Appears that UA ordered the 24 E-175 from the former Republic cancelled order.

http://economia.estadao.com.br/noticias ... 0000088587

PATristar wrote:

Appears that UA ordered the 24 E-175 from the former Republic cancelled order.

http://economia.estadao.com.br/noticias ... 0000088587

So, this is why the 737-700 was delayed? Either way, good move for UA.

Here's to hoping that the C-Series still sees a UA order!

I wonder who will fly them, it would be nice to see these at ExpressJet.

Rajahdhani wrote:

PATristar wrote:

Appears that UA ordered the 24 E-175 from the former Republic cancelled order.

http://economia.estadao.com.br/noticias ... 0000088587

So, this is why the 737-700 was delayed? Either way, good move for UA.

Don't think so. They are only 10 aircraft away from the 70 seater cap now. Looks to me like 14 of these will replace CR7s.

The only details is that it is a $ 1 bln USD deal and the deliveries begin next year.

AV8AJET wrote:

I wonder who will fly them, it would be nice to see these at ExpressJet.

They're going to Republic. Sending a new fleet type to ExpressJet wouldn't make sense as it would add significant cost. The regionals want to simplify as much as possible.

The aircraft are 100% going to Republic, it's as simple as that. Republic cancelled the order because it was almost impossible (probably completely impossible) to find financing for these aircraft while in bankruptcy. That's where United comes into play. Republic and United structured a deal in which United will now buy and own the aircraft, and then lease them to Republic.

Here is an excerpt from Prime Clerk for a motion filed yesterday in court:

"United in turn has agreed to amend the United Express Agreement to lease [number redacted] of the purchased E175s to Republic for deployment under the United Express Agreement, thereby allowing the Debtors to avoid obtaining capital to fund their own acquisition of the aircraft while still increasing their revenues under the United Express Agreement. The [number redacted] aircraft are expected to be delivered to Republic between April 2017 and September 2017."

Although the specific number of aircraft are redacted in the filing, it is widely assumed that the number is the full 24.

Why not E2s? Slot availability?

This isn't a net change in Ejets flying for United Express. This is United taking over an order Republic had placed as part of Republic's bankruptcy proceeding. What was going to be Ejets owned by Republic flown by Republic for United Express is now going to be Ejets owned by United flown by Republic for United Express.

KCaviator wrote:

The aircraft are 100% going to Republic, it's as simple as that. Republic cancelled the order because it was almost impossible (probably completely impossible) to find financing for these aircraft while in bankruptcy. That's where United comes into play. Republic and United structured a deal in which United will now buy and own the aircraft, and then lease them to Republic.

Here is an excerpt from Prime Clerk for a motion filed yesterday in court:

"United in turn has agreed to amend the United Express Agreement to lease [number redacted] of the purchased E175s to Republic for deployment under the United Express Agreement, thereby allowing the Debtors to avoid obtaining capital to fund their own acquisition of the aircraft while still increasing their revenues under the United Express Agreement. The [number redacted] aircraft are expected to be delivered to Republic between April 2017 and September 2017."

Although the specific number of aircraft are redacted in the filing, it is widely assumed that the number is the full 24.

Only if Republic can staff them, which is always the big question. Quite honesty, there are better choices of regional airlines for a prospective new hire.

gatibosgru wrote:

Why not E2s? Slot availability?

E2's cannot fly for any regional in the United States at the time being due to scope limitations (aircraft weight). Unless scope changes, you will never see the E2's fly for a regional in the US.

These are 24 E75s originally ordered by RAH to be operated on the UAX contract. It now becomes more cost-effective for United to acquire them then lease back to RAH to operate for UAX.

Keep an eye on those 'other' orders held by RAH, too.

Rajahdhani wrote:

PATristar wrote:

Appears that UA ordered the 24 E-175 from the former Republic cancelled order.

http://economia.estadao.com.br/noticias ... 0000088587

So, this is why the 737-700 was delayed? Either way, good move for UA.

Here's to hoping that the C-Series still sees a UA order!

There may be a thread but haven't seen it. ATW News last night had a story that most of the -700 orders were converted to the -800 MAX and delivery delayed until 2018 and beyond.

codc10 wrote:

These are 24 E75s originally ordered by RAH to be operated on the UAX contract. It now becomes more cost-effective for United to acquire them then lease back to RAH to operate for UAX.

Keep an eye on those 'other' orders held by RAH, too.

Im not sure how this becomes cost-effective for United. Republic yes as they don't have to deal with the costs of actually owing the 24 airplanes.

Why not Republic Airlines join Skywest and let Skywest fly the new E175's.

codc10 wrote:

These are 24 E75s originally ordered by RAH to be operated on the UAX contract. It now becomes more cost-effective for United to acquire them then lease back to RAH to operate for UAX.

Keep an eye on those 'other' orders held by RAH, too.

By those "other orders", do you mean the C Series order from RAH? Has that order been cancelled, or is it still on the table? If it is still viable, perhaps UAL will take over?

This reminds me of the time Expressjet had 69 outstanding ERJs that were sitting idle that were owned by CO, and leased to Express. CO told them to use them or lose them, thus ExpressJet started their branded ops.

With RAH in bankruptcy, could branded ops be an option under reorganization if any planes sit idle?

INFINITI329 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

These are 24 E75s originally ordered by RAH to be operated on the UAX contract. It now becomes more cost-effective for United to acquire them then lease back to RAH to operate for UAX.

Keep an eye on those 'other' orders held by RAH, too.

Im not sure how this becomes cost-effective for United. Republic yes as they don't have to deal with the costs of actually owing the 24 airplanes.

It would depend on what the terms of the CPA are with respect to United-owned versus Republic (or other carrier) owned airplanes. United's cost of capital is way lower than a Ch.11 airline and ownership of the asset is of benefit to the company.

caleb1 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

These are 24 E75s originally ordered by RAH to be operated on the UAX contract. It now becomes more cost-effective for United to acquire them then lease back to RAH to operate for UAX.

Keep an eye on those 'other' orders held by RAH, too.

By those "other orders", do you mean the C Series order from RAH? Has that order been cancelled, or is it still on the table? If it is still viable, perhaps UAL will take over?

I would not be surprised to see this happen. RAH is in court tomorrow for approval of a deal with Bombardier to defer the deliveries. I am certain that cancellation was on the table, and with no possibility for RAH to operate the CS100 under a major brand, one has to believe there is a reasonable prospect for someone else to step in and take on those positions at favorable terms.

TWA772LR wrote:

This reminds me of the time Expressjet had 69 outstanding ERJs that were sitting idle that were owned by CO, and leased to Express. CO told them to use them or lose them, thus ExpressJet started their branded ops.

With RAH in bankruptcy, could branded ops be an option under reorganization if any planes sit idle?

I would be completely blown away if anyone signed on to a reorganization plan that involved branded ops for Republic. Best hope is to unload those orders on someone else.

gatibosgru wrote:

Why not E2s? Slot availability?

E175 E2 won't be in service until 2020+

Wild speculation: United just deferred 737-700s, converting them to larger aircraft. That re-opens a gap for small mainline aircraft. Republic's in court tomorrow to talk about small mainline aircraft. United's already taken over one Republic aircraft order. Maybe they take over their CSeries order, too?

DFW789ER wrote:

Rajahdhani wrote:

PATristar wrote:

Appears that UA ordered the 24 E-175 from the former Republic cancelled order.

http://economia.estadao.com.br/noticias ... 0000088587

So, this is why the 737-700 was delayed? Either way, good move for UA.

Here's to hoping that the C-Series still sees a UA order!

There may be a thread but haven't seen it. ATW News last night had a story that most of the -700 orders were converted to the -800 MAX and delivery delayed until 2018 and beyond.

There is no -800 MAX, there is a MAX-8 instead.

Revelation wrote:

DFW789ER wrote:

Rajahdhani wrote:

So, this is why the 737-700 was delayed? Either way, good move for UA.

Here's to hoping that the C-Series still sees a UA order!

There may be a thread but haven't seen it. ATW News last night had a story that most of the -700 orders were converted to the -800 MAX and delivery delayed until 2018 and beyond.

There is no -800 MAX, there is a MAX-8 instead.

Yeah, for some reason I always forget the future Boeing a/c aren't identified in the hundreds.

adamblang wrote:

Wild speculation: United just deferred 737-700s, converting them to larger aircraft. That re-opens a gap for small mainline aircraft. Republic's in court tomorrow to talk about small mainline aircraft. United's already taken over one Republic aircraft order. Maybe they take over their CSeries order, too?

Good call. If the price is right it would be a good way to resolve that order.

TWA772LR wrote:

This reminds me of the time Expressjet had 69 outstanding ERJs that were sitting idle that were owned by CO, and leased to Express. CO told them to use them or lose them, thus ExpressJet started their branded ops.

No, Expressjet started branded ops because CO pulled a lot of their flying (something like 60+ aircraft) as CO were trying to reduce their number of 50 seaters when fuel starting skyrocketing, leaving Expressjet with a glut of aircraft. Per their agreement with CO Expressjet could not fly to any CO hub except as COEx and if they offered a lower rate to another airline for flying they had to also then offer the same rate to CO. Rather than parking and downsizing the company they decided to try their ill fated branded exercise instead.

In these capacity agreements it is the mainline company telling the regional airline how to use their planes. If they were CO owned planes (which I do not believe they were) if CO wants them used then they would be used as CO tells them to, they would not be idle unless CO purposely pulls flying (which they did). If they had more aircraft than the flying required CO would not care if it is the CO owned ones parked as long as Expressjet continues to make the lease payments and operates what they are told to operate.

Polot wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

This reminds me of the time Expressjet had 69 outstanding ERJs that were sitting idle that were owned by CO, and leased to Express. CO told them to use them or lose them, thus ExpressJet started their branded ops.

No, Expressjet started branded ops because CO pulled a lot of their flying (something like 60+ aircraft) as CO were trying to reduce their number of 50 seaters when fuel starting skyrocketing, leaving Expressjet with a glut of aircraft. Per their agreement with CO Expressjet could not fly to any CO hub except as COEx and if they offered a lower rate to another airline for flying they had to also then offer the same rate to CO. Rather than parking and downsizing the company they decided to try their ill fated branded exercise instead.

In these capacity agreements it is the mainline company telling the regional airline how to use their planes. If they were CO owned planes (which I do not believe they were) if CO wants them used then they would be used as CO tells them to, they would not be idle unless CO purposely pulls flying (which they did). If they had more aircraft than the flying required CO would not care if it is the CO owned ones parked as long as Expressjet continues to make the lease payments and operates what they are told to operate.

Expressjet had plans to start branded ops in 2004. Well before the fuel spike. CO had owned all expressjet operated aircraft. The plan for branded ops was entirely an expressjet idea, because management got it in their head that they had to diversify, and became increasingly paranoid about becoming reliant on CO as their only revenue stream. CO only pulled the aircraft because of expressjet, and those were the aircraft that expressjet used to fly their branded ops, leasing them from CO.

It turned out to be a disaster, as fuel spiked two years into the experiment, and expressjet grossly overestimated people's desire to fly secondary city pairs non stop. Most routes were chosen by city pair O&D numbers, and expressjet management thought that would be enough. At the time expressjet only internally ran Flight ops, inflight, maintenance, and operations at a few small out stations. They were ill equipped and too inexperienced to run a full fledged airline.

I worked there before the breakup with CO. It was a wonderful place to work, but a few ambitious managers ruined it for everyone. Hindsight is 20/20, but it would have been better to keep the status quo, than try to go independent.

B737900ER wrote:

Expressjet had plans to start branded ops in 2004. Well before the fuel spike. CO had owned all expressjet operated aircraft. The plan for branded ops was entirely an expressjet idea, because management got it in their head that they had to diversify, and became increasingly paranoid about becoming reliant on CO as their only revenue stream. CO only pulled the aircraft because of expressjet, and those were the aircraft that expressjet used to fly their branded ops, leasing them from CO.

Yes, branded ops/diversifying was something they had been considering for awhile (also remember ExpressJet Europe? Lol) but the impetus for starting the branded ops was CO reducing flying, not Expressjet having spare aircraft that they were told to "use or lose" by CO.

Polot wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

Expressjet had plans to start branded ops in 2004. Well before the fuel spike. CO had owned all expressjet operated aircraft. The plan for branded ops was entirely an expressjet idea, because management got it in their head that they had to diversify, and became increasingly paranoid about becoming reliant on CO as their only revenue stream. CO only pulled the aircraft because of expressjet, and those were the aircraft that expressjet used to fly their branded ops, leasing them from CO.

Yes, it was something they had been considering for awhile (also remember ExpressJet Europe? Lol) but the impetus for starting the branded ops was CO reducing flying, not Expressjet having spare aircraft that they were told to "use or lose" by CO.

Forgot about expressjet Europe, based in Cork Ireland. What a beauty that would have been.

It was a game of chicken. CO wanted to reduce rates, Expressjet got scared and worked themselves into a frenzy about what "could" happen and essentially called COs bluff. Both sides lost. CO diversified their regional partners, but lost a lot of control over the operation and product. Expressjet thought they were smart enough to avoid the mistakes Independence Air made, and maybe they were, but no one foresaw the fuel crisis.

If cooler heads prevailed a deal could have been worked out. In the end CO didn't reduce overall regional flying by a significant enough margin to hurt expressjet that much. At least not as much as going independent hurt them.

Wouldn't that be ironic after all the gnashing of teeth here on Anet that UA ends up with CS100s in their fleet anyway. And a nice discount on some larger next gen 737s UA probably really prefers anyway.

flight152 wrote:

Only if Republic can staff them, which is always the big question.

Presumably there's something in the lease and operating contract that allows UA to place those planes with another operator if RAH fails to maintain a certain level of operations with their United Express flying.

TWA772LR wrote:

This reminds me of the time Expressjet had 69 outstanding ERJs that were sitting idle that were owned by CO, and leased to Express. CO told them to use them or lose them, thus ExpressJet started their branded ops.

XE never had a bunch of planes sitting idle while they were the sole COEX operator. CO wanted to lower their costs for express, either by getting concessions from XE or by diversifying. They owned the planes and through some contractual language or another were able to tell XE that they could either operate them at reduced rates for CO, give up the aircraft, or operate them elsewhere, but not flying to a CO hub.

I'm pretty sure CO management expected XE to give up the planes, which they would then sublease to Chautauqua. XE didn't, which is why we saw the ridiculous events of XE branded flying, Chautauqua adding CR2s to their certificate to operate them for a year or two, and XE eventually merging with EV.

Polot wrote:

If they were CO owned planes (which I do not believe they were)

They were. They're now UA-owned planes, which is why the ones that aren't retired are now being split between ExpressJet, Trans States, and Comutair.

Presumably the E145XRs will be the last remaining current generation 50-seat aircraft in UA's fleet when all is said and done.

B737900ER wrote:

If cooler heads prevailed a deal could have been worked out. In the end CO didn't reduce overall regional flying by a significant enough margin to hurt expressjet that much. At least not as much as going independent hurt them.

I don't know for sure because I wasn't there, but I have a feeling CO was going to get a 2nd Express operator one way or another. What changed was where the aircraft were sourced from and how stable XE's financials were.

SFOtoORD wrote:

adamblang wrote:

Wild speculation: United just deferred 737-700s, converting them to larger aircraft. That re-opens a gap for small mainline aircraft. Republic's in court tomorrow to talk about small mainline aircraft. United's already taken over one Republic aircraft order. Maybe they take over their CSeries order, too?

Good call. If the price is right it would be a good way to resolve that order.

That would mean UA pulled major okie doke on Boeing. UA got those initial frames at yard sale prices. The whole point of those prices where to keep the United globe off of the tail of Cseries Jets. Like others I eluded to this now opens up a seating gap in UAs fleet. So BBD has new life in my opinon

YX to open IAH base, word is out stay tuned for more info.

This order was mentioned in the investor event on Tuesday.

It has nothing to do with the 737-700 order, its solely due to RJET trouble financing the aircraft while in BK.

UA's new CFO said they would actually save $100mil over the life of the contract by purchasing the aircraft and leasing them back to RJET than previous terms of CPA agreement with RJET.

Delivers to UA/YX begin in February, with 12 new E75 for Republic for United Express to be in service by the beginning of summer 2017

miaskies wrote:

YX to open IAH base, word is out stay tuned for more info.

To replace the outgoing OO base or the under performing YV base?

UA not ordering the CSeries in the first place; Mistake.
UA ordering 100 MAX 9s; Mistake.
UA ordering 65 73Gs; Mistake.
UA converting the 73G order to MAX 9s (Are you kidding me?!) Mistake.
UA not ordering the MAX 8 or A321neo; Mi-STAKE!

UA taking 24 E175s from Republic? Hey! Now there's a good idea, finally!

In all seriousness, any airline ordering the E175 is making a great investment.

With the Shreveport ExpressJet base closing in Spring 2017, I have a feeling that several cities are about to get a rude awakening on the frequency side of things. Not necessarily a bad thing. I, for one, never thought a city pair needed 8 - 12 flights a day, especially when it comes to utilizing RJ's to make those hops. Although they were not pervasive in the CO days, cities like BTR would have up to 12 flights a day..on RJ's...to Houston. Really? A flight every 3 - 4 hours, on average, from a mid-sized spoke to a hub should be more than adequate. I mean my goodness, these days I hesitate to book anything with less than a 2 hour connection.

Since Republic is only getting 12 of the 24 (Bedford feels "confident" about getting more than 12, but lets be realistic), who will operate the others? The obvious choices are SkyWest and Mesa.

it surely appears UAL is settling ona fleet product of the E170-E175 for UAX It would seem to be a good bet with the UAX carriers pooling spares and sharing reliability information. where any UAX carrier can support any other UAX carrier with AOG parts and possibly personnel, especially Engines just like many majors can and will do on Occasion. From Time to time We've had nearly every carrier that flies into SFO Aircraft in out Hangars. We've assisted and Been assisted worldwide. So who owns the airplane is of little importance. If we can help? We usually do if asked. and if we really can.

INFINITI329 wrote:

[That would mean UA pulled major okie doke on Boeing. UA got those initial frames at yard sale prices. The whole point of those prices where to keep the United globe off of the tail of Cseries Jets. Like others I eluded to this now opens up a seating gap in UAs fleet. So BBD has new life in my opinon

As much as we all agree that the CS100/300 is one of the more advanced and efficient planes currently on the market I tend to think that the E190 has an equal or better chance of of sporting a globe on the tail for the following reasons:

*The 73Gs were not the most fuel efficient planes on the market but the acquisition price and fleet commonality probably made them attractive.
*UA/UAX have extensive experience with the EMB product. (reduced learning curve and consistent passenger experience)
*Does UA really need a 106-pax aircraft capable of transcon flights? They've got loads of 737s to cover that market
*E190 has 20,000lb lower MTOW resulting in slightly lower landing fees for the same pax load (every little bit helps)

One of the more prominent advantages the E190 might have is same advantage the 73Gs had a few months ago. Early delivery and very competitive acquisition price even though some potential fuel efficiency is sacrificed. Boeing has/will have up to 20 ex-AC E190s I'm sure they'd like to shed. AC also has an additional 25 E190s that will be replaced as their first 25 C-Series join the fleet in late 2019.

If one of UA's goals is to increase E175 flying, both the C-Series and E190 cover that base. The E190 probably does it at a lower CAPEX and that's a huge consideration present day.

jetblastdubai wrote:

. Boeing has/will have up to 20 ex-AC E190s I'm sure they'd like to shed.

No they don't.

Delta is still taking them, even though they will not be operating the aircraft. I do not know if DL has customers lined up for all the planes yet but they are (will be) Delta's, not Boeing's, responsibility now.

jetblastdubai wrote:

*UA/UAX have extensive experience with the EMB product. (reduced learning curve and consistent passenger experience)

Actually they do not ,UA neither maintains or operates the type, their UAX carriers do. UA just owns alot of the planes. The only experience they with have with Embraer is signing the checks

jetblastdubai wrote:

*E190 has 20,000lb lower MTOW resulting in slightly lower landing fees for the same pax load (every little bit helps)

Before I make a rebuttal to this are comparing the C-Series to the E-190 or E-190 E2?

Polot wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

. Boeing has/will have up to 20 ex-AC E190s I'm sure they'd like to shed.

No they don't.

Delta is still taking them, even though they will not be operating the aircraft. I do not know if DL has customers lined up for all the planes yet but they are (will be) Delta's, not Boeing's, responsibility now.

Nordic Aviation Capital has purchased these airplanes from DL.
http://www.nac.dk/nac-agrees-to-purchas ... air-lines/

Are there options for more besides the 24?

jetblastdubai wrote:

AC also has an additional 25 E190s that will be replaced as their first 25 C-Series join the fleet in late 2019.

Confirming...

http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=984
Deliveries are scheduled to begin in late 2019 and extend to 2022. The first 25 aircraft on delivery will replace Air Canada's existing mainline fleet of Embraer E190 aircraft, with the incremental aircraft supporting Air Canada's hub and network growth, creating one of the world's youngest, most fuel efficient airline fleets.

The "DL" 20, are actually pretty much out of the fleet by now;

http://www.airfleets.net/listing/e190-1.htm
190IGW Air Canada 12/2005 C-GWEN Stored Stored 08/2015 as N646BC (SMBC)
190IGW Air Canada 12/2005 C-FFYJ Stored Stored 01/2016 as N746BC (BCC)
190IGW Air Canada 12/2005 C-FFYM Stored Stored 04/2016 as N735BC (NAC)
190IGW Air Canada 01/2006 C-FFYT Stored Stored 02/2016 as N693BC (BCC)
190IGW Air Canada 01/2006 C-FGMF Stored Stored 03/2016 as N698BC - Lsd From BCC
190IGW Air Canada 03/2006 C-FGLX Stored Stored 11/2015
190IGW Air Canada 06/2006 C-FHIQ Stored Stored 01/2016 as N679BC (BCC)
190AR Air Canada 06/2006 C-FHIS Stored Stored 10/2015 as N675BC (BCC)
190AR Air Canada 06/2006 C-FHIU Stored Stored 11/2015 as N676BC (BCC)
190AR Air Canada 08/2006 C-FHJJ Stored Stored 10/2015 as N637BC (BCC)
190AR Air Canada 08/2006 C-FHJT Stored Stored 12/2015 as N680BC - Lsd from BCC
190IGW Air Canada 01/2007 C-FHKS Stored Stored 02/2016 as N694BC (BCC)
190IGW Air Canada C-FHLH Stored Stored 12/2015 as N683BC (BCC)
190AR Air Canada 06/2007 C-FHNX Stored Stored 02/2016 as N754BC - Lsd From Bcc
190IGW Air Canada 06/2007 C-FHNY Stored Stored 02/2016 (BCC)
190IGW Air Canada 08/2007 C-FHON Stored Stored 04/2016 as N758BC (BCC)
190AR Air Canada 03/2008 C-FNAX Stored Stored 12/2015 as N674BC (BCC)

As part of Air Canada's order, Boeing will purchase up to 20 of the airline's fleet of 45 Embraer E190s, which will be replaced with larger leased planes until the new 737 aircraft are delivered. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air-can ... -1.2460560

So, the majority of the AC>BCC transaction has happened, with those birds at BCC headed to DL, who has sold them to Nordic.

dc10lover wrote:

Are there options for more besides the 24?

I am sure that other carriers might be shedding theirs, in the future - and if not, Embraer would be willing to do magic with the pricing...

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/16/embraer-bags-a-long-awaited-order.aspx
Entering the year, Embraer probably needed 100 to 150 more orders for first-generation jets to keep production steady as E2 jet production ramps up between now and 2020. Alaska's order -(sic, of 30 aircraft)- Embraer's first major aircraft deal of 2016 -- gets Embraer a long way toward that goal. The company was able to fill some of its remaining 2017 delivery slots while also securing numerous orders for 2018, when it will still be delivering mainly first-generation jets.

So, they would be willing to take a large order (even at a reduced profit) in order to maintain production lines, into the E2 production phase. I wonder though, with sales not exactly booming for either frame - could they make a slight cut to output?

If it was from YX. Are they replacing Expressjet's ERJ's?

INFINITI329 wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

*UA/UAX have extensive experience with the EMB product. (reduced learning curve and consistent passenger experience)

Actually they do not ,UA neither maintains or operates the type, their UAX carriers do. UA just owns alot of the planes. The only experience they with have with Embraer is signing the checks

UA's customer service and ramp personnel are already familiar with the type. That would reduce training time and thus costs, though not as much as maintenance and pilot familiarity.

antoniemey wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

*UA/UAX have extensive experience with the EMB product. (reduced learning curve and consistent passenger experience)

Actually they do not ,UA neither maintains or operates the type, their UAX carriers do. UA just owns alot of the planes. The only experience they with have with Embraer is signing the checks

UA's customer service and ramp personnel are already familiar with the type. That would reduce training time and thus costs, though not as much as maintenance and pilot familiarity.

Pennies, it would have a minimal effect of costs. You can teach someone how to operate doors in less than a few hours during normal shift where they already getting paid.