ASA taking over Freedom flying

[TOOL CRIB]

As has been noted on here, fuel is a pass thru cost for ASA. Therefore it doesn't affect our profit/profit margin or you bonus check. I almost never S/E taxi or shut-down the APU. Now if SH gets the boot later this year and we get rid of these crappy 4-day trips, then we can talk.

Yet another pilot who can't see the forest through the trees... just because it's not a direct connection to your wallet currently doesn't mean it won't be in the future. Delta is already cutting back service already. Are you not saving for your retirement now because it takes money out of your current paycheck? That's pretty much the logic you are using. Oh but you're probably too senior for any cuts to affect you personally.

 

[Medeco]

As has been noted on here, fuel is a pass thru cost for ASA. Therefore it doesn't affect our profit/profit margin or you bonus check. I almost never S/E taxi or shut-down the APU. Now if SH gets the boot later this year and we get rid of these crappy 4-day trips, then we can talk.

You really should re-think your logic there.

This battle with the company is over for now and you need to get on board if you want ASA to be different than the past. Now is the best time and chance ASA has ever had to turn the ship around, and fools like you need to change or move on to somewhere else.

Medeco

 

[Jon Rivoli]

As has been noted on here, fuel is a pass thru cost for ASA. Therefore it doesn't affect our profit/profit margin or you bonus check. I almost never S/E taxi or shut-down the APU. Now if SH gets the boot later this year and we get rid of these crappy 4-day trips, then we can talk.

I'm not sure ASA is the same a Skywest, but for us Delta or United pay for an agreed upon amount of fuel for a given segment. If we burn more, we eat it. If we burn less we keep the difference. A big chunck of our profit comes from our fuel savings so you will see it in your bonus check. If you can save 50 lbs. per flight times 1,000 or so flights a day thats 50,000 lbs. or about 7,500 gallons a day. $3/gal. = $22,500 per day = $2,737,500 per year. Incrementally it seams small, but it adds up. As mentioned above running the apu is about 120lbs./hr. For each 1,000 ft. higher you cruise you save abot 100lbs./hr. If you are early fly .70 instead of .77 and save more ( do you guys get block or better? Do you want your long break in Atlanta to be 15 minutes longer? ). Flight idle decent vs. 320 KIAS. All that adds up. Fly smart, make more money and it will also help your company remain profitable, win new flying. That also = job security.

Cheers.

 

[goahead]

Why hasn't anyone talked about climbing at 250 to altitude at the outstations????? This saves a lot of fuel.

 

[IronCityBlue]

The way I see it, the APU burns 120 lbs/hr. Jet fuel weighs 6 lbs/gallon. 1 gallon = a bit over $3/gallon. Therefore the APU is burning about $1 per minute or about $60/hr. I know that's a lot more than most of us get paid. Each CRJ engine burns what, about 300-350 pph at idle? So with both running in addition to the APU, you're burning $7/minute. That's $420/hr.

The APU actually costs WAY more than that, particularly if your company leases them (power by the hour) as many do. With the per minute lease rates and the cost of fuel and MX due to wear and tear plus MX delays for excessive use, APU usage on an RJ actually costs about 3 to 4 times what you posted.

 

[TOOL CRIB]

The APU actually costs WAY more than that, particularly if your company leases them (power by the hour) as many do. With the per minute lease rates and the cost of fuel and MX due to wear and tear plus MX delays for excessive use, APU usage on an RJ actually costs about 3 to 4 times what you posted.

Exactly, I was talking strictly fuel costs. I'm pretty sure ASA eats most if not all MTC costs so this will come out of the bonus check too. A little bit of ignorance goes a long way unfortunately!

 

[buscap]

want me to save money do ya!!!???

Then how bout havin freakin ground support available ready and hooked up every freakin time!!!

 

[Roger Dat]

How about 90% of the time when we pull up to the outstation, no apu running, and have to sit there running the #2 engine for 5-7 minutes while they go round up the GPU. Wouldn't it be cost effecient to start the apu, shut down the engine, then shut down the apu when power gets hooked up.

Maybe not, I really don't know

 

[Roxalana]

People like you make me sick. Have you no social conscious? Maybe don't s/e taxi for Scott Hall or ASA. Don't turn it off for Delta or the airline industry. Turn it off bc it doesn't make one bit of difference to you but it does to the environment and the world we are leaving our children. If every pilot would s/e taxi it WOULD, without a doubt make a difference.
I bet you're the type of person that would kick a puppy bc YOU wouldn't feel it.

 

[Medeco]

Why hasn't anyone talked about climbing at 250 to altitude at the outstations????? This saves a lot of fuel.

Talk about it all you want, its not standard profile. I think that could be a good idea, but not always practicle in a lot of places.

Medeco

 

[Medeco]

want me to save money do ya!!!???

Then how bout havin freakin ground support available ready and hooked up every freakin time!!!

This too is a problem, but we need to do our part in order to make the others fall in place.

Call in range at the out stations and let them know you expect the ground power to be ready upon shutdown, not 5 min after pulling up. That part gets me mad as can be, and when it happens I take a minute to speak with the people doing it.

Some places its logistic, and cannot be done. Valdosta is an issue with the tight space we park in, so they have to wait until we are parked and in place.

Many stations will tell you, they dont because most captains wave them off not to do it, so they figure most dont want it.

That gets me back to the point of the pilots doing our part then maybe things will fall in place.

I'm not crazy enough to think things will be perfect at ASA, but we have a chance to make it better and a leader of DCI flying.

Its an uphill battle to say the least. Dont create more drag for yourself.

Medeco

 

[TOOL CRIB]

Talk about it all you want, its not standard profile. I think that could be a good idea, but not always practicle in a lot of places.

Medeco

I heard Skywest climbs at 200 kts to 10K from outstations to save gas, is this true?

 

[n757st]

That makes no sense whatsoever. So if you have a 3 hour stop and go taxi, you have to run them both to "save" the engine? Sounds someone who has no idea what they are talking about got the chance to write a policy. Gees.

That said, AWAC longest hang time per engine (on the pylon) amoung every CRJ operator in the entire world. Take it for what its worth.

 

[zawillif]

As has been noted on here, fuel is a pass thru cost for ASA. Therefore it doesn't affect our profit/profit margin or you bonus check. I almost never S/E taxi or shut-down the APU. Now if SH gets the boot later this year and we get rid of these crappy 4-day trips, then we can talk.

4 day trips are here to stay. 3 on 4 off schedules are a thing of the past. Ask any regional or Delta, or CAL, etc. You don't want to fly four day trips might as well quit the airlines and go somewhere else. Maybe, just maybe they could come back. But I'm willing to bet it would have to be negotiated for in a contract. . . or maybe PBS negotiations?

 

[Jon Rivoli]

I heard Skywest climbs at 200 kts to 10K from outstations to save gas, is this true?

Yes.

AWAC longest hang time per engine (on the pylon) amoung every CRJ operator in the entire world. Take it for what its worth.

How would you know? And that is not necessarily a good thing. I used to work for an operator that ran their engines on condition. Two problems came up.

1. If you don't schedule the engine change it will schedule itself, usually not at a convenient time or place.

2. The higher the time on the engine when it goes in for an overhaul the more expensive the overhaul. Beyond a certain point you have negative returns, but you can put off that expence a little longer and gain some short term cash flow. This is not a sound long term stragety. Not to mention that if you run an engine until it blows you just crapped out and your whole hot section is now slag.

I think most RJ operator lease engines. I know Skywest does so the time on wing would be determined by the contract.

Cheers.

 

[IronCityBlue]

That said, AWAC longest hang time per engine (on the pylon) amoung every CRJ operator in the entire world. Take it for what its worth.

I doubt NEVER doing SE taxi has anything to do with that. There are realistic warm up and cool down times everyone should use. Immediately shutting it down IS harmful, as is firing it up and taking off ASAP. But I seriouslly doubt there is any difference between a 10 or 15 minute warm up and a 3 hour warm up. Come on.

 

[buscap]

This too is a problem, but we need to do our part in order to make the others fall in place.

Call in range at the out stations and let them know you expect the ground power to be ready upon shutdown, not 5 min after pulling up. That part gets me mad as can be, and when it happens I take a minute to speak with the people doing it.

Some places its logistic, and cannot be done. Valdosta is an issue with the tight space we park in, so they have to wait until we are parked and in place.

Many stations will tell you, they dont because most captains wave them off not to do it, so they figure most dont want it.

That gets me back to the point of the pilots doing our part then maybe things will fall in place.

I'm not crazy enough to think things will be perfect at ASA, but we have a chance to make it better and a leader of DCI flying.

Its an uphill battle to say the least. Dont create more drag for yourself.

Medeco

No way man!!

This is a chicken and egg issue. And in this case the egg has to come first, the egg being the ground support.

If I pull up with no APU and it takes five minutes to hook up the power, that engine just burned more fuel then the APU, cranked on the ground during taxi-in, would burn.

And worse yet, the fueler has started to do his job, unaware he is now hot fueling.

Nope. Not gonna do it until they get their crap together first. I've expressly said this in e-mails to SH.

Even when the power is available, it takes too long to get it hooked up, due to jetway movement or a lack of personnel.

Show me the ground support on a consistent basis and I will do my part, as long as environmental conditions allow safe operation of the aircraft without the APU running.

On the CRJ200, if it's hot and/or the the aircraft is loaded with over 35 PAX, the APU will be started in the air for the safety of PAX and crew.

I've been back there and it just gets too hot.

The CRJ 700 is a much improved aircraft which can be operated otherwise. But like it or not, you can't operate a CRJ200 without the APU running on approach, taxi, or takeoff when it's hot or the cabin is crowded.

The high price of oil does not change that fact. It just makes that fact more expensive to deal with.

Trust me dude, I am a single engine kinda guy. I even forget and manage to do it with fuel in the center without creating problems...sometimes.

Show me consistent ground support and I will do what I can, but no matter what I will not cook my crew or the PAX.

 

[Medeco]

No way man!!

This is a chicken and egg issue. And in this case the egg has to come first, the egg being the ground support.

If I pull up with no APU and it takes five minutes to hook up the power, that engine just burned more fuel then the APU, cranked on the ground during taxi-in, would burn.

And worse yet, the fueler has started to do his job, unaware he is now hot fueling.

Nope. Not gonna do it until they get their crap together first. I've expressly said this in e-mails to SH.

Even when the power is available, it takes too long to get it hooked up, due to jetway movement or a lack of personnel.

Show me the ground support on a consistent basis and I will do my part, as long as environmental conditions allow safe operation of the aircraft without the APU running.

On the CRJ200, if it's hot and/or the the aircraft is loaded with over 35 PAX, the APU will be started in the air for the safety of PAX and crew.

I've been back there and it just gets too hot.

The CRJ 700 is a much improved aircraft which can be operated otherwise. But like it or not, you can't operate a CRJ200 without the APU running on approach, taxi, or takeoff when it's hot or the cabin is crowded.

The high price of oil does not change that fact. It just makes that fact more expensive to deal with.

Trust me dude, I am a single engine kinda guy. I even forget and manage to do it with fuel in the center without creating problems...sometimes.

Show me consistent ground support and I will do what I can, but no matter what I will not cook my crew or the PAX.

I'm glad you have told SH this. Obviously, when its hot then things are different, but thats not the case now.

What you say about the time it takes is true, but its no different then any other airliner. Mainline takes a while to get airflow into there planes upon shutdown too. Have you not noticed on a DH or commute or non-rev flight? It gets hot in the cabin fast, but I dont hear people saying they will complain about it being hot, they just want off the plane.

Medeco

 

[79%N1]

Again, back on topic.....the schedule shows Freedom getting these flights back in one month. This is just temporary.

 

[Dannone]

69 flights a day in and out if the list I saw today is right.