Agreed, but it is always good to have during the fall and early winter for that weekend travel where you can watch college football on a saturday and they give you the NFL Network's Redzone on sunday, which is spectacular.

I must agree with you there, the Redzone channel is AWESOME.

Gee, what a shock. Do they really think people are going to pay $6 to watch TV on an hour flight from SLC-DEN? Their pricing on the TV service is whacked.

They don't expect to, and they won't make money on it at less than $6, so they won't install it. Now Wifi is much more useful and not as costly to keep operating (it's lighter), so it makes sense here. I'd also like to see it on the Airbii.

Update on purchase
 

Different Link
 

I couldn't get mke9499's link to work, so the story referenced in his post can also be found here.

RJET common share offering to help pay for E-Jets:

http://www.stockwatch.com/News/Item....&news_region=U

From what I read in the transcripts it looks like they plan to remove all the E70s from the fleet to be replaced by E90s because they can get the near same block cost but have 20+ more seats on the E90s. I couldn't tell for sure if they also are planning to phase out the E35/45, in which case we might see MSN-MKE on E90s?

I'm not sure eliminating the E70's gives me a warm fuzzy ... this year I've flown MCI-MSY twice, a route they only operate 1x day, and one time the flight was fairly full, but I know there were a few non-revs, and the other time the flight was noticably not full. The problem is that with 1x day, business travelers like me are likely to use the flight in just one direction (as I did the last two times) and the other time just won't work. Now, if they eliminate the E70 used on this route that: 1) makes even less of a chance this would go to at least 2x day; and 2) makes even less of a chance they can continue to operate this route successfully.

That's a good point, but from what it sounds like, operating the E90 costs only a slight bit more than an E70, so even though load factors would theoretically drop it does not necessarily mean a loss in profitability.

I don't think their plans are really to get rid of all the E170's, though the total number may well go down further. They said they can operate the E190 for nearly the same block-hour cost as the E170 in spite of 23 additional seats. Couple of things about that:


1. If in fact the E170 and E190 block hour operating costs are the same, then 55 people on the E190 is the same result as 55 people on the E170. So if one follows their statement to the letter, there's no downside to swapping the E190 for the E170 in a market like MCI-MSY.

2. With all due respect to Bryan Bedford, I always take those kind of statements like "the cost to fly the RX300 is about the same as the RX200" with a grain of salt. They are off the cuff and unsupported with specifics, and "about the same" is a mushy term. I don't doubt that the cost to push an E190 for 500 miles isn't all that much more than pushing the E170 500 miles, and I'm certain it is no where near 30% higher in spite of having 30% more seats. But in an industry where very thin margins often split the winners from the losers, a small difference can be signficant.

3. They stated (accurately, of course) that the E190's economics are far superior to the E170, which could lead one to think the E170's will be phased out in favor of the E190. But what they did not address is that the E170's economics are in turn superior to the E135/E145s. When they speak of a general move to larger aircraft, that suggests some displaced E170's will replace RJ's which are retired or moved elsewhere.

4. Recently, in conjunction with the cabin reconfiguration of the E170's, they discussed that as new aircraft arrived their intention is to use the E170 in markets which are short and/or have no mainline competition. MCI-MSY qualifies. If their intention was to get rid of the E170's altogether I'd suspect they would instead have used terms like "phasing out" or "greatly reduced role".

5. Finally, the decision on what aircraft to fly isn't just based on block hour operating costs. There's also a matter of acquisition, ownership/leasing, and disposal costs. If the E170 are cheap to own and/or costly to get rid of, they might stay when otherwise one would think they'd go.

So...I think there will be E170's around for at least awhile, even if the fleet might get smaller. The good thing with the larger aircraft is that they can afford to discount more and sell more competitively-priced connections because of the lower cost.

I am curious to know what their costs are on the E35/45 vs the E70. It would make sense from a customer perspective to standardize on E70/90, A319/320, and then CSeries where each aircraft is roomy and has some sort of IFE.

The other question is what does the ownership look like for the E35/45. With regional flying decreasing do they have a ton of planes they would otherwise have parked?

Finally, if the plan is to make the E70 their smallest frame, can they fill it with some of the SCASD routes they have been interested in recently? Does MKE-RHI make sense on an E70? On the other hand it would probably be the most comfortable plane to fly into many of these smaller airports and may be preferred for locals. People might associate Frontier with comfy planes and choose them over the competition.

Regarding MCI-MSY, I totally forgot that this flight is already planned to be upgraded from E170 to E190 as of December 2 , along with MCI-BOS and MCI-DCA. Two lines of flying at MCI are being upgraded:

DCA-MCI-MSY-MCI-BOS-MCI upgrading from E170 to E190
MCI-DCA-MCI-DCA-MCI-DCA upgrading from E170 to E190

As for E170's or E190's to Madison or other feeder cities, I think it's quite possible bud depends on the rest of the RJ network at MKE. If they upgrade some or all flights from RJ to EJet in markets like Newark, Hartford, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Omaha, and Minneapolis, then there will be fewer RJ in Milwaukee and by necessity some feeder markets like MSN will see larger planes.