I have been on a 900, and if the airplane is so great maybe you guys should demand higher pay for it................

That's a pathetic attempt at a rebuttal.

That's like saying: “Oh Ya! Well I slept with our girlfriend/wife!” :eek:LOL!

You're right; none of us are trying to get paid more. Not Pinnacle, not MAG, not Mesaba, not RAH or anyone else operating CR7's/9's or E-170/5. We love operating more profitable a/c for our companies while adding nothing to our pockets. Can you please stop pointing out the obvious as though none of us know it. Regardless of what you may think we are fighting this flight and one day, when XJT gets larger a/c, you will be too. Until then you can continue to think your airline will treat its pilots differently but remember the past is behind you and the future is always changing.

It’s sad that you can’t come up with a good argument about why your ERJ-145’s are better than the CR7/9 or the E-170/5’s. Don’t think about it as our CR7/9’s or E-170/5. Just make a case for the a/c? Can you? We’re talking about efficiency not pay.

………………………………………have a banana! :D

"flown by the RJ. LAX-SBA, LAX-FAT; SFO-FAT, SFO-SBA, SFO-RNO, SFO-MFD. There are more but I just wanted to name a few"

SAN - LAX

You've got to be kidding me??? That's absolutely AMAZING!!!:confused::confused::mad:

I don't think the EMB145 is better than a CRJ7/9, but I also don't think its any worse. The CRJ7/9 is still a super stretched CRJ-100 to me, and I have ridden on both the 100 and 900. I can't get into the efficiency aspects of the airplanes because I haven't flown the CRJ7/9 or the EMB170/5, but I assume the only reason you call them more efficient is because you can put more butts in the airplane, but burn about the same amount of gas. If I had to pick between a 170 and a CRJ7/9, it would definitely be the EMB170, a far superior a/c passenger comfort wise IMHO. My argument about why they will most likely use the EMB145 over the 700/900 is not because its better or XJET is better or any crap like that. Its simply that I think they are a better fit for the destinations they have announced. I don't think that the markets down in those areas would fill a 70 seater, plus I don't know if the CRJ7/9 would get out full on a 5500ft runway, the EMB145XR most certainly can, maybe someone who flies the 700/900 could let me know. Thats been my whole point, I don't know if the 700/900 needs to be wasted on those markets. I don't know how they have been lately, but when I did LAX to Mexico redeyes last winter for Continental Express, the airplanes were usually not full. There was a lot of competition from Mexicana and AeroMexico, and I know that quite a few LCC have popped up in Mexico that are most likely providing even more competition.

actually whats even more sad is that we are arguing over this........ I am watching BLOW and all the hot girls in the begining of the movie were "Stewardess'" man this industry tanked...........

Irony, sarcasm, satire indicate mockery of something or someone. The essential feature of irony is the indirect presentation of a contradiction between an action or expression and the context in which it occurs. In the figure of speech, emphasis is placed on the opposition between the literal and intended meaning of a statement; one thing is said and its opposite implied.

blow your load over your 70 or 90 seaters all you want. The only reason they are more "economical" is because 1) your not getting paid to fly 70-90 seats your getting paid as if it was 50 2) your flight attendants are getting paid next to nothing 3) you dont know any better to see anything wrong with this situation and demand better compensation/treatment. Your an RJ pilot making crappy wages and the only reason you get to fly that jet is because if a mainline pilot had to do it with mainline FA's it wouldn't be anywhere near as profitable. reality check.... your 70 seater isn't the "savior" of the regional jets you have been dreaming up in your head. Who the F cares what MODEL of an aircraft you fly... your still a regional pilot even if its a CRJ/ERJ 1,000,000,000.

This isn’t a hard concept to understand.

I believe in XJT’s 3Q report they stated they are still loosing money on the branded flying (for now) with something like 60-65% capacity (that's an average of 30-33 Pax on board). If course the CR7 or E-170 currently won’t work, the ERJ isn’t currently working either. Maybe they should be flying the 135? LOL! I don’t know the exact numbers so don’t take offense. Just repeating what a friend of mine at XJT told me last week.

NO PROBLEM! Did a 5650’ runway with 76 Pax on board, we left 0 bags behind, NO CG problems and a jumpseater (CR9). NO PROBLEM with either a/c. Since I’ve been flying the CR7/9’s I’ve never had a CG issue and I’ve never left a jumpseater. From ATL-TUS with nearly 18,000 lbs of fuel and jumpseater……….no problem. On the other hand landing weight restricted can hurt anyone on very short flights with alternate fuel. But I’ve never had that problem as well.

I’m sure the E-170/5 performs the same. Although I’ve heard from some SA jumpseaters that the E-170/5’s burn a bit more fuel with the same engines (a/c’s a bit heavier and not a slick, or so I’ve been told).




BTW this conversation is like a contest of who has the bigger “root.” Bottom line, a/c engine and system technology has come a long way in the last 10-15 years. Newer a/c are most always going to out perform what they were designed to replace.

while i think your tone was a little harsh and condescending, you hit the nail on the head. until people pull their head out of the sand and demand more this ain't gonna get any better for any of us.