How many 135's does UCAL own and/or leasing that are just sitting around?
Quote:
If the Saab is anywhere close to the Dash it's a huge difference. I've compared numbers on routes we share with XJT and CHQ.Originally Posted by Cruz5350
If they seat 37 and the Saab is at 34 how much more fuel would be burned using the 135 compared to the 340?
I don't wish bad on anyone, but as gas goes up the number of sub-70 seat jets will only decrease, and fortunately thanks to scope limits at mainline limiting larger RJs maybe we'll finally see some flying go back where it belongs.
Quote:
The ATR 72 burns about 400lbs more while carrying double the passengers and their luggage and AMR still parked them and replaced the flying with <50 seat jets!!!Originally Posted by etflies
Our company plans about 1200lbs/hr on the Saab, but it usually does better than that.
I rode on a 1900 the other day and I can see why pax wouldn't like it, but the fuel burns are miserly compared to the small jets. If they pax want cheap tickets they are going to have to sacrifice something. That's just my opinion though.
Quote:
Fuel burns are but one cost in the running of an airline. No matter what the aircraft, it's easy to break even on the direct operating costs. The overhead of running an airline and the aircraft ownership costs, now that's another story. A BE1900 has a low cost structure, but an extremely low revenue generation capability. Compare now to XJT.....much bigger company. The marginal cost of adding a few E135's back will not appreciably increase overhead, so as long as these aircraft can break even on their direct costs XJT is still coming out ahead.Originally Posted by Cruz5350
I rode on a 1900 the other day and I can see why pax wouldn't like it, but the fuel burns are miserly compared to the small jets. If they pax want cheap tickets they are going to have to sacrifice something. That's just my opinion though.
But what do I know, I did the management thing for a little while......
Quote:
But what do I know, I did the management thing for a little while......
No I understand that much, but compare it to the Dash 8-100/200 that's a 37ish seater right and the Saab is 34 so the revenue should be equal to the 135 I'm assuming? Seat's roughly the same amount of folks and I'm sure the fuel burn is a decent amount less. Then again I'm just arguing fuel burns here.Originally Posted by LostInPA
Fuel burns are but one cost in the running of an airline. No matter what the aircraft, it's easy to break even on the direct operating costs. The overhead of running an airline and the aircraft ownership costs, now that's another story. A BE1900 has a low cost structure, but an extremely low revenue generation capability. Compare now to XJT.....much bigger company. The marginal cost of adding a few E135's back will not appreciably increase overhead, so as long as these aircraft can break even on their direct costs XJT is still coming out ahead.But what do I know, I did the management thing for a little while......
