We have 230 pilot so far and around 130 CA so far. We are short on CA keep getting e-mails requesting to pick up flying. So at the end of 08 we should have 200 CA and around 180 FO's. We have had a couple of CA leave so there is small attrition. If hired around 250's seniority number you can probably get a pretty descent QOL as an FO.

Also we have about 10 CA that use to fly the CRJ and they are about to hit 30 months with in 12 months so If NWA is hiring they would get a chance to flow up and empty so space here as well as the 3 NWA guys that are here until the next class date at NWA.

If you get hired now you could probably expect upgrade around June-Aug 09. That is if we get 36 airplanes and some people leave which I am sure will happen.

 

Hi!

The "C" series has the Geared Turbofan Engine (GTF), by Pratt and Whitney.

P&W claims that the GTF will burn 40% less fuel, have 40% less emissons, and have a 40% less noise than the current BEST jet engine in operation today.

So, it will be WAY more efficient than any of the current CRJs/ERJs, not to mention the DC-9.

cliff
YIP

 

Just wondering where you are getting your numbers?

What kinda of fuel flow are you averaging and at what speed/alt?

E-175 is usually about 3200 to 3400 lbs/hrish at .76 mid 30000's
today was looking at 2800-2900 at FL380 really light though.

 

He is probably basing it on what the Director of Ops has said and also based on his flying experience. CRJ9 at mid 30s burn averages around 2700 at mach .77 near max capacity.

Maintenance tech has informed us that CRJ9 Next Gen Enhanced version that XJ flies is about 30% more fuel efficient overall when compared to ERJ175 and these are based on the same destinations CP and XJ flies to.

 

Thanks for the info. Seems kinda strange to go through all the start up costs if the airplane costs that much more to operate. Even with the price of fuel 2 years ago being cheaper.

 

Sounds like some kinda kinky gay porn stuff to me, but to each his own.
Just kidding Matlok. Did you talk to the guy about the crashpad?

 

Spoke to the CA coming up to YUL today and he said that he can get it to 1500 per side at cruise but usually more like 1600-1700

 

I just came back from the first orientation day of training at Compass. For our class the seniority numbers were 235-242. We were told that the delivery schedule had been accelerated and all planes should be here by September. I don't know if it is 100% true, but we were also told that 18 more planes were confirmed for 2009 and that Delta agreed to allow the flow through to continue after the merger.

 

Regarding fuel numbers for E175 vs CR9....

I don't think the fuel burn numbers are all that different for the same altitude, I think the biggest difference is that E175s are consistently flying at lower altitudes than CR9s. For a takeoff at max gross we can only go up to FL300 or so initially! It's fairly seldom that I have the numbers to get above FL360. From what CR9 drivers tell me, they operate routinely in the mid to high 30s. There's a big difference in fuel burn between 300 and 370.

It's not that the E175 doesn't have the power to get up to a decent cruise altitude, I'm usually still doing 700-800 fpm when I reach the book's max altitude number. The wing may be more of a limiting factor...at max cruise alt you're definitely seeing a good bit of the yellow speed tape. Still, I think the numbers in the book are pretty conservative and higher altitudes could be used safely in smooth air. If there's really a 20-30% disparity in fuel burn between the E175 and CR9 I suspect our management will be pressing Embraer to rework those numbers.

 

Very good point, JungleBus...and if Embraer receives enough "pressure," you'll be climbing straight through to 370 in no time...