Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that AWAC exercised an option to extend their contract under reduced rates in order to retain the business. This shows more of a sign of desperation and not one of strength in the 50 seat segment of the industry.

I have no idea of the motivation Delta had in signing Republic for another 5 years, but if I were them I might consider doing that in order to tie up a pool of pilots that could otherwise be cannibalized for a competitors 175 operation.

Don't get me wrong. I believe 50 seaters will hang around for a while longer, but they are obviously the most prone to being cut due to staffing issues or fuel spikes.

 

Exactly. It will likely be a few years, but I doubt that there will be many flying past 2020.

Lets just hope that mainline doesn't sell additional scope. Get rid of the 50 seaters, the larger numbers are limited, and more people move to mainline. I hope to see all of you there in the next few years.

 

Correct. List for two flights. Either in the back of the airplane or two jump seats. The thing to remember is you have to be at the airport and if you cannot get on because they are full, you need to have both standby tickets in hand. More than likely the company will ask for them as proof. Also expect to get some grief from scheduling about not making the flights.

 

There are advantages and disadvantages the CRJ-200 and the EMB-145 have over each other. These advantages/disadvantages are based on my experiences in both airplanes.

A CRJ, more often than not, can carry a full load of passengers with an alternate filed when some models of the EMB-145 can't. The EMB-145 EP is especially bad. If an alternate is filed, 50 passengers isn't happening on that airplane.

The EMB-145s have a lower fuel burn over the CRJ-200 in most cases. They have a lower MGTW and also have engines with lower rated thrust.

From a passenger perspective, it's a toss-up. The CRJ does have 2-2 seating as opposed to 1-2 seating in the EMB. The CRJ has better overhead capacity with bins on both sides of the cabin. A big plus for the EMB is recirculation fans where the CRJ doesn't have any.

If I'm making fleet decisions for an airline, I take the CRJ-200 over the EMB-145 with fuel prices remaining where they are. The first consideration is getting passengers to their destination safely and both airplanes can do that. The CRJ-200 gets more passengers to the destination when scheduled than the 145s I have experience with.

When discussing the CRJ-700/900 vs. the EMB-170/175, I can't comment because I have no operational experience with the 170/175. I can see passengers preferring the 170/175 over the CRJ-700/900 due to the larger cabin.

 

The 170/175 is by far the superior passenger experience and from friends of mine that have flown both 900s and the 175, it's a comfortable pilots airplane too. The downside is it burns gas like it's going out of style so range suffers and it can't outclimb a 900 or out fly it as anything above .74 I'm told burns so much gas it'll leave you with nothing, where as the next gen 900 can cruise all day at .82 at FL410 and be just fine on fuel. What does the company want, pax comfort or cheap burn. That's what the two big RJ choices come down to.

 

Wasn't the order for 24 additional 900s??

 

Yes. Sorry. There was some sort of air-gap between my brain and the keyboard.

 

I think, in order, (1) dispatch reliability, (2) completion factor, (3) fuel burn and (4) pax comfort.

 

Idk what the difference in dispatch reliability and completion factor are between the two so I can't speak to that. I'd imagine they're similar but who knows.

 

Though there are differences between the 700/900 and the 170/175, they are not nearly as predominant as the 200/145 vs the 76 seaters. All things being equal, as a pax experience, the 700/900 and 170/175 are the same