New 30-40 seats regional?

Since 37-seat Embraer ERJ-135 and 34-seat Fairchild Dornier 328JET
entered service in 1999, there has been no new development in this
segment.

Mitsubishi MRJ was orginally planned as a 30-50 seater in 2003 but it
grew up to 70-90 seats in 2005 and it seems no manufacturer is
seriously looking at the 30-40 seat segment at the moment.

Will there be no new development in the 30-40 seat segment in the next
10 years and existing regionals such as Jetstream 31/41, Saab 340,
EMB-120 Brasilia linger on until replaced by larger new planes?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:27:21 -0700 (PDT), Sunho
wrote:

Since 37-seat Embraer ERJ-135 and 34-seat Fairchild Dornier 328JET
entered service in 1999, there has been no new development in this
segment.

Mitsubishi MRJ was orginally planned as a 30-50 seater in 2003 but it
grew up to 70-90 seats in 2005 and it seems no manufacturer is
seriously looking at the 30-40 seat segment at the moment.

Will there be no new development in the 30-40 seat segment in the next
10 years and existing regionals such as Jetstream 31/41, Saab 340,
EMB-120 Brasilia linger on until replaced by larger new planes?

I'm not sure exactly what your question is, but check out the
various Canadair Regional Jets, which have 50 seats and up.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sep 12, 11:48*am, Hatunen wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:27:21 -0700 (PDT), Sunho

wrote:
Since 37-seat Embraer ERJ-135 and 34-seat Fairchild Dornier 328JET
entered service in 1999, there has been no new development in this
segment.

Mitsubishi MRJ was orginally planned as a 30-50 seater in 2003 but it
grew up to 70-90 seats in 2005 and it seems no manufacturer is
seriously looking at the 30-40 seat segment at the moment.

Will there be no new development in the 30-40 seat segment in the next
10 years and existing regionals such as Jetstream 31/41, Saab 340,
EMB-120 Brasilia linger on until replaced by larger new planes?

I'm not sure exactly what your question is, but check out the
various Canadair Regional Jets, which have 50 seats and up.

--
* ************** DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* ** * * * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * * * *
* ** My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

I am wondering if there will be any new 30-40 seater in the next 10
years.

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.)

The -400, with new engines and technology is prefered to the smaller
-300 because in the end, it costs less to operate.

Airlines seek to lower the cost per passenger and this means using
larger aircraft where possible.

Bombardier is now moving to develop a 100-130 seat aircraft because this
si where it says the demand will be.

On Sep 12, 2:25*pm, 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.)

The -400, with new engines and technology is prefered to the smaller
-300 because in the end, it costs less to operate.

Airlines seek to lower the cost per passenger and this means using
larger aircraft where possible.

Bombardier is now moving to develop a 100-130 seat aircraft because this
si where it says the demand will be.

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?

If all airlines decide to serve routes that generate more than 50
passengers per flight, I believe it could open up opportunities for
other transport means such as air taxi.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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..