Don't forget that the folks in First are paying more, however...true, that brings a -700 down to 66 seats, but they are still paying that premium.

The training department is swamped and in turn has created a bit of a backlog, so to speak. Hiring in turn has to slow down a bit until the jam has been cleared. My understanding is that hiring and training will go into full swing in the Spring (ie April onward). If you were offered a job, you will hear from the HR for sure. What class date you will get is completely up the Training department. If they call you with a class date, and you want something earlier, tell them nicely that you are available for an earlier one. Be ready because they might call you a week before the class date, though not likely.

This is the first of this "good" news that I have heard in the past few months. On the-pipe there is a lot of doom and gloom about training dates being in late summer (Sept.-Oct.) if at all this year. There has also been talk of guys that were in the pool having to re-interview to stay in the pool. Have you heard differently about this (I hope so becuase this waiting game is a hard one to keep playing)?

Fly the XR's much? You'd see it if you did.

That's funny. After I read your post, I'd ask the same of you.

But I'm on the west coast. ALL we fly is 135 EP's.

But if I WAS flying the XR, I'd ask you this, are you flying at the flight planned .78, or all the way at the barber pole?

.79-80 MIGHT yield something CLOSE to 450.

There has been more than ONE time I have been in an XR, TL's in the detent, .76-.77 is ALL the thing will do.

Do the math, 460 at 370 is not REALLY what you will come up with.

460 is usually what I see and I fly them all the time. This argument is stupid, your complaining about me saying 460 and you think its 450? Serious?

This is second hand info, but a pilot that I worked with as an instructor got on with them in september last year. He recently told me that an email was put around that there are no plans for classes untill september of this year at XJT and the slots would be given to those that were in the pool by date of hire (interview). again, 2nd hand info, but thats what keeps getting sent around the campfire.

Well, you are the one that said we burn 2500 GALLONS per hour. Are YOU serious?

It's a freaking joke, relax. ANOTHER stab at humor went right over your head, AGAIN.

T-props are the future and will make a comeback. Look at the speed and specs of a Q400 and tell me why they should fly an RJ with sky rocketing fuel prices.

wow,
or maybe you got called out on comparing apples to oranges and you acted like it was a joke. As for the gallon remark, yeah I mistype, but you know what I meant.

SECOND time around, and you're STILL missing the joke.

Bet a 4 day pairing with you is a blast.

We had a Lynx jumpseater that told us the Q400 burns 1900-2000 lbs/hour TOTAL in cruise at FL250 and a TAS of 350kts. Anyone know if this is true??? I've only seen a FF less than 2000 lbs/hour total in the CRJ-200, in cruise, a few rare times. And it always seemed to be when we were at max altitude in the winter and half empty. Typically, it's more like 2400-2500 lbs/hour, if we're doing .74 and at FL340 or FL350. And that's, of course, with 26 fewer seats than the Q has. I don't know exactly where the CRJ would become more efficient (taking into account it's fewer seats) with those kinds of numbers, but seems like it wouldn't be until at least 700-800nm, if those Q numbers are true. In which case I can see the Q400 becoming more popular as fuel keeps going up...

:confused:

nope think you really meant it. god i bet flying with you would suck.

Some people are great at missing jokes.

I agree with that but Bombardier has a serious problem with quality control. There isn't any. Plus, people think the "little" prop planes are unsafe.

That's correct, Horizon's Q fleet collectively average 2130#/hr for all phases of flight.

I know they do I use to think they were unsafe too when I was younger. However people will take one if it's all that's available.

i was just reading in the paper that reducing airplanes is never the solution due to costs being fixed. will try to find the paper and post. we all how 'good' of information is in papers but this idea is not mine.

Just flew the -200 today with 8 folks and 330 lbs in the tail (~38K lbs or so)...up at 370 and .74M we were burning 1980 lbs/hr total, about 980/side. Of course, with just 8 pax it doesn't really matter how efficiently we fly LoL

Look on the bright side. Those out of a job first will be senior to the rest of us when we lose our jobs and go to our next airline.

You know the saying, "be nice to the junior guys, because they'll be senior to you at your next airline"? Well, I believe the same logic applies here.