Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

CoEx to keep the 69 erj's

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Yeah, I was using 11,000 lbs for a legacy, since he was asking why embraer claims it can go 3000 NM. I'm pretty sure the legacy just holds 5717/side, like the LR's. No ventral tank on the legacy.
Anyway all just estimates.
The Legacy II with A1E engines carries in excess of 18,000 lbs of fuel (depending on fuel density roughlt 18,500 lbs)
Legacy Driver beat me to it. But, he's correct, it holds considerably more than that (11000). Bangor-London or West Coast-Hawaii were no problems for a Legacy. (Albeit a little slow ride, M.74 to London).

Back on topic, I don't think you'll see XJet get very many (if any) Legacies. The production line is slowed way down, and they are switching it over to the Phenom line, with a large order in from Europe this week, and a major order predicted in the next few weeks from a new "taxi" operator. And, the hopes of an EMB190BJ order. It seems the Legacy operators now are very happy with their products, but it hasn't taken off the way they expected it to. (That all straight from an EMB guy about 3 weeks ago)...
 
ratherbeflyen said:
We are already doing 135. I understand that sports teams, mostly college, are a fairly common charter. Other than that I refuse to add to the myths and flames.

And military, I flew to ONT to pick-up 30 Marines coming home from Iraq and take them to La.
 
one thing forgotten in all this is that Cal and COEX signed a new cpa along with the agreement that they will keep the planes. I am sure CAL was not going to leave those negotiations without knowing what is happening to their planes. It gives them more of a heads up to figure out the plans for CHQ, themselves and COEX.
Also, people keep saying that maybe CAL will reduce the number of the express fleet. I do agree they could, but why would you reduce the fleet when the costs of those 69 planes in use, went down 20 percent. you are getting all that feed for 20 percent cheaper. thoughts.

Congrats to the COEXers.

Great thread very mature and informatiive keep up the good work.

D
 
I am glad to see that all the people at Express Jet will be keeping their jobs. Nobody at CHQ was proud to being gaining work at someones loss.
 
Not a thread hijack, but for minimal investment Embraer has sold (and has commitments for) over 100 Legacy jets. First delivery position isn't available until Q4 2007 or Q1 2008. I'd say they are quite pleased with the results of this airplane.

Embraer's big screwup was dumping their distributor just when the salesmen were getting a handle on things. There would probably be more sold were it not for that hiccup, but things are back on track. I think it will continue to sell for several years down the road...and each one off the line seems better than those before it.

A hundred airframes at 19-23M dollars each--do the math--with minimal investment. That's a success in my book. More popular in Europe than here for various reasons, but seeing more and more in the States every month...
 
Last edited:
generaltso said:
It will also be interesting to see if CHQ finds some 145's to cover this. Can CAL afford to lose 25% of it's fifty seat feed?

I don't think CAL wanted all 69 of these aircraft to begin with. The 274 total fleet size was decided in late 99 when fuel prices were 1/3 what they are now. RASM's were much higher back then too. This was a great way to get some 50 seat debt off of its books and allow some more room to expand its mainline operation at EWR and IAH. I'm very happy for XJT however. I would hate to see one employee lose their job there.

-Neal
 
BluDevAv8r said:
I don't think CAL wanted all 69 of these aircraft to begin with. The 274 total fleet size was decided in late 99 when fuel prices were 1/3 what they are now.

Does the contract say anything about xjt must have 274? If not why did 2 more show up on property last month if cal doesn't want them?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top