U to split Rj order?

[AOG-N-IT]

This sounds about right.

I talked to a person whom is currently employed by MidAtlantic Airways (MDA) just last week. The ERJ''s EMB-170''s/175''s are exactly what they will be seeking very soon.

The end of 2003 projected delivery dates, is more accurately going to be October 2003 , should all things work according to thier plans?


I have been told that PSA in Dayton will be recieving the 50 seat Bombardier CRJ''s during a same timeframe scenario

The word on Allegheny and Piedmont is still a bit mum so far...but the above comments have come from inside sources whos name I choose not to use here. No it was not Chip Munn either. I have different reliable sources!

 

[a320av8r]

May 7, 2003

The world''s two leading makers of regional jets, Bombardier of Canada and Brazil''s Embraer, are both set to benefit from a major order by US Airways, according to Flight International.

The new edition of the influential aviation journal, quoting industry sources, says that the US carrier, which emerged from bankruptcy protection at the end of March, will split the 200-plane acquisition between the rival companies.

US Airways is expected to choose both 50-seat Bombardier CRJ200s and Embraer''s larger 170/175 range of aircraft which carry between 70 and 76 passengers, says the report. The airline is also planning to take options on a further 300 regional jets.

The airline has been able to go ahead with purchases of the larger planes after getting its pilots to agree a new scope clause in their contract.

According to the magazine, financing and early delivery dates have influenced the carrier''s decision to split the purchase. GE Capital Aviation Services, which has agreed to back US Air with USD$350 million in leverage lease equity as part of its bankruptcy restructuring, is likely to provide the carrier with some of the aircraft.

Flight says that the first order is expected soon and deliveries will start by the end of 2003.

 

[dash8ter]

----------------
On 5/6/2003 10:07:11 PM AOG-N-IT wrote:

I have been told that PSA in Dayton will be recieving the 50 seat Bombardier CRJ''s during a same timeframe scenario

The word on Allegheny and Piedmont is still a bit mum so far...but the above comments have come from inside sources whos name I choose not to use here. No it was not Chip Munn either. I have different reliable sources!

----------------​

From what I understand, PSA will be getting rid of the 328s as fast as possible. This would explain why they would be the first to acquire jets.

 

[genejockey]

Now I don''t know much about anything, but....

Recently there were some analysts who described the end of the RJ revolution/era? Isn''t this kind of like buying a stock at its all time high? And what about fleet rationalization? Can someone please explain the benefits of the split RJ order?

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Regarding rj aorder-

Just today, in Aviation Daily, it is reported that four Star Alliance carriers were set to agree on a common rj order. It stated that the four carriers Lufthansa, Air Canada, SAS and Austrian would make four separate orders, but for identical aircraft. I wonder if that is for CRJ's (considering the Air Canada connection).

Also, I have read that economies of scale are completely consummed by 100 aircraft. So, it might be that the marketing/operating flexibility that a carrier gets by having a variety of aircraft are more valuable than the marginal negligible economies of scale.

Finally, with two orders from two manufacturers allow a purchaser to play the manufacturers against each other... constantly competing for every new order.

Finally, again, having some CRJ's means that if the new Embraers have unexpected safety or performance problems (or vice-versa), then U has a back up.

Finally, finally, doesn't the 50 seat Bombardier product have a more 'big jet' interior feel than the 50-seat Embraer product? (of course, subjective)

 

[N628AU]

You are pretty close there DCA. The two big issues are this. The Bombardier product is a much better 50 seat aircraft from people I speak with at Mesa, especially from a maintenance standpoint. MTOW is about 10,000 pounds more on the CRJ, which in addition to allowing more payload, begs one to ask, "Just what has Embraer not put in the airframe that makes it so much lighter?" Remember, the Embraer 145 is based on the EMB120 Brasilia airframe, while the CRJ is based on the Challenger Business Jet. If you ask me, basing a jet on a jet is a much better way to go than a jet from a prop.

The 70 seat versions are a different story. The CRJ700 is a stretch version, while the EMB170/175 is an all new aircraft, with a true big jet feel to it. While there is cockpit commonality between the CRJ products, there is not on the ERJ products. Also, the same Express carriers will not be flying the same jets, as MDA will be the exclusive home of the Embraer, so cockpit commonality is not a big deal. There are also enough operators flying the CRJ around, that parts will are fairly easy to obtain. Seeing as we weill be the first carrier to fly the ERJ 170/175, I think finding parts will make obtaining Fokker parts look like child''s play.

 

[funguy2]

One thing nobody mentioned, is that by splitting the order, the deliveries will come faster, as you have two factories working, not one. It is conceivable that if one company got all the orders, they could increase production, but could they double it?

So by splitting the orders, USALA gets the aircraft faster, and it seems as though they want them ASAP.

 

[diogenes]

The 50 seat CRJ is a superior aircraft to the EMP 145. From my recent experience with both, the 145 is underpowered. We frequently have payload restrictions on them that we do not have with the CRJ''s in an apples to apples comparison - and it''s sort of nice for the customer''s baggage to arrive with him, not on a later flight. The 145''s have far more maintainence issues, as well.

And RowunderDCA is correct - the Embraer fuse is pretty narrow. Makes loading the cargo a challenge, as well.

 

[a320av8r]

I think the 2X2 cabin is far more comfortable than the 1X2.