How long do the ERJs have left?
#11
well that’s the big question. It’s not a matter if 6x 50 per day vs 2x 150. 4x 64 works pretty well. But scope! But scope! Yes the airport’s that had 4x 64 and 3 x 150 before now get 4x 150
Frequency is expensive. It’s worth the cost if you’re in an arms race. If two other carriers use frequency to steal your pax, you have to respond. If everyone pulls back to half their former selves, maybe everyone stops fighting over Evansville and Tri Cities
Frequency is expensive. It’s worth the cost if you’re in an arms race. If two other carriers use frequency to steal your pax, you have to respond. If everyone pulls back to half their former selves, maybe everyone stops fighting over Evansville and Tri Cities
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,465
FWIW, I was talking to someone on the maintenance side of management about a year and a half ago. He said maintaining the 145s/140s we (Envoy) have will be much more involved when they hit 40,000 hrs due to maintenance schedule (I can’t remember if it meant more exstensive inspections durring heavy checks or more frequent heavy checks or really anything about why it was more involved, but he was expecting regularly scheduled mx to be much more expensive). HE was concerned about the viability of the 145/140s beyond 40,000 hours because of this.
That said, just because it’s more involved and more exensive, that doesn’t mean it’s not worth it. I know AAG, pre china flu, was expecting to use the these airplanes at least through 2025 and while I don’t always look at the flight hours of the airplane I’m flying, when I have to do a crew placard I do have to write the hours in the action taken and I don’t remember ever doing one that had less than 35,000 hours.
Circumstances have changed drastically the last few months. Does AAG STILL think that keeping the 145/140s going through 2025? I dunno. Just watching trends the last few months... I think not.
That said, just because it’s more involved and more exensive, that doesn’t mean it’s not worth it. I know AAG, pre china flu, was expecting to use the these airplanes at least through 2025 and while I don’t always look at the flight hours of the airplane I’m flying, when I have to do a crew placard I do have to write the hours in the action taken and I don’t remember ever doing one that had less than 35,000 hours.
Circumstances have changed drastically the last few months. Does AAG STILL think that keeping the 145/140s going through 2025? I dunno. Just watching trends the last few months... I think not.
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Posts: 490
Pretty sure they still have a line for the legacy 600 for individual customer requests. I'm sure it wouldn't take much to shift over with a big order.
#14
Banned
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 2,012
absolutely. It’s the exact details of eventually that will matter. A prolonged substantial drop in demand will lead to substantial changes. I get called a troll when I speculate on such changes in detail though 🤣
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 606
Interesting times ahead for sure. This industry is always changing, but the rate at which it’s changing seems to be faster now than decades past. The explosive growth over the past decade, the COVID, mainline retirements, aging regional fleets, scope issues, etc., is going to really shake up the industry over the next 1-3 years. By the end of the 20s, I suspect the industry is going to look very different from a snapshot at the peak of 2019.
#18
If the ERJ is technically still available, then it's remotely possible you might see new builds, but I think it's pretty remote. Not fuel efficient and not roomy inside. I'd expect to see new turboprops first... those can be roomy, modern, and still get good gas mileage.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post