The End of the 50 Seater

I question what the article is posing as linear thinking. Toward the end, it suggests (as do the interviewees) that regional airlines can return to profitability by operating these same routes with turboprops or whatever as independent airlines.

I'm all for that - changing the business model to adapt to conditions is a smart thing - but what airframe would they use? Saabs? 1900s? (both of which have been pretty much phased out, right?) Q400s? EMB-120s? And, most importantly, are the economics of a turboprop operation feasible where a 50-seater RJ are not?

Do you legitimately think we could see a return to t-prop dominance in the tier-3 markets?
 
I question what the article is posing as linear thinking. Toward the end, it suggests (as do the interviewees) that regional airlines can return to profitability by operating these same routes with turboprops or whatever as independent airlines.

I'm all for that - changing the business model to adapt to conditions is a smart thing - but what airframe would they use? Saabs? 1900s? (both of which have been pretty much phased out, right?) Q400s? EMB-120s? And, most importantly, are the economics of a turboprop operation feasible where a 50-seater RJ are not?

Do you legitimately think we could see a return to t-prop dominance in the tier-3 markets?

No.

I think what we'll see soon is a dissolution of routes like DTW-FNT, which is 56 miles and has 3 daily flights. Or DTW-LAN, which is 74 miles and has six daily flights. How about SBN-ORD, where I'm fairly certain it's quicker to drive to ORD than it is to get on the plane in SBN.

On routes where it's quicker to drive to the hub than it is to clear security, wait for your plane, and then FLY to the hub, you won't be seeing these flights for much longer.

The places you'll continue to see RJ's is where there are long, thin routes that are too far for a turboprop, but without enough people to justify a mainline jet. As an example, Bakersfield, CA to Houston, TX is serviced twice a day by RJ's. That is, for the most part, a perfect route for an RJ.
 
Here in Canuckistan, Jazz which is the regional feeder for Air Canada, has dramatically changed their routes/aircraft types. What used to be exclusively CRJ100/200 and 700/900 are being replaced by more frequent Q400 segments. The RJ's are still in use however, but as said above, on longer "thin" routes.

With routes like CYQM-CYYZ which is almost 500NM, it makes the previous business trip to Toronto go from 1.7-2.0 flights to sometimes 2.6 or .8 hour flights bounding around in the clouds. I love the Dash, but as a passenger the comfort level of being stuck in the "20's" sucks, not to mention the relative to jet low groundspeeds.
5620522056_169bc8e46f.jpg


Not to mention Canadas "third" airline, Porter which is exclusively Q400's, operating from Toronto Island, which is for business fantastic being right downtown, and too small to be serviced by even RJ's.

Also, consider WestJet, built on the Southwest one fleet type model, having reached capacity on all routes, is buying Q400's to create new route markets... something even 3-4 years ago their CEO was "laughable"
 
This is entirely speculation on my part and probably not substantiated by anything I'm aware of, but could see dropping frequency on some routes and putting mainline planes back some of the CRJ stuff. At least the 50 seaters. MSP-MLI 6 times a day on pinnacle -200s at the moment. I could see Delta saying "screw that" and dropping it down to 2-3 a day and putting small mainly jet on it. OR, on that particular route, a Q400 in the future.

What are -200s burning for gas these days with different carriers? Air Wisky's fuel savings program or whatever has their ground speeds even closer to being in-line with a Q400 as far as I know. So you have that as well, but again, those are shorter routes that they fly.

Bah, they'll do what they want and we won't know til they do it. :)
 
It's funny to keep hearing this, Airway's SDF summer schedule (you know, the busy months) went to nearly ALL -145s and -200s. I'd sure like to see them gone, I miss being able to actually get on flights.
 
Yup, the operators like Cape Air are going to have a massive opportunity to grow into flying that's abandoned by the big guys.
Eh, I think that's an approach that would only work in a few markets like the Northeast or maybe some parts of California or Florida. 30+ seat turboprops are probably the way to go.

UAL747400 said:
Air Wisky's fuel savings program
Heh, it kills me when they always want us to hook up ground power and PC air to their planes and half the time they just leave the APU running anyway. Glad to have the extra hassle for nothing.
 
I dont think passengers who have been used to some type of jet service will get into an airplane like a C402. Even though its just as safe, they wont see it that way. How many times a day do you hear "ahhh man, this is one of them little planes"
 
Here in Canuckistan, Jazz which is the regional feeder for Air Canada, has dramatically changed their routes/aircraft types. What used to be exclusively CRJ100/200 and 700/900 are being replaced by more frequent Q400 segments. The RJ's are still in use however, but as said above, on longer "thin" routes.

With routes like CYQM-CYYZ which is almost 500NM, it makes the previous business trip to Toronto go from 1.7-2.0 flights to sometimes 2.6 or .8 hour flights bounding around in the clouds. I love the Dash, but as a passenger the comfort level of being stuck in the "20's" sucks, not to mention the relative to jet low groundspeeds.

I remember when I worked for QX and they did the research for segment speeds between the dash and the CRJ. The dash wasn't very far behind. Plus it was so much quicker to turn.
 
I dont think passengers who have been used to some type of jet service will get into an airplane like a C402. Even though its just as safe, they wont see it that way. How many times a day do you hear "ahhh man, this is one of them little planes"

FWIW, my company flies a lot of routes in 402s formerly flown by Beech 1900s. Ridership is consistently up. The pax notice, but it doesn't stop them from buying a ticket. In a couple of our midwest stations, we're on track to carry 10,000 passengers this year, a goal the turboprop operators never hit.

I don't know if jet passengers would get on twin pistons, but I'm certain they'd take one step down, for example jet -> turboprop or turboprop -> twin piston.
 
No.

I think what we'll see soon is a dissolution of routes like DTW-FNT, which is 56 miles and has 3 daily flights. Or DTW-LAN, which is 74 miles and has six daily flights. How about SBN-ORD, where I'm fairly certain it's quicker to drive to ORD than it is to get on the plane in SBN.

On routes where it's quicker to drive to the hub than it is to clear security, wait for your plane, and then FLY to the hub, you won't be seeing these flights for much longer.

The places you'll continue to see RJ's is where there are long, thin routes that are too far for a turboprop, but without enough people to justify a mainline jet. As an example, Bakersfield, CA to Houston, TX is serviced twice a day by RJ's. That is, for the most part, a perfect route for an RJ.

I agree with you. Cities in close proximity to hubs (FNT, TOL, LAN for example to DTW) are likely going to change drastically.

LAN airport opertations has already been significantly undercut by an Indian Trails bus route called the Michigan Flyer. Very convenient, and at $30 each way it's often cheaper for many than to drive and park at DTW. The trip takes about 2 hours (stops in AA), and if the duration is longer than arriving at LAN an hour early and flying, it's not much longer.
 
Air Wisky's fuel savings program or whatever has their ground speeds even closer to being in-line with a Q400 as far as I know.

I was wondering about that! They dropped the boat anchor ahead of us on an ILS not too long ago. Not too often you see a widebody tearing up an RJ on approach, and we weren't really trying.
 
I was wondering about that! They dropped the boat anchor ahead of us on an ILS not too long ago. Not too often you see a widebody tearing up an RJ on approach, and we weren't really trying.
That has nothing to do with fuel savings probably an OE trip
 
I dont think passengers who have been used to some type of jet service will get into an airplane like a C402. Even though its just as safe, they wont see it that way. How many times a day do you hear "ahhh man, this is one of them little planes"

Complaining and actually taking their business to a more expensive or less convenient operator are very different things.

Sent via teletype
 
Eh, I think that's an approach that would only work in a few markets like the Northeast or maybe some parts of California or Florida. 30+ seat turboprops are probably the way to go.


Heh, it kills me when they always want us to hook up ground power and PC air to their planes and half the time they just leave the APU running anyway. Glad to have the extra hassle for nothing.
You burn much less gas with power and air hooked up and the APU unhindered.

I agree with you but the company has said any turns under an hour and leave the APU running. Thing is we don't ever get power and air on the ground quick enough to keep the APU off and park it with #2 going. If we did we wouldn't need to start the APU except for pushback. Sometimes we'll get power but that is no guarantee air will be hooked up and when it's 90* out with 40-50 people in the back it heats up quick.
 
jrh said:

FWIW, my company flies a lot of routes in 402s formerly flown by Beech 1900s. Ridership is consistently up. The pax notice, but it doesn't stop them from buying a ticket. In a couple of our midwest stations, we're on track to carry 10,000 passengers this year, a goal the turboprop operators never hit.

I don't know if jet passengers would get on twin pistons, but I'm certain they'd take one step down, for example jet -> turboprop or turboprop -> twin piston.

One the first issue, Cape Air is doing better than (mostly) Great Lakes because of customer service. If flying makes sense, most business flyers will take either a more convenient departure or greater frequency. Comparatively speaking, they know that relatively few airplanes fall out of the sky.

RJ200 to ATR / Q400 is a no-brainer. Depending on fuel cost, at shorter stage lengths the durations are so similar and the comfort level pretty comparable, that's it's operating cost, period. Too many airline execs with SJS.

The key to turbo-prop vs piston is stage length, and therefore altitude, for fuel efficiency. Altitude leads to pressurization (above 10K ft), which leads to increased airframe cost, systems maintenance, etc. The bonus is a smoother ride at the top in bumpy weather. Not on ascent and descent (Beech 1900s have pilot grab handles on the ceiling for a reason)!

It's not just an eastern seaboard issue: true in West Virginia, Kansas, Nebraska, Montana and many more states.

The key is simple: match aircraft capacity to passenger load.
 
About 4 years ago there was an article in (I believe) AIN about the return of the turboprop. It was about the time the ATR-600 was announced. The point that stuck with me was that the Q400 covered the nut at 30% capacity. Not bad if true.
 
Aren't these the same people screaming "PILOT SHORTAGE!!!" I recall USAT running a front page article on the impending piloot shortage a few years ago. Big yawnerr.
 
Back
Top