Skywest Inc to add E175 to fleet?

Reply Subscribe

Page 6 of 9

« First

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

02-18-2013 | 08:45 AM

#51

Nevets

Banned

Joined: Dec 2007

Posts: 2,934

Likes: 0

From: EMB 145 CPT

Quote:

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.

The company was in a hurry for a joint contract with pay scales for both small and large RJs.

02-18-2013 | 12:04 PM

#52

johnso29

Moderator

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 13,088

Likes: 0

From: B757/767

Quote:

Originally Posted by What

Delta might like E175s but ordered 40 CRJs with option for 30 more. Money talks, they were able to get a better deal and way to unload the CRJ200s so they went with CRJs, if they loved the Ejets so much they would have just gotten Ejets. It's all based on economics, there are what 130 to 150 Ejets running around to hundreds of CRJ 7 and 9s. Fuel prices just increased, the CRJ just widened it's margin over the Ejets. Mainline would love to put passages on an airplane that is just like a mainline airplane by the looks, feel and operation but the bottom line is what counts the most and thus why they pick the CRJ. There is more than looking like a mainline aircraft when the airlines pick an airframe.

I'm not familiar with the fuel burn rate of the CRJ900 or E175, so I won't comment on that. But I'm not certain that Delta ordered the CRJ900 over the E175 simply because it's cheaper to operate. Keep in mind that Delta is trading in hundreds of CRJ100/200s for 40-70 CRJ900s. Also, 9e already operated the CRJ900. So it was an easy placement of deliveries because the training program, manuals, etc already existed.

02-18-2013 | 12:33 PM

#53

ross9238

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Mar 2011

Posts: 451

Likes: 0

From: Grounded

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevets

The company was in a hurry for a joint contract with pay scales for both small and large RJs.

So how come they wanted to get a large RJ rate from you guys? Was it just for the joint contract or something else? honest question because I was confused.

02-18-2013 | 12:35 PM

#54

What

Underpaid...

Joined: Nov 2010

Posts: 2,101

Likes: 0

From: French-Canadian

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29

I didn't say that Delta went with the CRJ just because lower fuel consumption, below is my first sentence. I concluded by saying that if Delta made wanted the Ejets so much they would have gotten those instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by What

02-19-2013 | 06:18 AM

#55

atrdriver

Not A Janitor

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 814

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by ross9238

So how come they wanted to get a large RJ rate from you guys? Was it just for the joint contract or something else? honest question because I was confused.

They wanted to see if they could get XJT to underbid ASA for large RJs and use those lower rates in their RFP bids.

02-19-2013 | 10:46 AM

#56

ross9238

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Mar 2011

Posts: 451

Likes: 0

From: Grounded

Quote:

Originally Posted by atrdriver

They wanted to see if they could get XJT to underbid ASA for large RJs and use those lower rates in their RFP bids.

What idiots. Did they really think that L-XJT was going to do it for 50 seat rates?

02-19-2013 | 10:53 AM

#57

atrdriver

Not A Janitor

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 814

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by ross9238

What idiots. Did they really think that L-XJT was going to do it for 50 seat rates?

My understanding is XJT's contract has a provision that large-RJ rates can be decided by an arbitrator if negotiations aren't fruitful. In light of the recently signed regional contracts (e.g., Pinnacle), the company probably thought an arbitrator would be friendly to their cause.

So the XJT'ers wouldn't necessarily volunteer to undercut ASA. But they decided to ignore the TPA they signed and exclude the ASA MEC from the closed-door negotiations. So there's that.