Skywest Inc to add E175 to fleet?
02-15-2013 | 10:06 AM
#31
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
02-16-2013 | 05:24 AM
#32
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
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.
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.
02-16-2013 | 06:12 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,429
Likes: 14
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.
02-16-2013 | 06:26 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
From: 777
02-16-2013 | 07:03 AM
#36
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,895
Likes: 690
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
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.
02-16-2013 | 07:04 AM
#37
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
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.
02-16-2013 | 07:16 AM
#38
Not A Janitor
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 814
Likes: 0
02-16-2013 | 08:19 AM
#40
Underpaid...
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,101
Likes: 0
From: French-Canadian
Yea but the gate agent says operated by XXX, the ticket says operated by XXX the FA says operated by XXX, and the emergency card even says operated by XXX. The e175 is more passenger friendly, but it's cost are much higher than the CRJ. Airlines are only concern about passenger to a certain extent but when it makes a significant difference in cost they will compromise.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
