ASA to furlough?

[ace6453]

All of this is FAA approved! You're not going to fall out of the sky.

Just like how we saw a change on V-Speeds and trim settings going from paper/whizwheel to the Aerodata system, things will change with this as well. I don't have a problem with people questioning this, but I think more often than not the answers to your questions will be, "this is the new, more accurate, way of doing things."

Recently we were holding at 270 and the CI hold speed was 191. Would you have held at 191 or at 250? It is just that 191 seems awfully slow.

 

[1080P]

The CI is correct on all speeds. The 250/70 limitation is for the climb profile only. We are the launch customer as stated above so there will be problems, but once your in cruise it's safe to do whatever the CI says.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

In the 757 we hold well below 250. Basically Ref +100 is a good guess. The CRJ will not fall out of the sky below 250. It is generally your last white bug +10 KIAS or so for current weight. (Give or take) Trust the numbers, but always verify with published speeds.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

Recently we were holding at 270 and the CI hold speed was 191. Would you have held at 191 or at 250? It is just that 191 seems awfully slow.

The holding speeds equate to basically the minimum drag speeds, and are safe. They are essentially the same as the driftdown speeds. (LDmax for those old flight instructors.)

The data behind the cost index speeds is sound, as long as you remember to put your zero fuel weight in the perf init page on the FMS.

The speeds are safe, especially since the cost index numbers are around 15 on the 200, and 24 on the 700. That means that the speeds it spits out are well above the min drag speeds, and way above the 1.3 Vs speeds.

If you follow the cost indexing to the letter, it is possible that you will burn easily within 100 lbs of planned burn. (That number may be off by as much as 500 due to the downwind on arrival, or the departure turn if leaving ATL.)

Starting today, all flights will have 500 contingency and/or a minimum reserve fuel of 1900 until any fuel/flight planning problems are worked out.

The important thing to remember about cost index is that it is saving OVERALL cost, including crew costs, etc. Those are included in the calculation, and as fuel drops in price, it is less of a consideration. The calculations start with cruise flight, and go back from there, so whatever climb speed you need to get to your cruise altitude at your planned mach, it will give you.

 

[crj567]

I think that DAL would disagree on who owns the gates. Now SKW has right of first refusal, but there are some mean restrictions to it. Call over to DAL's real estates department. I have, and seen how it is structured.

Yep-

They will also tell you what the board will vote on next week......

This sort of information is not exactly for public consumption-I'll be you would get absolutely nothing if you were to actually call.

But just trust this guy-he has the inside track, a good friend on the board, a guy-in-the-know, and he knows what happened to Jimmy Hoffa-just for grins!

 

[SSDD]

If this CI works at ASA and they try to bring it over to Skywest, it will be FUN, FUN, FUN! We have these overly padded minimum speeds. Most people with any experience recognize this, but they have scared the hell out of the newbys.

They have these guys thinking that the RJ will fall out of the sky if they go below .70/.74 depending on the model.

I look forward to the training dept. explaining these slow speeds.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Yep-

They will also tell you what the board will vote on next week......

This sort of information is not exactly for public consumption-I'll be you would get absolutely nothing if you were to actually call.

But just trust this guy-he has the inside track, a good friend on the board, a guy-in-the-know, and he knows what happened to Jimmy Hoffa-just for grins!

Do you know? PM me I will tell you if you are wrong!
I think that you will be quite surprised.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Pays to know people brother. Not to throw dirt!

 

[captainv]

CMR has been doing cost-index flying for a few years now. the speeds look really low at first, but you get used to it. for us, it seems like cruise speed often works out to 250 indicated, but i've seen it below 240.

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.

 

[Speedtape]

I think that DAL would disagree on who owns the gates. Now SKW has right of first refusal, but there are some mean restrictions to it. Call over to DAL's real estates department. I have, and seen how it is structured.

Yeah, I am sure that the folks at DAL's real estate department shared that information with you! Be sure and take your meds today!

 

[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.