ASA to furlough?

[Raskal]

...the fun part is when you're flight planned at .65M headed to the northeast and halfway through the flight ATC wants .76M or better.

Did I read that right? .65? Are you serious?

Not to open a whole new discussion, but WTF? How can that thing possibly be efficient at all going that slow, it almost has to produce more drag...or is the aircraft really that ridiculously slow?

 

[captainv]

Did I read that right? .65? Are you serious?

Not to open a whole new discussion, but WTF? How can that thing possibly be efficient at all going that slow, it almost has to produce more drag...or is the aircraft really that ridiculously slow?

I don't have the speed books in front of me, but let's say the average speed for a given weight/altitude is .70 Mach. In a strong tailwind, you slow down to maintain the same speed and let the wind do the work, it calls for .62 Mach at tailwinds of 120 knots. Conversely, flying into a strong winter headwind, it would call for Mach .78.

Not sure who developed your CI, but ours was done by Air Canada pilots along with an actual rocket scientist. First they developed a theoretical model, using book numbers to develop target speeds/profiles. Then they had our check airmen monitor the fleet for months, showing actual fuel consumption/speed for various weights/atlitudes/ISA devitations. So that made it more realistic.

I assume you guys use ACARS for this? We have a printed book. Find your weight, flip to the altitude, check to make sure you don't exceed max ISA, then derive cruise Mach based on headwind/tailwind component. Each speed target also lists fuel consumption per mile, or some such number. Huge difference between .76 and .68. And it only adds 10 minutes or so per leg (in the 100/200, anyway).

Our 70/90 guys still fly high/fast, I suppose because of the efficiencies of flying high. Our books show FL 350 as being optimum for longer legs, but we don't often go up that high. ATC still doesn't understand why we're flying so slow, but apparently it's shaved millions off our fuel burns...

 

[USCtrojan]

Or are they?


PS......Mesa isn't going anywhere, and what makes anybody think that if they do, ASA will see one iota of that flying????? Me thinks ALL the vultures will pounce and ExpressJet, Air Wisc, Trans States, Pinnacle and Skywest will all beat ASA to any of that flying! Remember, ASA is STILL one of the highest cost carriers out there, so why would any new flying come to ASA when EVERYONE can and will undercut us?????

Kinda funny when Mr. Doom and Gloom is positive about Mesa ;-). ASA has high costs right now because they are preparing for the future. They are spending money to bring lots of things in house (a number of Maint. procedures come to mind.) Investing in an operation to give us high performance, NOW, a full year and a half before the DCI contract triggers. The money is being spent NOW, kind of like refinancing your house. You have to spend now so that your monthly payments are LOWER, later. Really not rocket science. Additonally, look at FlightSafety's involvement will slowly fade as classes are built in the Atech and RGT is 2 days. More $$$ saved. Parking, more $$ saved. PBS, more $$ saved. But you have to pay for it NOW and that causes costs to go higher NOW. We're still very profitable.

I also believe ASA doesn't NEED to furlough. Seen the open time lately? I think we are fat on FO's, but it's my belief that if SkyW furloughs, there will most definitely be furloughs at ASA. Can't give misery to the Golden Child, and not beat on the red headed step brat. There would be token furloughs at ASA if SkyW furloughs......Just due to the size of SkyWest, they are significantly overstaffed more so than ASA. We'll see. Hopefully nobody furloughs or at the very least this downturn reverses quickly and recalls happen sooner than later.

Trojan

 

[JumpersAway]

Kinda funny when Mr. Doom and Gloom is positive about Mesa ;-). ASA has high costs right now because they are preparing for the future. They are spending money to bring lots of things in house (a number of Maint. procedures come to mind.) Investing in an operation to give us high performance, NOW, a full year and a half before the DCI contract triggers. The money is being spent NOW, kind of like refinancing your house. You have to spend now so that your monthly payments are LOWER, later. Really not rocket science. Additonally, look at FlightSafety's involvement will slowly fade as classes are built in the Atech and RGT is 2 days. More $$$ saved. Parking, more $$ saved. PBS, more $$ saved. But you have to pay for it NOW and that causes costs to go higher NOW. We're still very profitable.

I also believe ASA doesn't NEED to furlough. Seen the open time lately? I think we are fat on FO's, but it's my belief that if SkyW furloughs, there will most definitely be furloughs at ASA. Can't give misery to the Golden Child, and not beat on the red headed step brat. There would be token furloughs at ASA if SkyW furloughs......Just due to the size of SkyWest, they are significantly overstaffed more so than ASA. We'll see. Hopefully nobody furloughs or at the very least this downturn reverses quickly and recalls happen sooner than later.

Trojan

Hey- hold on Mr...........You can't make sense here- it's forbidden.

You are right on the point though- We've lost 12 aircraft that were planned. SkyWest got stuffed with 20 CRJ-200's from Midwest Express, that they can't find anything to do with. SkyWest Inc isn't going to rock the non union SkyWest Airlines boat- it might give them a reason to vote in a union........

 

[Raskal]

I don't have the speed books in front of me, but let's say the average speed for a given weight/altitude is .70 Mach. In a strong tailwind, you slow down to maintain the same speed and let the wind do the work, it calls for .62 Mach at tailwinds of 120 knots. Conversely, flying into a strong winter headwind, it would call for Mach .78.

Not sure who developed your CI, but ours was done by Air Canada pilots along with an actual rocket scientist. First they developed a theoretical model, using book numbers to develop target speeds/profiles. Then they had our check airmen monitor the fleet for months, showing actual fuel consumption/speed for various weights/atlitudes/ISA devitations. So that made it more realistic.

I assume you guys use ACARS for this? We have a printed book. Find your weight, flip to the altitude, check to make sure you don't exceed max ISA, then derive cruise Mach based on headwind/tailwind component. Each speed target also lists fuel consumption per mile, or some such number. Huge difference between .76 and .68. And it only adds 10 minutes or so per leg (in the 100/200, anyway).

Our 70/90 guys still fly high/fast, I suppose because of the efficiencies of flying high. Our books show FL 350 as being optimum for longer legs, but we don't often go up that high. ATC still doesn't understand why we're flying so slow, but apparently it's shaved millions off our fuel burns...

I don't fly the CRJ, I was just basing the question off prior experience, so I really don't have much of an idea of what the 200 is capable of.

I forgot about the altitude, you're right, the 200 never really gets that high compared to other jets.

Thanks for the quick primer.

 

[ehaecker]

Sometimes flying slow isn't always best. It depends on whether or not you have a place to park. 1 engine running at idle on the ground waiting for a gate burns less fuel than 2 engines running in flight. Maybe it would be better to fly say .74M to arrive early, then shut down an engine while waiting for a gate. The point where that actually becomes relevant (if ever) is beyond me...
Just a thought.

 

[yournextFO]

I don't have the speed books in front of me, but let's say the average speed for a given weight/altitude is .70 Mach. In a strong tailwind, you slow down to maintain the same speed and let the wind do the work, it calls for .62 Mach at tailwinds of 120 knots. Conversely, flying into a strong winter headwind, it would call for Mach .78.

Not sure who developed your CI, but ours was done by Air Canada pilots along with an actual rocket scientist. First they developed a theoretical model, using book numbers to develop target speeds/profiles. Then they had our check airmen monitor the fleet for months, showing actual fuel consumption/speed for various weights/atlitudes/ISA devitations. So that made it more realistic.

I assume you guys use ACARS for this? We have a printed book. Find your weight, flip to the altitude, check to make sure you don't exceed max ISA, then derive cruise Mach based on headwind/tailwind component. Each speed target also lists fuel consumption per mile, or some such number. Huge difference between .76 and .68. And it only adds 10 minutes or so per leg (in the 100/200, anyway).

Our 70/90 guys still fly high/fast, I suppose because of the efficiencies of flying high. Our books show FL 350 as being optimum for longer legs, but we don't often go up that high. ATC still doesn't understand why we're flying so slow, but apparently it's shaved millions off our fuel burns...

The only problem is out cost index software seems to work backwards. It gives high speed with a tail wind and low speed with a headwind. 243 knots cruise speed flying HPN-ATL with a 120 knot headwind? Something doesn't seem right.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

The only problem is out cost index software seems to work backwards. It gives high speed with a tail wind and low speed with a headwind. 243 knots cruise speed flying HPN-ATL with a 120 knot headwind? Something doesn't seem right.

Be sure to update your perf init page with your zero fuel weight from the ACARS.

Also, remember that it is total cost indexing, not fuel cost indexing.

 

[wmuflyguy]

I don't have the speed books in front of me, but let's say the average speed for a given weight/altitude is .70 Mach. In a strong tailwind, you slow down to maintain the same speed and let the wind do the work, it calls for .62 Mach at tailwinds of 120 knots. Conversely, flying into a strong winter headwind, it would call for Mach .78.

Not sure who developed your CI, but ours was done by Air Canada pilots along with an actual rocket scientist. First they developed a theoretical model, using book numbers to develop target speeds/profiles. Then they had our check airmen monitor the fleet for months, showing actual fuel consumption/speed for various weights/atlitudes/ISA devitations. So that made it more realistic.

I assume you guys use ACARS for this? We have a printed book. Find your weight, flip to the altitude, check to make sure you don't exceed max ISA, then derive cruise Mach based on headwind/tailwind component. Each speed target also lists fuel consumption per mile, or some such number. Huge difference between .76 and .68. And it only adds 10 minutes or so per leg (in the 100/200, anyway).

Our 70/90 guys still fly high/fast, I suppose because of the efficiencies of flying high. Our books show FL 350 as being optimum for longer legs, but we don't often go up that high. ATC still doesn't understand why we're flying so slow, but apparently it's shaved millions off our fuel burns...

Comairs was developed AASI. (I think we have had it for about 2 years now)
http://www.aasi.com/products.html

No ACARS, we have a book we use.

We use it in the 200/700/900. The 70/90 fly higher and naturally they operate at relativley higher machspeeds (.74 to.79)

 

[captainv]

wmuflyguy,

I'm CMR too, I was explaining how it works for us but wondering how ASA's system was different.

I've been on DAL jumpseats when an ACARS message comes in telling them to be overhead a specific point on the arrival at a certain time. Pretty cool.