MD90fan From Bahamas, joined Jul 2005, 2931 posts, RR: 7 Posted (8 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4503 times:
Just wondering why did AE go for the CRJ-700? They already have ERJ-135/140/145. Anyways I like it alot especially since it has winglets Although I have seen it only 3 times (x2 LAX-XNA, x1 BTR-ORD) What routes does it fly besides DFW-ROC/SYR/BUF/NAS/SBA/GSO/TYS/CLE/OKC and ORD-BTR/YUL.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11752 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4474 times:
Quoting MD90fan (Thread starter): Just wondering why did AE go for the CRJ-700? They already have ERJ-135/140/145.
Eagle wanted/needed a 70-seat airplane to replace the ATR72s out of DFW and ORD. At the time, as now, there was no way to get an ERJ-145 stretch to fit the requirements, so they knew they would have to go with a different airframe. At the time, the Embraer 170 was not available, so the CRJ-700 it was.
N276AASTT From US Virgin Islands, joined Jan 2004, 620 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4025 times:
A general question to anyone out here........Is Eagle happy with the performance of the CRJ-700? CASM, low down time due to MX, fuel consumption, customer satisfaction, etc??? Embraer has the new 170's and bigger. If MQ is unhappy with the 700's, could they be interested in aquiring the new E jets?
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26600 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4010 times:
Quoting N276AASTT (Reply 11): Is Eagle happy with the performance of the CRJ-700? CASM, low down time due to MX, fuel consumption, customer satisfaction, etc???
I would assume that they are, given that it is a far better jet economically and comfortwise than the CRJ-200, and certainly better economically than their ERJ-135/140/145s as well.
Quoting N276AASTT (Reply 11): Embraer has the new 170's and bigger. If MQ is unhappy with the 700's, could they be interested in aquiring the new E jets?
Actually, I think that if either arm of AMR is to get E-Jets it should be AA. They have said constantly that they need a 100 seater at mainline to replace the F100s (a quiet way of saying they shouldn't have been so hasty with the TWA 717s) and now that the 717 is going out of production and the 736 has crap costs, the E-jets are really THE choice in that market. If that was the case, it would make sense from a commonality prospective to put E170/170s at mainline along side of any E190/195 order
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5272 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3915 times:
I agree with you that any Embrear 170s or 190s that AMR orders should be flown by AA, if they are configured with two-class seating. Since Eagle has always been single-class service, a two-class configuration in the Eagle fleet would only confuse passengers.
A friend of mine is an AA pilot. He has heard that there have been a lot of complaints by passengers who used to fly routes that had the F100s and now find themselves flying ERJs and CRJs, such as lack of upgrades, lack of FF bonuses, etc.. In addition, the lack of 100 seat aircraft has made scheduling at ORD problematic, because of the FAA limitations on operations by all carriers. For a route that was all or mostly F100s, flying more CRJs and/or ERJs isn't feasible, but cutting frequencies with MD-80s could lose customers.
The only problem with putting the larger Embrears into the mainline fleet is the pilot contract. APA, AA's pilot union, wanted to fly the CRJs. However, under the contract, a CRJ captain would make less than a 777 F/O. Management believes that no captain should make less money than an F/O.
APA's position was that a 777 F/O was not likely to upgrade to captain on the CRJ. More likely, he would go no lower than MD-80. On the other hand, an F/O flying MD-80 or 737 would receive a pay increase, if he moved up to captain on the CRJ.
The pay scales are based on aircraft weight, so much would depend on the weight of the 170 and 190. If they are heavy enough that a junior captain would earn more than a 777 F/O, then management doesn't have deal with the issue. If the weight presents the same problem as the CRJs, then the APA must devise a solution that is acceptable to management.