DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2017 times:
I am curious to hear the thoughts of the EMB 170 fans on what are the projected improvements to the operating costs to the operators of this aircraft, especially versus the CRJ 700/900.
Mrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1645 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1992 times:
There are three ways of looking at this plane:
A- Operator is replacing ERJs or CRJs. In this case the advantage is in offering a vastly improved cabin and lower seat mile costs (relative to the 50 seaters). Seat mile costs are higher than the CRJ-700 as far as I know, so picking the E-170 over the CRJ-700 is betting on commanding a premium in terms of fares due to the much better passenger experience.
B- Operator is replacing larger narrowbodies. The cost gains from replacing either a large aircraft that is operating at low load factors or older aircraft can be significant. This is more the province of the E-190 though.
C- Operator is introducing a route that was not practical with previous equipment. Again, more the province of the larger members of the family. This is when the existing aircraft are too large to offer decent frequency and the RJs are either limited by range or too expensive on a seat mile basis to make the route viable.
To be honest, I expect every route where an E-jet competes with an RJ to be a blowout in terms of passenger preference.
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1965 times:
So how would the 190/195 compare to the 717 in terms of operational costs? For an operator like NW, which has a huge DC-9 fleet, the ROI must be pretty spectacular.
Are there any plans for a 50 seat version to replace the EMB 145?
Boeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1910 times:
Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 1): Seat mile costs are higher than the CRJ-700 as far as I know, so picking the E-170 over the CRJ-700 is betting on commanding a premium in terms of fares due to the much better passenger experience.
The seat mile costs are actually only a penny apart and the ERJ is more comfortable, a lot more comfortable. I'd pay the extra penny a mile. The interior is more flexible with no over wing exits so an airline could rmove seats and bump up the seat pitch on a high density route with solid profit margins.
Erikwilliam From Brazil, joined Mar 2004, 2152 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1922 times:
Quoting DAYflyer (Thread starter): I am curious to hear the thoughts of the EMB 170 fans on what are the projected improvements to the operating costs to the operators of this aircraft, especially versus the CRJ 700/900.
Low CASM, low load factor, lower fuel consunption(2% better than Embraer previewed)
Sharper, more confortable plane, but that, is more to us, a.netter plane fans.
Dida, Cafu, Lucio, Roque Junior, Roberto Carlo, Emerson, Ze Roberto, Ronaldinho, Kaka, Adriano, Robinho, Ronaldo
Mrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1645 posts, RR: 51 Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1829 times:
Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 4): The seat mile costs are actually only a penny apart and the ERJ is more comfortable, a lot more comfortable. I'd pay the extra penny a mile. The interior is more flexible with no over wing exits so an airline could rmove seats and bump up the seat pitch on a high density route with solid profit margins.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Mar 2004, 2152 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
