Guest lupin Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 Try replacing tires or brakes on the rj and then we can talk about low to the ground!!!LOL In contrast to the bombardier airplane(which I think will be chosen)the embraer actually looks to be be somewhat mechanic friendly.Its hard to tell without the panels being atken off the airplane though.... Lupin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 You're right are you at work??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 I don't think we need any Embraer, or MD anythings.... I'm betting we're in for something like what we have, for economy of commonality. RJ's or 318's. Probably RJ's, but I'd rather see the 318's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrick Bergen Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Hi Mitch, From a maintenance perspective has the RJ made improvements on the initial product? I agree about the commonality, although, I did get a ride in a 717 a few years ago in Australia and it was a nice plane. It was operated by a discount carrier called GO. I would suggest that the 717 would be easier to get a quicker ground turn at airports than the 318 IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Hi Patrick, I'm sorry to say (or maybe not? ) I've never yet had any dealings with the little RJ's, and I haven't heard if the newer ones have improved... I do know that I hear a lot of moaning from those who do diddle with them. You think the 318's would be slower to turn around, do you?... Hmmmm....? I'd be guessing, if so, it'd only be for more fuel. But that assumes they'd waste more, and I wouldn't know... Otherwise, what would make for longer turnaround times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrick Bergen Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 As far as the turnaround I am looking at the ground crew. The 318 is higher off the ground and cannot be loaded unless you have a belt loader. The 717 is a bit easier as it is accessible from the ground for ie. last minute bags etc. I would think it is similar to comparing the current 737's and the 319's. The other consideration is flying the aircraft into smaller stations that might be limited in ramp equiqment. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Interesting point. Yep, they'd need a belt-loader. And maybe an FMC, if the things have a cargo comp't? But then, that'd also have to count on the plus side wouldn't it? But you're right, they'd at least need the belt-loader and maybe they'd be going to a few places that don't already have one. Anyway, I think the fellow quoted in that Globe article was quite right.. they're just playing with negotiations, and fully intend to go with the RJ's. Mind you, that assumes the feds have enough desire to please Bombardier that would overcome their desire to screw AC. I'm of the opinion that certain elected federal folk would hate to do anything at all to help AC, maybe even to the point of screwing Bombardier out of a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrick Bergen Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 I hate to admit it but I think you are right about the government. Collenette has lost feelings in his hands from having sat on them so long. The IATA chief described what most in the airline industry already knew about the governments position with respect to the airlines. I would be greatly surprised if Collenette even gave the issue a comment much less a negative one. I do agree with you though based on price, and existing fleet that AC may see more of the RJ's. I had heard when they first came out that the break even point on them was quite low which might be useful as AC will be forced into direct competition with all of the discount carriers out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M. McRae Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Re the RJs, does anyone know the % of commonality of parts between the models AC presently has and the possible new additions? Just curious as that surely would be a major part of the decision re which brand to go with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RJ LAT Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Mitch the reason all the guys turned down the 340 course is that all the original AC guys know the word "licence requirements "really well, and you get to hear that word alot when they keep you on midnights because of them 4 engine endorsements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Oh believe me, I understand that one all too well! Thing is, I figure I'm already pooched because of that little "licence requirements" phrase, being doomed to rot on midnights because I do have a few licences... I figured one more wouldn't be any worse. Besides, I lost my big-bird and need another to help me get over the pain... poor old DC-10's probably never get someone to love-em like I did.... (sniffle, sniffle, sniff) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JC Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Mitch, There you go again about the big birds. Remember the sports car theory.... and it's not the size that counts. Hmm... better go now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudder Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Hack, If AC decides to acquire the EMB170 and operate it within the mainline division, then they will be the only large network carrier in the world that operate 70-seat aircraft using mainline staff and on the mainline operating certificate. Then again, AC is already the only mainline operator of 50-seat aircraft, so nothing should come as a surprise. For your information, the EMB170 that was in YUL headed for IND and was being given the once over by Chautauqua Airlines - a new United Express affliate. Rumour is an order plus options by Chautauqua once their commercial agreement is affirmed by the bankruptcy court. And yes, the UAL pilot agreement does allow for the subcontracting of 70-seat aircraft including aircraft in the EMB170 weight category. Only other current planned purchaser of the EMB170 in North America is USAirways, however, the aircraft will be operated under the USAir Express banner at wholly-owned subsidiary Mid Atlantic Airways. On another front, Mesa Airlines is diverting all of it's 70-seat CRJ700's from it's current contract as an America West Express carrier to it's new contract with UAL as a United Express carrier. Mesa will be substituting it's 86-seat CRJ900 for use in the America West Express operation. So let's summarise developments south of the border: - UAL subcontracts the operation of aircraft up to 70-seats; - DAL subcontracts the operation of aircraft up to 70-seats; - USAirways subcontracts the operation of aircraft up to 70-seats; - AA subcontracts the operation of aircraft up to 70-seats; - NWA subcontracts the operation of aircraft up to 70-seats; - AWA subcontracts the operation of aircraft up to 86-seats; Is there not a theme or are we just missing something here north of the border? Neither AA, DAL, nor NWA have been forced to restructure under bankruptcy protection - I guess that they decided not to wait until their toes were at the edge of the cliff before acting to align themselves with 'industry standard'. And the carriers that are restructuring (UAL/USAirways) have made significant modifications to their subcontracting restrictions in order to remain competitive. But why learn from others, in Canada we like to make our own mistakes. Perhaps we all know better than the rest of the industry. "Jets'R'us" is the same as saying "full pay til the last day". You may get your wish. rudder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 LOL! Ok, I am a sports car lover, so I'll try to keep your thoughts in mind. ...still chuckling... Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.