Compass EMB Options

[Hollywood82]

Does NWA have options on additional EMB175s for Compass?

 

[DrewBlows]

Does NWA have options on additional EMB175s for Compass?

Yes, but none have been exercised to the best of my knowledge. I wouldn't expect any announcements one way or another until the merger is complete since they will pretty much realign the entire 'connection' system.

 

[Smarta$$]

Also, the options are for NWA. Not specifically for CPS. They could be used for 190's for mainline NW/DL. Any options for compass for more than just a small number of airframes would have to have a scope adjustment.

 

[Ridgeback]

NWA also has 96 options on the crj900 Mesaba is operating, also the crj900 is killing the EMB175 on fuel, the Crj900 is burning about 600lbs/hour less for the same number of seats. NWA bought them both to see which one performed better in the real world. I wouldn't look for anymore 175's rather more 900's

 

[SpauldingSmails]

I flew with the system CP the other week on a trip. He says NW / Compass are looking in to used 170's as a possibility, preferably from the US market as the weak dollar has increased the prices of new EMBs. I'm sure this would be the case with any new foreign built aircraft.

Smarta$$ is right the options belong to NWA, just like the 175s.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

NWA also has 96 options on the crj900 Mesaba is operating, also the crj900 is killing the EMB175 on fuel, the Crj900 is burning about 600lbs/hour less for the same number of seats. NWA bought them both to see which one performed better in the real world. I wouldn't look for anymore 175's rather more 900's

Although I can't dispute the fuel burn numbers; I also don't think you've compared actual burns on a flight for flight basis... unless you've been printing off flight summaries from the FMS and comparing them. FWIW, its rare we meet the computed burn-off on the computer flight plans, normally we're at least 500-800 pounds to the good; I've seen as much as 1500lbs under burn on 3hour flights.

Again, I'm not disputing the fact that the CRJ900 is more efficient in burn, just how you've arrived at your "killing the 175" figure.

Also, the CRJ900s are not on the property because "NWA bought them both to see which one performed better in the real world". Its because Bombardier offered NWA a sweetheart deal with lease discounts (rumored to be about 250 mill.) on the CRJ200s flown by 9E and XJ if they ordered the 900's. Turns out that was a good deal for NW, and probably also for Bombardier.

http://www.startribune.com/business/11208836.html

 

[Smarta$$]

I flew with the system CP the other week on a trip. He says NW / Compass are looking in to used 170's as a possibility, preferably from the US market as the weak dollar has increased the prices of new EMBs. I'm sure this would be the case with any new foreign built aircraft.

Smarta$$ is right the options belong to NWA, just like the 175s.

Even if they buy used AC, they are still up against a scope limit.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Even if they buy used AC, they are still up against a scope limit.

I won't dispute that, but if someone operating 71-76 seat aircraft is removed from the picture than that changes.

I agree with drewblows, in that there probably won't be any announcements until the regional-lift picture is aligned after the merger.

I have to admit, I don't know what the picture is with the 50-70 seat scope and how many of those aircraft are currently in service. Is there room for more in that category?

 

[Minimaniac]

I flew with the system CP the other week on a trip. He says NW / Compass are looking in to used 170's as a possibility, preferably from the US market as the weak dollar has increased the prices of new EMBs.

Hmm.. RAH has about 17 sitting around looking for a home. That, and they are the only other operator of the 170 in the US. The real question is, is NWA ready to make a deal with the devil?

 

[profit]

So what is the EMB fuel burn in the 30s?

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Honestly, it depends a lot on the weight and speed of course.

Typically were looking at around 3200lb/hr (+/- 100) total at long range cruise (around M.73-.75) in the mid-thirties. At M.76 it's in the realm of 3600-3700lb/hr. for the mid-thirties.

Empty on a ferry, I've seen 2800lb/hr at FL380 at M.76. Near MTOW if you wanna push it at M.80-.81 you'll see around 4200lb/hr, which admittedly rather high for that size airplane.

Using a 2:1 ratio or a 3.5 degree descent angle for flight idle descents and tweaking the climb profile with the climb power selection is where you can easily better the computer flight plans.

 

[Flying Illini]

I've been keeping track to put some numbers into fltplan.com.

Keep in mind that these are cruise #'s, taken over the course of a 4 day trip. It would be nice to have one flight where I could make a stop at every FL above 300 to get a reading as that would be most accurate.

I'll just have to keep taking "readings" on every leg and average them out.

FL360: M.78 (462KTAS) 3650lbs/hr (around 72K lbs)
FL340: M.78 (458KTAS) 4000lbs/hr (around 74K lbs)
FL330: M.78 (459KTAS) 3900lbs/hr (around 73K lbs)
FL320: M.80 (463KTAS) 3900lbs/hr (around 71K lbs)

 

[SplitBar]

The combined NWA/DAL only has room for 33 more 76 seaters and the EMB175 exceeds the limit as to what is allowed. CZ's 36 will be Grandfathered but as far as more 175's at CZ...ain't gonna happen. Over scope allowable weight by about 1000 lbs. The CRJ900 meets the max weight under the combined scope. As Art would say, food for thought.

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas,

There will be no more than 36 E175s at the new NWA/DAL/Whatever.

The E175 required a scope "cutout" for the GTOW, and there is a 36 hardcap.

The only way there will be more Embraers will be if they are flown at the mainline.

Nu

 

[Flying Illini]

What is the GTOW cap?

What is the weight of the CRJ-900?

 

[koepp]

The combined NWA/DAL only has room for 33 more 76 seaters and the EMB175 exceeds the limit as to what is allowed. CZ's 36 will be Grandfathered but as far as more 175's at CZ...ain't gonna happen. Over scope allowable weight by about 1000 lbs. The CRJ900 meets the max weight under the combined scope. As Art would say, food for thought.

The E-175 LR = 85,517 lb
The E-175 AR = 89,000 lb
Scope limit = 86,000 lb

All of the 175s at CP are currently LRs. The AR mod is not certified yet & only necessary on a 4 hr flight w/lots of pax and bags.

 

[SplitBar]

The E-175 LR = 85,517 lb
The E-175 AR = 89,000 lb
Scope limit = 86,000 lb

All of the 175s at CP are currently LRs. The AR mod is not certified yet & only necessary on a 4 hr flight w/lots of pax and bags.

Try again.

 

[DoinTime]

Try again.

Don't be a dick about it. Why don't you explain it if you exactly how it goes?

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Heyas,

There will be no more than 36 E175s at the new NWA/DAL/Whatever.

The E175 required a scope "cutout" for the GTOW, and there is a 36 hardcap.

The only way there will be more Embraers will be if they are flown at the mainline.

Nu

Well the scope "cutout" was for Compass' 175AR aircraft which will have a MGTOW of 89,000lbs once the paperwork trick is complete. I believe the scope language limited MGTOW to 86,000lbs, which normally a 175LR is under (current Compass spec.) at 85,517lbs. The shorter range variant the 175SU and I believe any variant of the E170-100 would easily fit under this number.

In other words, no more than 36 of the AR variant aircraft, but a standard 175 would not need the exception. If I'm incorrect can you please provide the scope language to dispute this?

 

[koepp]

Try again.

Section 1 B. 40. D

one of up to 120 jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats and certificated in the United States with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 86,000 pounds or less ("76-seat jets"). The number of 76-seat jets may be increased above 120 by three 76-seat jets for each aircraft above the number of aircraft in the baseline fleet operated by the Company (in service, undergoing maintenance and operational spares) as of CBAID. The baseline fleet number will be 440+N, in which N is the number of aircraft (in service, undergoing maintenance and operational spares but not including permitted aircraft types) added to the Company’s baseline fleet from NWA. The number and type of all aircraft in the Company’s fleet on CBAID will be provided to the Association. The number of 70-seat jets plus 76-seat jets permitted by

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Section 1 B. 40. [/FONT]may not exceed 255.
Exception: Up to the 36 EMB-175s that were operated and/or ordered by Northwest prior to CBAID may continue to be operated with up to a maximum gross takeoff weight of 89,000 pounds.
​

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Try again.

Northwest Airlink, operated by Compass is pleased to serve crow as breakfast to our first class a**holes this morning.

 

[profit]

Honestly, it depends a lot on the weight and speed of course.

Typically were looking at around 3200lb/hr (+/- 100) total at long range cruise (around M.73-.75) in the mid-thirties. At M.76 it's in the realm of 3600-3700lb/hr. for the mid-thirties.

The -900 burns around the same. Low 3000s total/hr in the mid 30s at M.77

So it doesn't sound like one plane is "killing" the other w.r.t. fuel

 

[skid]

The -900 burns around the same. Low 3000s total/hr in the mid 30s at M.77

So it doesn't sound like one plane is "killing" the other w.r.t. fuel

I would have to agree that the burns are probably 200-300 lbs/hr better with the 900. No I have not flown the 900 but I have spoken to several 700 operators.

(Yes slightly different aerodynamics (winglets and such), but still much lighter than a 900.)

They have mentioned similar burns as we get on a 175.

One problem I have heard of with the 175 is crews that refuse to climb to the most efficent altitudes. Seems strange but I had an FO that said the last captain he flew with refused to climb above 320 because he was afraid of the dreaded coffin corner.

Almost fully loaded book numbers allow you to climb straight to 330 at .76. At 370-390 heavy you will still see 50+ knots of an operating window before worrying about that. Yes the book numbers are crazy conservative. (if you want to look at LRC numbers in the book most show G ranges of about 1.5 g's at 350 - 370 at a large range of weights.

My point is the way we are operating the 175 is killing us just as much or more than the straight efficiency of a 900 vs 175. Yes our heavier weights give us a large disadvantage to that.

Finally what will happen in the long run....NO ONE HAS A CLUE!!! Management will get the airplane they want... It may or may not be what we want or the what the pax want to see. We are all just along for the ride.

 

[Ridgeback]

The -900 burns around the same. Low 3000s total/hr in the mid 30s at M.77

So it doesn't sound like one plane is "killing" the other w.r.t. fuel

One must not forget even if the 900 is buring the same (which it is not) than the 175, the 900's are flying a faster cruise at .77 the 175's have to cruise at @.70 to acheive even a burn close to the 900's. More time in the air buring more gas equals much more fuel for the same mission.

The 900's are burning 300/side less than the 175, flying faster = less time in the air, times 36 aircraft= yes the 900's are killing the 175's

 

[SpauldingSmails]

One problem I have heard of with the 175 is crews that refuse to climb to the most efficent altitudes. Seems strange but I had an FO that said the last captain he flew with refused to climb above 320 because he was afraid of the dreaded coffin corner.

I have to say I'm very surprised. It seems contrary to the actions of almost every captain I've flown with.

Coffin corner in the 175... sheesh, if the LRC tables, the PLI and the yellow snake weren't enough to tell you when you're getting close.

 

[Hollywood82]

If NWA doesn't want any more EMBs would they ever get any other type of RJ? or T-Prop? Or, is 36 EMBs as big as Compass gets?

 

[Airline Driver]

In all practical Terms, The 170 is good to FL350. The 175 in the 86 seat configuration is good to FL330. Now Let me clarify that I am speaking in terms of a fully loaded plane. Fuel, Bags and PAX. Yes The plane will go to FL410, I have done it, it took a while and we were very light.

Compass to my understanding has a 76 seat configuration so it should be good to FL330-350 fully loaded. If that Compass Captain was worried about coffin corner at 320, then he either does not have the experience to know better or does not have the experience in the airplane to understand what it can do at various altitudes.

 

[DrewBlows]

-900 Pilot: "Mine's longer."

-175 Pilot: "Mine's wider."

...and the debate continues.

 

[G2T]

So much hate...
How about we all go fly our respectively better airplanes, maybe throw a head nod to the other guys once in a while in the terminal, and hope for the best. Despite our best predictions, we have no idea what's going to happen, other than someone will get screwed, we just don't know who or how yet.

 

[labbats]

I've been keeping track to put some numbers into fltplan.com.

Keep in mind that these are cruise #'s, taken over the course of a 4 day trip. It would be nice to have one flight where I could make a stop at every FL above 300 to get a reading as that would be most accurate.

I'll just have to keep taking "readings" on every leg and average them out.

FL360: M.78 (462KTAS) 3650lbs/hr (around 72K lbs)
FL340: M.78 (458KTAS) 4000lbs/hr (around 74K lbs)
FL330: M.78 (459KTAS) 3900lbs/hr (around 73K lbs)
FL320: M.80 (463KTAS) 3900lbs/hr (around 71K lbs)

I'm surprised how much more fuel the 170 burns compared to the 145.

I don't have specifics, but I know that a full weight 145 at around M.74 is roughly 2400lbs/hr at FL360.

How many seats are on the Compass planes? Is it the 76 seat config?