Compass EMB Options

[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?