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

US Airways Bombardier Agree on Removal

  • Thread starter Thread starter WSurf
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 27

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
ex j-41 said:
What is Piedmont going to do when Parker tells them to fly the Q-400's at the current rate?
Click to expand...

This pilot will tell vote to tell Parker to stuff it... We already have rates on that bird.

The concessions store is closed!
 
Ok IMO who gives a crap about comfort.... we fly these planes don't sit in back of them. It all comes down to this... which burns more the CRJ or the E jets? You think the majors are going to really care that much about comfort over fuel efficiency as oil continues to sky rocket?
 
flyboyzz1 said:
It all comes down to this... which burns more the CRJ or the E jets?
Click to expand...

Whats funny is a bunch of those E Jets that do the small 30 minute flights out of CLT seem to always asked to stay on the route when given a short cut or get delays on landing from atc to burn extra fuel before they can land.

Gas going thru the roof, and they are having to burn extra fuel to be able to land. I don't blame E-175's cause they are nice and comfortable planes, but why in the hell is US Airways flying those planes on 30 minute runs?

I would rather be in the E-175 on a hour flight compared to a US Airways 737.
 
LearLove said:
OK I'll bite:

After riding in all CRJ100,200,700,900 and the 170 I'd have to say from a pax stand point the 170 wins hands down. Better overheads and wider seats. Infact short of a first class seat (or a empty middle seat on a regular size jet)i'd rather ride in a 170. This has nothing to do with the fact that i fly the 170, I could care less, just my feeling observations. We have to piss alot of pax off alone in CLT everyday wrt to the CRJ700 and 900 ramp check. The whole jetway is jammed for 30 minutes while people wait for their bags.
Click to expand...


The 190 is even better!
And the plan is to have Airways 190's move down to CLT from filthy,PA in the next few months and get rid of MESA 90 seater's.............!
:beer:
 
I'm sick of all the gay ass flight attendants and old hags at this F'n airline. Why cant PSA hire some fricken decent tail. I put up with the pay, I put up with the crap schedules, I put up with the bitter lifers who should have moved on a long time ago. I'll I want in return is a nice piece every now and again. Do I get this? NO.
 
the 900 in two class gets better marks from pax at DAL then the 170. more important is the fact that the 700 and 900 burn far better than the 170. the e jets have been off target on performance since start. the 700 has far better speed and burn, gets higher faster. the 900 sips a little more than the 700, and weighs less than the 170 with the same motors. cheaper wins.
 
fact, just a fact. if it was all about comfort they would seat all planes with 1 seat on each side of a single aisle. efficiency is king and the 170 is less efficient than a 700 or 900.
 
crjskipper said:
fact, just a fact. if it was all about comfort they would seat all planes with 1 seat on each side of a single aisle. efficiency is king and the 170 is less efficient than a 700 or 900.
Click to expand...

No arguement there. Thats why I believe that TurboProps will be making a king of a comeback.

Cheaper wins made me think of all the regional airlines that have bid against each other to win flying. Hopefully those days of the low balling are soon over.
 
crjskipper said:
the 900 in two class gets better marks from pax at DAL then the 170. more important is the fact that the 700 and 900 burn far better than the 170. the e jets have been off target on performance since start. the 700 has far better speed and burn, gets higher faster. the 900 sips a little more than the 700, and weighs less than the 170 with the same motors. cheaper wins.
Click to expand...


The 900 gets better marks than the 170? When was the last time you actually rode in the rear of a 900? Only with the First class seat does it come close to the 170, but close is about it.

Did you do the projections for performance for mother D.....how do you know What is expected performance. The 170 will smoke the 700/900 to altitude.....the only thing that the 700/900 is better at is fuel burn, low pay and pissed off pax!
 
customer surveys, dal does them often and the info is relatively easy to get - the coach seats in dals 900 have a ton of leg room - only 76 seats - mesa shoehorns 88 or something like that. Not sure what you are referencing but the 700 and 900 (with 76 seats) smokes a 170 anytime, climb, cruise - show some numbers. the 170 also gets poor grades for finish (cheaper cabin materials). i agree that the 170 cabin is nice and the seats are wider, but the legroom is much better on a 900. the 700 is tighter, but i dont think 170s cruise at 410 at .81 very often.

try to get a 170 out of EYW in the summer with close to full loads - never gonna happen. and i have yet to meet any 70+ seat operator who makes more than I do (asa 13 year pay) - save for horizon and it took that guy a lot longer to make 700 cap than i did.
 
crjskipper said:
customer surveys, dal does them often and the info is relatively easy to get - the coach seats in dals 900 have a ton of leg room - only 76 seats - mesa shoehorns 88 or something like that. Not sure what you are referencing but the 700 and 900 (with 76 seats) smokes a 170 anytime, climb, cruise - show some numbers. the 170 also gets poor grades for finish (cheaper cabin materials). i agree that the 170 cabin is nice and the seats are wider, but the legroom is much better on a 900. the 700 is tighter, but i dont think 170s cruise at 410 at .81 very often.

try to get a 170 out of EYW in the summer with close to full loads - never gonna happen. and i have yet to meet any 70+ seat operator who makes more than I do (asa 13 year pay) - save for horizon and it took that guy a lot longer to make 700 cap than i did.
Click to expand...
Departed key west plenty of times with full loads. No problems......so your argument was what again?
 

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