Embraer 135 returning to XJT

Reply Subscribe

Page 2 of 12

Last »

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

01-14-2012, 03:25 PM

#11

g-code

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: May 2006

Position: A few

Posts: 166

The memo said the 5 135s were for additional block hours....

01-14-2012, 04:10 PM

#12

RgrMurdock

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: May 2011

Posts: 996

How many 135's does UCAL own and/or leasing that are just sitting around?

01-14-2012, 04:32 PM

#13

Nevets

Banned

Joined APC: Dec 2007

Position: EMB 145 CPT

Posts: 2,934

Quote:

How many 135's does UCAL own and/or leasing that are just sitting around?

30 - 5 so 25 now. Unless CHQ is still flying any.

01-14-2012, 04:44 PM

#14

DirectTo

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: May 2011

Position: 737 CA

Posts: 959

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cruz5350

If they seat 37 and the Saab is at 34 how much more fuel would be burned using the 135 compared to the 340?

If the Saab is anywhere close to the Dash it's a huge difference. I've compared numbers on routes we share with XJT and CHQ.

I don't wish bad on anyone, but as gas goes up the number of sub-70 seat jets will only decrease, and fortunately thanks to scope limits at mainline limiting larger RJs maybe we'll finally see some flying go back where it belongs.

01-14-2012, 04:46 PM

#15

etflies

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Mar 2006

Position: KCCO

Posts: 767

Our company plans about 1200lbs/hr on the Saab, but it usually does better than that.

01-14-2012, 05:04 PM

#16

What

Underpaid...

Joined APC: Nov 2010

Position: French-Canadian

Posts: 2,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by etflies

Our company plans about 1200lbs/hr on the Saab, but it usually does better than that.

The ATR 72 burns about 400lbs more while carrying double the passengers and their luggage and AMR still parked them and replaced the flying with <50 seat jets!!!

01-14-2012, 05:18 PM

#17

Cruz5350

Respek

Joined APC: Jul 2010

Posts: 2,635

I rode on a 1900 the other day and I can see why pax wouldn't like it, but the fuel burns are miserly compared to the small jets. If they pax want cheap tickets they are going to have to sacrifice something. That's just my opinion though.

01-14-2012, 05:39 PM

#18

LostInPA

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Sep 2009

Position: B737 F/O

Posts: 425

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cruz5350

Fuel burns are but one cost in the running of an airline. No matter what the aircraft, it's easy to break even on the direct operating costs. The overhead of running an airline and the aircraft ownership costs, now that's another story. A BE1900 has a low cost structure, but an extremely low revenue generation capability. Compare now to XJT.....much bigger company. The marginal cost of adding a few E135's back will not appreciably increase overhead, so as long as these aircraft can break even on their direct costs XJT is still coming out ahead.

But what do I know, I did the management thing for a little while......

01-14-2012, 05:40 PM

#19

AtlCSIP

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jan 2009

Position: 737 Left

Posts: 1,827

It's true. You can't drive a Cadillac on a Geo Metro budget. If the pax want cheap, they are going to have to ride on something this is economical.

01-14-2012, 05:48 PM

#20

Cruz5350

Respek

Joined APC: Jul 2010

Posts: 2,635

Quote:

Originally Posted by LostInPA

No I understand that much, but compare it to the Dash 8-100/200 that's a 37ish seater right and the Saab is 34 so the revenue should be equal to the 135 I'm assuming? Seat's roughly the same amount of folks and I'm sure the fuel burn is a decent amount less. Then again I'm just arguing fuel burns here.