be cut significantly.

 

[PropDriver]

It wouldn't surprise me to see a decent number of 50 seaters flying around in the next 2-3 years. There are scope restrictions that will force a lot to be parked regardless. But, with cheap fuel, I can see them being like the MD-88 at Delta. Airlines might be able to get some very good deals on the airframes which could make up for the fuel inefficiency.

 

[USMCmech]

It wouldn't surprise me to see a decent number of 50 seaters flying around in the next 2-3 years. There are scope restrictions that will force a lot to be parked regardless. But, with cheap fuel, I can see them being like the MD-88 at Delta. Airlines might be able to get some very good deals on the airframes which could make up for the fuel inefficiency.

I believe there is already a cargo door STC to convert them into freighters to replace some of the ancient Falcon 20s.

I met another guy who was involved in converting a refurbed CRJ with a corporate interior. He said the cabin was almost as big as a G5 for 1/3 the price (admittedly without the intercontinental range)

 

[wheelsup]

50 seaters were drawn up pre-9/11 not to replace mainline jobs but to steal passengers from other carriers. Example, Erie PA (connecting to PIT) was a US dominated airport but with the RJ Delta, United, Continental, NWA etc. could steal passengers from them and get them to their hubs.

9/11 happened shortly after the RJ build up and that was consequently when passenger traffic fell off the cliff. RJ's were used to keep service while mainline airplanes were parked.

The oil runup changed the 50 seater again and made it a loss leader, until airlines began flying them at M.60 instead of 300+/.74. Airways said at that fuel burn they were making money off them in DCA.

However by 2008 they'd gotten to the 90 seat range and management has realized they might be able to start actually replacing mainline airplanes with their subcontractors.

After the large mergers the "big 3" suddenly had much more passenger traffic (think a NWA and DAL CRJ departing going to their hubs at the same time) where now a 100 seater can become the new RJ. United is looking at ordering E190 or C-Series aircraft, DAL bought 717/MD80's and who knows what AA is going to do, they have other issues on their plate according to Kirby for the time being. It hasn't even been a year since the companies merged. If mainline can hold the line on scope I personally think we'll see a reduction in aircraft as they are up gauged at mainline partly due to lack of pilots and partly due to 100 seaters being used as RJs.

 

[falconvalley]

It wouldn't surprise me to see a decent number of 50 seaters flying around in the next 2-3 years. There are scope restrictions that will force a lot to be parked regardless. But, with cheap fuel, I can see them being like the MD-88 at Delta. Airlines might be able to get some very good deals on the airframes which could make up for the fuel inefficiency.

I could buy that. Kinda like keeping them around a little longer, as long as they don't cost too much and help cover a market. I don't know if they'll completely go away or if they do, forever, but the factors that forced the airlines to consider reducing them, are strong. It would take some big changes to keep hauling 50 pax at such a high frequency, worth it. It won't be these particular models forever.