Jets?


#1

Hi, me again.

I recently created a thread asking about 19 & 30 seater turboprops, I appreciate the input given.

Under the same proposed operation, they are considering operating an aircraft for a route that’s around 500nm one way.

We’re in need of 70-90 passenger jets. That pretty much leaves us with the CRJ-9, the E-170 and the E-175 to compare

I have specs but I’m not sure about how they compare with operating costs, maintenance, reliability etc.

I’m also missing fuel burn figures for these aircraft, that might help.

As before, operating in the Caribbean so it gets really hot at times. Sea level airports.

Much thanks!!

P.S. I’m sure there are many good things you can say about the Dash-8 and other turboprops, but there are jets competing on the same route. And knowing the people well, I’m convinced that there’s almost no way they would choose a turboprop over a jet. So I’ve ruled them out.


#2

There’s also the Airbus A318, a 100-seater.
Have you looked into the DC-9-30 series? While the operational economics aren’t as good as a newer aircraft, this could be offset by the lower purchasing/leasing price.

Fuel burn for the CRJ-900: team.aero/files/aviation_dat … de_crj.pdf
for the E170 family: team.aero/files/aviation_dat … e_jets.pdf
(hint: Google is your friend :smiley: )

I’m convinced that if you emphasize service compared to the competitors, people will chose a turboprop over a jet. Emphasize the comfort, the fact that the time is just about the same, fantastic inflight service, better view of the ground, etc.


#3

rw812,

About the A318…From what I recall reading in the past, and from a logical point of view, the A318 would be a poor choice.

Its a large aircraft that got shrunk so it’s likely to be more expensive than a small aircraft that got extended. It seats too many pax over my upper limit of 90 and I doubt we have the ability to fill a 100+ seater aircraft. And to add on to that it’s much more expensive. The three I’m considering are much lighter, the 318 has a MTOW of 150,000 lbs. 16,000 lbs more and it would be twice as much as the E-175, the heaviest of the three. You can imagine the difference in landing fees.

Also the 318 is more expensive to acquire, and I’d expect lower salaries for CRJ/ERJ pilots.

Thanks for those PDFs! You wouldn’t believe that I looked at those before but failed to finish reading them, totally missing the fuel burn figures :blush:.

I took a quick look at the DC-9. Meant to ask opinions on them though I am turned off by the age of them.

The only way I can see the turboprop winning is if we’re able to charge half or less than the competition, which is a major U.S. airline with a monopoly (therefore overcharges).

Thanks for your help :slight_smile:


#4

Boeing has a couple of 717’s available. There may be more out there somewhere. I remember reading that there were 25 just a week or so before Hawaiian picked up 3 (I think).
My only experience was a 45 minute simulator flight but that was impressive enough.

boeing.com/commercial/717/index.html


#5

if we’re talking the turboprops in the other post, the 500nm distance will be enough to take them out of the running.
But really a Q400 and EMB175etc cabin aren’t that much different and flight times would be relatively close, but ops cost might be quite better!


#6

Maybe a Bae 146?


#7

Good available power for over water ops, but that’s four engines to maintain, and four engines burning fuel for the same amount of pax that a twin like the EMB.
That said, I wish it’d happen, I like the old 146s!


#8

CRJ-700/-900 has significantly lower operating cost than the E-Jet family over short stage lengths due to its lower weight. They’re somewhat less capable aircraft, but none of that should matter (although the CRJ-700 DOES have excellent short field performance)


#9

Thanks!

I was looking at the BAE… nice and all, but 4 engines :frowning:

porterjet, I’ll re-look at the 717s. I initially thought they were old as dirt, didn’t realized production only started in '99 and stopped in '06.