Two thumbs..."Way Up" for the E-jet !

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Took my first ride on a NW/Compass E-175, out of MSP last Friday, and in my opinion, "this baby" (or a Bombardier facsimile) is EXACTLY what AMR "NEEDS" for A/E(assuming that A/E is going to be kept), to solve Eagles HORRIBLE micro jet PROBLEM !!
(OK,..OK, the CRJ70's can stay..ONLY).

This thing takes off(with a full load), like a Mini Concorde.

What a "great" regional jet !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[FWAAA]

I agree, except that the large Embraer products are heads and shoulders above the crappy Bombardier products. Sell the CRJ-700s to someone else.

IMO, one of the biggest management failures of the past several years at AMR was the failure to ramp up 738 deliveries as soon as the concessions were imposed and the failure to get the pilots onboard to an agreement that would have permitted 100 or so ERJ175s/195s.

Had AA taken delivery of three new 738s a month during 2005-2008, there would be about 150 new 738s on the property right now and combined with the 76 due in the next two years, that would just about replace the MD-80 fleet, when combined with the 100 or so large ERJs described below. Fuel savings over that four year period would likely have been a couple billion dollars or more.

Same thing with the ERJs. Had AA put forth some effort, those ERJs could have been mainline planes with several F seats. Would have taken some concession by the pilots on pay rates - but by now, AA could have been flying 100 of them, saving fuel on routes where the MD-80 was too large and lowering costs on routes where 50 seaters were too small.

 

[The Goose]

I agree, except that the large Embraer products are heads and shoulders above the crappy Bombardier products. Sell the CRJ-700s to someone else.

IMO, one of the biggest management failures of the past several years at AMR was the failure to ramp up 738 deliveries as soon as the concessions were imposed and the failure to get the pilots onboard to an agreement that would have permitted 100 or so ERJ175s/195s.

Had AA taken delivery of three new 738s a month during 2005-2008, there would be about 150 new 738s on the property right now and combined with the 76 due in the next two years, that would just about replace the MD-80 fleet, when combined with the 100 or so large ERJs described below. Fuel savings over that four year period would likely have been a couple billion dollars or more.

Same thing with the ERJs. Had AA put forth some effort, those ERJs could have been mainline planes with several F seats. Would have taken some concession by the pilots on pay rates - but by now, AA could have been flying 100 of them, saving fuel on routes where the MD-80 was too large and lowering costs on routes where 50 seaters were too small.

I believe you have a good point. Some were wondering years earlier why this wasn't the direction taken, but it became evident after a while. Arpey and his acolytes may well be good in finance, but aren't worth a flip when it come to a business bet, and that's exactly what buying the RJs would have amounted to.

 

[777 fixer]

I agree, except that the large Embraer products are heads and shoulders above the crappy Bombardier products. Sell the CRJ-700s to someone else.

I think Bears was refering to the Bombardier C-Series. Which if it lives up to its design specs will be more economical to operate and will have a larger cabin than the E-Jets.

 

[FWAAA]

If Bears flew on Compass, then I think he flew the Embraer 175:

http://compassairline.com/html/aboutus.htm

But I may be mistaken.

 

[The Goose]

If Bears flew on Compass, then I think he flew the Embraer 175:

http://compassairline.com/html/aboutus.htm

But I may be mistaken.

Did anyone ever notice that if any of the Northworst aircraft are showing their right side, it becomes (according to the logo, anyway) Northeast Airlines?

 

[twaokc]

And if AA would have kept and received more of the TWA 717's, it would have been better off.

 

[The Goose]

And if AA would have kept and received more of the TWA 717's, it would have been better off.

I used to think otherwise, but those pup-sized airplanes may well have been the best thing going.

Personally, I never did care for the Douglas-type construction and I don't know if Boeing changed much of the structural details. I'd heard, though, they got really good mileage - Rolls Motors, weren't they? I don't recall which they were.

Any idea what Boeing redid when they took over production for a short time? I remember they were somewhat hacked over what Douglas had done.

 

[FWAAA]

I hadn't heard of any changes to the aircraft other than the name change from MD-95 to 717.

While I wish the 717s had stayed, I think they were done in by their weight. The ERJ190/195 have about the same capacity with a lighter airframe. Of course, they may not end up being as durable as the tough DC-9 derivative. Isn't it a common refrain that the MD-80s are built to last? I assume the 717 shared that characteristic.

I've previously posted that it's a shame the 30 ex-TWA 717s were not kept along with an order for several dozen more.

 

[The Goose]

Dunno - I hear a lot of stuff and not really any idea as to how truthful it is. I had heard there was some structural issue Boeing wasn't pleased with, hence the slight redesign.

As for the "built to last" - had Aloha been flying any DC9 derivative instead of a 73 when it blew its lid over the Pacific, nobody on board would have had to worry about their trashed drawers. An 80's structure would have folded up without question. Yes - Boeing is a bit heavier.

 

[Mach85ER]

Would have taken some concession by the pilots on pay rates - but by now, AA could have been flying 100 of them, saving fuel on routes where the MD-80 was too large and lowering costs on routes where 50 seaters were too small.

I don't have the numbers handy, but APA basically "scored" ourselves down to Comair's payscales in order to get those airplanes on the list (I'm not sure I spelled "scored" correctly B) ) You might want to talk to APAFA about it. I don't think they were going to budge on their payscales nor was the TWU. Pilot pay always goes down with aircraft size. 2 FA's on a 59 seat 2 class EMB/CRJ costs the same as a 100 seat 2 class Fokker.

AA was also on such a Jihad against APA's scope clause, that even cost neutral wasn't going to be accepted. They wanted it gone (still do) and thought they could kill it with Reno and TWA.

 

[Bob Owens]

Dunno - I hear a lot of stuff and not really any idea as to how truthful it is. I had heard there was some structural issue Boeing wasn't pleased with, hence the slight redesign.

As for the "built to last" - had Aloha been flying any DC9 derivative instead of a 73 when it blew its lid over the Pacific, nobody on board would have had to worry about their trashed drawers. An 80's structure would have folded up without question. Yes - Boeing is a bit heavier.

Didnt EAL have the whole aft section of a DC-9 break off on a hard landing years ago?

Found this on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-flw0WfjRk) but I recall a picture where it broke just fwd of the engines.

 

[777 fixer]

I used to think otherwise, but those pup-sized airplanes may well have been the best thing going.

Personally, I never did care for the Douglas-type construction and I don't know if Boeing changed much of the structural details. I'd heard, though, they got really good mileage - Rolls Motors, weren't they? I don't recall which they were.

Any idea what Boeing redid when they took over production for a short time? I remember they were somewhat hacked over what Douglas had done.

The structure of the 717 is standard Douglas, in other words built like a brick you know what. Initially MD planned to have the cockpit the same as the MD-80/90. However with the Boeing merger they went with the LCD displays. The cockpit is very nicely laid out; I actually liked it better than the 737NG. The motors were BMW/RR built in Germany, the trust reversers are huge.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

If Bears flew on Compass, then I think he flew the Embraer 175:

http://compassairline.com/html/aboutus.htm

But I may be mistaken.

Your correcto,.......FWAAA, it was the Embraer-175.
My MAIN point with this "GEM" of an aircraft, (and I mean that fondly), is that

1. AA could have been flying "it" for about "2-YEARS" now,
2. Plus we have a VERY good relationship with Embraer(like in,......."OK well take all the micro-jets in trade, for the E-175's/195's, and give you a better deal than ANYONE)

On a seperate note,.........Should we start a debate over..............if "uncle" Bobby would have EVER bought those @$#^&*%#*..."Micro's" ????

 

[kirkpatrick]

Found this on Youtube

Here's a link that's clickable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-flw0WfjRk

MK