Alright, who do you wanna blame? Somebodys gotta take the fall, who is it gonna be, seriously?

How about the FAA, who published the advisory circular detailing the process for determining average passenger weights? SERIOUSLY.

Well gee, we don't seem to have that problem. Winter weights 189lbs Summer weights 184lbs Checked bags 30lbs Gate Checked 20lbs

Somebody made the poor decision and now everyone else suffers for it. Somebody is responsible and that person gets the blame...SERIOUSLY!

I think the point was that XJT undertook the cost and did the research (yes, they actually weighed pax and bags) in order to have a W&B program that is more accurate and increases revenue. I guarantee you the research for our W&B program did NOT cost $50,000/mo or whatever it is CAL is paying out at CHQ stations for denied boarding compensation.

You win. I might be able to beat all capitals, or maybe bolded, but not both...I give up.

Not disagreeing, but I also know of one midwestern airline that did an "unofficial" survey following the RDU accident and found that the actual weights might be HEAVIER than the average weights suggested in the circular :eek:. You take your chances when you do the research, because once you do an "official" weight and balance survey, you have to live with the results for a while...

I said it before and I'll say it again. SAAB, if you only had were old enough, mature enough, and been in this industry a while, you might know what you are talking about.

I have friends that are those "girls" at F9 that you speak of and have seen the contract, have you?

Are you sure that F9 is making money?

Ok I am conveying the wrong message, and I agree my posts may have seemed immature, but what I mean to say is I dont think any pilot of any airline should be taking a step backwards........whether it be in first year pay, or A/B scale....... I think that any airline that has managed to stay afloat after 9/11 has the potential to make money, and if they dont its simply because MANAGEMENTS poor decision making, not because they are paying pilots too much. paying a first year F/O $50/hr as oppsed to $32 is not going to make/break a company.............and yes I have read Frontier's contract

Why don't you admit that you can't beat the facts.

Can we all get along for a while, guys?

what would be the point of that:p

I see, so you are pretty well versed in the how the DEN air travel market place is?

Do you think that F9 trying to compete with a Ch.11 legacy for years, as well
the entrance of a very successful LCC into their area might make a tad bit of difference of whether or not F9 could make money at their current cost structure?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of ANY paycut. But have you ever worked at a company that was facing fierce competition and having the squeeze put on them by a Ch.11 company, or a Ch.11 codeshare partner? If I remember correctly, you took a job at a bottom feeder that is counter producitve to helping out pilot pay levels.

I'm not nocking Colgan pilots, just your point of view.

And since you have read their new contract, I assume you have friends there as well? I would also assume that you know that their crew software (flicka) can do just about everything that CCS can do. Maybe you and all your bitching can make a call to IAH and tell them get it for us so the DelCon/Branded pilots can have something.

Those are fighting words. You are lucky I am not there in Terminal B. I would like to see you lay me out. You are so worried about what CHQ is saying and doing, why don't you keep you head in your cockpit and shut up. It ****es me off to here how Xjet guys complain about CHQ. Does CHQ pilots complain about Xjet? NO WAY. We keep it professional.

Do me a favor, have a good day.

I agree 100%, I am trying to get involved with the union, as soon as I have more say than I do now that would be a good topic to address


PS As the remark of me going to COLGAN, I didnt know any better, as soon as educated myself and got tired of the abuse I left...............

Wow... this thread has gone in about 5 different directions at once! :p
... Starting to remind me of a Jerry Springer episode!! :D

Jeezus, everybody needs to take a friggin chill pill and play nice or something. :rolleyes:

Who's this very successful LCC? USA Today in February ran a front page story in the money section saying that because of Frontier noone is winning overthere.

Your point also shows your lack of information on this subject, as CHQ's weights are established from their own actual averages, as measured by the FAA in accordance with the average weight program.

It has nothing to do with money spent. CHQ just had a higher average than XJT at the time each did their measurements. It shows a fundamental flaw in the program when two carriers with the same airplane out of the same airport are limited to different figures for w&b. Its ridiculous.

I couldn't care less what CHQ says or does. I have nothing against CHQ pilots as a group. I think CHQ's management is a bunch of boneheads and so is Continental's but thats a different story. What I DO take issue with is CHQ pilots (and I've had more than one tell me this face to face) saying the hard stands are ruining their on-time performance and that we really threw them for a loop when we announced we were keeping the airplanes. That being said, I have had numerous civil, well-rounded and enjoyable conversations with many CHQ pilots. All the guys that were down here in the beginning of the year have my sympathy cause it was a CLUSTER. It really sucks to be asked to do a job but then not be given the tools to do it.

XJT is branching out into its own endeavors and refusing to take it up the a$$ like so many other companies in this business are far too eager to do. Best of luck to you guys at RAH in your upcoming negotiations. Get that 70-seat pay up where it needs to be!

To the best of my knowledge no ERJs here at XJT have been bent, broken or otherwise fallen out of the sky due to our W&B program. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

Guess you guys at CHQ need to do a better job finding the skinny people then. They probably asked the pilots to pick which pax to weigh.:D I'm still confused though, are they your weights or the FAA's?

You're right though, it IS rediculous. It's ridiculous that CHQ can fly a 145LR from IAH-STL and only carry 45 pax and 30 bags but the XJT flight later that same day, also a 145LR, can carry 50 pax, a jumpseater (who would have had a seat if the earlier CHQ flight hadn't been restricted) and 60 bags (15 of which were bumped from the earlier CHQ flight). And its costing Momma CAL tens of thousands of dollars per month and a lot of passenger loyalty. Rediculous.:rolleyes:

Here we go:

Our weights are actually FAA standard. We did a measurement...but of course it was done in the northeast where everyone is fatter and in MCO where everyone is traveling with everything they own for the 3 month vacation at Disney world. In the end...it back fired. So, we have the FAA standard weights...which suck. A lot.

My gripe with CAL hardstand is not that we can't operate there...it's the Ramp/Gate Agents don't want us there. Trust me, they are less than enthusiastic to get us what we need to get out. Every other carrier has no problem handing us the W&B paperwork we need 5 minutes prior...in IAH you're lucky to get it by departure time. We don't have ACARS on the 145, which means we're spinning the wheel by hand. Also, asking for anything like...oh...i don't know...semi-accurate counts for PAX and Bags beforehand is like apparently akin to asking them to make the earth spin in a different direction. Also, their ability to due simple math (i.e. 1 PAX = 6 bags) to get them to remove either some bags or people is a 20 minute ordeal. Even when just say "Hey, do this..." it takes 30 minutes to get it DONE. Our operation starting there was definately a cluster, and to a certain extent still is...but somehow we operate with above average completion and on-time performance with EVERY OTHER CARRIER than Continental AT IAH....170 included (which does have ACARS and it's not our "own BS times").

The reason for this thread, that continental gave chq 90 days notice, is actually true. Not with the cancellation of routes or services but with financial penalties. Chq's only defense was their on-time performance which didnt really mean much anyway due to the fact of no acars and the possibility for bending times. Another thing that ****ed off cal was that cal went to chq and asked to have acars after emb crews were showing up to fly crj's or crews were just not showing up at all. chq replied that acars wasnt in the contract so no go, so cal had no way of keeping track of crews and crew legality issues. The horrendous performance (and yes it was that bad) has since gotten better.

The 90 day notice had benchmarks for financial penalties for cancellations, lack of crews, ... CHQ since this 90 days has gotten much better because they were forced too. cal has asked for 5 aircraft back from xjt in the meantime and we have been taking over some of the longer routes. the gate agents are not happy to work CHQ due to their early on performance and the irate passengers and delays.... not saying anyone else can do it better but with taking on this flying there were going to be headaches. you are getting better but you need to keep the gate agents happy for awhile before you earn their respect. Xjt pilots werent sinking your ship it was the ground crews, gate agents, and station managers that you ****ed off in the beginning. Cal might have let you work out your issues a lil slower but they got so many complaints that they had to respond.

95% of xjt pilots do feel bad for chq pilots. the crj was the absolutely wrong choice for the routes that they were given. I have no problem letting chq jumpseat on us and have had several so far. this whole xjt pilot vs chq is pretty lame if you ask me. I hope the best for my fellow pilots and hope that both pilot groups can continue to get better and better contracts and flying...

as for the w/b program i dont believe chq ever did a study on it. It costs in the couple of million dollars range and like some have said on here is a little bit of a gamble and takes a couple years.

I have also noticed their EMB's have Air stairs, thats got to bring the useful load down some correct?

Well boo fricken hoo:rolleyes: The reason the ramp and gate agents are not all warm and fuzzy to you guys (yet) is that you DO create some major headaches for them. Imagine having 10 angry pax show up at your counter who aren't going where they want (and paid to go) because the airplane simply isn't capable of carrying them (not the pilots' fault, this was a management decision made by CHQ and CAL). I bet that makes their day. Who cares how many pax are supposed to get on the plane? The agents are usually off by at least 4 or 5 anyway. I usually plan on 50 and work back from there. Want a semi-accurate bag count? Ask the ramper loading the bags or get good at looking at the bag cart and estimating. We regularly don't get the bag sheet until right before they close because of the gate checks and pax showing up at the last minute. Whats y'alls problem? On the rare occasions where we've had to bump someone it also takes 10 minutes or so because they have to offer compensation to volunteers. If that doesn't work they have a system for determining who gets pulled off. They don't just grab whoever is closest to the door. Oh, and ACARS doesn't spin the wheel. Its just a calculator for showing you what weights are in what zones. We're all wheel spinnin SOBs.

Well said, Newarkblows

I can't "beat" the facts? Is this a contest of some kind?

What facts? I am no expert on your airline, but according to other posters, your airline did a study and determined it would be better to just use the weights in the AC. I know of other airlines that did studies and would have been saddled with heavier weights had they went through with it. So, seems like your airline did their homework - I don't know what else the greedy management would have done differently in this case.

And honestly, I don't care that much. Done with topic.