Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EUG-SFO Back To RJ's  
User currently offlineUnitedFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 222 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2730 times:

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms...iewStory.cls?cid=97491&sid=1&fid=1

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2174 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2702 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Is it cheaper to fly six RJs instead of four 737s...? I though it was the other way around  boggled 


Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineASMD11 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2680 times:

I would guess this also has to do with UA parking 735s at the end of the summer. If I recall they are parking the 15 owned 735s and returning the other 5 to the lessor or am I mistaken on that? (Wouldn't be the first time, certainly won't be the last.)

User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2533 times:

back and forth and back and forth


They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineJunction From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2489 times:

Maybe the downgrade will just be seasonal.

User currently offlineLAxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25056 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2435 times:

From reading the article is seems the Eugene market is actually somewhat iffy to begin with and the reason why the local folks had to put an incentive package together to begin with for United to bring the 737 back this summer. Article even mentions Alaska reducing its Eugene flights.

So I guess it should be no surprise the market migrates back to RJs

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 1):
Is it cheaper to fly six RJs instead of four 737s...?

Cost wise - absolutely.

Per latest DOT data, Skywest hourly operating cost of a CRJ200 $1516 plus 298usg in fuel per hour while a CRJ700 is $1780 + 369Usg.
This compared to $3440 + 724Usg/hr for a United 737.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 1):
If I recall they are parking the 15 owned 735s and returning the other 5 to the lessor or am I mistaken on that?

It will be 30 737-500s that will get grounded, and they are all owned by the company.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMtnWest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2451 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2398 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting LAxintl (Reply 5):
mentions Alaska reducing its Eugene flights.

Well of course a tech,and reporters have no idea about such things, but Alaska does not and has never served Eugene.



"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25056 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2388 times:

I might be Horizon whom runs the flight, however to most in the public that = Alaska.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineEugdjinn From United States of America, joined May 2008, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2276 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It was always seasonal service. There is no surprise here. From well before the arrival of the first 737 in Eugene, service by mainline aircraft was set to end with the departure of the overnighting aircraft on September 3rd. The airport management has continued to ignore that fact, or at least stayed very quiet about it. This isn't news.

If it was year round mainline service, by United's contracts with its unions, the station would have had to be a mainline station - not ground handled by SkyWest as it is. That would have brought a large number of very senior, and very expensive people transferring in, and made the service even less tenable.

I don't know why Tim Doll has been reluctant to let the public know that this was a test by United of the restoration of mainline service. It's certainly possible that they'll leave the ground equipment and keep the option to send (and schedule) mainline flights in during high traffic periods. SkyWest's EUG team have worked their tails off to be ready and to handle these planes as United wished, and run them on-time.

Long term, EUG is a perfect place for RJ service, and hopefully, on the United Express side, it will be all CRJ 700s. They are newer, more reliable than the 737s have proven, and they fly the SFO leg in 30 minutes less time. Since United doesn't offer any meals or snacks on a flight of this distance, there isn't a good reason to have a mainline aircraft on this run.

If I were the Airport Manager, I'd be working to persuade Delta and United to increase the number of RJ flights, have them SkyWest operated and hopefully increase the number of overnights. After that, I'd be hounding the Oregon Economic Development commission to explore using funds to help build a new hangar at Mahlon Sweet, and see if maybe Flightcraft would move to a new hangar better located to serve general aviation aircraft off the new runway, (which was intended for general aviation.) That would leave an open hangar right next to the terminal for SkyWest who might could be persuaded to buy the old one and make EUG both a maintenance and a crew base. With enough overnighting jets to really strengthen eastbound service (two RONs for Denver, two RONs for Salt Lake) you might be able to really grow passenger boardings at this airport. A hangar, maintenance base, and crew base would add jobs to our economy here, and be a real feather in an airport manager's hat.


User currently offlineChugach From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1041 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2159 times:



Quoting LAxintl (Reply 5):
From reading the article is seems the Eugene market is actually somewhat iffy to begin with

Eugene people frequently drive to PDX for flights. I suspect this is one reason for the "iffiness" of the EUG market. If it wasn't so close to Portland I suspect mainline service would be more regular there; it's a decent-sized city, and the University of Oregon brings a lot of people there.



GO ROCKETS
User currently offlineFlyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1878 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2152 times:

This does raise the question of the viability of the OO EMB base in Portland. I was recently told while jumpseating, by an OO employee, that the routes are operated "at risk" on behalf of Skywest. Any truth to this? If so, I can't imagine them being very profitable on the run flying 13-18 seats per flight with these fuel prices; although skywest does have a very low overhead cost, not selling tickets, advertising...etc. On the other hand if what she told me was incorrect, I can absolutely recognize the benefit UA receives from these flights system wide shold they indeed be feeding the UA netword (which they must) in PDX.

User currently offlineKcrwFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3805 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2140 times:



Quoting Eugdjinn (Reply 8):
Long term, EUG is a perfect place for RJ service, and hopefully, on the United Express side, it will be all CRJ 700s. They are newer, more reliable than the 737s have proven, and they fly the SFO leg in 30 minutes less time.

The flight is only an hour on a 735. How do you figure a CRJ is twice as fast?


User currently offlineMtnWest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2451 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2071 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Laxintl (Reply 7):
I might be Horizon whom runs the flight, however to most in the public that = Alaska.

Very true, but any poster on here should know and differentiate between the two.



"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
User currently offlineDoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3402 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2033 times:



Quoting Flyboy80 (Reply 10):
Any truth to this?

Completely true. That means fuel costs could mean the end to this (and other) at risk flying.



When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlineEugdjinn From United States of America, joined May 2008, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2020 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KcrwFlyer (Reply 11):
The flight is only an hour on a 735. How do you figure a CRJ is twice as fast?

Um... I didn't say twice as fast, I said 30 minutes faster. One hour fifteen is the fastest I've seen it flown by the 735 in the last couple of months, and it's scheduled as an hour and a half. When I asked the flight crew of one of the 737s they acknowledged that in a pinch, they can fly a little faster, but that the CRJ and CR7 are faster aircraft. It's not accidental that the 737 is affectionately known as a guppy.

CR7s have made the run in 52 minutes with tail winds - runway to gate (off to in).

Today, 1290 - 95 minutes. 1292 - 73 minutes (better than I thought) Yesterday's 1292 - 1:37.

Still, I stand behind what I wrote, the RJs are faster. They just can't carry the critical luggage for an olympic level pole-vaulter comfortably.


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25056 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1999 times:

the normal cruise speed of the CRJ200 is M.74
the normal cruise speed of the B737-300/500 is M.74
the normal cruise speed of the CRJ700 is M.77

Quoting Eugdjinn (Reply 14):




From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3402 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1952 times:



Quoting Laxintl (Reply 15):
the normal cruise speed of the CRJ200 is M.74
the normal cruise speed of the B737-300/500 is M.74
the normal cruise speed of the CRJ700 is M.77

Those look right. The idea that the difference in speed between these aircraft would make an appreciable difference on a route of this length is ludicrous.



When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlineAzncsa4qf744er From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 690 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1756 times:



Quoting Flyboy80 (Reply 10):
that the routes are operated "at risk" on behalf of Skywest. Any truth to this? If so, I can't imagine them being very profitable on the run flying 13-18 seats per flight with these fuel prices; although skywest does have a very low overhead cost, not selling tickets, advertising...etc. On the other hand if what she told me was incorrect, I can absolutely recognize the benefit UA receives from these flights system wide shold they indeed be feeding the UA netword (which they must) in PDX.

Correct! All flights operated by SkyWest's on be haft of United with flight numbers ranging 57XX then those are operated "At Risk" flying.


User currently offlineKcrwFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3805 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1675 times:



Quoting Eugdjinn (Reply 14):
Um... I didn't say twice as fast, I said 30 minutes faster. One hour fifteen is the fastest I've seen it flown by the 735 in the last couple of months, and it's scheduled as an hour and a half. When I asked the flight crew of one of the 737s they acknowledged that in a pinch, they can fly a little faster, but that the CRJ and CR7 are faster aircraft. It's not accidental that the 737 is affectionately known as a guppy.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL1296
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL1294
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL1292

Looking at flight times, all of these flights are near an hour. Yes, some are longer, but some are also shorter. Winds and various approach speeds probably account for all of the variations in flight time. If you claim that an hour flight can be flown 30 minutes faster, the plane would need to be nearly twice as fast.


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...
Aeroflot Back To SFO? posted Tue Jun 28 2005 00:02:53 by Planenutz
AC//767-200's Back To SFO posted Sat Jan 15 2005 02:09:20 by FLYACYYZ
Is Sun Country Coming Back To SFO....again? posted Tue May 25 2004 22:45:08 by As739x
Virgin Atlantic-Why Back To Flying The A340 To SFO posted Mon Nov 10 2003 01:41:11 by AS739X
Delta SFO-NRT Flight Turns Back To SFO. posted Sat Apr 7 2001 04:44:56 by BA
BA LGW-WAW Service, Why The Change Back To LHR? posted Mon Apr 21 2008 18:48:56 by BY188B
VarigLog Given Back To MattlinPatterson posted Thu Apr 3 2008 05:40:25 by LatinAviation
Back To The Dec 2007 Incident Onboard An El Al 777 posted Sun Mar 2 2008 16:56:37 by TodaReisinger
Id Love To See Mirabel Come Back To PAX Service posted Sat Mar 1 2008 05:43:48 by Orion737
Air Canada Back To BOG posted Sat Feb 23 2008 16:50:17 by Connies4ever
Is Sun Country Coming Back To SFO....again? posted Tue May 25 2004 22:45:08 by As739x
Virgin Atlantic-Why Back To Flying The A340 To SFO posted Mon Nov 10 2003 01:41:11 by AS739X
Delta SFO-NRT Flight Turns Back To SFO. posted Sat Apr 7 2001 04:44:56 by BA
BA LGW-WAW Service, Why The Change Back To LHR? posted Mon Apr 21 2008 18:48:56 by BY188B
VarigLog Given Back To MattlinPatterson posted Thu Apr 3 2008 05:40:25 by LatinAviation
Back To The Dec 2007 Incident Onboard An El Al 777 posted Sun Mar 2 2008 16:56:37 by TodaReisinger
Id Love To See Mirabel Come Back To PAX Service posted Sat Mar 1 2008 05:43:48 by Orion737
AC//767-200's Back To SFO posted Sat Jan 15 2005 02:09:20 by FLYACYYZ
Is Sun Country Coming Back To SFO....again? posted Tue May 25 2004 22:45:08 by As739x
Virgin Atlantic-Why Back To Flying The A340 To SFO posted Mon Nov 10 2003 01:41:11 by AS739X
Delta SFO-NRT Flight Turns Back To SFO. posted Sat Apr 7 2001 04:44:56 by BA
BA LGW-WAW Service, Why The Change Back To LHR? posted Mon Apr 21 2008 18:48:56 by BY188B
VarigLog Given Back To MattlinPatterson posted Thu Apr 3 2008 05:40:25 by LatinAviation
Back To The Dec 2007 Incident Onboard An El Al 777 posted Sun Mar 2 2008 16:56:37 by TodaReisinger
Id Love To See Mirabel Come Back To PAX Service posted Sat Mar 1 2008 05:43:48 by Orion737
VarigLog Given Back To MattlinPatterson posted Thu Apr 3 2008 05:40:25 by LatinAviation
Back To The Dec 2007 Incident Onboard An El Al 777 posted Sun Mar 2 2008 16:56:37 by TodaReisinger
Id Love To See Mirabel Come Back To PAX Service posted Sat Mar 1 2008 05:43:48 by Orion737
Aeroflot Back To SFO? posted Tue Jun 28 2005 00:02:53 by Planenutz
AC//767-200's Back To SFO posted Sat Jan 15 2005 02:09:20 by FLYACYYZ
Is Sun Country Coming Back To SFO....again? posted Tue May 25 2004 22:45:08 by As739x
Virgin Atlantic-Why Back To Flying The A340 To SFO posted Mon Nov 10 2003 01:41:11 by AS739X
Delta SFO-NRT Flight Turns Back To SFO. posted Sat Apr 7 2001 04:44:56 by BA
BA LGW-WAW Service, Why The Change Back To LHR? posted Mon Apr 21 2008 18:48:56 by BY188B
VarigLog Given Back To MattlinPatterson posted Thu Apr 3 2008 05:40:25 by LatinAviation
Back To The Dec 2007 Incident Onboard An El Al 777 posted Sun Mar 2 2008 16:56:37 by TodaReisinger
Id Love To See Mirabel Come Back To PAX Service posted Sat Mar 1 2008 05:43:48 by Orion737