AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet  (Read 3656 times)

Offline Blur CEO

  • Members
  • Posts: 212
    • Facebook
717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« on: December 16, 2010, 09:27:00 PM »
Which is better?
When you do a side by side of the two on there there almost identical in performance in cost. The only real difference is that the EMB can turn around faster by 5 minutes and that it can hold more passengers if you configure for high density. Anyone thoughts on which would be better? Im going to use them for route less than 600 miles. I know the 717 can make a killing on short routes. Also what about the MIT regional jet? has any one had any luck with those or are they like every other regional jet?

Ilyushin

  • Former member
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2010, 10:23:11 PM »
You should pick the 717 for those extra seats if you can use them well.

Don't put high density on the Embraer just because in that way you'll have an alternative for the 717. Passengers don't like HD seating.

Offline ukatlantic

  • Members
  • Posts: 1780
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2010, 10:34:19 PM »
HD seating is perfectly fine on SH routes, so long as you have been established a while it shouldn't have any affect as pax dont mind HD on short hops.  ;)

Offline ArcherII

  • Members
  • Posts: 1935
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2010, 10:44:48 PM »
Passengers don't like HD seating IF the flight lasts more than 3hrs. Given that we're talking about short trips, it won't matter very much for the passenger.

Another thing to consider is that the B717 is listed as "large" while the EMB195 is "medium", so you will save money in pilots classes.

The speed, while quite similar for short sectors as the ones you are projecting to use, can make a huge difference when you have to commit to a time-constrained airport, and that 5-minute save would make the flight possible. I'm operating E195 out of Brazil and usually have two 400nm flights and a 800nm flight (make it 400nm x 2 = 800nm x2 = 1600nm + (800nm x 2)= 3200nm a day! and with 5 50-min turnarounds!) in some of them and they STILL sleep in the apron at night!

Also if you operate an E195, there is some fuel saving in the long run, it is cheaper to maintain, cheaper to acquire and are very fast to acquire despite the backlog.

And please do not dare to forget the commonality advantages the E-Jets have. They cover the 60-118 pax market with only one fleet! and for a very short haul airline that's priceless.


Offline Frogiton

  • Members
  • Posts: 784
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2010, 12:53:41 AM »
While we're talking about saving money, how bout the AN-158? Same fuel burn as the E190 but costs 11 million less.
No replacement for displacement

GDK

  • Former member
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2010, 05:31:29 AM »
While we're talking about saving money, how bout the AN-158? Same fuel burn as the E190 but costs 11 million less.

You should get some commission from Antonov for your hard sell :P

Offline ArcherII

  • Members
  • Posts: 1935
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2010, 11:00:41 AM »
While we're talking about saving money, how bout the AN-158? Same fuel burn as the E190 but costs 11 million less.

Yes, it costs less to grab. But costs nearly 40% more in maintenance and has a 21kg per pax ratio against 18kg/pax of the E195 and 20kg/pax for the E190. That's quite a difference for a market with no premium demand.

GDK

  • Former member
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2010, 12:37:11 PM »
The $11m will cover the 40% more maintenance cost for years.

drewsy aki

  • Former member
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2010, 01:07:47 PM »
HI
    JUST STARTED IN MODERN TIMES BASED AT WITCHITA WITH LEASED CRJ 700, ARE 100 200 900 IN THE SAME COMMONALITY GROUP.

Offline ArcherII

  • Members
  • Posts: 1935
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2010, 01:22:37 PM »
Yes, they are. The -100 all the way to -1000 are in the same fleet.

drewsy aki

  • Former member
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2010, 01:24:29 PM »
 THANKS FOR THAT. MIGHT EXPAND A LITTLE FASTER NOW..

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2010, 02:37:32 PM »
ANGRY CAPS!

Offline Blur CEO

  • Members
  • Posts: 212
    • Facebook
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2010, 02:56:45 PM »
Is angery Becouse he saw your demotaviter for the CJR's swift. Lol

Offline Frogiton

  • Members
  • Posts: 784
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2010, 04:38:40 PM »
The $11m will cover the 40% more maintenance cost for years.

I probably sound like a Ukranian salesman, but here we go. The maintenance cost is derailed, after calculating a week of 12,000 more in maintinence of the A-158 and a yearly difference of 200,000 for the C check, you get 776,000 more than the Embraer each year in maintenance. So divide 11,000,000 by that number and you get about 14.1, which is how many years it would take before the Embraer caught up. And fuel burn per passenger is almost identical.
No replacement for displacement

Offline JonnyAngel

  • Members
  • Posts: 179
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2010, 06:02:46 PM »
What are the maintenance costs on those engines though? I was under the impression that one of the downsides to those planes is that they add higher maintenance costs in terms of the engines (which aren't accounted for in the aircraft maintenance figure) and the crew training numbers.

Plus, when v1.3 comes in, won't the airports actually become stricter about engine certification. With Chapter 3 engines, that AN-158 may not be usable into all airports...

Offline ArcherII

  • Members
  • Posts: 1935
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2010, 07:33:47 PM »
I probably sound like a Ukranian salesman, but here we go. The maintenance cost is derailed, after calculating a week of 12,000 more in maintinence of the A-158 and a yearly difference of 200,000 for the C check, you get 776,000 more than the Embraer each year in maintenance. So divide 11,000,000 by that number and you get about 14.1, which is how many years it would take before the Embraer caught up. And fuel burn per passenger is almost identical.

That's only taking account for Mx costs. considering that you're comparing E190 (92pax) to An158 (85pax), thats quite a difference.
Let's do the math: if we have a schedule that consists in 3 flights a day of 1.3hr each leg (6 legs) and enough time for A check...

--E190 will carry at %80 LF 74pax per leg. That's 444pax a day. Also the E190 has 343 flyable days (if we deduct B & C cks), so it would carry 125,292 pax per year at that LF. If we set tkt price at $185 we get an annual ticket income of $28,174,020.

Let's deduct the Mx costs to that number:  Yearly A ck --> $270,360
                                                                    B ck --> $161,772
                                                                    C ck --> $311,091
                                                                      Total = $743,223
So $28,174,020 - $743,223 = $27,430,797
Commonality cost is another factor aswell, and currently I'm spending nearly $600,000/year per E-195,
Then
$27,430,797 - $600,000 = $26,830,797 total in fixed Mx costs.

Fuel consumption: considering that we're talking about six legs of 1.3hr each, we have 7.8hrs of flight time per day. And F/F in the E190 is 1,840kg/hr.
So,
1,840kg/hr * 7.8hr = 14,352kg of fuel used per day. Fuel price is $650 now in MT3 therefore I will be spending $9,328 per day in Jet A-1, That makes $3,199,504 during those 343 flyable days.

We have then, $26,830,797 - $3,199,504 = $23,631,393 of total revenue PRE staff, insurance and other costs not directly related to the airframe.

-------------

--An158 at %80 LF carries 68pax. That's 408pax per day (in this schedule). The An158 has also 343 flyable days, so it would carry 139,994 pax per year. Ticket price set at $185 and we have an income of $ 25,889,640 per annum.

Substracting Mx costs:         Yearly A ck --> $451,974
                                                 B ck --> $270,432
                                                 C ck --> $520,050
                                                   Total = $1,242,456
$25,889,640 - $1,242,456 = $24,647,184 after Mx costs.

For commonality, as I don't know the costs related to an An158 fleet, I will use the same costs as the previous calc: $600,000.
So, $24,647,184 - $600,000 = $24,047,184 in total Mx costs.

Fuel consumption: we're talking about the same segment here so 7.8hrs flight time per day. An158's F/F is 1,810kg/hr.
Then, 1,810kg/hr * 7.8hr = 14118kg fuel used per day. Again, Jet A-1 price is $650 so I will spend $9,176 per day on kerosene or $3,147,368 per annum (a 343-day one).
Doing maths: $24,047,184 - $3,147,368 = $20,899,816 of total revenue PRE staff, insurance etc, etc.

We know that the E190 is currently priced $11,606,410 higher than the An158. And the difference in revenues between both aircrafts is: $26,631,393 - $20,899,816 = $2,731,576. This means that the E190 will earn $2,731,576 MORE than the An158 in an year.

So we divide $11,606,410 / $2,731,576 per year = 4.25 YEARS.

That's the amount of time it takes to the E190 to balance the price with the An158. Going beyond that will make the E190 earn MORE than the An158.

I didn't take in consideration the engine commonality as I don't know the cost of the An158 engine.

Disclaimer: I know that the E190 carries more ppl than the An158, but as there was a comparison between them....
 

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14538
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2010, 07:50:43 PM »
Plus, when v1.3 comes in, won't the airports actually become stricter about engine certification. With Chapter 3 engines, that AN-158 may not be usable into all airports...

Chapter 3 noise is still the standard today and allowed everywhere (with some exceptions that can't be modeled here). Stage 2 is banned in EU (& USA?) since 2002 or so.

Offline Frogiton

  • Members
  • Posts: 784
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2010, 08:36:59 PM »
The AN-158 since it is 7 people smaller will have a higher LF than the E-190. Your giving the E-190 an extra 34 pax per day which is an extra $2,000,000 a year. So your little 2.7 million dollar difference turns into $700,000. 11,000,000/700,000= 15.7 years.
No replacement for displacement

Offline ArcherII

  • Members
  • Posts: 1935
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2010, 09:09:19 PM »
The AN-158 since it is 7 people smaller will have a higher LF than the E-190. Your giving the E-190 an extra 34 pax per day which is an extra $2,000,000 a year. So your little 2.7 million dollar difference turns into $700,000. 11,000,000/700,000= 15.7 years.

I'm not giving the E190 34 extra seats. You compared E190 vs An158, different seating there, and I won't run an E190 with 85 seats. If that is the case it's obvious that I would go for the An158 instead.
But I will anyday chose the 92-seat E90 because even priced higher, in 4.5 years it will break even against the 85-seater Antonov, and have better commonality possibilities.
The smaller capacity <--> higher market share is correct but is somewhat negligible for 7-seat difference.

Offline Frogiton

  • Members
  • Posts: 784
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2010, 09:30:29 PM »
Yes they are different seating, that's why they won't have the same LF, which you aren't taking count of. If the two planes are flying the same route, they will carry the same amount of people regardless of what size they are. So you do have to take into account of that, putting the AN-158 as a more cost-effective plane, plus you could order the AN-148 which also falls under the category which is about the size of the E-170.
No replacement for displacement

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.