Fuel Burns CRJ vs 737-700

[CoolSidePillow]

Do not forget about the price of putting your life in the hands of incompetent RJ pilots.

 

[mrebuck]

Remember...

You can be an airline pilot!

-15 days off per month

-free travel

-fly a 25 million dollar jet at mach .76

There's nothing like it!



WOW!

 

[Poahi]

so when you spread these costs out per pax the 737 wins out.

Shhhh. Don't tell management. You guys have actually figured out that a larger aircraft has lower per seat costs than a 50 seat RJ. When management finds out about this, it's going to be a real mess.... I guess it's a good thing these things were scoped out of the legacies contracts and it's funny, had management known this little secret, they would have never bought thousands of them.

I'd bet soon, we are going to see 747's flying between LAX and SAN.

 

[Bob_Sacamano]

Well, I don't deny that I'm damn heroic. But at least I've actually flown the planes these CFIs are talking about...

Damn you're my hero..........

 

[Bob_Sacamano]

Well, it's too bad you can't read, ******************************bag. I clearly said they were rough rules of thumb. And I flew the profiles as instructed in our FSM. Perhaps you'd like me to borrow a manual from someone from two airlines ago and get the precise numbers? Oh wait, that's right...I said it was a RULE OF THUMB.

As for burning too much gas, you've made a tremendous leap in (flawed) logic which totally exposes your gaping ignorance. While planning a fuel burn that's a RULE OF THUMB (there's that pesky phrase again), and by flying the company profiles, we almost always underburn. So please come back when you finally learn what the ******************** you're talking about.

Rookie...

Mr. Bob while you fly your plane other professionals that specialize in facts and figures have already done the job of crunching the numbers for ya. Now that you did not fly the profiles at Comair and flawed those numbers is a separate topic!

Now don't burn too much gas cause your airline can't afford it!

 

[BigPappa]

Mr. Bob you sir have serious issues. I have far more experience than you might assume. Before you call someone a rookie it might help if you actually know who you're talking to. Now bring me my drink mr. Baby Boeing pilot!

 

[Bob_Sacamano]

I'm "pouring" it right now. But I've heard you prefer it directly from the tap...

Mr. Bob you sir have serious issues. I have far more experience than you might assume. Before you call someone a rookie it might help if you actually know who you're talking to. Now bring me my drink mr. Baby Boeing pilot!

 

[Bob_Sacamano]

BTW, sold any gyros lately?

 

[BigPappa]

Bob,
Do you feel like I stepped on your toes, you poor thing! Now you have to be all defensive and vulgar because that is as much as you could handle. I send you up and steaming through te roof! Now that is funny to me. You blew.:laugh:

 

[Bob_Sacamano]

No, I certainly didn't blow. I just put you in your place for acting like you know everything, when you clearly don't.

As for the vulgarity, I looked at some of your posts. You've made TONS of one line slams to people, usually ending them with "eek" or you saying you're smashing their nuts with a hammer, along with lots of homosexual references. So I wanted to bring it down to your level, so you'd understand.

BTW, you didn't answer my gyro question. Did you get out of the gyro business when you upgraded?

So is this where I add my little :smash: , , :uzi: , or ?

 

[dispatchguy]

I'd bet soon, we are going to see 747's flying between LAX and SAN.

UAL was actually doing that in 1985; I remember being at a certain military boot camp near the SAN airport, and daily there was a B747-100 that would run SAN-LAX-HNL

OOH RAH!

 

[Bob_Sacamano]

Now that's a funny signature.

 

[BigPappa]

Gyro? Like I said before, you have issues. As far as the Homosexual references; it sounds as if you felt spoken to. I have nothing against it though . More pride to ya!

 

[Bob_Sacamano]

So you're not the Fred Flintstone-blowhard JFK CRJ captain named Alex?

Not when you explicitly make gay references in about half of your posts.

 

[Poahi]

UAL was actually doing that in 1985; I remember being at a certain military boot camp near the SAN airport, and daily there was a B747-100 that would run SAN-LAX-HNL

OOH RAH!

I remember some discussion on that at this forum. We also have a 767 flying between HNL-OGG and I remember a NWA DC-10 going between MKE-MSP. I think that one went on to NRT if memory serves.

 

[BigPappa]

No I am not. Not even close. Nice attempt at slander though.

 

[Long Time Gone]

The CRJ-200 is burning about 2500 lbs/hr at .74 up above FL300.

The only CRJ I've ever seen burn 1250 a side (2500 total per hour) is a CR7 at FL390 or higher doing about .75 with a light weight. The CR7 burns about 1600 a side doing .77 at about FL350 and once you get above FL370 or so, it'll drop below 1400 a side depending on speed.

 

[Flyer1015]

Which airplane can take off a treadmill quicker.... the 737-700 or the CRJ?

 

[n757st]

The only CRJ I've ever seen burn 1250 a side (2500 total per hour) is a CR7 at FL390 or higher doing about .75 with a light weight. The CR7 burns about 1600 a side doing .77 at about FL350 and once you get above FL370 or so, it'll drop below 1400 a side depending on speed.

I've seen 1150 per side in the -200, that said we were light and at FL350. I find that if we are heavy, 2600 lbs, regular weights, 2500, lighter weights, maybe a little less.

 

[Minimaniac]

Ok, my contribution towards actually providing useful information to this discussion...

Specific Range for the E175: (nm/lb)

Weight**** Alt *******.78M******* LRC

80,000 ****FL350 ***************0.122
*********FL300 *****0.107 ******0.118
*********FL250 *************** 0.111

76,000 ****FL350 ****0.122 ****** 0.127
*********FL300 *****0.109*******0.124
*********FL250 ****************0.115

70,000 ****FL350 ****0.129 ******0.134
**********FL300 ****0.113 ***** 0.131
**********FL250 *****.******** 0.120



These are just some representative numbers. 80,000lbs is generally what a fully loaded 175 weighs upon reaching cruise for a longer leg (2-2.5hr). 76,000lbs is a normal weight for a highly loaded 175 on a shorter regional hop, and 70,000 lbs is typical for short VFR legs with a 3/4 load. .78M is what we are generally filed for, and LRC is long range cruise, which of course varies (usually in the .70-.73M range). Often we pull back to .74 or .76, so a value in between .78 and LRC is typical for us. Any missing values above are due to lack of data in the manual for various reasons.

Hopefully this data is useful for comparison. I would be interested to see what a 737 does, if someone would please post.

I know the longer CRJ's are probably posting better numbers; I would be interested to see those as well. My expectation is that the heavier iron also has better numbers, at least when burn per passenger is considered. Anyhow, I offer the above in hopes of having an informative discussion, not a p1ss1ng contest.

Sorry for the formatting, but FI does not seem to like the way I tried to space the columns first time around.

 

[Bob_Sacamano]

It's not slander if it's true. See ya, Al...

No I am not. Not even close. Nice attempt at slander though.

 

[Turtle21]

The big perk for the Embraer is that (labor aside, of course) you can get similar cost per mile while flying full, as opposed to flying with empty seats. The ability to fly with fewer open seats is what makes all regional jets more attractive in today's environment.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer but I hate that we skip over labor cost so quickly and accept the "full plane" argument.

It may be the routes I'm on but empty seats are a thing of the past, from what I see.

I think it is about eroding wages more than anything.