The Regional Aircraft Sweet Spot Legacy Designs Can’t Reach

We discussed the fleet challenges facing regional airlines, with a focus on the crucial US market. Currently, two new projects appear credible. The first is EVIO (our CEO interview here) and MaeveJet. Regional airlines operate in the space where new technologies like hydrogen and electric-hybrids will first be deployed. This makes it, arguably, the most interesting segment to watch. This segment will be the sandbox for the rest of the commercial aviation industry. Tradeoffs This market requires operators to make trade-offs, as do all commercial aviation sectors. But they are a little different, too. For example, this segment needs to look at runway versatility. To illustrate the five most essential trade-offs, we present the following chart. In the chart above, the axes are normalized so that higher values (further from the center) always indicate "better" performance in a category. Understanding the Metrics Speed (Cruise Speed) The regional jets (E-175 and CRJ900) cruise at around 870-882 km/h, roughly 70% faster than the turboprops. The ATR 72-600 cruises at 510 km/h while the Dash 8 Q400, the fastest turboprop, reaches 667 km/h. This speed difference matters most on longer routes where the time savings become significant—on a 1,500 km route, jets save about an hour compared to the ATR. Range The E-175 leads with a 3,704 km range, allowing it to connect regional cities across wider geographic areas. The CRJ900 follows at 2,956 km, while the turboprops are limited to shorter regional hops: the Dash 8 Q400 manages 2,040 km and the ATR 72-600 only 1,528 km. This constrains turboprops to markets within a few hundred miles. Payload Capacity All four aircraft carry similar passenger counts (68-90 seats), but payload capacity varies. The E-175 can carry approximately 9,500 kg, making it most flexible for cargo or heavier passenger loads. The CRJ900 and Dash 8 are close behind at 8,700 kg and 8,000 kg, respectively, while the ATR 72-600 carries about 7,500 kg. Fuel Efficiency per Seat This is where turboprops shine dramatically. The ATR 72-600 consumes only about 1.9 liters per 100 km per seat, with the Dash 8 Q400 close behind at 2.0 L/100 km/seat. The jets burn 40-50% more fuel: the E-175 uses roughly 2.8 L/100km/seat and the CRJ900 about 3.0 L/100km/seat. On short routes with high fuel prices, this efficiency difference can determine profitability. Runway Versatility Turboprops dominate here. The ATR 72-600 can operate from runways as short as 1,100 meters, and the Dash 8 Q400 needs only 1,200 meters. This opens access to smaller regional airports with limited infrastructure. The jets require 1,650-1,700 meters, restricting them to more developed airports with longer paved runways. [caption id="attachment_180387" align="aligncenter" width="580"] AirInsight[/caption] Turboprops The Dash 8-Q400 used to act as a "bridge" between turboprops and jets. It is significantly faster than the ATR (+85 knots) and has the best Runway Versatility in the group, needing the shortest takeoff roll at max weight. However, it pays for that speed with a slightly higher fuel burn than the ATR. This speed issue was a positive for any operator using the Dash 8 as a network feeder. Where no network feed is needed, the ATR wins every time. As major airlines focus on speed, the Dash 8 has lost momentum to jets. DeHavilland Canada seems to have stopped production. Moreover, operators are vocal about a lack of parts and support, which is a death knell for the program. The turboprop market is constantly looking for ways to make a comeback. The latest is ATR trying to market its aircraft as an alternative to 50-seater regional jets. There has been little appetite. Regional Jets The CRJ900ER is probably the best iteration of the original CRJ200 regional jet program. The CRJ900 is the direct competitor to the E175. While the E175 wins on raw Range and Speed, the CRJ900ER is often cited for having slightly better seat-mile economics (Fuel Efficiency) and a higher structural Payload capacity in specific configurations. The problems now are the following: The CRJ line is closed, offering the E175 no competition. The E175 and CRJ900 use nearly identical engines, and their manufacturer, GE, has no incentive to improve their performance further. Moreover, the E175 was once Embraer's bread and butter. Now the E2 models outsell it, as the US regional market consolidates and, in effect, shrinks. The Jet vs. Turboprop Divide The gap between turboprops and jets is clear. Jets are faster and fly further, while turboprops operate from shorter runways and burn much less fuel. Jets pull heavily toward the right side (Speed/Range/Payload), while the Turboprops pull toward the left side (Fuel Efficiency/Runway Versatility). The E175's superior range makes it ideal for thin, long-haul routes (small cities separated by > 500 miles), while the ATR 72-600 excels at building dense networks of short hops between smaller communities. The CRJ900 and Dash 8 Q400 occupy the middle ground, balancing range and efficiency. But as these two are out of the market, the gap widens. This is, in our view, an opportunity. Regional airlines need all five factors to be optimal to make a profit. One factor not listed is traffic. Traffic can and does move. As regional connectivity in the US shrinks, traffic shifts to the next-largest airport. As the driving gap between a home or office and the airport grows, traffic seems to be switching to cars. Summary Operators should select the ATR 72-600 if priority is low operating costs and serving short-haul, regional airports with limited infrastructure. This choice works well worldwide, but has firm limits. Alternatively, select the E175LR if the priority is passenger reach, high-speed connectivity between major hubs, and maximum weight capacity. This has proven the optimal choice for US regionals, but the market may be running out of steam. If that's too harsh, we suggest the market is ex-growth. But, of course, this simplistic this or that doesn't provide the optimal solution. Operators need the versatility of both types—this is where the new projects come in. These new projects aim to close the gap between the two aircraft types and identify the sweet spot. Another factor the chart avoids is the Scope Clause. You can imagine what a seven or more spider chart might look like - so confusing, providing evidence of how hard it is to find the sweet spot.

US Flight Planner - US DoT On-Time Data	Airbus vs Boeing - Official OEM Data
US Airline Schedule Performance - US DoT Data	Daily OEM Production & Deliveries -

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Related News

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Related News

Frontier’s Taxi Problem Isn’t the Airports

Southwest and American Report Q2 Results

Southwest’s 737-700 Problem Harder to Ignore