CAzza fly we do feel for you. I had several mates that got redundancy from E jets some only months after their base moved to them from Q400. Even the base doing well and making a profit didn't seem to appear in any logic what stayed or went. then a few months after they left they got a phone call asking them back.
Just looking at the agency emails coming through there seems to be swings sometimes weekly never mind monthly. One min looking for prop DEC's next a mate is saying they had started the process and then it was paused then told its not happening. A week later phone call are you still interested.
if anyone is interested in the Ejet model choice here is a comparison of the different models.
http://www.team.aero/files/aviation_data/owners_n_operators_guide_e_jets.pdf
the E175 to cdg to sou will burn 1700kg at cruise which is 797Km/h the Q will be doing 650 km/h adding maybe 10 mins on to the flight. and burning 1200kg Q has 76 seats and the E175 88 seats. Half a ton of fuel @ 800$ a ton for 12 seats on an hour sector. I can't see the maint on the Q making the Ejet more economic at 400$ an hour sector.
Any road as soon as they are filling a Q regularly one of the loco will come sniffing. If they are not filling a Q no point sticking a E jet on the route.
We shall have to wait and see what they are going to do to sort the mess out. Fingers crossed they can fix things. According to the investor boards things are not as bad as the headlines say. Most of the loss was due to one off hits. They have minimal capital expenditure debt to service and 50 mil plus operating cash in the bank. not utterly brilliant but certainly not nearly exposed as some airlines which haven't taken a SM price hit or been the centre of attention in the media.