![]() |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 2636922)
"It is hard to argue that Embraer has no momentum when you have these sales numbers behind us," says the manufacturer's commercial chief John Slattery. "Today is about Embraer reaffirming its leadership in the space for up to 150 seats."
TO BE OPERATED ON THE MAINLINE CERTIFICATE, OF COURSE. :D |
Originally Posted by FlyingSlowly
(Post 2637107)
I'll get excited about this when I hear that UAL, DAL, or AAL places an order for 50 E2-195 with options for 50 more...
TO BE OPERATED ON THE MAINLINE CERTIFICATE, OF COURSE. :D Whereas Airbus rescued the C-series for bombardier, Embraer had a highly successful business even before Boeing joined up with them. With the sort of synergy a huge partner can provide, Embraer is poised to make big gains. IMHO anyway. |
Currently with the new pay rates and training costs the 175 CASM is anemic. The legacy operators are bleeding money to keep the 175 mainline flying alive.
The 175 was a hit when you could fly ewr to Houston or Austin when flight loads were light, the monkeys up front made peanuts and revenue per seat mile was ok..... now with higher labor charges and gas the 175 is becoming a dinosaur and will be relegated to the 50 seat flying routes.. think clt to pgv or dfw to abi. Kirby at united loves the 175 the feels it weakens his mainline labor group. This he publicly said when at american. |
The legacy operators are bleeding money to keep the 175 mainline flying alive. The 175 was a hit when you could fly ewr to Houston or Austin when flight loads were light, the monkeys up front made peanuts and revenue per seat mile was ok..... now with higher labor charges and gas the 175 is becoming a dinosaur and will be relegated to the 50 seat flying routes.. think clt to pgv or dfw to abi. |
Originally Posted by MKUltra
(Post 2637942)
Currently with the new pay rates and training costs the 175 CASM is anemic. The legacy operators are bleeding money to keep the 175 mainline flying alive.
The 175 was a hit when you could fly ewr to Houston or Austin when flight loads were light, the monkeys up front made peanuts and revenue per seat mile was ok..... now with higher labor charges and gas the 175 is becoming a dinosaur and will be relegated to the 50 seat flying routes.. think clt to pgv or dfw to abi. Kirby at united loves the 175 the feels it weakens his mainline labor group. This he publicly said when at american. I have a really hard time believing that labor prices; which historically are one of the cheapest expenses of an airline operation, are making 76 seat flying near unprofitable. Basing the cost of flying on a legacy which is the same exact jet as 145, the break even on a 50 seat jet is around half the airplane based on the lowest fare available for flights between 1.5 hours. The 145 is not nearly as efficient compared to the 175. I ran these numbers myself out of curiousity. I feel like management has been stuffing the “labor prices will bankrupt this airline” thing down pilots and flight attendants throats so long that it’s starting to take hold. |
Originally Posted by Newstick189
(Post 2642014)
I feel like management has been stuffing the “labor prices will bankrupt this airline” thing down pilots and flight attendants throats so long that it’s starting to take hold.
Current spot price for airline fuel is about $2.14 a gallon. An e-175 average burn on a 500 mile segment is maybe 560 gallons. That places fuel costs at roughly $1200/HR. If the captain is getting $100/hr and the FO is getting $50 an hour, their combined salaries are only about 12% of the fuel cost. It's an expense - certainly - but it's little more than a nuisance compared to fuel prices. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:15 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands