Moderator: Latest news team
TUB023 wrote:the RJ's will begin fasing out BEFORE the end of this year (the first RJ85's will go).
as for the 737's, i can't tell when
but let's focus on the new 319 in this thread shall we? OO-SSD is due for the end of this month
MR_Boeing wrote:BTW: if the moderators think the discussion about the RJ's/B737's belongs in another topic, than it's maybe a good idea to open a new topic about the RJ/737 replacement.
TUB023 wrote:there is still alot of work on SSD
the fleet certainly won't get smaller, au contraire
that's all i can tell, i don't know anything more, i don't know what types, exact dates, ... all i know is the fleet will expand
Didymus wrote:Probably the ones delivered in 1995?
cnc wrote:imo the ATR 72-600 would be perfect for SN in combination with the A32X
MR_Boeing wrote:But the question is, do SN want an aircraft smaller than the RJ85? If yes, do they want turboprops?
cnc wrote:hell i've seen the avro's more half empty to empty then full and turboprops aren't that much slower on a 1 to 2h flight.
the ATR is perfect for low density routes yet with decent provided frequency
unlike LH SN can never make money with only 100+ seaters and not removing routes and/or lower frequency
tolipanebas wrote:so in short:
I think it will either be Q400/Cseries/A32S or E170/E195/A32S; anything else like ATR/E170/E195/A32S or ATR/Cseries/A32S would mean too many subfleets from too many different manufacturers to be efficient still for an airline the size of SN.
MR_Boeing wrote:About the Cseries. I know they are more efficient than the current E-jets, but we would have to wait until 2014 to get the first. That's still a long time if you know the leasing contracts (for the Avro's) are all due to end in 2014 or earlier.
MR_Boeing wrote:Another thing. The smallest is the CS100 with 100 seats in a comfortable configuration (and 110 in standard) is bigger than the RJ100's. Isn't that a bit to much for SN.
MR_Boeing wrote:I give the highest chance to the E-jets of Embraer. I know they are less fuel efficient than the newer Cseries but they are much faster available.
MR_Boeing wrote:If they go for the E-jets the E170 would be a nice choice. In a comfortable configuration 70 seats, that's 12 less than the current RJ85's. It could still be a bit overkill for some routes, but that problem would be rather small. The ATR 72 has the same capacity (68-74), but if they choose E170 (wich would be needed for the longer low demand routes) they don't need the ATR anymore.
MR_Boeing wrote:But then you say the E195. Wouldn't the E190 be a better choice? The E195 has a capacity of 108-106 in standard configuration, the E190 98-94. The E190 is almost the same as SN's RJ100's. Maybe they can have them bigger, but I would go for the E190 if you see SN's current load factor's. But it's just my idea.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], RoMax and 31 guests