Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

CAL cancelling CHQ flying

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
Non Union said:
Not bad. You got the state right.

Do your pax and your CA a favor and make sure you check those -9 pages a little more closely.

K? K!
Click to expand...

Looks like someone is going well out of their way to be a dick... The question is why? Give the guy a break and by the way if you just say "K" you're queer and yes it's perfectly ok to be homophobic it's only natural.
 
Non Union said:
Not bad. You got the state right.

Do your pax and your CA a favor and make sure you check those -9 pages a little more closely.

K? K!
Click to expand...

Well Considering i have never been to LGA or JFK i think i am allowed to make the mistake!! I really do appreciate you worrying about a good old Texas boy like myself. i appreciate you being the Flamer that you are, It really shows!

I agree Duck i think its only natural to think Non union is a homo! LOL
 
CAL is not cancelling the contract with CHQ. It was a 5 year award, they're not going to go back on it. Don't kid yourself, CHQ is fully capable of providing just as good a service as XJet. Who nows, maybe CHQ will do good enough and mainline will award the rest of XJet's flying to them.
 
BigLebowski said:
CAL is not cancelling the contract with CHQ. It was a 5 year award, they're not going to go back on it. Don't kid yourself, CHQ is fully capable of providing just as good a service as XJet. Who nows, maybe CHQ will do good enough and mainline will award the rest of XJet's flying to them.
Click to expand...
Considering this whole think went down because of diversification, i bet that doesnt happen. just a guess!!:bomb:
 
Superpilot92 said:
Considering this whole think went down because of diversification, i bet that doesnt happen. just a guess!!:bomb:
Click to expand...

Where is that superwoman of your avatar from???

I need to know where to find her...just to know if she's has planned anything for the next 30 years...
 
SoberIrishman said:
From what I can see in ATL with those jet-Brasilias aka EMB145's there seems to be a serious load problem on a high percentage of flights, especially with summer weights. Faults it may have, however the CRJ-200 appears to be a much better aircraft all round, with reliability and maintenance as a big plus. Not to be overly critical, but the cockpit in that EMB thing is a total mess compared with the CRJ, too much stuff to look at! Even with full FMS/RNAV and ACARS capabilities fitted, the CRJ cockpit looks empty compared to the E145. What's wrong with this picture....comments anyone?

Maybe EMB scores better with their E170's and 190's.

Hats off to the 145/135 guys learning to decipher all those little boxes on their screens, and information popping up all over the dang place. Not a very user friendly design, but I guess you gotta work with what you get!

Money talks with the majors, no matter what when it comes to "connection" contracts, and we all keep sliding further into the abyss. When will they ever learn to invest in good equipment, support infrastructure, and more importantly their workforce? That is the root problem in the regional camp right now, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Example, what was Delta smokin' when they awarded more aircraft to Freedom recently, even though they were CRJ's? They want a "seamless experience" for passengers between a connection carrier and mainline-not going to happen in this case, never!
Nope, it's more bottoms in seats for as little cost as possible, that's the goal.
Click to expand...

Dude your smokin some serious crack!!! You obviously don't know alot about the CRJ200 or the ERJ145 cause your comments are so backwards its not even funny!!! The load problem with CHQ deals with their W/B program not the airplane. Which interestingly enough its the CRJ. As far as MTC you obviously don't know your won companies track record regarding that or you would not make that comment. If your with ASA you have your share of W/B problems too.
 
BigLebowski said:
CAL is not cancelling the contract with CHQ. It was a 5 year award, they're not going to go back on it. Don't kid yourself, CHQ is fully capable of providing just as good a service as XJet. Who nows, maybe CHQ will do good enough and mainline will award the rest of XJet's flying to them.
Click to expand...

I can't remember the last time XJet weight restricted a flight to 44 causing gate agents to buy tickets off 6 people at $500 each plus hotel and meal vouchers.
 
ToiletDuck said:
Different routes
Click to expand...

No, all routes CHQ flys were previously flown by XJT aircraft. Which we can do no problem, 99% of the time with out leaving anyone behind.
Bottom line CAL gave yall flights that you are unable to do effectively. Which is CALs bonehead mistake not yalls. They should have put yall on the short flights out of IAH and CLE and this wouldn't be going on.
 
Kudos to the guys who understand that CHQ's operational screw ups are the fault of those who reign over us. CO isn't kicking CHQ to the street, as these decisions are made by men who eat/drink at country clubs that we pilots can only dream of attending!
If CO was kicking us out of the program, why would RJET stock be climbing like a bat outta hell??
Why would WH (#2 at RAH) NET over $1.3 million in stock sales in just 2 DAYS ?????

I doubt we are leaving the CO fraternity, but I wonder what is happening behind the scenes.
 
Their first "probe" didn't pay off - maybe they'll realize that we're not the same group of guys that they faced off against last time!!

Good win for the EXCO!!
 
Kind of a sidetrack now, but I've found the cle rampers to be by far the best in my limited experience.
 
ERJFO said:
I can't remember the last time XJet weight restricted a flight to 44 causing gate agents to buy tickets off 6 people at $500 each plus hotel and meal vouchers.
Click to expand...

I can: Two weeks ago, when I was trying to commute to STL from IAH in an LR. Face it: No matter who you are, if it has wings, two engines and 50 seats, you're going to be bumping people eventually.
 
Superpilot92 said:
No, all routes CHQ flys were previously flown by XJT aircraft. Which we can do no problem, 99% of the time with out leaving anyone behind.
Bottom line CAL gave yall flights that you are unable to do effectively. Which is CALs bonehead mistake not yalls. They should have put yall on the short flights out of IAH and CLE and this wouldn't be going on.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
AirBill said:
I can: Two weeks ago, when I was trying to commute to STL from IAH in an LR. Face it: No matter who you are, if it has wings, two engines and 50 seats, you're going to be bumping people eventually.
Click to expand...

Not once they have the weight increase.....I've been flying the LR's with the weight mod for the JetBlue ops, and it is now a true 50 seater. The LR will now be a commuters best friend!
 
jws717 said:
Why is CHQ leaving so many people behind on the CRJ? I have gone almost a year without bumping pax. On the usair side the ERJ145 seems to be the bird that is always load resticted.
Click to expand...

I would like to know this also. I have flown both airplanes split almost evenly over the last almost 6 years and a weight restriction in the CRJ was a very rare occurrence. Most issues were with forward CG. Early on we carried 500 lbs of ballast all the time to fix that. Eventually the bean counters made us stop and took the 500 lbs out. So then we had to ask to FA to move one or two from the front to the middle or back.

On the Flip side, I am always having to worry about weight restrictions in the EMB. (Albeit only 2 to 3 people tops and now the LR's have a weight increase mod.) So you routinely had to "run the numbers" first before they send down to many people. Whereas in the CRJ they just sent 50 and if there ever was a problem (almost never in my case) we pulled cargo, bags or a person (probably a non-rev) after the fact.

CHQ CRJ guys, what is your Max takeoff number in the CRJ? When I started flying the CRJ in 2001 it was 51,000 but my company bought an upgrade to 53,000 and we rarely ran into weight issues. Are you limited to 51,000?

I do have to agree with the person who said the ERJ has some funky sh!t as far as a user friendly cockpit goes. It is hard to compare the two. Because the ERJ has newer and more automated things in the cockpit that make it a good lazy mans airplane. But the CRJ EICAS just makes more sense. One very minor example would be information that is advisory in nature are Status (White) or even Advisory (Green) messages in the CRJ not Caution messages with a big amber CAUTION light. Many other minor things are just done better in the CRJ. [Hydraulic elevator I miss the most (no gust lock or potential ball breaking wind gust to worry about)] However the ERJ has a few really nice things that the CRJ 200 does not. The 700/900 I hear are a different story.
 
Last edited:
SayAgain! said:
I would like to know this also. I have flown both airplanes split almost evenly over the last almost 6 years and a weight restriction in the CRJ was a very rare occurrence. Most issues were with forward CG. Early on we carried 500 lbs of ballast all the time to fix that. Eventually the bean counters made us stop and took the 500 lbs out. So then we had to ask to FA to move one or two from the front to the middle or back.

On the Flip side, I am always having to worry about weight restrictions in the EMB. (Albeit only 2 to 3 people tops and now the LR's have a weight increase mod.) So you routinely had to "run the numbers" first before they send down to many people. Whereas in the CRJ they just sent 50 and if there ever was a problem (almost never in my case) we pulled cargo, bags or a person (probably a non-rev) after the fact.
Click to expand...

Possibly it has to do with the perfomance data vendor or DX software?

I remember when we started doing ORD to COS. For some reason, we would run into problems, but AWAC rarely had the same problem becasue their perfomance data was different.
 
What is the 145LR weight Mod exactly? Increasing MRW, MTOW, MLW, MZFW, or does it reduce the BOW (cant think how) weight somehow?
Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom