Who will survive? Republic Airways

[IronCityBlue]

A significant part of Boyd's assumption per that same article involves mainline pilots signing off on more permitted outsourcing. CAL is holding fast at 50 seats, AA is talking about taking it all back, and AirTran just fought off a crappy TA that would have raised permitted outsourcing to 86 seats. While it could all be undone by one shortsighted pilot group, it appears progress is being made on the scope front, and the potential for further scope erosion, like Boyd suggests is vital for RAH in the first place, while possible, doesn't look likely.

 

[el diablo126]

my airplane can beat up your airplane

 

[trainer8]

Here is the scoop on E170 series fuel burn. Over all, compared to the CRJ700/900, fuel burn is comparable to a little more fuel burn...about 200-300 lbs an hour for the E-jets. RPA is running the E175 on PHL-IAH and PHL-DFW routes Flight planned at .74-.78. and 3.4 to 4.0 flight duration. Include PHL ground taxi and you really get saddle sore. The Frontier side is running to MX with the same durations.

The big sell is pax comfort. In LCC's determiniation of selecting the E170/190 series vs. Bombardier CRJ's back in 2002 was that the "double-bubble" fuselage provided for excellant pax comfort, vs the "crouch effect" in the CRJ series. They determined that the small difference in fuel economy was worth having the pax come back. That was when oil was less than $40/bbl.

I came back from IAH into PHL last week with a 125K tail-wind and pulled it back to .74M. FF was @3300lbs/hr at FL350 with a step up at MGM to FL370 with a 525K ground speed. Bring it back to .71, and the burn goes down to 3100lbs/hr

We got nothing but compliments from the pax coming off the flight and no pax blowing their connections while lining both sides the jet-bridge waiting for their carry-ons.

T8

 

[Mookie]

we burn about 4000#'s per hour in a 737-800 at 410. that's about 25% more fuel and what...2.5times as many people.

rj's are not the wave of the future. i don't care how cool they look.

mookie
former Rj driver...

 

[trainer8]

we burn about 4000#'s per hour in a 737-800 at 410. that's about 25% more fuel and what...2.5times as many people.

rj's are not the wave of the future. i don't care how cool they look.

mookie
former Rj driver...

So, mookie, just to clarify, 2000 lbs a side at cruise in the above example? Right?

T8

 

[Bluestreak]

Wow- the CFMI CFM56-7 puts out almost twice the thrust (27,300 lb) on only 25% more FF ? And you put 215 people on a -800 ?

 

[dooork]

we burn about 4000#'s per hour in a 737-800 at 410. that's about 25% more fuel and what...2.5times as many people.

rj's are not the wave of the future. i don't care how cool they look.

mookie
former Rj driver...

Assuming you are full! You could also say 45 people and 25% more fuel....sucks!

 

[Airline Driver]

we burn about 4000#'s per hour in a 737-800 at 410. that's about 25% more fuel and what...2.5times as many people.

rj's are not the wave of the future. i don't care how cool they look.

mookie
former Rj driver...

RJ's & Ejets not the wave of the Future? Globally you are right. But I think the correct statement is 37-50 seat Rj's are not the wave of the future. Domestically the 170/175/190/195 And CRJ 700/900/1000 will be, in the next 5 years. Whether they are flown by regionals or mainline carriers. You are going to see mainline carriers concentrate more on Global expansion and international operations. It's cheaper for them to outsource the work domestically. Sad statement but very true!!