CR7 Weight Restriction

[EWR_FO]

Can somebody tell me if this is ever an issue? I am trying to jumpseat on a booked-full CR7 (Eagle) tomorrow, that is scheduled for 3:34. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Frap]

Non-revved CVG-DEN (3:00 block) about a month ago. Weather in DEN was good so no alternate fuel was required (Don't remember how much contingency fuel they had and I don't know if they were tankering.). I think there were 67-ish pax on board and that was right at our max takeoff.

I never thought the CR7 had weight issues until this day (I fly the 50 seater where weight is a common concern) and maybe this was just an isolated occurrence. However if the weather is iffy, then you may not be going anywhere.

Perhaps ask the gate agent if he/she can get a kid count to help reduce the payload. It makes a difference.

 

[IFlyFL410]

Are you going to ORD or DFW? If you're going to ORD, you'll be good. However, west bound to DFW you may be lucky to get on. When we used to do DFW-JFK roundtrips with ASA on the 70, we could never take 70 PAX, nevermind a jumpseater.

 

[EWR_FO]

Are you going to ORD or DFW? If you're going to ORD, you'll be good. However, west bound to DFW you may be lucky to get on. When we used to do DFW-JFK roundtrips with ASA on the 70, we could never take 70 PAX, nevermind a jumpseater.

I'm trying to go ROC-DFW, so it might not work.

 

[IFlyFL410]

That's still a stretch, but you may be ok. I'm sure they won't have an alternate for DFW, so I bet you'll get on that one. It may be tight, but it's not quite as far as JFK-DFW. At least they won't be landing limited, since the burnoff on that route will be more than 8,000#, or at least close, putting the MTOW at 75,000#, which is also the structural MTOW. Good Luck.

 

[EWR_FO]

That's still a stretch, but you may be ok. I'm sure they won't have an alternate for DFW, so I bet you'll get on that one. It may be tight, but it's not quite as far as JFK-DFW. At least they won't be landing limited, since the burnoff on that route will be more than 8,000#, or at least close, putting the MTOW at 75,000#, which is also the structural MTOW. Good Luck.

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it.

 

[General Lee]

CR7s only take 40 out of 70 to St Croix from ATL, and 45-50 out of Jackson Hole to SLC. The St Croix load is probably due to possible diversions over water and the long range, and the JAC is probably due to takeoff restrictions on the short runway and obstacle clearance due to the mountains. Still, you are leaving with empty seats. Hopefully the occupied seats are expensive.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[IFlyFL410]

We can't take 70 PAX because of the fuel loads we're required to carry. Nothing to do with diverting etc.

 

[Ganja60Heavy]

CR7s only take 40 out of 70 to St Croix from ATL, and 45-50 out of Jackson Hole to SLC. The St Croix load is probably due to possible diversions over water and the long range, and the JAC is probably due to takeoff restrictions on the short runway and obstacle clearance due to the mountains. Still, you are leaving with empty seats. Hopefully the occupied seats are expensive.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Typical General Lee Bullsh^t. Makes stuff up to sound authoritative......until someone corrects his seemingly-logical fabrications.

A veritable tool, General Lee is...

 

[D'Angelo]

Good thing we have new weights that make all these restrictions. we were so much unsafer before. Either way we have no clue what the real weight is back there

 

[IFlyFL410]

I guess GENERAL LEE has been studying up on his 70 seater specs. Sounds like he may be preparing to fly them soon???

 

[General Lee]

Typical General Lee Bullsh^t. Makes stuff up to sound authoritative......until someone corrects his seemingly-logical fabrications.

A veritable tool, General Lee is...

As told to me by an ASA line check guy on our jumpseat. But, you can back your own statements up, right? Am I wrong? Look it up on travel net. Look at the loads and seats allowed. You are the idiot. If you choose to debate me, show me some facts.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

I guess GENERAL LEE has been studying up on his 70 seater specs. Sounds like he may be preparing to fly them soon???

Not me, but hopefully our furloughs will, in the left seat. (ok, for anything above 70 seats)


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

We can't take 70 PAX because of the fuel loads we're required to carry. Nothing to do with diverting etc.

Full fuel loads equal less pax and bags. Sounds like a money winner. Thank gawd fuel is soooo cheap....? Would you carry more fuel due to less than desirable diversion points? I guess St Thomas is nearby, and San Juan.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Puck Mugger]

CR7s only take 40 out of 70 to St Croix from ATL, and 45-50 out of Jackson Hole to SLC. The St Croix load is probably due to possible diversions over water and the long range, and the JAC is probably due to takeoff restrictions on the short runway and obstacle clearance due to the mountains. Still, you are leaving with empty seats. Hopefully the occupied seats are expensive.


Bye Bye--General Lee

AP
Delta Reports Narrower 4Q Loss of $1.24B
Tuesday February 14, 9:27 pm ET
By Harry R. Weber, AP Business Writer
Delta Air Lines Posts Narrower Fourth-Quarter Loss of $1.24 Billion


VS.

SkyWest quarterly profit rises 82 pct after buyout
Thu Feb 9, 2006 8:15 AM ET



...and you are concerned with how many seats we can fill out of St. Croix?

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

You worry about your airline and we'll worry about ours.

 

[Ganja60Heavy]

Full fuel loads equal less pax and bags.

Brilliant point! I guess it's obvious to some people. But we're regional pilots.

 

[IFlyFL410]

It's not my decision to fly these things so far. But it is that reason and that reason alone that we can't take 70 PAX. Strictly a fuel load thing. I flew the long routes out of DFW for nearly 2 years on the 70.....I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Puck Mugger]

Not me, but hopefully our furloughs will, in the left seat. (ok, for anything above 70 seats)


Bye Bye--General Lee

Ahh, the ol' "OUR AIRLINE IS BROKE. CAN WE HAVE YOUR'S?" routine.

 

[CRJ puppy]

There are basically two scenarios in the CRJ-70 where you MAY become pax restricted:
1.) A very short flight where you are limited to Max landing wt + burn.
or
2.) A very long stage length flight where there is weather at the destination and you must carry a fair amount of alternate fuel.

However, that being said, one can almost always take care of that with kid counts, performance take-offs, extra burn-off on taxi-out, etc. I have been on the "70" for two years and have NEVER left a pax or bag behind, revenue or non-rev due to weight issues. Sometimes you have to really work the numbers, but it is a very good plane and is virtually never weight restricted in this way. The few times I've seen pax left behind it was usually due to the crew not taking the time to work the w & b.

Good luck with your travel.

Oh, and please disregard what G.L. has to say about the RJ. He is "General-Lee" ignorant and operates on speculation and hersay in regards to this aircraft.

 

[General Lee]

AP
Delta Reports Narrower 4Q Loss of $1.24B
Tuesday February 14, 9:27 pm ET
By Harry R. Weber, AP Business Writer
Delta Air Lines Posts Narrower Fourth-Quarter Loss of $1.24 Billion


VS.

SkyWest quarterly profit rises 82 pct after buyout
Thu Feb 9, 2006 8:15 AM ET



...and you are concerned with how many seats we can fill out of St. Croix?

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

You worry about your airline and we'll worry about ours.

The ONLY reason you are still around is because the great fuel insulation deal with DL and UAL. You would be gone faster than Indy Air if you went on your own, and if you didn't have us paying for extra gas costs, your profits would be losses. What you really need to concern yourself with is why your company is laughing all the way to the bank without paying you $5 more an hour for the CR7 vs CR2. You are the laughing stock. How about your 1.2% raise, anyway? Where is it? And, if we don't get what WE want coming up here, you will probably also be unemployed.

Did United go away after posting a ridiculous $12 billion loss last quarer? What about all of that new stock going to their management? How about USair going BK twice? You need to understand that people don't want a huge company to go away--including State and local governements. They don't want to lose the jobs. It will work itself out, and we will be fine. But, regional feed is expendable.

Have a great one Nero! Work on those pay rates---you are soooo profitable.


Bye Bye--General Lee