"The 50-seat jets once prized by carriers such as Delta Air Lines Inc. are being culled from U.S. fleets as higher fuel and maintenance bills make them too expensive to fly."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-03/airline-era-ends-as-carriers-cull-50-seat-jets-nobody-wants-.html?cmpid=yhoo

 

This article really struck me because Ohio is a market where there are lots of 50-seat CRJ/ERJ frequencies across all of our major airports, and especially at CLE and CVG. Do we stand to loose service to several markets when airlines phase these airplanes out?

Next thing you know they'll be offering service via kites!

Next thing you know they'll be offering service via kites!

 

Certainly would be environmentally friendly!

"The 50-seat jets once prized by carriers such as Delta Air Lines Inc. are being culled from U.S. fleets as higher fuel and maintenance bills make them too expensive to fly."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-03/airline-era-ends-as-carriers-cull-50-seat-jets-nobody-wants-.html?cmpid=yhoo

 

This article really struck me because Ohio is a market where there are lots of 50-seat CRJ/ERJ frequencies across all of our major airports, and especially at CLE and CVG. Do we stand to loose service to several markets when airlines phase these airplanes out?

 

What it means is a return to turbo-prop aircraft which is what it always should have remained.  Propjets are more economical and environmentally friendly on segments of less than 500 miles.  Because jets require altitude to fly efficiently, on a 300 mile flight they usually don't even get to an altitiude to utilize their speed advantage.  What most people don't even realize is that they are flying at the same speed as a prop-jet.  Prop-jets are also cabable of carrying more cargo/bags in the holds.  Airlines have known this for years.  It's the flying public that equates anything with a propeller to be "old fashioned" and unsafe.

Hey! Here's an idea: What if we build rail lines connecting cities to airports served by larger craft? That way, instead of an inefficient, less-safe prop-jet, your connecting flight could be a modern, safe, efficient intercity train!

I don't have any problems with turbo-props, but I can see how the public perception is against them. Even if they rightly feel they are safe aircraft, they may feel slighted that their city isn't "good enough" to warrant service from jet planes.

Hey! Here's an idea: What if we build rail lines connecting cities to airports served by larger craft? That way, instead of an inefficient, less-safe prop-jet, your connecting flight could be a modern, safe, efficient intercity train!

 

Less safe???!!!???  Where the hell did you come up with that? 

I don't have any problems with turbo-props, but I can see how the public perception is against them. Even if they rightly feel they are safe aircraft, they may feel slighted that their city isn't "good enough" to warrant service from jet planes.

 

35-50 seat RJ's are probably on the way out period! 

Hey! Here's an idea: What if we build rail lines connecting cities to airports served by larger craft? That way, instead of an inefficient, less-safe prop-jet, your connecting flight could be a modern, safe, efficient intercity train!

 

While I understand the desire for all things rail around here and the sentiment is ok.... I'd much rather not add a few more travel hours to my business trips. I'm sure there's a lot of businesses that would also rather see their employees working rather than traveling.

While I definitely agree high-speed rail could/should replace much of the need for RJ flying, it doesn't totally solve the problem. And because I'm a realist and I know HSR is not going to be built all over the US anytime soon, there is still a need for smaller airplanes, especially since the legacy carriers use them  to feed their hubs.

 

I'm kind of intrigued by the turboprop argument. I have heard good things about the Q400 and I know it's popular around Europe. I have heard that the flying is generally not as comfortable (ie. greater turbulence) but I've never flown on one so I can't say...and I've had plenty of uncomfortable flights in CRJ's and ERJ's.

 

I do think that CVG stands to loose alot of its CRJs even as a hub, but thats for discussion in that thread...

Transportation in the country is going down hill unless we build 40,000 miles of rail.

Hey! Here's an idea: What if we build rail lines connecting cities to airports served by larger craft? That way, instead of an inefficient, less-safe prop-jet, your connecting flight could be a modern, safe, efficient intercity train!

 

While I understand the desire for all things rail around here and the sentiment is ok.... I'd much rather not add a few more travel hours to my business trips. I'm sure there's a lot of businesses that would also rather see their employees working rather than traveling.

 

You may get there sooner, but your travel time is lost time.  When I traveled by train in England and Japan I made money by being able to work during the trip.  I can never get much work done on a plane, you're just packed in too closely to review confidential documents.  Add in the longer waits to get through security and in the waiting areas -- give me a train any day. 

 

Turboprops are not slower than 50-seat ERJs on short flights, as mentioned above.

Hey! Here's an idea: What if we build rail lines connecting cities to airports served by larger craft? That way, instead of an inefficient, less-safe prop-jet, your connecting flight could be a modern, safe, efficient intercity train!

 

Good point. A lot of travel within the continental US can be served by rail instead. I see this as more enviro. friendly than spewing jet fume fall out across the skies each day in every direction imaginable. (reminds me of an article I recently read about watermelons having been found to contain what can be traced back to jet fuel) While you can't account for all the variables, I would only travel by plane if it is father than 1000 miles, if indeed, we had a comprehensive quality network of rail in this country, which we do not currently have.  So, one is left with not much choice.

A project manager I worked with insisted that we fly to Chicago and rent a car for a two hour drive instead of flying into the smaller city on a turboprop airplane.  He claimed that they were rougher.  That was 20 years ago.  I thought the 2 hours of driving was folly.

 

"Transportation in the country is going down hill..."

 

Petroleum reserves aren't getting any bigger. What did you expect?

Hey! Here's an idea: What if we build rail lines connecting cities to airports served by larger craft? That way, instead of an inefficient, less-safe prop-jet, your connecting flight could be a modern, safe, efficient intercity train!

 

While I understand the desire for all things rail around here and the sentiment is ok.... I'd much rather not add a few more travel hours to my business trips. I'm sure there's a lot of businesses that would also rather see their employees working rather than traveling.

 

You may get there sooner, but your travel time is lost time. When I traveled by train in England and Japan I made money by being able to work during the trip. I can never get much work done on a plane, you're just packed in too closely to review confidential documents. Add in the longer waits to get through security and in the waiting areas -- give me a train any day.

 

Turboprops are not slower than 50-seat ERJs on short flights, as mentioned above.

 

Lets put it this way, I fly regular 1 or 2 hour flights to the east coast from CVG on regional jets. Many times it is done as a day trip, I leave in the morning and I am back home by about 7 at night. In all it probably adds up to about 4 hours of travel time per trip. There are *many* business travelers like me who do this sort of thing every day. For better or worse, that is the way business is done in the US. Even the shortest rail trip would likely double this travel time. Employers would rather not see their employees spending many hours of unnecessary travel time sitting on trains, especially when only on a train to catch a plane in another city. This sort of transportation model hurts any city who doesn't have the useful airport as no businesses would want to be in the outlying cities without airline service because travel costs go up significantly.

 

So while I agree that quality train service between cities less than 250 miles away is not a bad thing and is something we should strive for, it is not at all a reasonable solution for business travel. A better option is to encourage larger businesses to use regularly scheduled chartered flights and plan travel accordingly, rather than fly individuals on commercial airlines. 

^I have a feeling your company is the exception, not the rule.  My company (major fortune 500 manufacturing company) does everything it can to reduce travel expenditures.  Day trips on airlines simply don't happen.  If you're flying somewhere then you're staying for a day or two and packing in multiple meetings. 

 

You're point about any city not served by a major airport being hurt is obvious and unchanged by the fact that rail is operating.  Do you really think most people on Urban Ohio care that companies that choose to setup shop in outlying areas are impacted?

 

In any case, the main point is that regional JETS aren't necessary and are inefficient for short trips.  Turboprops would do just fine on those routes and would probably lead to a cheaper tickets.

^I have a feeling your company is the exception, not the rule. My company (major fortune 500 manufacturing company) does everything it can to reduce travel expenditures. Day trips on airlines simply don't happen. If you're flying somewhere then you're staying for a day or two and packing in multiple meetings.

 

You're point about any city not served by a major airport being hurt is obvious and unchanged by the fact that rail is operating. Do you really think most people on Urban Ohio care that companies that choose to setup shop in outlying areas are impacted?

 

In any case, the main point is that regional JETS aren't necessary and are inefficient for short trips. Turboprops would do just fine on those routes and would probably lead to a cheaper tickets.

 

I am pretty sure many people on UO care about how a city's ability to attract business is impacted. Regardless, I was responding to the idea that people would happily take a train to another city to catch a plane. I wasn't saying anything about the pros and cons of turboprops.... regardless, the fact that rail is operating is a good thing, but it is not something that will ever replace the necessity for regional air transit in the US.

.... regardless, the fact that rail is operating is a good thing, but it is not something that will ever replace the necessity for regional air transit in the US.

 

It won't replace the need for regional air travel, but it would certainly reduce the demand.  As in most transportation debates it is not one or the other.  People seem to forget that sometimes.