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

New Atl Base For S5

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
Tomct said:
Greaaaaat!:puke:Probably won't last long, they could not WAIT to get you out of SLC...of course who know's WHY they brought you to craplanta!:mad:
Click to expand...

I have heard from Senior management here at DL that they were not impressed with the E170's actual numbers compared to what was advertised with respect to fuel economy and range etc fully loaded, and said they were actually losing money on those longer flights. They decided it would be better to place the E170 on mostly shorter routes from ATL that compete with Airtran 717s. Yes, I know there are still some routes that are long for those E170s, but the majority of flights are now under 600 miles. The DTW/IND/MZT/CHM flights to SLC were not cutting it.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:
General: I've been reading the same thing. Bigger AC, bigger fuselage, same engines (compared to the CRJ700/705). You have to pay for comfort.

ASA's 70 seaters are supposed to be going L O N G, for an RJ. The E-170 seems to be doing great on the upgraded CRJ200 service.
 
General Lee said:
I have heard from Senior management here at DL that they were not impressed with the E170's actual numbers compared to what was advertised with respect to fuel economy and range etc fully loaded, and said they were actually losing money on those longer flights. They decided it would be better to place the E170 on mostly shorter routes from ATL that compete with Airtran 717s. Yes, I know there are still some routes that are long for those E170s, but the majority of flights are now under 600 miles. The DTW/IND/MZT/CHM flights to SLC were not cutting it.


Bye Bye--General Lee
Click to expand...

not to drink the company koolaid but was told when we were doing the fuel number crunching that we got our 170s to fall BELOW what was advertised by Embraer.

But it doesnt make sense because if thats the case, then why the reduction in SLC as you said.

I see the 170 shadows airtran's 717 a lot
 
Last edited:
B727FA said:
Is that why we fly ATL-KIN, PUJ, POP, and ELP? JFK-AUS, DFW? And is that why S5 is going back into the CMH-SLC market in Aug?
Click to expand...


like I said, it didnt make sense if company was advertising fuel numbers to be below what embraer posted but am glad to see slc coming back.

will be looking for you Tomct :beer:
 
General Lee said:
I have heard from Senior management here at DL that they were not impressed with the E170's actual numbers compared to what was advertised with respect to fuel economy and range etc fully loaded, and said they were actually losing money on those longer flights. They decided it would be better to place the E170 on mostly shorter routes from ATL that compete with Airtran 717s. Yes, I know there are still some routes that are long for those E170s, but the majority of flights are now under 600 miles. The DTW/IND/MZT/CHM flights to SLC were not cutting it.


Bye Bye--General Lee
Click to expand...

Thats why when ATC asks them their speed they say .70 and everyone begins to laugh. They slow down to make up the difference in fuel burns then they jack-up the ATC system for everyone else.
 
B727FA said:
Is that why we fly ATL-KIN, PUJ, POP, and ELP? JFK-AUS, DFW? And is that why S5 is going back into the CMH-SLC market in Aug?
Click to expand...

No, I remember seeing that your airline took a 5% cut in pay from DAL after your agreement was redone. I would bet that your fuel calculations were changed also.
 
Texx said:
Thats why when ATC asks them their speed they say .70 and everyone begins to laugh. They slow down to make up the difference in fuel burns then they jack-up the ATC system for everyone else.
Click to expand...

i dont know about you texx but i am paid by the hour. and i always ask atc first then i slow up. also we have our burn numbers to that or less than the 700.
 
Texx said:
No, I remember seeing that your airline took a 5% cut in pay from DAL after your agreement was redone. I would bet that your fuel calculations were changed also.
Click to expand...
Well, it was actually 3%, but why quibble? It also included the costs for removal of the 135 fleet (starting in Sept 08). Furthermore, that was recouped as a one time charge in the $90M claim against DL of which we sold 1/2 for cash up front and the balance was since been dispursed. Oh, and DL reaffirmed with RAH for service through 2019. I'd say the "redone" agreement isn't so bad, eh?
 
atr42flyer said:
i dont know about you texx but i am paid by the hour. and i always ask atc first then i slow up. also we have our burn numbers to that or less than the 700.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's all about you. Never mind the guys behind you that are trying to get home on time to their kids game or the FED EX and UPS guys. As for the slowing down, you might be the only one asking.

As for the 700 burns, just goes to show ya that you have to go slow to get your numbers. I don't hear DAL complaining about our burns on the 700 at .83.
 
EMB170Pilot said:
what was this thread about?

oh yeah thats right, why pft sucks.
Click to expand...

You really need to change that picture....because we ALL KNOW that is NOT you! By the way...I will look for your Dumb@ss in SLC!
Of course the best answer I heard in SLC ATC....Shuttle....say speed... and like a proud papa...he yelps out 300kts....what do you need? ATC comes back and says, well since you are BELOW 10k you need to be at 250kts.:laugh: I almost died laughing...hope he filled out a NASA report! I know, for you guys anything over .70 or 280kts is a big deal:rolleyes:...on the 700, 335kts or .83 AND our fuel burn is STILL better than yours....nice try though!
 
Tomct said:
I know, for you guys anything over .70 or 280kts is a big deal:rolleyes:...on the 700, 335kts or .83 AND our fuel burn is STILL better than yours....nice try though!
Click to expand...

Dude you really need to get a life. Why do you care how fast the 170 goes? So you go faster.. you get there quicker.. you make less block.. happy now? Maybe you just need to impress the girl at the bar by saying your plane is faster, I dunno maybe you just have a small penis and need to compensate :smash:

I know one thing for damn sure, I would much rather fly on an E170 for 2 hours rather than a CR7 for 1:50; the pax comfort level can't even be compared , they're on two completely different levels. Nothing like seeing 70 people standing beside their a/c, freezin their a$s off in mid winter waiting for there "gate checked" bags :erm:
 
Last edited:
greedypilot said:
Dude you really need to get a life. Why do you care how fast the 170 goes? So you go faster.. you get there quicker.. you make less block.. happy now? Maybe you just need to impress the girl at the bar by saying your plane is faster, I dunno maybe you just have a small penis and need to compensate :smash:

I know one thing for damn sure, I would much rather fly on an E170 for 2 hours rather than a CR7 for 1:50; the pax comfort level can't even be compared , they're on two completely different levels. Nothing like seeing 70 people standing beside their a/c, freezin their a$s off in mid winter waiting for there "gate checked" bags :erm:
Click to expand...

Hah, you get on him for comparing speeds and you quip back with comparing passenger comfort. And now I retort with saying the CR7 looks cooler. So there. Do we win or shall we try for best 3 out of 5?
 

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