It's called the WIA, Work Force Investment Act. You can look it up online. I never had to do it, but a lot of my friends at ACA used it to help finance their 737 types before going to SouthWest. Another used it for a G4 type. It basically says that if you work in a technical job (like us), and getting money will give you some additional training to help you secure a job when you are unemployed, the state will help fund a part of that training.

The key is, you have to be unemployed at the time you apply for it. And like I mentioned above, most government employees won't know what you are talking about. And like I also mentioned above, if the state is out of funds for that particular program, you are SOL.

It doesn't matter where you live. What matters is where your domicile is. You'd be stuck with that states plan (with some possible exceptions depending on how hard you try to work the situation).

Everyone I know who has used the plan typically has to make a lot of phone calls and be fairly insistent to get things set up properly. Fortunately, Higher Power knows the drill well and can be very helpful.

I love how 10 years ago these 50 seat jets were super-fuel efficient, now they are not, yet they burn the same amount hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

There not really fuel inefficient as you think. If the market can only sustain 50 seaters than none of the 70 seater jets would be more fuel efficient. As for Prop planes flying the routes, they are only more efficient on shorter routes. Anything over 300-500NM range would make the 50 seater jet more efficient.

Do the math, our 145XR's burn 2500 lbs/hr at FL370 and cruise at a TAS of 460. We would get to our destination in a fraction of the time of a Prop flying at FL250 and burning 2400 lbs/hr. We would actually be more fuel efficient.

Hey buddy. I initially thought they were inefficient too. However, we do get there a lot quicker, meaning we only burn fuel for 2 hours instead of 2.5 hours or 3 hours. Also look at my post above, some of the props burn the same as us when we are at FL370 and they are lower and slower. In that sense they would burn fuel longer, more total, and take longer to get there.

Ream did say that most of our markets on Branded would burn more per person on a 70-seater since those markets can only sustain 50-seaters right now.

Wow! 2500 GAL/hr.....that's pretty inefficient.

really, why don't you give me comparisons of props and 70-seater jets and their TAS at altitude?

But how often do we get up to 370 in the RJs?? Not very often. Especially in the northeast, and short hops in the midwest, like we do with our E135s out of CVG. The only way the 50 seat RJs will be efficient is on long, skinny routes to secondary airports, where the load factors don't warrant a 70 seater. Keep in mind too that for the 70 seater, the crew generally gets paid more as well (higher Capt, senior FO pay, and 2 FAs vs 1 on the 50 seater).

I think he was trying to say that... you meant LBs instead of Gals.

:)

Darn, grosshole was quicker than me.

It's a shame that joke went RIGHT over your head.

I'm not the sharpest tack in the box, but the last time I flew, the gages on the EICAS displayed fuel in POUNDS PER HOUR, not GALLONS PER HOUR.

Using the assumed fuel density out of our CFM, calculate 2500 gallons into pounds. It's MORE than the XR can even hold.

Also, like I said, I'm not the sharpest tack. But at 370 I don't usually see 460 TAS, it's usually around 440-445. If you want to see something like 460, you usually have to be around FL280/290.