Future of ATL
#21
The CRJ200's are either owned outright or leased with zero tail risk, meaning they can be parked or given back to the lessor with a 30 day notice and SKYW owes them nothing. The easiest aircraft to idle at the moment.
#22
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,202
and the easiest to spin back up if/when the demand is back...
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,090
The hardest part is finding a carrier to place them in service for. UA/DL/AA/AS are not going to park much of their 65/70/76 seat fleets as those will be critical to them during the recovery when load factors will support a large regional jet but not a narrow-body.
The 50 seat fleets will also see large cuts initially, which is a problem for the 145 which has no common type with a larger jet, but for the 200, any 700/900 pilot can fly them with basic differences training, if not already qualified.
The 200s also have a very low acquisition cost, some parts and maintenance commonality with the 700/900, and can be brought on-line for cheap, and then put back into storage for not much loss if that need arises as well (possibly when fuel spikes in a year or two)
The 50 seat fleets will also see large cuts initially, which is a problem for the 145 which has no common type with a larger jet, but for the 200, any 700/900 pilot can fly them with basic differences training, if not already qualified.
The 200s also have a very low acquisition cost, some parts and maintenance commonality with the 700/900, and can be brought on-line for cheap, and then put back into storage for not much loss if that need arises as well (possibly when fuel spikes in a year or two)
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 247
The hardest part is finding a carrier to place them in service for. UA/DL/AA/AS are not going to park much of their 65/70/76 seat fleets as those will be critical to them during the recovery when load factors will support a large regional jet but not a narrow-body.
The 50 seat fleets will also see large cuts initially, which is a problem for the 145 which has no common type with a larger jet, but for the 200, any 700/900 pilot can fly them with basic differences training, if not already qualified.
The 200s also have a very low acquisition cost, some parts and maintenance commonality with the 700/900, and can be brought on-line for cheap, and then put back into storage for not much loss if that need arises as well (possibly when fuel spikes in a year or two)
The 50 seat fleets will also see large cuts initially, which is a problem for the 145 which has no common type with a larger jet, but for the 200, any 700/900 pilot can fly them with basic differences training, if not already qualified.
The 200s also have a very low acquisition cost, some parts and maintenance commonality with the 700/900, and can be brought on-line for cheap, and then put back into storage for not much loss if that need arises as well (possibly when fuel spikes in a year or two)
At present time there’s no ability to even fill a 700/900 or 175 with pax. Before this whole virus thing United wanted to get rid of the 200’s at any cost.
Don’t forget that a 145 has an a row of 2 and 1 pax. Bet passengers would really want a single seat to themselves at this point
#28
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 873
United is giving plenty of flying to XJT and the 145 (comparatively). So that assertion doesn’t match up.
At present time there’s no ability to even fill a 700/900 or 175 with pax. Before this whole virus thing United wanted to get rid of the 200’s at any cost.
Don’t forget that a 145 has an a row of 2 and 1 pax. Bet passengers would really want a single seat to themselves at this point
At present time there’s no ability to even fill a 700/900 or 175 with pax. Before this whole virus thing United wanted to get rid of the 200’s at any cost.
Don’t forget that a 145 has an a row of 2 and 1 pax. Bet passengers would really want a single seat to themselves at this point
#29
United is giving plenty of flying to XJT and the 145 (comparatively). So that assertion doesn’t match up.
At present time there’s no ability to even fill a 700/900 or 175 with pax. Before this whole virus thing United wanted to get rid of the 200’s at any cost.
Don’t forget that a 145 has an a row of 2 and 1 pax. Bet passengers would really want a single seat to themselves at this point
At present time there’s no ability to even fill a 700/900 or 175 with pax. Before this whole virus thing United wanted to get rid of the 200’s at any cost.
Don’t forget that a 145 has an a row of 2 and 1 pax. Bet passengers would really want a single seat to themselves at this point
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 880
The hardest part is finding a carrier to place them in service for. UA/DL/AA/AS are not going to park much of their 65/70/76 seat fleets as those will be critical to them during the recovery when load factors will support a large regional jet but not a narrow-body.
The 50 seat fleets will also see large cuts initially, which is a problem for the 145 which has no common type with a larger jet, but for the 200, any 700/900 pilot can fly them with basic differences training, if not already qualified.
The 200s also have a very low acquisition cost, some parts and maintenance commonality with the 700/900, and can be brought on-line for cheap, and then put back into storage for not much loss if that need arises as well (possibly when fuel spikes in a year or two)
The 50 seat fleets will also see large cuts initially, which is a problem for the 145 which has no common type with a larger jet, but for the 200, any 700/900 pilot can fly them with basic differences training, if not already qualified.
The 200s also have a very low acquisition cost, some parts and maintenance commonality with the 700/900, and can be brought on-line for cheap, and then put back into storage for not much loss if that need arises as well (possibly when fuel spikes in a year or two)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post