IAHTowTeam From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4754 times:
I heard a rumor and was just wondering if it was true? CO's ExpressJet only has 37 and 50 seat jets. Does anyone think they will order the 170's or 190's to fill the gap between 50 and 104 seats, COEX to CO??? Maybe someone on the Express side and fill us all in?
IAHTowTeam From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4691 times:
Does anybody think this is a stupid idea??? I mean...what about those markets that the 145's are flying in that could definitley handle more. More seats means more mainline traffic for CO and thus, more revenue. It is pure logic to me that something needs to be done. JetBlue just ordered 100 ERJ 190's(competition b/t EWR/JFK). It is a foolish move if CO doesn't do something. Besides, traffic is starting to become a problem in EWR, put a 190 on a couple of flights and replace a few 145's and you have more seats and less planes to add to the congestion. Is my thinking skewed on this?
CALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3662 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4685 times:
there are even some COEX pilots who have made comments about aquiring some 170s..............even in our breakroom in terminal B someone had posted an article taken from EMBRAER about 10 orders for the 170.........who really knows until we see them in person.
okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5336 posts, RR: 11 Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4667 times:
IAHTowTeam asks "if my thinking skewed"
Not entirely, but here's my idea.
When demand exceeds the capacity of an ERJ, I think Conti is better off to throw in a 737. The operating costs are a lot lower for the 737 than for anything Embraer makes. It's just a function of more seats to spread costs over.
That's my theory.
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7988 posts, RR: 27 Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4657 times:
A friend of mine is an ERJ captain out of CLE and his brother is an ERJ Captain out of IAH. They've both heard and repeated the rumor of getting the big EMBs, but it's only a rumor. I'll believe it when I see it.
TinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 963 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4627 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5): The operating costs are a lot lower for the 737 than for anything Embraer makes. It's just a function of more seats to spread costs over.
...Only if the seats are filled.
Quoting N766UA (Reply 7): A friend of mine is an ERJ captain out of CLE and his brother is an ERJ Captain out of IAH. They've both heard and repeated the rumor of getting the big EMBs, but it's only a rumor. I'll believe it when I see it.
I've heard a rumor as well, but wouldn't Embraer have announced it already. I think it would've leaked by now. The simple fact is that the CAL ALPA scope clause doesn't allow it at this point.
"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
FlyHoss From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4602 times:
The old and the new CAL pilot contract require that larger regional jets be flown by mainline pilots under most conditions. There may be some merit to having ERJ-170s or 190s, but there are also some negative aspects. ExpressJet could fly these larger ERJs if they didn't fly them to or from CAL hubs. As a CAL pilot, I'd at least like to have the opportunity to fly them, if CAL ordered them. The scope clause isn't designed to prohibit any airplane from being flown, it's designed to protect jobs for the mainline pilots (i.e. allow mainline pilots to fly those airplanes). Is there really any difference between an ERJ-170 or 190 and a DC-9-10 (similar number of seats, but not an Express airplane)?
IAHTowTeam From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4306 times:
If anything, I think we have done our aircraft ordering, for now. Expressjet will have to pick up the bill for these, if they want it and feel the need for it. Afterall, they are the ones with the money right now, why should we have to pick up the bill. I think there is some savings in operating a mainline fleet without a regional "attachment". When our contract runs out with ExpressJet, I thinnk in 2007, right?, we will be in the runnings to pick up other commuter traffic, that will help us out alot. We will also be able to stop paying for EVERY single flight that expressjet operates. That in itself is alot of cash out of our pocket, which wouldn't be so bad if we were still operating back when the fuel prices weren't so high and making a modest profit. Don't get me wrong, I think expressjet helps us out alot, but I also think we are somewhat cornered by their fleet. If we don't do something JetBlue is going to keep stealing market share away from us, especially in the NY area. They have plenty of room to grow at JFK, CO at EWR is very limited.
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4244 times:
Whatever is being said, I think you'll see COEX eventually order the 170 and 190. There are certain markets, especially out of CLE where a 735 is too big, but a 145 is too small, and they just scream to have this aircraft on the routes: PVD, MHT, BTV, ATL, MCI, STL, and a few others.
It's entirely possible that mainline could order them, provided CO can secure the necessary financing. The biggest issue would be reaching an agreement with the pilots on pay for a 70-seat jet, but that could likely be worked out with few hassles.
FlyHoss From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4080 times:
Regarding (your) reply #13, the Scope clause (part 3 of chapter 1 of the new contract) specifically requires CAL (not ExpressJet) pilots to fly any jet larger than 50 seats to or from any CAL hub. Are there exceptions? Of course, for code share flights for example. If CAL were to allow ExpressJet to do so anyway, it would start a nasty and long legal battle, no doubt.
In theory, CAL pilots could fly the airplanes on ExpressJet's operating certificate, but I don't think that is likely.
The CAL ALPA Scope clause does not prevent ExpressJet from operating jets with more than 50 seats on flights that are not to or from a CAL hub (say, LGA to BOS...).
KAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1955 posts, RR: 37 Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3843 times:
Probably not going to happen. I don't see Continental really needing aircraft of that size right now. Plus, in 2007 when the capacity purchase agreement with Expressjet expires, CAL will probably beat Express like a red-headed stepchild and bring in Chatauqua and/or some other low bidder with an already-established 70/90 seat program if they wanted to do that and could get around scope.
I just hope Expressjet finds ways to diversify itself before it becomes the next air wisconsin. Continental has almost completely severed itself from Expressjet at this point, and the stage is set for a bidding war in 2007. Ahhh well, such is life.
Ejmmsu From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1692 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3825 times:
Although I cannot argue with KAUSpilot about the possible bidding war, I hope CO realizes that they have a good thing going in ExpressJet. I personally think that ExpressJet is one of the best regional airlines out there, and one of the reason's CO remains fairly popular among pax. CO would be making a huge mistake by getting rid of them.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"