Comments on: United Ditches More 50 Seat Jets, Mesa Takes Hit

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:43:00 +0000

There is no doubt that the CRJ200 has many faults. Low head room, small overhead bins, poor climb performance, and many more; however, it is now the workhorse of the regional airlines. Yes, the majors could improve their bottom line by going to turboprops, but it is hard to move something that is already in place regardless of whether it makes sense or not. The CRJ700 was a step in the right direction, especially with the NextGen series and the CRJ900 is an able airplane as well. I don’t believe that they are going to away anytime soon. As pilots, we have to become more “fuel conscious,” “customer service oriented,” and do the best we can to make it work for the flying public and the companies that hire us to fly until a fitting solution is discovered.

Regards,

Jeff
FlyCRJ.com

By: dan powers

dan powers — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:44:42 +0000

the crj-200 was not designed from scratch….it was a corporate business jet= the challenger adapted to regional passenger jet. the economics of bizjets is way different than commuter airlines, this is why horizon airlines discoverd the hard way and mainly due to laws of physics…that it was well worth their effort to sell all their CRJ-700 jets and stick with turboprops. it basically fly’s the same weight, and speed at a much lower cost.and with more head and leg room.

By: BigSix

BigSix — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:29:31 +0000

The CR2 is a poorly designed A/C from a PAX comfort standpoint. Most FFs loved the jets as they replaced the props but comfort was lacking on the CR2. Bad seats (my butt is sore after a long taxi and I am not a big person – 5′9″, 200lbs) poor sight lines through the windows and no leg or head room on the CR2. Bombardier even saw this coming with the production of the CR9 and the new C series. I still prefer a S340 over a CR2 and will avoid a CR2 if possible and I believe others do the same and the airlines know it. The CR9 is a great improvement as is the E175. Good riddance to the CR2!

By: Ed Casper

Ed Casper — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:08:37 +0000

I read part of Republic’s latest 10-Q and it seems their new joint venture in Hawaii may very well provide the vehicle for Republic to take over Mesa (in much the same way as they aquired Frontier and Midwest). While I may be reading more into this than what’s there, when all is said and done, there may not be much left of Mesa to take over.

By: frank

frank — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:45:41 +0000

Mesa Air Group, Inc. Announces Update on CRJ-200s Operating at United Airlines

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/200911061913PR_NEWS_USPR_____LA07280.htm

Mesa’s security is trading at 16 cents per share. On November 3, US Airways’ CEO indicated Mesa was in “serious trouble”. In addition, Doug indicated US Airways would get out of its “fee for service” agreements once the contracts expired. In my opinion, Mesa is close to a default and a bankruptcy filing, which could cause the Express carrier to lose its US Airways Express contract too.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:44:10 +0000

@ jordan: Mesa isn't going to be able to compete on convenience alone when there's a cheaper option so near by; COS is not even a two hour drive from DEN. With three major airlines using DEN as a significant base, along with the rest of the mainlines that offer some level of service there, it's unlikely flying from COS (which almost always requires going through DEN anyway) is going to be cheaper. And the flying public loves chasing discount fares; I did it myself all the time when I lived near MSN, but MKE was only a 90 minute drive away. Sometimes I could save $200 or more. And if you read the rest of the comments in this thread, the consensus is that it's difficult to fly a 50 seat jet profitably to begin with -- if you've got downward pressure on your ticket prices, and you can't even fill those 50 measly seats because your customers are running to a nearby super-regional or hub airport to hop aboard real planes, you're screwed.

By: CF

CF — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:45:55 +0000

Wonko Beeblebrox wrote:

I don’t think AA actually got rid of those ATRs… they just moved them down to San Juan, where they were unlikely to encounter the cold weather that those ATRs faired poorly in. Then AA later downsized the San Juan hub… and didn’t those ATRs end up in DFW and LAX?

That's right. The ATR was criticized for its inability to shed ice adequately in cold winter weather, so American moved them down to where it doesn't matter - San Juan and Miami to fly around the Caribbean. They did send some back to DFW when they retired the Saabs, but they never came to LAX. The Saabs at LAX were replaced by regional jets.

By: Wonko Beeblebrox

Wonko Beeblebrox — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:59:15 +0000

CF wrote:

A lot of those places could be better served by props, but American already had a black eye from the ATR crash in Indiana in 1994 so it really wanted to get rid of those props.

I don't think AA actually got rid of those ATRs... they just moved them down to San Juan, where they were unlikely to encounter the cold weather that those ATRs faired poorly in. Then AA later downsized the San Juan hub... and didn't those ATRs end up in DFW and LAX?

By: CF

CF — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:38:36 +0000

Oliver wrote:

I thought those regional pilots already make about the same as your average school bus driver (okay, I didn’t research that, but the numbers thrown around are pretty scary).

I meant if the mainline pilots wanted to bring the small jet flying in-house instead of having it outsourced, they would need to be willing to fly for less than they've been willing to do it so far.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:15:52 +0000

> they’re going to have to accept that those smaller airplanes need to be flown for less.

I thought those regional pilots already make about the same as your average school bus driver (okay, I didn’t research that, but the numbers thrown around are pretty scary).