Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2425900/

Topic: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: FLY777UAL
Posted 2005-11-08 11:02:58 and read 4028 times.

With the 2,300nm (transcontinental) range afforded by the E-Jet family, what new routes (if any) would you expect to be opened both within the United States and to Central/South America?

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Brokenrecord
Posted 2005-11-08 12:44:00 and read 3995 times.

I assume you are talking about Embraer jets. I think we will see more E70's and E90's doing short routes and low load routes. I think we will see them surpass Bombardier in the regional jet realm. I think we will see more airlines treating them like regular planes with full amenities such as first class on airlines that offer it. We will likely not see them perform transcon duty simply due to the fact that a full E90 making a 5 hour flight is not cost-effective.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: UA744Flagship
Posted 2005-11-08 17:12:18 and read 3902 times.

The strange thing is the E-Jets have not been performing up to expectations, at least here at UA.

You would expect efficiency (CASM in terms of fuel burn, etc.) to better as stage length increases but what's been found is that, actually, past a certain threshold on longer (e.g. midcon type) flights, the E-Jets become more INefficient.

This is not just an E-Jet problem either... it's also the CR7. Maybe it's due to teething problems, or erroneous accounting, but it is strange.

And it is a mystery that needs to be solved as we will have 105 70-seaters in the UAX fleet by the end of 2006!

That being said, lots of new routes made possible by the E-Jet/CR7 range are on the drawing board for the UAX network.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Pdpsol
Posted 2005-11-08 18:03:54 and read 3832 times.

Quoting UA744Flagship (Reply 2):
strange thing is the E-Jets have not been performing up to expectations



Quoting UA744Flagship (Reply 2):
Maybe it's due to teething problems, or erroneous accounting, but it is strange.



Quoting UA744Flagship (Reply 2):
And it is a mystery that needs to be solved

This is beginning to sound like a mystery novel; you use the word "strange" twice as well as "mystery". What is the "inefficiency" problem you refer to in your posting?

Are you stating CASM are actually INCREASING with flight distances? That does not appear to make a lot of sense, just making assumptions about marginal costs.

How does the E70 CASM compare with the CR7 or the CRJ705?

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Apodino
Posted 2005-11-08 18:23:01 and read 3801 times.

I doubt you will see E190's with USAirways anytime soon. The pilots adding the scope clause relating to these airplanes pretty much sealed that fate. Any additional 90 seat flying for Airways will be CRJ-900s and will be run by either Mesa, as it is now, or Air Wisconsin, who would like to get into the market themselves.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: YOW
Posted 2005-11-08 19:15:53 and read 3752 times.

Quoting UA744Flagship (Reply 2):
And it is a mystery that needs to be solved as we will have 105 70-seaters in the UAX fleet by the end of 2006!

That being said, lots of new routes made possible by the E-Jet/CR7 range are on the drawing board for the UAX network.

Any idea how many E170s will be based at DEN?

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: RL757PVD
Posted 2005-11-08 19:37:05 and read 3726 times.

Quoting UA744Flagship (Reply 2):
That being said, lots of new routes made possible by the E-Jet/CR7 range are on the drawing board for the UAX network.

Maybe not the CR7, but I can see to E170 from DEN to cities like RDU PVD and BDL

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Brokenrecord
Posted 2005-11-09 00:03:34 and read 3602 times.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 4):
I doubt you will see E190's with USAirways anytime soon. The pilots adding the scope clause relating to these airplanes pretty much sealed that fate. Any additional 90 seat flying for Airways will be CRJ-900s and will be run by either Mesa, as it is now, or Air Wisconsin, who would like to get into the market themselves.

Who said anything about E190's with US? =P

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Sinlock
Posted 2005-11-09 14:34:34 and read 3467 times.

Well,

It's not a new route but, US today starts 3X daily E-170 service to EYW from FLL. By far not a new route but a first for the E-Jets and brings Mainline flight EYW that hasn't been around for a long time.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Apodino
Posted 2005-11-09 21:08:51 and read 3385 times.

Quoting Brokenrecord (Reply 7):

Who said anything about E190's with US? =P


I misunderstood the title of the thread and consequently took other posts the wrong way. When I saw US routes in the title, I thought of airways instantly and not United States. My bad.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Jdwfloyd
Posted 2005-11-09 22:23:30 and read 3338 times.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 4):
I doubt you will see E190's with USAirways anytime soon. The pilots adding the scope clause relating to these airplanes pretty much sealed that fate.

In a web-cast today Doug Parker said that the 190 will be coming and when it does they will be getting as many as possible in as short of amount of time as possible. The only thing up in the air is if mainline or republic will fly them, probably republic tho.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Boeing7E7
Posted 2005-11-09 23:07:01 and read 3308 times.

Quoting UA744Flagship (Reply 2):
The strange thing is the E-Jets have not been performing up to expectations, at least here at UA.

The aircraft performs just fine, the seating capacity reaches a point of diminishing returns as distance increases. This is the same with all aircraft. Why do you think it cost just as much to fly a non-stop on WN as it does with every other carrier from BWI to the West Coast? The cost isn't the problem, the available level of yield you can reasonably expect a passenger to pay for the trip to offset that cost is.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Tornado82
Posted 2005-11-09 23:10:14 and read 3293 times.

Quoting Jdwfloyd (Reply 10):

In a web-cast today Doug Parker said that the 190 will be coming and when it does they will be getting as many as possible in as short of amount of time as possible. The only thing up in the air is if mainline or republic will fly them, probably republic tho.

Why would Doug Parker even say that, when his folks just signed an agreement with the pilots' union stating that the E190 is a mainline bird. They're going to have to do alot of fanagling to get out of that just-signed agreement.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Jmc1975
Posted 2005-11-09 23:33:04 and read 3258 times.

Quoting Jdwfloyd (Reply 10):
The only thing up in the air is if mainline or republic will fly them, probably republic tho.

Doug Parker never mentioned the word Republic even once. But he did make it clear that the pilots union approved a lower pay-scale to fly the E-190 in order to allow them to be flown by mainline.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2005-11-09 23:34:51 and read 3257 times.

When the 195 is outfitted to carry 108 pax transcontinental (which is the 2300nm the 190 is already able to acheive) without sacrificing baggage payload, you'd think they would do well.

Looking at the 195, could they downsize the wardrobe closets to offer 1 more row of seats to boost the capacity to 112 seats? How many folks use the wardrobes in an all coach 32" pitch layout?

With 112 pax, you'd need to allow 24650 lbs for pax (assuming 220 lbs each...180 pax lbs + 30 lbs luggage + 10lbs carry on). Is this how the payload is calculated?

The 195AR doesn't add fuel, so how do they get the extra mileage?

Only asking, because I would think the 195 if it can be equipped for decent range, it may be able to succeed where the 717-200, A318-100 & 737-600 are a bit too heavy for the tasks and the DC-9 is to fuel inefficient.

[Edited 2005-11-09 23:47:51]

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Jmc1975
Posted 2005-11-10 00:41:08 and read 3222 times.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 14):
Only asking, because I would think the 195 if it can be equipped for decent range, it may be able to succeed where the 717-200, A318-100 & 737-600 are a bit too heavy for the tasks and the DC-9 is to fuel inefficient.

The E190 is a wiser choice than the E195. With over 100pax, you have the extra operating costs of a 3rd FA. If US would configure the E-190s with 8F/86Y, they would be able to offer a superior mainline prodect while minimizing costs.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2005-11-10 16:10:32 and read 3097 times.

Or, at 112 pax in the 195, you can easily take on the 3rd flight attendant and provide excellent service to compliment the 32" pitch, 18.5" seats and 20" aisles that are unheard of in this class.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2005-11-10 16:12:05 and read 3092 times.

Of course, the problem with that is you always have to have the 3rd flight attendant, whether or not you sell more than 100 seats. So in that case, the 190 is much smarter unless you anticipate regularly flying over 100 pax.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2005-11-10 16:21:11 and read 3077 times.

Does anyone know how much more efficeint the 195 is compared to the A318, 712, 736? Literally, how much less fuel do you burn with 108-116pax?

Was lack of fuel effeciency the reason behind the slow takeup by airlines of the A318, 712 and 736? Does a purpose built plane for this seating (don't consider the 712 purpose built as it's a shrunken DC90) alone provide the foundation to target 100pax at 2000 - 2500 nm distances profitably? Or do you still need to decent occupancy on an A320 or 73G to really profit at those distances?

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Pdpsol
Posted 2005-11-10 16:26:38 and read 3073 times.

Quoting Jmc1975 (Reply 13):
Doug Parker never mentioned the word Republic even once. But he did make it clear that the pilots union approved a lower pay-scale to fly the E-190 in order to allow them to be flown by mainline.

Just before closing its acquistion by HP to form the "new US", US announced it closed the sale of its E70s and certain gates to Republic. Even with the new mainline pilots agreement, would it not make more sense to outsource the E90s to Republic?

I do not know the terms of the new US pilots agreement, but I would imagine [and this is purely an assumption on my part] Republic could fly the E90s under superior operating efficiencies relative to mainline US.

I do remember reading some posts on another thread mentioning US is PROHIBITED from outsourcing E90s or CR9s to Republic [or anyone else for that matter] under the terms of its new pilots agreement. Frankly, that sounds like a very shortsighted concession by US; they should have retained full operating flexibility with their pilots.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Apodino
Posted 2005-11-10 16:46:25 and read 3069 times.

Quoting Pdpsol (Reply 19):
I do remember reading some posts on another thread mentioning US is PROHIBITED from outsourcing E90s or CR9s to Republic [or anyone else for that matter] under the terms of its new pilots agreement. Frankly, that sounds like a very shortsighted concession by US; they should have retained full operating flexibility with their pilots.

I agree that the concession was bad. However, under the contract, only E90s can't be outsourced, not CR9's. Thus they can add more CR9's if they want to. If they do that, it would likely be by an existing CRJ operator due to the similar type rating. Air Wisconsin would likely be the favorite, but Mesa and PSA, and possibly Skywest, would figure in as well. It would be an RFP.

And everyone on here assumes instantly that if a regional flies the 190, it would be Republic. This is far from true. Every regional would have the opportunity to bid on this flying, and there are some regionals, like Air Wisconsin who has been flying 100 seat airplanes for years, who would figure into this as well. Remember, only ZW has the seat on the board of directors. So if a regional does get the 190 flying, which seems unlikely, let the RFP process work itself out before jumping to conclusions. After all, everyone thought that Delta would give all the old ACA flying to Skyway since they operated the Dornier Jets. As we all found out, the flying was later awarded to Mesa.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Jdwfloyd
Posted 2005-11-10 17:06:17 and read 3051 times.

Quoting Jmc1975 (Reply 13):
Doug Parker never mentioned the word Republic even once. But he did make it clear that the pilots union approved a lower pay-scale to fly the E-190 in order to allow them to be flown by mainline.

He mentioned both ZW and the Chq/ Republic group at the end of the web-cast. What he said was that the 190s were coming, he might have been referring to the 170s when he mentioned Republic though.

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Jmc1975
Posted 2005-11-10 23:31:45 and read 2953 times.

Quoting Jdwfloyd (Reply 21):
He mentioned both ZW and the Chq/ Republic group at the end of the web-cast. What he said was that the 190s were coming, he might have been referring to the 170s when he mentioned Republic though.

He did mention ZW and their importance to the survival of US, however, he did acknowledge the glut of 50-seat RJs they bring into the system. He also specifically said the E-190s were to be flown by mainline pilots at a lower pay-scale. No mention of the E-170s though.

[Edited 2005-11-10 23:34:13]

[Edited 2005-11-10 23:34:50]

Topic: RE: E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes?
Username: Brokenrecord
Posted 2005-11-12 16:52:44 and read 2831 times.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 9):
I misunderstood the title of the thread and consequently took other posts the wrong way. When I saw US routes in the title, I thought of airways instantly and not United States. My bad.

No problem. I was just bustin' your chops...  Smile


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/