Airline Pilot Central Forums
Page 4 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Endeavor Air (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/endeavor-air/)
-   -   Narrowing the carriers down? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/endeavor-air/118286-narrowing-carriers-down.html)

Baradium 11-30-2018 11:35 AM
Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 2716598)
It won't be there for long probably, the A220 is best on routes like FNT-LAS or CLT-PDX, etc. Flights that would be served by an RJ, if they had that kind of range. Both the 717 and the RJs, are cheaper on the current routes they fly, than the A220.
Citation definitely needed as I understand the A220 has the lowest cost per seat mile of any aircraft in the fleet throughout its range. If that's the case the only way an RJ would be cheaper would be if the route doesn't support the number of seats.

TalkTurkey 11-30-2018 12:17 PM
Originally Posted by Baradium (Post 2716798)
Citation definitely needed as I understand the A220 has the lowest cost per seat mile of any aircraft in the fleet throughout its range. If that's the case the only way an RJ would be cheaper would be if the route doesn't support the number of seats.
No worries. The desert birds will be back after the economic downturn next year.

SlamClicker 11-30-2018 12:30 PM
Originally Posted by TalkTurkey (Post 2716817)
No worries. The desert birds will be back after the economic downturn next year.
Long live crazy 8s!

Avroman 11-30-2018 08:19 PM
Originally Posted by SlamClicker (Post 2716822)
Long live crazy 8s!
Except in most cases a 900 is cheaper than a 200 because of the much better climb and minimal cruise burn difference plus you know that 50% seating increase. The 200 really only makes sense on short routes that can't fill more than 60 seats (yes I know seating capacities)

amcnd 12-01-2018 04:58 AM
Originally Posted by Avroman (Post 2717051)
Except in most cases a 900 is cheaper than a 200 because of the much better climb and minimal cruise burn difference plus you know that 50% seating increase. The 200 really only makes sense on short routes that can't fill more than 60 seats (yes I know seating capacities)
200’s are mostly paid for at most airlines now... so they are super cheap. That 900 payment negates any savings over a 200 right now...

Baradium 12-01-2018 03:05 PM
Originally Posted by amcnd (Post 2717115)
200’s are mostly paid for at most airlines now... so they are super cheap. That 900 payment negates any savings over a 200 right now...
It's a happy talking point, but I think the parking of 200s implies otherwise.

Green Needles 12-01-2018 03:09 PM
Originally Posted by Baradium (Post 2717393)
It's a happy talking point, but I think the parking of 200s implies otherwise.
How many have we parked?

msprj2 12-01-2018 03:11 PM
Originally Posted by Baradium (Post 2717393)
It's a happy talking point, but I think the parking of 200s implies otherwise.
Its about dual class cabin, not fuel burn.

Baradium 12-01-2018 03:18 PM
Originally Posted by Green Needles (Post 2717397)
How many have we parked?
How many does 9E still have? I'm more talking industry wide but 9E doesn't have as many as they used to either.

Baradium 12-01-2018 03:20 PM
Originally Posted by msprj2 (Post 2717398)
Its about dual class cabin, not fuel burn.
I do agree that the dual class cabin is a big component, but I don't think it's really all of it either. Their cost per seat mile is up there, the big advantage is on routes that don't support anything larger. The effective CASM for a 76 jet is a bit higher on routes that only support 40-50 passengers on a flight than if it was full.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:23 PM.
Page 4 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands