Long haul - why no smaller aircraft servicing direct routes?

[AdamFrisch]

I'm just a former PPL that happen to travel a lot in my work. I frequently travel between US and Europe, mainly LHR-LAX.

The way air travel is today, I'm loathe to have to change at some hub - I want to fly directly. Unfortunately, that only works for big cities. The other day I had a last minute job taking place in Nashville, TN, but because there are no direct flights there from LHR, I couldn't make it in time and had to turn the job down.

And this made me thinking - all things considered, it must be just as easy to make a 50-seat long range aircraft consume as much fuel per person as a 300-400 pax aircraft. It's just scaling down. Smaller aircraft, smaller engines. Obviously, the 2 pilots up front's monthly salary had to be carried by fewer passengers, but that could probably be offset by the smaller planes having pilots with less seniority and therefore less pay.

My question is - why are there no ERJ 145 long haul planes taking care of the smaller routes like London - Nashville, for instance? Also, how come I can't fly back to Europe from the US in the mornings? Sure, I would arrive at an uncomfortable hour, but if it means getting a job then that's something I am willing to do.

[adfly]

i agree-there should be a embraer 195 or similar with a 5-6000mile range-they would also link smaller airports with smaller runways to long haul destinations???????????????????????????????????????????????? ????

[RingwaySam]

That's what Business Jets are for... It's not profitable flying 50 passengers on long-haul flights with economy prices.

[jerboy]

hmmm... where to start??

it must be just as easy to make a 50-seat long range aircraft consume as much fuel per person as a 300-400 pax aircraft.

Not really. The bigger your aircraft is, the less fuel per pax is used. The A380 has the lowest seat cost/mile of anything commercially flying.

Obviously, the 2 pilots up front's monthly salary had to be carried by fewer passengers, but that could probably be offset by the smaller planes having pilots with less seniority and therefore less pay.

Perhaps, but even so, a Captain, FO and a couple of FAs aint cheap for 9 hours at a time.

why are there no ERJ 145 long haul planes taking care of the smaller routes like London - Nashville, for instance?

Firstly, slot restrictions. If you wanna fly your aircraft out of LHR, which is going to make you the most money? - 300+ paying pax, or 49? You could feasibly go to other airports but that would mean more infrastructure and staff, as well as a smaller catchment area. Think about it, if you want to travel with BA to the US, no matter where in the UK you're from, you fly from London. If they started sending aircraft out from the local airstrip, its going to reduce the number of pax traveling on the 744s out of LHR, hurting profits even more.

The hub system has developed because its cheaper, and ultimately more convenient. With a full service airline you can connect from anywhere to anywhere, making the network a vast amount larger than it actually is. This allows more pax traveling in fewer larger aircraft, reducing cost, reducing ticket prices, generating more pax etc.

Why do you think hiring a private jet is so expensive? Partly because they cost a bloody fortune to run!!

There are a million reasons why your plan wouldn't work. Those are just a few!

And think about it, how many people do you reckon from the UK wanted to go to Nashville today? I'd be willing to guess not a huge number.

[lexxity]

You can get early morning flights out of the US to the UK. It is certainly possible out of the New York area.

[ReadyToGo]

There is one small aircraft/long haul I can think of. BA is planning a 319 service from LCY to JFK.

I've thought for a while that there must be a market for long haul 319/738 ops from regional airports. I'm sure a twice weekly 738 from somewhere like NCL to NY (even if its not JFK) could be made to work. Obviously tickets would be a bit more expensive because of the reasons people have said, but if you could price it at a cost that was comparable to a routing via LHR (+ a premium for convenience) I am sure people would pay it.

However, the fact it hasnt been done suggests to me its just not practical. After all, if money was there to be made, at least one airline would have tried it. And lets be honest, Airline Executives are going to be a bit more clued up than most of us on PPRuNe

RTG!

[AircraftOperations]

Some airlines already utilise 737NGs or A319LR in their schedules for long-range flights. (KLM/LH/LX all use Privatair aircraft I believe).
However, these aircraft are fitted with all business class seats to make the costs work. 150 economy seats wouldn't bring in the revenue and the aircraft would possibly have performance restrictions as a result.
At the moment, these aircraft generally fly between major airports as that is where the demand is. I don't believe that a carrier could make money on other routes... or they'd be doing it already. Just because a few people would find such a route a bit easier for their work, doesn't mean that an airline could consistently fill seats in both directions a few times a week.