Originally Posted by
Cruz5350
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.
DHC-8-100 is a 37-seater in an academic sense only......when I flew the thing you were usually restricted to 33-35. I think the SF340 may take a hit as well.
You're exactly right, Cruz. Fuel burn is definitely less than the jet.
However, for a small, limited size operation, XJT already has the ERJ series on property. As far as they are concerned, it's just an E145 with slightly lower direct costs. I just would guess the cost to bring in a turboprop operated in such small numbers (assuming the 5 airplanes are the scope of what UAL wants to do) would offset any fuel savings you might get. Also, the lease market for 37/50 seat RJ's isn't amazing now......if I were a lessor I would be willing to make some deals just to place these aircraft in service with fuel at its present level.