If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
New 30-40 seats regional?
On Sep 15, 12:28*pm, John Doe wrote:
Jeff Hacker wrote: OK, what would be the threshold size of a cost effective new airliner with $100 per barrel fuel prices? 70 seats? 90 seats? There is another issue to consider. During the .com bubble (when airlines also had their bubble), Bombardier spawned CRJ200s like mosquitos in a swamp. *Production stopped for 2 reasons: after 9-11, airlines stopped growing their fleets before bombardier stopped making the puppy, and secondly, a few bankrupcies left enough CRJ200s in the used market to remove the need for new ones. The CRJ200 is a relatively young aircraft and it will be a while before airlines start to need a replacement for their CRJ200s. Meanwhile, to survive, Bombardier upscaled the CRJ to the -700 -900 and now-1000 models to try to get new markets (where Embraer has done better).. The Dash-8 which had been on the verge of being shutdown got a sudden and unexpected boost due to rise in price of oil and all of a sudden, the -400 has had a renaissance. This is in part because of the acticve noise reduction system and new props that makes the plane far more comnfortable and feel less like a propellor airplane (aka: more acceptable to general public), as well as the significant economic advantage over jet powered planes in that size. *Also, mpw that there are jetways capable of handling a Q400, it also makes the aircraft more palatable to the general public. While the renaissance of the Dash-8 is remarkable, it still isn't a widespread phenomena and the numbers are still relatively small. Note that there are developments in smaller aircraft. For insance, the venerable Twin Otter (Dash-6) was relaunched by a Victoria Canada firm (Viking air) who got the designs/rights from Bombardier and new new ones in about 2 years. *This is a 19 passenger aircraft. It is used a lot in the caribean for inter island hops for instance (it can be fitted with floats, skis etc). However, this aircraft won't have huge performance gains over the original twin otter. And I guess this is one big reason you'd not seeing much activity in smaller aircraft: lack of new engines for aircarft that removes incentive to design a new aircraft since it would have about equal performance as the previous one. Also, below a certain size, you need to factor in the cost of having 2 pilots up front while smaller aircraft only need 1. *Perhaps the 30-40 pax aircraft ends up costing more because it needs to be operated like a bike aircraft, but doesn'T carry enough passengers to warrant all the extra staff and operating costs. Here's an interesting interview about P&W Canada's PW810 engine. http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...rys-back-door/ It says the PW810 was originally planned for a new 50-seater regional jet but since there was no new development, the PW810 eventually found itself on a business jet. And the interviewee commented that "It could take forever [for a new 50-seat jet to reach the market]." "Q: There really isn’t an application in regional jets for this size engine anymore, is there? A: Not today. It’s interesting, because when we launched the PW800 it was for a regional jet. We kept on developing the technology because we wanted to be ready for the next generation of regional jets, and now the business aircraft are coming first. It’s not obvious to us if there will be a replacement 50-seat regional jet…a 70-seater, a 90-seater…if you have the right technology, maybe. But we believe when you get into that size of aircraft, you go to the geared turbofan because then the benefit is there - the mission, the altitude they fly, the speed, the range. So I’m not sure where a conventional PW800 advanced turbofan would go in a regional application going forward. It’s not obvious to me. It could take forever [for a new 50-seat jet to reach the market]. And even then, there could be benefit in a geared fan for a 50-seater because the technology has evolved." |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
New 30-40 seats regional?
On Sep 15, 12:28*pm, John Doe wrote:
Jeff Hacker wrote: OK, what would be the threshold size of a cost effective new airliner with $100 per barrel fuel prices? 70 seats? 90 seats? Note that there are developments in smaller aircraft. For insance, the venerable Twin Otter (Dash-6) was relaunched by a Victoria Canada firm (Viking air) who got the designs/rights from Bombardier and new new ones in about 2 years. *This is a 19 passenger aircraft. It is used a lot in the caribean for inter island hops for instance (it can be fitted with floats, skis etc). However, this aircraft won't have huge performance gains over the original twin otter. BTW N24 Nomad and Dornier 228 are re-entering production just as the Twin Otter. Gippsland, who bought the Nomad's type certificate from Boeing Australia, plans to fit uprated Rolls-Royce turboprops with new propellers. It may have a glass cockpit too. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
New 30-40 seats regional?
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:25:42 -0400, John Doe wrote:
Hatunen wrote: I'm not sure exactly what your question is, but check out the various Canadair Regional Jets, which have 50 seats and up. The original 50 seat CRJ has long ago ceased production. The larger CRJ700 ad 900 are still being produced, and a -1000 has recently had its first test flight. The 70 seat Dash-8-400 is now quite popular. For smaller aircraft, the turboprops offer significant financial advantages and for short flights, the speed of the -400 isn't that much slower than that of jets. (it is faster than previous generations of Dash-8s.) I flew a -400 last year in Europe and I was impressed. Every bit as comfortable or even more so than a 737. Noise was minimal (I like the sound of a prop plane anyway.) and the ride was smooth. I certainly prefer it to the CRJ clunkers I've ridden in..cramoed and narrow. Jim P. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
New 30-40 seats regional?
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
New 30-40 seats regional?
On Sep 12, 4:25*pm, DevilsPGD wrote:
In message Sunho wrote: Larger aircraft's cost per available seat mile (cost divided by the multiplication of flight distance and seats) should indeed be lower than smaller aircraft's, but it would be unwise to use a 70-seater for a route that has less than 30 passengers, I guess. Then the question is how many routes will have less than 30 passengers per flight in future? Generally with less then 30 passengers, the airline is probably better halving the number of flights and mostly filling 70-seater planes. Oh I didn't think of that option. I presume you meant something like halving two flights per day to just one per pay. Please correct me if I am wrong. BTW, what about routes that generate at most 30 passengers per day? Simply not worth serving? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
New 30-40 seats regional?
On Sep 21, 1:29*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:25:42 -0400, John Doe wrote: Hatunen wrote: I'm not sure exactly what your question is, but check out the various Canadair Regional Jets, which have 50 seats and up. The original 50 seat CRJ has long ago ceased production. *The larger CRJ700 ad 900 are still being produced, and a -1000 has recently had its first test flight. The 70 seat Dash-8-400 is now quite popular. For smaller aircraft, the turboprops offer significant financial advantages and for short flights, the speed of the -400 isn't that much slower than that of jets. (it is faster than previous generations of Dash-8s.) I flew a -400 last year in Europe and I was impressed. *Every bit as comfortable or even more so than a 737. *Noise was minimal (I like the sound of a prop plane anyway.) and the ride was smooth. I certainly prefer it to the CRJ clunkers I've ridden in..cramoed and narrow. Jim P. Have you flown a Saab 2000 as well? The 58-seat Saab 2000, launched in 1998 and introduced in 1994, can cruise at 370 knots, which is 10 knots faster than the 74/78-seat Q400 introduced in 2000. Saab thought fast turboprops could compete against 50-seat regional jets launched around the same time frame, but it turned out to be NOT true. Saab managed to sell only 63 Saab 2000s in the 1990's while both Bombardier and Embraer sold more than 1,000 50-seat regional jets each until now. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
New 30-40 seats regional?
Sunho wrote:
BTW, what about routes that generate at most 30 passengers per day? Simply not worth serving? There are Saabs, Beech 1900Ds etc that are still in service. The demand for those exists, but you don't hear about it much because there isn't much PR for such sales, usually small orders from regional carriers. Also, you don't hear a lot of fanfare about new products because at that size, there aren't revolutionary new engines that would further cut fuel consumption. And the market is small enough that it is harder for people like Saab to justify launching a totally new aircraft. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
New 30-40 seats regional?
Sunho wrote:
On Sep 12, 4:25 pm, DevilsPGD wrote: In message Sunho wrote: Larger aircraft's cost per available seat mile (cost divided by the multiplication of flight distance and seats) should indeed be lower than smaller aircraft's, but it would be unwise to use a 70-seater for a route that has less than 30 passengers, I guess. Then the question is how many routes will have less than 30 passengers per flight in future? Generally with less then 30 passengers, the airline is probably better halving the number of flights and mostly filling 70-seater planes. Oh I didn't think of that option. I presume you meant something like halving two flights per day to just one per pay. Please correct me if I am wrong. BTW, what about routes that generate at most 30 passengers per day? Simply not worth serving? That depends on how much they are willing to pay. I know that sometimes cities will subsidize carriers. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
New 30-40 seats regional?
In message
Sunho wrote: BTW, what about routes that generate at most 30 passengers per day? Simply not worth serving? A flight every two days would seem to maintain the 60ish number of passengers -- Not all will be quite as willing to reschedule, but odds are that many/most will. There isn't likely to be a ton of competition between airlines if there isn't even enough passengers to fill a daily flight. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
New 30-40 seats regional?
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:58:05 +0200 (CEST), James Robinson
wrote: wrote: I flew a -400 last year in Europe and I was impressed. Every bit as comfortable or even more so than a 737. Noise was minimal (I like the sound of a prop plane anyway.) and the ride was smooth. I certainly prefer it to the CRJ clunkers I've ridden in..cramoed and narrow. That's psychological. They both have the same fuselage diameter and seats. No offense but I don''t consider 17" by 31" seats (Uniited CRJ 200) to be the same as 18" by 34" on the DASH I flew (Augsberg Airlines) JIm P.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Regional health gap 'is 30 years' | [email protected] | Europe | 0 | September 9th, 2007 09:06 AM |
Regional Trains NW of Milan | Richard[_2_] | Europe | 2 | July 26th, 2007 11:10 PM |
Regional Trains in Italy | [email protected] | Europe | 4 | January 26th, 2006 01:12 PM |
Regional jet crash question | Alan Street | Air travel | 5 | March 8th, 2005 08:30 PM |
Regional scents | Timmilne | USA & Canada | 11 | November 16th, 2004 03:59 AM |