Embraer 135 returning to XJT
 

Starting in April. 5 of them coming back online, and our contract with United for 14 E-145's was extended for 3 more years. This explains a little of the hiring surge going on here.

So much for the 50 seater being dead....now the 37 seaters are coming back. Go figure.

Any idea what routes they will be on? Will they be replacing our Saabs on our non-EAS routes? (ie. UNV, ABE, BGM, HPN, CHO, CRW)

I think they will be used out of ORD

Word is that they will be used in ORD for routes like ATW, GRB, LAN, SBN, etc. to provide some relief for -145s to be used on the west coast. My personal speculation is they will replace the Saabs or Brasilias in the west.

There's lots of rumors floating around. Truth is...nobody knows yet what they will be used for.

what routes out west?

How is that even possible? With fuel so high I doubt they would make any money.

Yep, rumors everywhere. To include that it's just a stop gap measure of sorts. Some of the 145's are coming up on heavy checks and simply cannot get through the process fast enough, so the 135's are to help with that.

And YES, I KNOW they ONLY seat 37, just sayin'.......

Again, rumors.

If they seat 37 and the Saab is at 34 how much more fuel would be burned using the 135 compared to the 340?

Well, UAL is paying for the leases as they sit in the desert anyways. That may change the equation a bit.

The memo said the 5 135s were for additional block hours....

How many 135's does UCAL own and/or leasing that are just sitting around?

30 - 5 so 25 now. Unless CHQ is still flying any.

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.

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.

Our company plans about 1200lbs/hr on the Saab, but it usually does better than that.

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!!!

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.

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......

It's true. You can't drive a Cadillac on a Geo Metro budget. If the pax want cheap, they are going to have to ride on something this is economical.

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.

Does anyone operate the Saab with 34 seats actually available to pax? Just curious because I used to commute on one and the most I ever saw get on was 32.

Don't forget that most passengers only take a commuter aircraft to get to a major airport where they get on a larger and more efficient aircraft that takes them to their real destination. So even if the mainline carrier loses some money on the short commuter flight, they make up that money in the more expensive tickets on the larger aircraft those commuter passengers go onto after. Instead of looking at the efficiency of the commuter aircraft, look at the efficiency of the total trip each passenger books.

Those 135s are already paid for/being paid for, so if there is enough demand you are better off putting those aircraft to work to feed larger international flights even if you are losing some money on the first leg.

Also, some markets are so competitive that carriers are willing to lose money on flights just to deter competing carriers from entering a particular market.

We have a few with 34, and a few with 33. Depending on bags and fuel I've seen all 34 filled up numerous times. Rarer in the summertime for obvious reasons but it can be done when the planets align and the right goat is sacrificed prior to boarding.

Its really a problem getting 34 onboard when you are flying to UNV and the foreign exchange students are coming back with all their heavy bags. We leave with 34 passengers all the time when bags and excess fuel aren't weighing you down.

Thanks for the reply. I spent a year commuting offline on Mesaba, where I was told they had no control over their weight and balance. I rode (or tried to ride) the same flight every week and often ran into a weight restriction. That restriction turned my commute into a three or four leg day. It was glorious.

DHC-8-100 is a 37-seater in an academic sense only......when I flew the thing you were usually restricted to 33-35. I think the SF340 may take a hit as well.

You're exactly right, Cruz. Fuel burn is definitely less than the jet.

However, for a small, limited size operation, XJT already has the ERJ series on property. As far as they are concerned, it's just an E145 with slightly lower direct costs. I just would guess the cost to bring in a turboprop operated in such small numbers (assuming the 5 airplanes are the scope of what UAL wants to do) would offset any fuel savings you might get. Also, the lease market for 37/50 seat RJ's isn't amazing now......if I were a lessor I would be willing to make some deals just to place these aircraft in service with fuel at its present level.

Guys...keep in mind also that UCAL used to run the 135 on long legs too. No doubt a turboprop is more efficient on short hops, but you wont see a Saab running from IAH-CRW either. It may make sense on the very thin routes. Who knows.

The zero fuel weight on the B model is 26,500. The Swedes didn't make it for fat Americans, so with the standard pax weights you'd have to be light on bags to get on 34 people.

I feel your pain, nothing worse than a commute that involves a weight restricted airplane and renders the jumpseat useless.

UAL has to pay the leases on these parked aircraft anyways. They would still pay the same lease even if they brought other aircraft to do this flying.

Neither did the Canadians. We're often max landing weight limited on the Q200...the Q300 on the flip side is an absolute beast. Never had an issue (knock on wood).

It's not about what the plane can and can't do and how much it'll cost to do it. It's about the comforts of a jet versus a prop that the customers have been complaining about.

The comforts of a jet? You mean a 3.5 hour block flight, stuck in a 50 seater?

The emb 135 can usually fly full with a full load of bags as long as there isn't a big alt fuel burn. It makes sense if you have really light loads between two points. Ever since CAL started charging for bags the carry ons have been adding up. The q 400 has a small baggage compartment and has had to leave bags behind on full flights. Usually they throw them on the next flight. What CAL found out when they originally brought in CHQ was that when you start bumping people due to weight restrictions, or leaving bags behind forcing compensation it adds up to a pretty sizeable number fast.

These 135's are already being paid for by CAL who was able to work out a deal with the lease holder. The replacement parts are already there, the replacement parts cost a hell of a lot less when you are ordering for 245 airplanes vs 30 airplanes, no new maintenance guys needed, no new pilot training required, and if it breaks there are 245 more of them to find a replacement to still operate the flight.

There should be a law against that. EWR - OMA, EWR - TUL, EWR - MCI...

I remember working YYZ-IAH............ugh.

We do it at Eagle too, LGA-XNA, MIA-IND, MIA-PIT, MIA-CLE, MIA-CVG, MIA-CMH....many more

You sound like the typical "you gotta get jet time! Turboprop doesn't count!" guy.

Even more of a compelling reason to fly them instead of starting a small turboprop operation, then.

Everybody knows turboprop time is inferior to jet time. Expressjet is hiring if you want to make yourself marketable for the majors.

Its ALL about cost. As far as comfort goes, I've ridden on every RJ currently flown by US operators, and all but one turboprop type. Personally I'd put a couple of the props at the top of the list, certainly above the 50 seat RJs. To each his own though.

It does amuse me when im walking out to the airplane for my next flight and a passengers asks methis old the Q400 they're looking at is. I had one guy tell me I was wrong when I told him the airplane wasn't yet a month old. Oh well.