|
Virgin E-190 inbound
Noted on FR24 is Virgin E-190 VH-ZPT tracking to Cairns from Hilo. Aircraft in storage at Nashville for a while.
I thought they were expensive to operate ? |
They are going to Tiger. Why have two fleet types when you can have three. |
Originally Posted by Office Update
(Post 10472346)
Noted on FR24 is Virgin E-190 VH-ZPT tracking to Cairns from Hilo. Aircraft in storage at Nashville for a while.
I thought they were expensive to operate ? Inbound to Cobham |
I thought they were expensive to operate ? https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....163ccaef59.png |
Some people I have spoken to say the problem with the E-Jet is that it needs a little more love and won't go up and down all day like a 737, which is what VOz ops was used to. There is also the issue that when Godfrey bought them, he saw them as a jet that would fly all over the network, including on the transcons, as a somewhat cheaper alternative to the 737-700. That's why why they went with the AR version. And that was fine when Virgin Blue was cheap and cheerful, just a bit harder when you put a halo product on the A330s and tell everyone that you're the Ritz of the Air now.
In my very limited experience of the Jungle Jet as a passenger, it was a great piece of kit that was very comfortable. But, also in my experience, the two times I flew on them the loads were way too light to be economical, which you can blame on the rev managers. Perhaps that is part of a wider issue? |
Originally Posted by Dewa_Gede_70
(Post 10472366)
Inbound to Cobham |
EBT there was never any intention to run them transcon, but your basic premise is correct - they were seen as a cheaper alternative to a -700 on east coast city pairs, particularly Sydney canberra The logic still stands, if you have 100 punters on a flight then you are chockers on a 190 and just over half full on an 800. 1 less cabin crew member, pilots were a bit cheaper, it burnt less fuel and the ANC’s were lower, plus they were a shedload cheaper to buy than a 800, and at one point virgin owned most of them. I can’t wrap my head around the logic of paying someone else to do your flying. Alliance surely aren’t doing it for free, so they must be making a profit. If they are making a profit it is a profit that VA could have potentially made using their own resources. As for the product, it was a much nicer proposition than the 737 regardless of the outside paint scheme and the soft product inside. 2x2 economy with 1x2 J class is pretty comfy and it is quieter than the 737, lighter with bigger windows than the 737, and cruises at pretty much the same speed (somewhat faster than an ATR). Getting rid of them was an act of hubris on the part of a couple of people - all of whom are no longer with the business having taken their bonuses and departed the scene happy. It was terribly sad as many of the pilots were very happy on that fleet and would have stayed there longer if given the opportunity. I should also be noted that those same pilots are getting paid more to fly the 737 and they still would prefer the ejet. |
Well I see that VARA run a Fokker 100 between ADL and PER. Surely an Ejet would have been better? As for the ATR routes, no contest.
|
Shirley you're not serious???? The social media fanfare and the supposed future of Cobham FIFO and it is going to fly on Monday PER-BWB-PER in Jetgo house colors!!!! Guessing it won't be welcome at KTA given the council paid for the paint job.
If Cobham can't even afford a lease return white paint job presume it's still VA config 6J/92Y and the hi-viz boys and girls have to punch on at boarding to decide who sits in the comfy seats...... Do let us all know please. |
Cobham need an aircraft for Chevron less than 25 years old. they already had the e-jet on the AOC and ex VA they are cheap. As for an e-jet revolution in Aus, not goanna happen, all costs considered, the FK100 kills it. maybe the E2 in 5-10 years, but I doubt even that |
As for an e-jet revolution in Aus, not goanna happen, all costs considered, the FK100 kills it. Will customers be willing to accept and operators willing to risk 40 year old aircraft? |
The social media fanfare and the supposed future of Cobham FIFO and it is going to fly on Monday PER-BWB-PER in Jetgo house colors!!!! all costs considered, the FK100 kills it F100 operators are going to have to start looking at an alternative eventually, whether they like it or not. Cobham need an aircraft for Chevron less than 25 years old. FNR 1994 FNY 1994 FNU 1991 NHP 1992 NHC 1993 FKD 1991 UQD 1993 XWQ 1990 25 to 29 years old. ZPT 2011 8 years old. |
Originally Posted by Zhoottoo
(Post 10474248)
If Cobham can't even afford a lease return white paint job presume it's still VA config 6J/92Y and the hi-viz boys and girls have to punch on at boarding to decide who sits in the comfy seats......
Do let us all know please. A Cobham E190 in Jetgo colours with Virgin interior... brand identity confusion much? |
A Cobham E190 in Jetgo colours with Virgin interior... brand identity confusion much? |
|
Spot on, Neville & Icarus.:ok:
Something extremely important that the bean-counters are oblivious to and which is very prevalent right now, is damage to your brand! Constant breakdowns running cheap old aircraft creates a brand reliability issue, no matter how hard working & good your maintenance team may be... "Can't see the forest for the trees", comes to mind. A good brand reliability pays the bills many times over, hence investing in newer airframes as per Cobham (Emb/Q400) will see them in a more powerful position I reckon. Happy landings:ok: |
Originally Posted by Snakecharma
(Post 10473742)
EBT there was never any intention to run them transcon, but your basic premise is correct - they were seen as a cheaper alternative to a -700 on east coast city pairs, particularly Sydney canberra The logic still stands, if you have 100 punters on a flight then you are chockers on a 190 and just over half full on an 800. 1 less cabin crew member, pilots were a bit cheaper, it burnt less fuel and the ANC’s were lower, plus they were a shedload cheaper to buy than a 800, and at one point virgin owned most of them. I can’t wrap my head around the logic of paying someone else to do your flying. Alliance surely aren’t doing it for free, so they must be making a profit. If they are making a profit it is a profit that VA could have potentially made using their own resources. As for the product, it was a much nicer proposition than the 737 regardless of the outside paint scheme and the soft product inside. 2x2 economy with 1x2 J class is pretty comfy and it is quieter than the 737, lighter with bigger windows than the 737, and cruises at pretty much the same speed (somewhat faster than an ATR). Getting rid of them was an act of hubris on the part of a couple of people - all of whom are no longer with the business having taken their bonuses and departed the scene happy. It was terribly sad as many of the pilots were very happy on that fleet and would have stayed there longer if given the opportunity. I should also be noted that those same pilots are getting paid more to fly the 737 and they still would prefer the ejet. As much as VA could pick up the Alliance-operated flights if they brought back some EJets (or an alternative), I imagine that by the time you add in all the infrastructure, training systems etc that would have to be brought back on-line, the Alliance deal is probably much cheaper. But it probably only makes sense in the short-term and on specific routes. Flying an F100 12 hours a day like a 737 across a network gets expensive quickly. Add in a potential takeover of Alliance by Qantas into the mix and VA will probably be taking a good hard look at a longer-term 100-seat solution. |
Brand issue my backside, the miners couldn't give a rats arse about that. Five yrs ago there was concern about delays and reliability etc, but that was during the boom with a need to retain workers as there were more jobs than workers. However, that's not the case now with most workers more worried about keeping their jobs; prime concern now is cost.
Anyone have an idea what the difference is in lease costs between a F100 and an E190, I've seen online that values for an E190 range from 25 to 30 mil, so what would that be as a monthly lease compared to an F100? |
Who cares what the miners think? They aren't signing the contract, their bosses are.
|
Pretty sure a second hand F100 is around $2-3m. Cheap as chips for an airliner. It's why Alliance love them.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.