DAL12 From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2513 times:
Doesn't make sense -- a 30-seat variant will only reduce capacity and reduce trip-costs negligibly. The 135 is already losing popularity because airlines are figuring out it provides little cost benefit over a 145 but with much reduced revenue potential.
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2326 times:
I seem to recall that some of the very early design proposals were for something that essentially looked just like a 120, with the jet engines mounted forward and above the wings (basically in the same place the 120's engines are now). But I don't think anyone expressed interest in it.
BoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2193 times:
They do make a 30 seater. The ERJ-135. The best part, it's easy to replace on EMB-120 routes. The 135 allows incremental route growth while providing essentially the same cabin. A 30 seat aircraft which made sense 10 years ago, now would typically demand a 37 seater. Just like the transition from 19 seaters to 30 seaters.