|
Originally Posted by Banshee365
(Post 1353038)
I heard there's going to be a banner hanging from it saying, "take concessions and fly THIS!"
Anyone who actually goes to this must have absolutely no life in any form... |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1353190)
Ummm it seats the same as a 700...we already have a payscale for that size so I can't imagine anyone at SKW getting excited about where the engines are.
It is more comfortable on the inside, so some majors will prefer E-jets...new flying (or keeping the flying we have) might be kind of exciting. |
Originally Posted by TillerEnvy
(Post 1353255)
Look lifer, nobody at RAH cares at all what you call the damn airplane. Quit making up baseless rumors. Silly SKW cheerleader.
|
Burns 1K more in the first hour for the same seating configuration, it's nice but who is paying the cost difference? Sure someone will come on here and say that is not accurate but I have sat in the jump plenty times and looked at the release for a route currently flown by both types.
|
Originally Posted by Red97Vette
(Post 1353129)
this is what every RAH new hire is thinking at this very moment.
|
Originally Posted by trip
(Post 1353815)
Burns 1K more in the first hour for the same seating configuration, it's nice but who is paying the cost difference? Sure someone will come on here and say that is not accurate but I have sat in the jump plenty times and looked at the release for a route currently flown by both types.
But does the the major partner value fuel burn or pax comfort? Fuel costs, if high by historical standards, seem to be stable for the time being and the industry business model has adapted (mostly by taking the cost difference out of labor's hide). If a major thinks it has a grasp of a reasonably predictable cost formula it would be in a position to look at trading some fuel for pax comfort...maybe there are enough pax out there who hate RJ's and prop jobs who will vote with the wallets to have narrow-body-ish comfort on all segments. |
Originally Posted by trip
(Post 1353815)
Burns 1K more in the first hour for the same seating configuration, it's nice but who is paying the cost difference? Sure someone will come on here and say that is not accurate but I have sat in the jump plenty times and looked at the release for a route currently flown by both types.
|
Originally Posted by ross9238
(Post 1353210)
Stating the obvious but this aircraft, if it ever shows up on the XJT side, will go to L-XJT. This is probably why the company was in such a hurry to get a payscale from L-XJT.
|
Originally Posted by atrdriver
(Post 1353868)
Completely false. You have been misinformed.
|
Originally Posted by Captain Tony
(Post 1353862)
But passengers get on it and think they're on mainline, not an RJ. Worth the extra fuel burn (not sarcasm).
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:07 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands