Page 1 of 1

Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:11 pm
by cpr05
Envoy is bringing back 58 aircraft. What goes into reactivation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:27 pm
by dbo861
Do they have pilots to fly those aircraft?

AA must see growth opportunity with the strong economy and this is a quick way to add to their fleet. That’s a lot of jets to add back, granted small RJs, but I’m curious where they’ll send them.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:24 pm
by SyracuseAvGeek
How many of them will be in the old American Eagle livery?

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:33 pm
by bmibaby737
cpr05 wrote:
Envoy is bringing back 58 aircraft. What goes into reactivation?


When was it announced that all the E140s would be coming back into service? The airline took delivery of 59 140s.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:43 pm
by usairways85
dbo861 wrote:
Do they have pilots to fly those aircraft?

AA must see growth opportunity with the strong economy and this is a quick way to add to their fleet. That’s a lot of jets to add back, granted small RJs, but I’m curious where they’ll send them.

It's not really growth. PDT recently retired the last DH8 and AA loses the AWI flying in Feb.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:45 pm
by dc10lover
I guess they are not too expensive to fly? Larger regional jets are of course more economical to fly.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:51 pm
by dc10lover
dbo861 wrote:
Do they have pilots to fly those aircraft?

AA must see growth opportunity with the strong economy and this is a quick way to add to their fleet. That’s a lot of jets to add back, granted small RJs, but I’m curious where they’ll send them.

They will probably use them to serve smaller cities / smaller markets. Pasco / Tri - Cities airport in Washington State still wants non - stop service to Los Angeles. These smaller regional jets would be great in smaller markets.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:57 pm
by dc10lover
All to be reactivated by 2Q 2018. Most are stored at Mathis Field in "Near-Flying" condition on month to month lease of ramp space.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envoy_Air

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 5:09 pm
by bmibaby737
dc10lover wrote:
All to be reactivated by 2Q 2018. Most are stored at Mathis Field in "Near-Flying" condition on month to month lease of ramp space.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envoy_Air


Wikipedia is hardly reliable?

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 5:10 pm
by Spacepope
dc10lover wrote:
All to be reactivated by 2Q 2018. Most are stored at Mathis Field in "Near-Flying" condition on month to month lease of ramp space.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envoy_Air


Where exactly on the field? I was just checking on Google Earth and not only are there precisely zero E-jets there, but the largest aircraft is pretty much a solo A-10.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 5:20 pm
by Jshank83
Spacepope wrote:

Where exactly on the field? I was just checking on Google Earth and not only are there precisely zero E-jets there, but the largest aircraft is pretty much a solo A-10.


Here is an image from November. I still would like to see a source beside wikipedia though.

Image

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 5:39 pm
by FSDan
Wow, I didn't realize they were bringing so many back! There are already a handful back in operation, some in the new colors and some in the old.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 5:52 pm
by airtran737
cpr05 wrote:
Envoy is bringing back 58 aircraft. What goes into reactivation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They are ferried from SJT to ABI and undergo a check. If it’s time for a heavy check, then they get new interiors, updated FMS’ and a paint job. If it’s not time for a heavy check, then they are returned to service in the old colors and will fly like that until they are due to go back for a heavy. We are now also using a MRO in Quebec to help with the re-activation.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 5:56 pm
by AAtakeMeAway
bmibaby737 wrote:
dc10lover wrote:
All to be reactivated by 2Q 2018. Most are stored at Mathis Field in "Near-Flying" condition on month to month lease of ramp space.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envoy_Air


Wikipedia is hardly reliable?


It can be reliable if you check the citations included therein that are typically reliable:

http://sanangelolive.com/news/business/ ... this-field

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:41 pm
by Spacepope
Jshank83 wrote:
Spacepope wrote:

Where exactly on the field? I was just checking on Google Earth and not only are there precisely zero E-jets there, but the largest aircraft is pretty much a solo A-10.


Here is an image from November. I still would like to see a source beside wikipedia though.

Image

Excellent! Thank you.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:56 pm
by mtnwest1979
Glad to see the planes gping back to usefulness.
Stopped by SJT last April and saw the numerous planes there (and all the SF340s at Abilene) looking a bit dogged lol.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:28 pm
by Jshank83
AAtakeMeAway wrote:
bmibaby737 wrote:
dc10lover wrote:
All to be reactivated by 2Q 2018. Most are stored at Mathis Field in "Near-Flying" condition on month to month lease of ramp space.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envoy_Air


Wikipedia is hardly reliable?


It can be reliable if you check the citations included therein that are typically reliable:

http://sanangelolive.com/news/business/ ... this-field


Nothing in this says they are being reactivated though. It only talks about them being stored.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:43 pm
by cheapgreek
Jshank83 wrote:
AAtakeMeAway wrote:
bmibaby737 wrote:

Wikipedia is hardly reliable?


It can be reliable if you check the citations included therein that are typically reliable:

http://sanangelolive.com/news/business/ ... this-field


Nothing in this says they are being reactivated though. It only talks about them being stored.


Date of article, "By Joe Hyde | Apr. 9, 2015 8:30 am". Almost three years ago, a lot has happened since then.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:46 pm
by hOMSaR
cheapgreek wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
AAtakeMeAway wrote:

It can be reliable if you check the citations included therein that are typically reliable:

http://sanangelolive.com/news/business/ ... this-field


Nothing in this says they are being reactivated though. It only talks about them being stored.


Date of article, "By Joe Hyde | Apr. 9, 2015 8:30 am". Almost three years ago, a lot has happened since then.


The point is, one can't cite wikipedia as a reference, claim that the citations within Wiki are accurate, and use that as justification since the citation itself doesn't corroborate the claim. There is no citation on the Wikipedia article that says the planes are being reactivated.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:50 pm
by wedgetail737
Wasn't AA Eagle on of the very few airlines that actually ordered the E-140's? I flew on them regularly out of ICT when I was commuting between the PNW and Kansas.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:55 pm
by cheapgreek
usairways85 wrote:
dbo861 wrote:
Do they have pilots to fly those aircraft?

AA must see growth opportunity with the strong economy and this is a quick way to add to their fleet. That’s a lot of jets to add back, granted small RJs, but I’m curious where they’ll send them.

It's not really growth. PDT recently retired the last DH8 and AA loses the AWI flying in Feb.


The 11 Dash-8-300's will be flying till June 2018.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:20 pm
by RJNUT
wedgetail737 wrote:
Wasn't AA Eagle on of the very few airlines that actually ordered the E-140's? I flew on them regularly out of ICT when I was commuting between the PNW and Kansas.

I thought they went to AX (Trans States originally)

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:25 pm
by Flighty
Given the Air Wisconsin exit, there is really no way they can maintain their network unless they add some small RJs next month. This is a plausible story on that basis.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:39 pm
by drdisque
I'm guessing these will be PDT crews and operate former AWI CRJ and PDT Dash 8 routes out of PHL?

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:05 pm
by airtran737
drdisque wrote:
I'm guessing these will be PDT crews and operate former AWI CRJ and PDT Dash 8 routes out of PHL?


PDT is taking a lot of the PHL flying, but PSA and arepublic are in there as well. Envoy will soon be operating into PHL via JFK 6 times a day.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:13 pm
by ODwyerPW
Wow,
I thought those were stored in Kingman AZ. Learn something new each day.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:14 pm
by bmibaby737
ODwyerPW wrote:
Wow,
I thought those were stored in Kingman AZ. Learn something new each day.


Those are the E135s

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:44 pm
by gdg9
So at this point this is still a rumor.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:35 am
by cvgComair
I just removed it from the article, there is no sourcing to support this.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:43 am
by N383SW
RJNUT wrote:
wedgetail737 wrote:
Wasn't AA Eagle on of the very few airlines that actually ordered the E-140's? I flew on them regularly out of ICT when I was commuting between the PNW and Kansas.

I thought they went to AX (Trans States originally)

IIRC you’re thinking of the ones that were flown by CHQ as American Connection back in the 00’s. If memory serves correctly those were owned by AA. Trans States did fly some 145’s that were owned by AA and originally with Eagle but those went back to Eagle (well Envoy now), I suppose it’ll always be Eagle to me but that’s old school lol. Anyway those frames flown as American Connection were originally from the STL days then went up to ORD once STL was pulled down.. hope I got all of this straight, it’s all on memory so please be easy lol.

On a side note, does anyone recall where those 140’s went that originally flew under Connection?

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:57 pm
by jgcotter
Based strictly upon aircraft movement, I now show 16 E140s back in service with Envoy. Of these 16, I show 12 having spent a week at AMA, which is a paint facility, and a week is about right for paint.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:02 pm
by WWads
jgcotter wrote:
Based strictly upon aircraft movement, I now show 16 E140s back in service with Envoy. Of these 16, I show 12 having spent a week at AMA, which is a paint facility, and a week is about right for paint.


Darn I liked the old livery. Guess this means they'll be in service for a while.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:32 pm
by diverdave
cvgComair wrote:
I just removed it from the article, there is no sourcing to support this.


This are some references to reactivating these aircraft in this thread:

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/2493893-post6435.html

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/2493923-post6441.html

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:41 pm
by vfw614
Quick question re the E140:

What was the point of developing that subtype? As only a relatively small number was produced for just a single customer, wouldn't it have been more sensible to simply use the E145 airframe and leave out two rows CRJ440-style - and "invest" the saved development and certification costs in discounting E145 for said customer? Was the additional range of the E140 needed or did it significantly save operating costs compared to the E145 that also offset the - I assume - rather poor residal value of the E140?

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:51 pm
by MO11
vfw614 wrote:
Quick question re the E140:

What was the point of developing that subtype? As only a relatively small number was produced for just a single customer, wouldn't it have been more sensible to simply use the E145 airframe and leave out two rows CRJ440-style - and "invest" the saved development and certification costs in discounting E145 for said customer? Was the additional range of the E140 needed or did it significantly save operating costs compared to the E145 that also offset the - I assume - rather poor residal value of the E140?


Eagle was contractually maxed out on 50-seaters. The ERJ 140 had 98% parts commonality with the ERJ 135. Eagle launched the type with a 130 airplane order, with a follow-on order for 9 more, but as things turned out, the last 80 were converted to ERJ-145s. Remember that there was a non-AA customer, Skyway, that ordered but never took delivery.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:14 pm
by vfw614
Sure, I am aware of this. But why did it make more sense for Embraer and AE to develop and pay for a new sub-type - instead of simply using 44 seat E145s, just like others did with the CRJ200/440. In contrast to the CRJ440, the E140 cannot be converted to a 50 seater and, as a result, is a rather exotic type with probably much less residual value than a E145 (well, at least 10 years or so ago).

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:09 pm
by alasizon
vfw614 wrote:
Sure, I am aware of this. But why did it make more sense for Embraer and AE to develop and pay for a new sub-type - instead of simply using 44 seat E145s, just like others did with the CRJ200/440. In contrast to the CRJ440, the E140 cannot be converted to a 50 seater and, as a result, is a rather exotic type with probably much less residual value than a E145 (well, at least 10 years or so ago).


Realistically, with the E140s being reactivated, when they are retired again, there won't be much residual value left other than parts. The aircraft are already paid off and a fleet of almost 60 makes for pretty decent economies of scale.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:18 pm
by DiamondFlyer
vfw614 wrote:
Sure, I am aware of this. But why did it make more sense for Embraer and AE to develop and pay for a new sub-type - instead of simply using 44 seat E145s, just like others did with the CRJ200/440. In contrast to the CRJ440, the E140 cannot be converted to a 50 seater and, as a result, is a rather exotic type with probably much less residual value than a E145 (well, at least 10 years or so ago).


AA may have felt they couldn't just paper limit the seating of the aircraft, without a fight from APA.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:52 am
by MO11
N383SW wrote:
On a side note, does anyone recall where those 140’s went that originally flew under Connection?


One went to JETGO, several went to SA Airlink, the remainder weren't placed.

Re: Envoy Reactivating ERJ-140

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:58 am
by cheapgreek
vfw614 wrote:
Sure, I am aware of this. But why did it make more sense for Embraer and AE to develop and pay for a new sub-type - instead of simply using 44 seat E145s, just like others did with the CRJ200/440. In contrast to the CRJ440, the E140 cannot be converted to a 50 seater and, as a result, is a rather exotic type with probably much less residual value than a E145 (well, at least 10 years or so ago).


I believe the 140 is quite a bit better off short runways and only lose 6 seats.