Search

Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

Specific Mesaba Q's

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-08-2007, 07:00 AM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Andrew_VT's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 586
Default

Originally Posted by Lighteningspeed
If you had flown the line, you would have heard from senior Captains same thing I commented on.
Mesaba's additional CR9 options are not rumors, and yes they are widely discussed you are correct.

Pinnacle would not get NWA CRJ900.
Most likely correct (like 95-99% odds) but stranger things have happened. Of course I didn't try to burst this pcl guys bubble, I just said "it could happen".

Compass would not get CRJ900 either. There is a possibility Compass might get more than 36 EMB 175
Correct again, but 76-seat growth is 76-seat growth...and this compass guy was implying that it was ALL going to them because of "pax get on a CR9 and they say 'oh a regional jet' where on a Ejet they think they're on mainline" (or some BS like that...I stopped paying attention after awhile)
Andrew_VT is offline  
Old 12-08-2007, 12:56 PM
  #42  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Lighteningspeed's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: G550 Captain
Posts: 1,206
Default

Originally Posted by Andrew_VT
Mesaba's additional CR9 options are not rumors, and yes they are widely discussed you are correct.



Most likely correct (like 95-99% odds) but stranger things have happened. Of course I didn't try to burst this pcl guys bubble, I just said "it could happen".



Correct again, but 76-seat growth is 76-seat growth...and this compass guy was implying that it was ALL going to them because of "pax get on a CR9 and they say 'oh a regional jet' where on a Ejet they think they're on mainline" (or some BS like that...I stopped paying attention after awhile)
Yeah. Don't worry about those Compass guys. Fact of the matter is CRJ 900 has longer range, faster, and more fuel efficient than EMB 175. When I was flying it last week, we calculated that it has the range to go nonstop from MSP to San Diego non stop with 73 passengers and enough fuel with Part 121 Fuel reserve requirement.

EMB 175 is little wider in the cabin but not that noticeable because I have flown in one as a passenger. EMB 175 is a nice airplane. I have it from guys who have been at Mesaba for more than 20 years that it is a really good bet that Compass future is fairly uncertain at this time. Especially if this NWA and Delta merger talk turns out to be true. With the fuel price continuing to soar, beancounters at NWA does not care one bit if the EMB 175 cabin is 1.5 inches wider or not. They only care about the bottom line and CRJ900, even though it is far from being ideal, wins hands down in efficiency over EMB 175.
Lighteningspeed is offline  
Old 12-08-2007, 09:00 PM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: SAABster
Posts: 639
Default

Originally Posted by Mesabah
Done and Done!
Sweet!!!
XJPILOT1 is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 07:52 PM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Soon to be Ex Dash-Trash
Posts: 270
Default

Applied last Thursday night, called on Monday, interview a week from tomorrow.

Any idea how much a typical paycheck for a street captain would be (after taxes, medical, 401(k), blah, blah)?
How many Saab Captains are in DTW?
crjav8er is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 06:53 AM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
RJ85FO's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: Lots and Lots of Days Off
Posts: 586
Default

Originally Posted by crjav8er
Applied last Thursday night, called on Monday, interview a week from tomorrow.

Any idea how much a typical paycheck for a street captain would be (after taxes, medical, 401(k), blah, blah)?
How many Saab Captains are in DTW?
Year one SF3 CA pay is currently $42.93/hr. You will be on reserve for quite a while, so budget for 75 hour guarantee. 15% for taxes, $120/mo for medical/dental/STD (single) and I'll guess 5% for 401(k)...leaves you about $1300 per paycheck.

DTW is staffed to 120 SF3 CA's.
RJ85FO is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 07:44 AM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
bizzum's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 282
Default

Originally Posted by Lighteningspeed
Fact of the matter is CRJ 900 has longer range, faster, and more fuel efficient than EMB 175.

EMB 175 is little wider in the cabin but not that noticeable because I have flown in one as a passenger.
As far as I can find, your facts about range and speed are wrong. According to the Bombardier website, the CRJ-900STD has a range of 1,350NM, the ER 1,593, and the LR is 1,828. The E-170 series has a range of 2,000NM with RSVs for the STD version. The Mmo is the same for both models. As far as fuel burn, I could not find any data on the CRJ-900, but if memory serves me correctly, having sat up front on each, the burns are similar.

As far as not being able to notice the difference in the cabin? I will have to disagree with you there. I used to commute on RAH's 175's every week, and they are WAY more comfortable than the CRJ series. They even have bigger seats and more pitch than the US 737s.
bizzum is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 08:55 AM
  #47  
Gets Weekends Off
 
IHateMgmt's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: "I love the smell of Napalm in the Morning."
Posts: 288
Default

Originally Posted by bizzum
As far as I can find, your facts about range and speed are wrong. According to the Bombardier website, the CRJ-900STD has a range of 1,350NM, the ER 1,593, and the LR is 1,828. The E-170 series has a range of 2,000NM with RSVs for the STD version. The Mmo is the same for both models. As far as fuel burn, I could not find any data on the CRJ-900, but if memory serves me correctly, having sat up front on each, the burns are similar.

As far as not being able to notice the difference in the cabin? I will have to disagree with you there. I used to commute on RAH's 175's every week, and they are WAY more comfortable than the CRJ series. They even have bigger seats and more pitch than the US 737s.
Gentlemen.

None of this really matters, mgmt will do what serves in their own best interest (not necessarily the customers and certainly not yours or mine).

We are all on the same team, try not to forget that...
IHateMgmt is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 09:00 AM
  #48  
Gets Weekends Off
 
G2TT's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Looking Forward
Posts: 253
Default

Originally Posted by IHateMgmt

We are all on the same team, try not to forget that...
Exactly. This needs reiterated throughout the entire industry, not just under the redtail.
G2TT is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 03:05 PM
  #49  
Gets Weekends Off
 
tsween's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: SF 340B+
Posts: 306
Default

Originally Posted by bizzum
As far as I can find, your facts about range and speed are wrong. According to the Bombardier website, the CRJ-900STD has a range of 1,350NM, the ER 1,593, and the LR is 1,828. The E-170 series has a range of 2,000NM with RSVs for the STD version. The Mmo is the same for both models. As far as fuel burn, I could not find any data on the CRJ-900, but if memory serves me correctly, having sat up front on each, the burns are similar.

As far as not being able to notice the difference in the cabin? I will have to disagree with you there. I used to commute on RAH's 175's every week, and they are WAY more comfortable than the CRJ series. They even have bigger seats and more pitch than the US 737s.
geeze sound like you fly one
tsween is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 04:28 PM
  #50  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Lighteningspeed's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: G550 Captain
Posts: 1,206
Default

Originally Posted by bizzum
As far as I can find, your facts about range and speed are wrong. According to the Bombardier website, the CRJ-900STD has a range of 1,350NM, the ER 1,593, and the LR is 1,828. The E-170 series has a range of 2,000NM with RSVs for the STD version. The Mmo is the same for both models. As far as fuel burn, I could not find any data on the CRJ-900, but if memory serves me correctly, having sat up front on each, the burns are similar.

As far as not being able to notice the difference in the cabin? I will have to disagree with you there. I used to commute on RAH's 175's every week, and they are WAY more comfortable than the CRJ series. They even have bigger seats and more pitch than the US 737s.
NWA ordered CRJ900 Next Gen Long Range version for Mesaba. Check that at Bombardier and then tell me I am wrong. We also have an FO who used to fly at RAH EMB 175 and now he is flying CRJ900 at Mesaba and he told one of our CA that EMB 175 without the fitted extra fuel tank has less range and is slower than CRJ900 NextGen LR.

Anyway, I happen to like EMB 175. It's a great airplane. I wish NWA ordered EMB 175 for Mesaba instead of CRJ 900. So don't get all bent out shape and take my comment out of context. My point is NOT about which airplane is better. It's about the beancounters at NWA and what they will do if the fuel price keeps skyrocketing.
Lighteningspeed is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Cessnadriver
Regional
27
11-16-2007 07:10 PM
dash trash
Regional
1
02-27-2006 07:50 PM
CRM1337
Regional
2
10-14-2005 05:07 AM
saab340driver
Regional
0
10-03-2005 01:41 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices