Ugly DAL/ASA rumor

[sleepy]

I did hear some rumors from a training department guy last year about 100 seat aircraft at ASA. Well, that was a year ago, and it has not happened yet.

Would the DAL MEC give-up 100 seat flying to protect their industry-leading contract? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[General Lee]

Sleepy,

The key here I believe is that Dalpa would give up the pay rates FOR THAT PARTICULAR PLANE---like they did with DL Express. In that situation they screwed the junior guys (pay wise) by creating a new DIVISION that paid less than the normal positions on the mainline 737s. But, they kept that flying within mainline. I believe they will negotiate a lower pay rate for any new 100 seater---and the furloughs will come back and fly them for a lot less. There might be a limited number of aircraft---like 100 of them. There is NO WAY Dalpa would give up on 100 seaters----not even if it cost them some money in their own senior pay. The plane would go junior, and the Capts would eventually go very junior as well. (like Express)


Lear70,

Yeah, I think it can get cramped back there in coach on 767s too---but the people who are paying the higher fares and FF's like the first class or business class on the ER's. And, atleast the coach passengers can bring their carry ons with them onboard, and use more than one bathroom. Hey, I think RJs are great for certain situations and city pairs---but not for flights more than 2 hours. Then everyone gets uncomfortable and might look for alternatives....

Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[DrunkIrishman]

General & Ranger,

The comments and this thread were about the pilot's perspective, not the passenger. All that "what's comfortable" to the passenger is for another thread. Bottom line is that if pay were the same, 7out of 10 of us would choose to fly the newer airplane. Do you really care about the size difference between a CRJ and an MD-88? I don't think it matters until you start comparing the CRJ to the 757 or larger, but that's just me. Now if you want to compare the CRJ to the 737-800, I'll take the 73; if it were a 737-200 and the pay was the same, I'd take the CRJ.

 

[General Lee]

Hey, I think the CR7 is nicer than the 737-200---no doubt. I would rather fly the CR7 if the pay was the same. But, right now we need planes with more seats to make up the difference with the lower fares.......That was my point.....and people like to bring bags onboard and stow them above them.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[T-Gates]

H*ll, I've been flying that toy for three years now and I think it's small and cramped, too. Or am I the only one that keeps hitting their head on the battery master trying to climb into the cockpit - reminds me of flying Lears...

The captains hit thier heads on the battery master and the FO's hit it on the Manual Altitude selector....I have a permanent indentation in my forehead....

 

[FurloughedAgain]

I'll take the 737-200 over the CRJ. The Boeing was a much better flying airplane. Didn't have any of the wild pitch excursions with flap extension or while on a coupled approach, Had slats (nuff said), and when the gear came down it didn't feel like the airplane had been struck by a missile!

Oh.. and need I even mention the circ-de-sole' acrobatics one has to do in order to be able to urinate in that tiny little lav?

Can't speak for the 70 seater, but the 50 is a wiggly-pig piece of crap. I blame the Canadians.

Nice cockpit. -- you can dress up a fat-chick and put makeup on her -- she's still a fat-chick.

 

[MetroSheriff]

Didn't have any of the wild pitch excursions with flap extension or while on a coupled approach,

Are we being a bit dramatic, perhaps?

Nice cockpit. -- you can dress up a fat-chick and put makeup on her -- she's still a fat-chick.

You know what they say...

Fat Chicks and CRJs, lots of fun to ride but you don't want your friends to catch you on one.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Wiggly-Pig

Sheriff,

You and I have been talking on this website for a few years now. You know me pretty well.

While I may be a bit dramatic at times i'm pretty honest about the flying characteristics of the airplanes i've flown.

I even raved about the Metro and the J31. If I tell you this thing goes on "wild pitch excursions" with flap extension (admitedly when near max flap speeds) and during coupled approaches, i'm not trying to pull one over on ya.

This thing is most definately a "wiggly-pig" in the truest sense of the word. Somewhere out there a British Aerospace engineer is weeping because he didn't think of it first.

All else being equal, i'll take the Boeing.

 

[MetroSheriff]

Re: Wiggly-Pig

Sheriff,

You and I have been talking on this website for a few years now. You know me pretty well.

While I may be a bit dramatic at times i'm pretty honest about the flying characteristics of the airplanes i've flown.

I even raved about the Metro and the J31. If I tell you this thing goes on "wild pitch excursions" with flap extension (admitedly when near max flap speeds) and during coupled approaches, i'm not trying to pull one over on ya.

This thing is most definately a "wiggly-pig" in the truest sense of the word. Somewhere out there a British Aerospace engineer is weeping because he didn't think of it first.

All else being equal, i'll take the Boeing.

I was just giving you a hard time. My thought has always been that even for 25 Million they should have put a little more thought into the method of flap deployment.

As for the approach mode, with any wind it is a wise idea to move the seat all the way back unless you want to risk chipping your teeth on the oscillating yoke.



As for me I would happily take any old steam gauge Boeing or Douglas over a CRJ. All the magenta lines and voodoo boxes are pretty, but there is no soul to it. Give me a old 727 or Stretch -8 any day.

Of course I am one of the goofy ones I guess. I missed my generation by about 50 years. The real fun would have been Connies and DC-6s to Hawaii in the Golden Years. You know, back when folks would have thought it inappropriate for a big, fat, nasty, trailer trash broad to wear flip-flops, terry cloth short-shorts, and a loose fitting tank top with her saggy mud flaps hanging out the side on to an airplane.

How's that for dramatic???

 

[DrunkIrishman]

Furloughed,

I have one word for you and your Boeing, "hardover!" I'll take those wild rides on the CRJ anyday over my rudder sending me into the ground.

 

[FL000]

Re: Re: Wiggly-Pig

You know, back when folks would have thought it inappropriate for a big, fat, nasty, trailer trash broad to wear flip-flops, terry cloth short-shorts, and a loose fitting tank top with her saggy mud flaps hanging out the side on to an airplane.

Don't worry Metro...the FAs are supposed to get new uniforms soon.

 

[wms]

The CRJ has a 2-speed mach trim and with the autopilot on and the flaps in motion, the trim moves at fast speed and gives that fast pitch change.

732 any day!

 

[Vortilon]

At least I could wear a normal headset on the MD88 and not go deaf.

Also: CAT III Autoland, Autobrakes, Autothrottles, etc. It might be an older generation airplane, but I'll take it and its performance over an RJ any day. Plus a radar dish thats twice the size of the CRJs is nice to have. Not to mention having a jetway, no weight and balance problems, you don't have to reboot the Mad Dog, you don't have to rebuild the jumpseat, it has a cool door in the floor. All that and you always flying in manual reversion....talk about safe!

Thats the only thing I didn't like about the Embraer 145, when you had a bad radome you were blind out there! Radar really sucked sometimes....wonder if they've improved it.

And lets face it, what type of pilot REALLY wants to fly a smaller airplane? C'mon....we all love the big stuff.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

WMS

That's interesting. If that is the case, it sounds like nothing more than a software glitch. I am surprised that the Canadians haven't come up with a "patch" that dampens the pitch during configuration changes and while on a coupled ILS.

As for the Boeing's rudder -- touche'. I probably wouldn't mention that in the SWA interview though

Personally I'm a Douglas guy. I loved the DC9. Give me a direct cable to the control surfaces (or at least to a servo tab) any day of the week over this hydraulic, aritificial feel, voo-doo, bad-ju ju.

They had to drag me off the Douglas Racer kicking and screaming when I went to Boeing school.

The RJ's a neat little airplane -- no question there, but despite all of the nifty technology it just doesn't fly particularly well in my opinion.

For what it's worth I hear that the 70 seater is an entirely different animal and has much more traditional flying qualities. (I'm guessing that the slats prevent the center of pressure from moving so much during configuration changes but thats just a wag.)

 

[bvt1151]

WMS

For what it's worth I hear that the 70 seater is an entirely different animal and has much more traditional flying qualities. (I'm guessing that the slats prevent the center of pressure from moving so much during configuration changes but thats just a wag.)

This is true. The 70 flies much like the 727 did (or does). Much heavier feel than the 50 and the slats significantly slow down the aircraft during approach, allowing for shorter field ops.

I would like to share with you some numbers I discovered in a recent survey conducted by Boeing. They interviewd both business and Leisure passengers on what was most important to them when choosing an airline. The results:

Business:
Flights under 2 Hrs: Schedule: 42% | Fare: 31% | Airline: 22% | Airplane: 5%
2-5 Hrs: Fare: 36% | Schedule: 35% | Airline: 24% | Airplane: 5%
Over 5 Hr: Schedule: 30% | Fare: 29% | Airline: 27% | Airplane: 14%

Leisure:
Under 2 Hrs: Fare: 63% | Schedule: 19% | Airline: 16% | Airplane: 2%
2-5 Hrs: Fare: 51% | Schedule: 24% | Airline: 17% | Airplane: 8%
Over 5 Hrs: Fare: 52% | Schedule: 19% | Airline: 18% | Airplane: 11%

Notice that in each one of these results, schedule is always higher than airplane. This goes to show that, especially in the high-yield business market, there are significantly more passengers who will prefer the high-frequency RJ over the more roomy, and less often mainline aircraft. They may complain, but when push comes to shove, they prefer the schedule over the aircraft. Of course there will always be that small percentage (5-14%) who will choose their airline based on aircraft, but bare in mind that there are no RJ's that go over 5 hours. In fact, most RJ flights fit into the "Under 2 Hr" category, in which business and leisure pax chose aircraft at only 5 and 2% respectively.

I'm not refuting the fact that some people will pay extra to fly on a larger aircraft. What I am saying is that most passengers would choose an RJ over a mainline aircraft if it meant getting there sooner.

* This survey was conducted to demonstrate the pheasibility of continueing the 717 program and deals specifically with RJ's. "Airplane" is repeatedly referred to as "comfort" within the article.

 

[MetroSheriff]

Re: Re: Re: Wiggly-Pig

Don't worry Metro...the FAs are supposed to get new uniforms soon.

ROFLMAO!!!

 

[General Lee]

BVT1151,

But you left out these numbers about how many businessmen want to fly on RJs for long hours and want to be productive at the same time:

RJs: 0% | mainline aircraft with a first class seat 100%

How about asking businessmen which aircraft they would rather fly on with a severely obese person next to them:

RJs: 0% | Mainline aircraft with a chance of going to first 100%

How about asking businessmen who have bladder problems which aircraft they prefer:

RJs: 0% | Mainline aircraft with 3 or more lavs 100%


But, I do like your effort. And, I think the CRJs are a nice ride and are advanced---but most businessmen DO NOT.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[GogglesPisano]

You guys want to talk about pitch excursions during flap extension, or poor handling (especially in a crosswind landing), don't talk to me until you've flown the DarnNearajet.

It lands like a 172!

 

[bvt1151]

These aren't my numbers, General.
You'll have to argue with the marketing team at Boeing.

The numbers don't lie. There are people who will complain about flying in an RJ, and I think the press has found every one of them. Fact is, the business man will choose to chance it that they'll sit next to a fatty on an RJ and make his meeting on time,than to chance sitting next to a fatty on mainline (with the small chance of upgrading), and either showing up to his meeting late, or having to leave hours earlier.

They may be complaining about the RJ, but they are lining up to fly on it.

Frequencies or comfort? The US Domestic passenger chooses frequencies.

 

[N2264J]

But you left out these numbers about how many businessmen want to fly on RJs for long hours and want to be productive at the same time:

RJs: 0% | mainline aircraft with a first class seat 100%

It seems to me that a business man who can over fly Atlanta or Dallas without having to stop and make a connection or has many choices in the timetable so he can schedule as he pleases will excersize that option regardless of the airframe. Comair passed the threshold of DOT's definition of major airline in 1999, in large part, because it catered to the bidnessman.

It has already been pointed out that the seat pitch and width on a CL-65 is similar to coach at mainline. And why shouldn't it be? The CL-65 is an airliner. Complaints are part of any service based industry but it's what the market will bare.

Your "statistics" are quite remarkable though. Can we assume you made them up?