Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Operating Cost Comparison Q400/ CR7 And E-190  
User currently offlineFlyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1878 posts, RR: 3
Posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10384 times:

A friend and I were having an interesting discussion today, which leads me to this post. Obviously there are several different circumstances that influence the operating costs, however I'm just looking for generic figures.

Primarily the cost to acquire, lease such an aircraft, as well as the CASM based on standard manufacturer all coach configuration, even average full fuel burn per hour would be helpful for what we are trying to figure out. Also, I would even be interested in any MX information regarding to intervals, average MX cost per flight hour etc. Once again, only interested in the Q400, CRJ-700, and EMB-190. Thanks for any information as it's greatly appreciated.

p.s. If you require any additional clarity to assist in providing a more accurate comparison, please let me know and I will certainly do my best.

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10360 times:



Quoting Flyboy80 (Thread starter):
p.s. If you require any additional clarity to assist in providing a more accurate comparison, please let me know and I will certainly do my best.

One question: Is there a reason for using the EMB-190 instead of the 170 or 175? The Q400 and CRJ-700 are similarly sized. The -190 is significantly larger.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineFlyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1878 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10328 times:

As a matter of fact, there is a very specific reason for using the 190, however its not so important, the 175 could be used in a 90 seat configuration.

Hope that helps!


User currently offlineMiller22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 718 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10170 times:

It's all a matter of stage-length. On a < 300nm leg, the Q400 is going to dominate. You get beyond that, and the CRJ-700 starts to separate from the group. The EMB170 is just too heavy and the cross section is just too big compared to the CRJ-700 to compete on a true cost-basis. Of course, they make up for it in passenger comfort.

User currently offlineD328 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 307 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10167 times:



Quoting Flyboy80 (Reply 2):
As a matter of fact, there is a very specific reason for using the 190, however its not so important, the 175 could be used in a 90 seat configuration.

Hope that helps!

But the 190 is a larger plane, heavier, more powerful engines. So right there it will cost more in fuel, so the 170 should be used since it is the closest to the same capacity as the Q400 and the CR7.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 9875 times:

Interesting question because I can see the flight lenght at which the Q400 is preferred climbing with the rising fuel costs..

The Q400 weighs 7000 lbs lighter then the comparable CRJ700 which is equivalent to a lot of passengers & props use much less fuel. (fuel = $$ these days)

The canadians have an issue with this aircraft after SAS ditched them, but the future of props for short haul looks ok IMO.. And short haul is still the majority of flights..



User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5011 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 9828 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
The canadians have an issue with this aircraft after SAS ditched them,

It would seem to me that the issue is confined to SAS. There are other substantial operators of the type that have not experienced the problems that SAS has; at least publicly. There is something wrong statistically in my view , when an event is confined to a particular sub-set of the population and not to the whole population.
The same can be said for the engine shutdowns in the AF 777 fleet.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite posted Sat Nov 4 2006 16:46:58 by NYC777
Will AC Be The Biggest Operator Of EMB 175 And 190 posted Fri Dec 23 2005 04:43:10 by AirCanada014
Strategies To Combat Rising Fuel/Operating Cost posted Tue Aug 23 2005 14:34:54 by A340roy
Calculating Operating Cost posted Fri Jul 1 2005 00:37:44 by FLY777UAL
CRJ900 Operating Cost posted Mon Dec 13 2004 16:26:36 by Nwa1978
A Comparison Between Ryanair And EasyJet posted Fri Oct 22 2004 12:02:11 by IDAWA
Sea/tac Rising Operating Cost posted Sun Jul 11 2004 06:38:41 by Leneld
Low Cost Carriers Between Canada And USA posted Wed May 12 2004 21:39:43 by JU101
Operating Cost, Break Even For A330/A340/777/747 posted Fri Apr 16 2004 11:19:06 by SailorOrion
Excellent Comparison On LCCs And Traditionals posted Mon Mar 1 2004 01:26:26 by JetBluefan1
Sea/tac Rising Operating Cost posted Sun Jul 11 2004 06:38:41 by Leneld
Low Cost Carriers Between Canada And USA posted Wed May 12 2004 21:39:43 by JU101