Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
Hate to say this (I really do) but it makes sense. You've got a new jet with a new wing and cycle limited fuselage flying against a design from the 1950's with a fuselage that don't care about cycles (100,000+)
The 717 is the right size, but what have been your observations on fuel burn (assuming you have DC-9 experience) ?
The E175 is 4 generations newer than the 717's type. The long thin routes are going to go there first.
For the record, I voted no and I fought to "capture" rather than exclude the E175's type (aka the Compass divestiture).
I like the jet, but it is built for more cycles than a washing machine at a house with 8 kids.
You know what after finding the CRM Update for May, I see I remembered it wrong. The letter was not about insufficient DTW staffing for the 717 and that's why the AUS-LAX turns were dropped. It just said because network planning decided it wouldn't do it.
We should really try to buy a life limited low cycle jet and put it at mainline.
