The SN short- and medium-haul fleet

777 · Post by **777** » 27 Aug 2003, 01:50

To vliegtuigfreak,

The first Airbus A300 F-WUAB was scrapped on 27 august 1974, some parts went to Munich and Le Bourget.

Andre

A318 · Post by **A318** » 27 Aug 2003, 13:35

Avro wrote:Ground_crew,

I don't think that the ERJ is a cheap plane, there is a lot of demand for that aircraft. And by the way the ERJ-190 will be certified a bit late for SNBA.

Ciao
Chris
8)

Avro, I did a little research and found out the following:
The Boeing 717-200 has a price from $35,5 million - $39,5 million

The Embraer 190 cost $30 million based on the buy from Jetblue.
They ordered 100 planes for $30 billion total.

The Embraer 170 cost $25 million based on the buy from US Airways.
They ordered 85 planes for $21 billion .

Based on these figures my statement made that the Embraer 170/190 is probably a lot cheaper seems to me to be totally correct.

liebensd · Post by **liebensd** » 27 Aug 2003, 13:42

Ground_crew,

I think comparing prices of a single aircraft with an other aircraft that is bought by 100 is not a good compare. It is not a relevant compare, I think.

Greetz,

Dave

A318 · Post by **A318** » 27 Aug 2003, 23:25

liebensd wrote:Ground_crew,

I think comparing prices of a single aircraft with an other aircraft that is bought by 100 is not a good compare. It is not a relevant compare, I think.

Greetz,

Dave

Dave, sorry but I had to add a little extra note there. The Jetblue and US Airways orders were anounced with prices from the list price from Embraer. This means the 25/30 million for the 170/190 is a list price!!! Exactly the same as the prices I mentioned from the Boeing 717-200, this is also the list price. So it is a fair compare in price. In my opinion I should go for the Embraer if SNBA is going to buy new planes. Financialy seen they should better buy used/overhauld Fokker 70/100's.

Post by **sn26567** » 28 Aug 2003, 08:55

Ground_crew wrote:Financially seen they should better buy used/overhauld Fokker 70/100's.

Financially, perhaps! But commercially, how attractive is an overhauled aircraft for a candidate passenger? I always look at the type of aeroplane when I book a flight.

BBKing · Post by **BBKing** » 28 Aug 2003, 09:07

I understand you do André, as I also act that way.

But the regular passenger isn't interested in the plane he/she is boarding and whether or not it is overhauled. These passengers can not have this knowledge anyway.

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 28 Aug 2003, 09:20

Why buy overhauled planes, where they could keep the Avros or get a good deal with Boeing, Embraer or Airbus .

Ciao
Chris
8)

A318 · Post by **A318** » 28 Aug 2003, 18:37

Avro wrote:Why buy overhauled planes, where they could keep the Avros or get a good deal with Boeing, Embraer or Airbus .

Ciao
Chris
8)

Well Chris that's an easy one. You buy overhauled airplanes for a much lower price then a new Boeing, Embraer or Airbus even when you get a good deal. Why you should prefer buying overhauled Fokker 70/100 airplanes instead of keeping the Avro's is from the economy side seen much better since the maintenance and fuel prices from the Fokkers are much much lower then from the Avro's, some details:

Then the passenger would like the seat and space in a Fokker 70/100 since it is more bigger and comfortable then in other comparable planes:

**************Width (in) Height (in)**********************

Fokker 70/100----122.0-------79.2
CRJ 700------------101.2-------74.4
ERJ 170------------104.7-------79.5

Last but no least the reason for the captain and co-pilot:

p.s. Because of the work and swet I used to put in this plane in '89 when I worked with Fokker Aircraft Services

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 28 Aug 2003, 19:58

I would be glad if you could tell me where the Avro would be situated in your graph

p.s. Because of the work and swet I used to put in this plane in '89 when I worked with Fokker Aircraft Services

Now I know the reason why you definately want SNBA to fly the Fokker

Ciao
Chris
8)

vliegtuigfreak · Post by **vliegtuigfreak** » 28 Aug 2003, 21:43

Avro wrote:Now I know the reason why you definately want SNBA to fly the Fokker

I think the fokker 100 i good for SNBA

Greetingzz
Sonny

__________________________
SN Brussels Airlines, Sobelair, VLM, Virgin Express, Thomas Cook...Belgian airlines to be proud of!!

Post by **sn26567** » 29 Aug 2003, 09:12

vliegtuigfreak wrote:I think the fokker 100 i good for SNBA

I think SNBA should not invest in planes whose future is uncertain.

And I agree with Chris "Avro" that the Avros are still very young and should remain in the fleet for many more years.

And I add that, like most European operators, SN BA should have also smaller planes in its fleet, like EMB145s.

Comet · Post by **Comet** » 29 Aug 2003, 10:11

SNBA ought to invest in some Fokker 50s.

After all, that never did VLM any harm, did it???

Post by **luchtzak** » 08 Sep 2003, 18:29

Hi all,

our big boss Mister Davies announced today that the descision which aircraft they will take is yet to make. But we allready know that the Embraer 170 will re-visit SN Brussels Airlines, so chances are adding up for Embraer my opinion!

ciao,

Bart
:rock:

vliegtuigfreak · Post by **vliegtuigfreak** » 08 Sep 2003, 19:32

luchtzak wrote:our big boss Mister Davies announced today that the descision which aircraft they will take is yet to make. But we allready know that the Embraer 170 will re-visit SN Brussels Airlines, so chances are adding up for Embraer my opinion!

I hope to have answere soon.

Greetingzz
Sonny

____________________
SNBA, Sobelair, VLM, Virgin Express, Thomas Cook, belgian airlines to be proud of!!

Aviation24.be

The SN short- and medium-haul fleet

What aircraft would you favour for the extension of SN BA's fleet