MaeveJet vs CRJ-900 & E175: Fuel Burn Disruption Coming

Yesterday's Maevejet news at SkyWest caused a flutter among industry watchers. Very few expected this move. The MaeveJet promises 20% better trip costs on a 500-mile mission compared to "Existing Regional Jets in service." By our reckoning, the optimal benchmark would be the CRJ-900 - not least because that's what the image looks like on their page. However, MaeveJet promises ~33% better fuel burn, a significant improvement that is critical for regional operations. Regional jets, flying shorter hops, spend less time at fuel-efficient cruise than other aircraft. Here's a fuel burn chart from the US DOT T2 dataset, with data for SkyWest Airlines. The ball size is the number of flights. The red arrow illustrates SkyWest's current CRJ900 fuel burn to a potential MaeveJet. [caption id="attachment_108426" align="aligncenter" width="580"] US DOT T2; AirInsight[/caption] The good news is that, if the MaeveJet performs as promised, it is highly competitive. At 0.0182 gallons/ASM, this could be significantly better than the E175's 0.0219, or ~17%. If we get into the details, here's what we have for SkyWest's regional jet fleet. MHIrj has always felt that US DOT data does not accurately report the CRJ-900's fuel burn. They claim the CRJ-900ER should be ~2% lower than the E175LR. [caption id="attachment_108381" align="aligncenter" width="463"] US DOT T2; AirInsight[/caption] Given the question surrounding the US DOT data, we consult another data source for verification. Here's Skailark's fuel burn number for the CRJ-900ER. Skailark doesn't show data for SkyWest as it folds them into the major airlines, i.e., American, Delta, and United. Because various regionals perform the majors' flights, there is some difference in fuel burn. [caption id="attachment_108382" align="aligncenter" width="580"] Skailark; AirInsight[/caption] In the table above, we want to see the MaeveJet deliver a fuel burn of 1.864 to achieve its 20% target. Now here we have Skailark's E175LR fuel burn data. The E175LR is also known as the ERJ 170-200LR. Notice the Skailark data shows the CRJ-900ER has a lower fuel burn than the E175, as MHIrj claims. [caption id="attachment_108383" align="aligncenter" width="580"] Skailark; AirInsight[/caption] There are some other key items to note here. The US DOT numbers differ from Skailark's by a factor of ~100. That's not a problem, as we are looking at trends and see that both sources show the CRJ-900 and E175 fuel burn rising. That is to be expected, as both use the same engine, which is no longer state-of-the-art. Also, older aircraft burn more fuel because they are like humans - they don't necessarily age well. Regional jets are subjected to more daily operations than any other commercial aircraft type, aging them faster. The Skailark data suggests that a 33% decline in fuel burn for MaeveJet will be significantly better than both the CRJ-900ER and the E175. This makes the MaeveJet attractive for US majors seeking better fuel burn for operations that are notoriously fuel-inefficient. In other words, don't be surprised to see more deals from US majors. SkyWest has a first-mover advantage. But the Big Three have unequalled critical mass. One last item to consider. The GE CF34 engine powers the CRJ-900 and E175. That means every Western regional jet uses this engine. The COMAC C909 (ARJ21) also uses this engine. As MaeveJet gains traction, a big winner will be Pratt & Whitney Canada. GE will no longer have this monopoly. What does this suggest? Do GE and Embraer get together and come up with something new to respond?

US Flight Planner - US DoT On-Time Data	Airbus vs Boeing - Official OEM Data
US Airline Schedule Performance - US DoT Data	Daily OEM Production & Deliveries -

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Related News

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Related News

A220-300 vs. E195-E2: A Tale of Two Snapshots

Falcon 10X First Flight Breaks High-End Duopoly

KKR’s $1.4 Billion Bet Confirms PE’s Bet