Read the entire post before making generalized statements. Otherwise don't waste our time on this thread and go to your own company thread and waste your time there. You just sound like a self righteous idiot.

No one here suggested getting more airplanes at the expense of NWA is a good thing. No one is taking anything away from anybody. Mesaba is getting more airplanes because NWA management decided to, not because anybody at Mesaba had any say in it.

Well don't you feel smart seeing bne744 flys one of the jets for Mesaba. Maybe you should go get a beer and chill out...or are you one of those that is too young to do that.

bne744 and the rest are correct. What is the point of getting more jets that takes away from mainline flying. We want better, high paying jobs and we are just bleeding all those opportunities away. There are too many jet guys that are whining about how they never fly and hate sitting reserve. Guess what....you don't like it......QUIT, there are a whole bunch of people sitting in a hiring pool that will gladly take your spot. The last thing we need is a bunch of whining jet pilots that possibly drag down other pilot's moral. I am senior to all but about 30 jet FOs and could have taken it when they opened up the classes but guess what, I make more money on the saab and at the end of the day....its a job and an airplane, I would rather be sitting on the beach in Mexico sipping a drink than getting myself off in the front of a 900.

I do have to say though.....if the decision has been made to hand out more aircraft, well I hope we get them but either way I would rather the flying stay at mainline because that is where the money is made.

Well it sounds like you are the kind of person I am talking about in my post....I am in no way trying to be negative towards any one of our pilots there are just some people who are too caught up in the fact they are flying a jet that they don't even realize that they are getting paid to do it, and would probably do it for free, the industry is not going to go anywhere with people like that....and there was mention on here of Mesaba getting the CRJ1000, now I don't know of one regional that flies anymore than a 76-seat plane, Majors have scope clauses in their contracts for a reason because if they weren't there Mesaba would be flying 747s to Tokyo and the 2 pilots combined would be making $100/hr, thats why Mgmt likes regionals because the labor is so much cheaper and maybe you should look in the mirror before you go off calling someone a self-righteous idiot....

No kidding. If that were the case I think it'd be dang near unanimous that we'd have the Avros back instead of the CRJ's
I'd certainly vote to get the CVG base back and be flying overnights to OKC again.... neither of which I see happening anytime soon.....

where did u get your info... some senior capt?
Many people are going to be lucky to have jobs post-merger... let alone a flow-throw...

ah you need to check your facts. Was in recurrent and Nagle came in with the details.....the flow stays for us as well as Compass as long as the new contract is signed, there is no reason for them to get rid of it.....its job security for mainline guys. One thing i did find out was that we have a reset clause in ours. This means if NWA flows back into our 18 current flow slots and then brings them back, those flow seniority numbers disappear and no one can flow back into them again. Everytime the cycle changes from furlough back to hiring, the slots are erased. This is different from the Compass agreement as the slots do not reset so they can keep flowing back into same slots indefinitely.

Bottom line...I'm sooo glad we have all the smart people at our airline...so I can go to work, do my job, come home and get on with my life....It's nice being near the top!!

FYI, US Airways (AWA) scope allows 86 seats and Mesa fly's their CR9's config'd to 86. Sad.

I reckon ya'll have a hardon for flow thru.. I don't get it? Who care about flow thru.

Who cares about a flow thru? Is that a serious question? When NWA was hiring it was a good thing for about 12 folks (can't remember the exact number). They got jobs at NWA and likely have improved their quality of life and career prospects. If they hadn't stopped hiring the flow would have continued to provide better jobs for the folks that flowed, movement on the list at XJ benefiting most people and just the all around idea of something to look forward to. I'm sure the argument now against the flow is "look at those guys now... facing furlough at the bottom of the list." Those that flow were likely pursuing other opportunities at the same time. They'd be in the same position they are today if they quit and went somewhere else. CO? DL? UA? Same smell. Only this time they have furlough protection in the form of a flowback.

Yes, there is a flow back, but that is only fair. Why should the NWA pilots have given us a sweet deal that was one sided? Yes, hiring has stopped but when the deal was signed we were in the midst of a hiring boom at all airlines and we were all finally getting back to normal. Then oil sky rocketed and pt a damper on things. I'm happy the flow through was structured the way it was for XJ pilots and am happy the flow thru will exist at the new Delta. Why wouldn't one be happy? If they don't like it, they don't have to participate. Simple as that.

bored are you fixin' to flow thru? Is that you bob? I mean bobert? I reckon you be that taddle tale and NWA knows bout it. Good luck flowin thru brah.

Nope, that's not me and no I'm not fixin to flow. I view the flow as an option... if the time is right and it works for me... great. If not, I haven't lost anything. So what's the big deal? BTW - what's with the personal attack? Go on the alpa web board and call RB out in a non anonymous forum.

nuttin personal young feller. I dun have axess to alpa. I be AFA y0

So I just came over from the saab to the 900 and have seen that all of my trips have been way overblocked usually. Just curious if this is fairly typical from guys around during the avro days and is there anywhere we can look at how much flying in hours we have per month per base?

You need to do more research. Your numbers are way off. I cannot speak to the fuel burn percentage ( I have flown both aircraft and the 900 uses less fuel) The 900 can climb better, is faster, and can fly much higher. That said, with the 175's on longer routes that would seem to be a moot point as the fuel efficiency increases on the longer legs for the 175. In other words if you do 5, 45 minute flights in a 900 vs a 3:45 flight in the 175, the 175 will win in fuel burn. Of course then there are issues of RASM and CASM. NWA seems to be deploying both aircraft on routes that are best for its type. As far as passenger comfort, if you think that it is the same then you must be 4'2 120 lbs and carry a Wallmart shopping bag as carry on luggage. There just is NO way the interior is even close to the same comfort level. I have had many passengers, with whom I agree with, state that it is by far the most comfortable coach class seat they have ever been in. BTW, under the new agreement there are already too many 76 seat aircraft. Somebody will have to go. Unfortunately, for Mesa they appear to have lost the flying. Comair may pick up the aircraft but I don't think that the additional 8 scheduled for delivery will happen. I think that Pinnacle will not get their full delivery complement either. There will be no new aircraft unless you can do business with another airline which at this time does not seem likely.
Ps I am senior but not a check airman at this time. Does that mean that everything I write will come true? What the heck is a "senior" check airman anyway? Does that mean you are on the page of shame?

My post seems to have got you all bent out of shape. Why don't you grab a beer and chill out. I am glad I don't have to fly with people like you. It would not be fun. Take youir frustration on something else other than this thread.

Don't remember writing "senior LCA" on my previous post. Training department does not equate to "senior LCA." Mentioned the training dept because I just went through Recurrent training.

You are definitely very ignorant of the the way XJ CRJ9 interior is set up versus the Mesa or Comair CRJ9. Had you done more research, you would have learned XJ CRJ9 is set up with 12 1st Class seats and 64 Coach seats that identical to the Compass E175 seating arrangements in leather. I rode as a passenger in both and could not tell the difference in width. Enough said on this topic.

EFIS - AFA... well, that explains a lot. What you doin' slummin over on a pilot forum? =)

The 175 has a wider fuselage cross section and wider seats. The 900 is the same narrow coffin like tube that the 200 has with newer seats but the same width. They got wise thankfully, and lowered the floor on the 700/900. XJ operates the nextgen version, which means bigger windows LED lighting etc... Seat comfort, cabin layout, bins, lights etc... are all things that will help form a passengers opinion on comfort. The fact is though, the 175 is wider and taller, which aids in comfort. That is hard to dispute. Everyone has their own opinion, but more space 99.99% of the time leads to more comfort. BTW - I think Pinnacle, Comair and Mesa all fly their 900s in the same configuration XJ does.

In the end it's the $$$$ that matters to NWA. The 900 and 175 serve their respective markets and I hope they're doing well for NWA.

HaHaHa! Very funny. Maxjet sounds like a guy with a little man complex.
FYI, I am over 6 feet tall and around 180 lbs. Also, XJ CRJ900 is flown regularly in flights well over 2 to 3 hours so your comparison is ludicrous. Of course the fuel efficiency will go up on longer legs. There is no debate on which aircraft is more fuel efficient on both short and long legs. That's a moot point. You can argue till you are blue in the face and it won't change the fact that CRJ900 wins hands down on fuel efficiency. I do hope you are not with Compass and if that is the case that's a darn shame because most Compass pilots I have met are intelligent and likeable folks, unlike you.

all this bashing of eachother belongs on FI.com

Hi!

I have flown in the back on both. While the -900 IS better than the 50 seaters, the 170-195 is A LOT bigger inside, with bigger overhead bins. It is A LOT more comfortable for the pax.

I would assume if you're small in stature, the main advantage to the 170-195 is the wider seats and the bigger bins. The overall size of the aircraft wouldn't matter so much.

cliff
YIP

With gas prices the way they are.... I don't think passenger comfort is as big of an issue......if people can pay $5 less.....the majority of travelers will fly whatever airplane you put them on.

Go sit in an XJ-900 in seat 20D (last one on right) then sit in a CP-175 in the same seat. You'll see a BIG difference. Most of that difference carries throughout the cabin as well.

Name one thing that northwest does that is comfort based. For one look at the gross cloth seats on all of their aircraft. Like they really care about comfort?

First of all re-read the post. I am not attacking you only putting out an opinion that you obviously disagree with. After you re-read my post read the others. Maybe you are so proud of your CRJ 900 Next Generation magical flying machine with its caverous flight deck and luxury interior that you cannot seem to see the difference in size of the 2 aircraft. Other than that stop with the personal attacks as it makes you look foolish on this site. As someone else posted, take that over to FI.

Hey Maxjet or Einstein or whatever you name is,

I have a very good memory of what I read. You are the one started with personal attacks against me. You must have a short term memory loss. I am not the one who spewed ugly personal attacks, you did. So don't turn this around and make it sound like you are the victim here. Take your own advice and take your rant to FI.

You say I am proud of the CRJ900. Just because I disagreed with you does not mean I am proud of the CRJ9. You are the one who sounds too proud to fly anythingelse other than the mighty ERJ175. That's right Maxjet, E175 is also a REGIONAL Jet just like the CRJ9. I have pointed out plenty of faults with the CRJ9 on other threads. CRJ9 is not my first jet nor do I think it is the best. Far from it. It has many deficiencies just like most of the other regional jets. Stating that it has a better fuel efficiency does not EQUATE to saying it is the best. Understand the distinction.

Do I think E175 appears to be a very good regional jet? Yes I do, based on feedbacks I received from Compass Pilots. Is it a more comfortable regional jet for passengers? Yes. Does that mean anything to the NWA? I do not know. I am not privy to that kind of information. It is above my paygrade. I just go to work and fly the plane and get the job done. End of discussion.

Let's move on to the original question of this thread which is the future of Mesaba.

OK, you're an FA playing with pilots here. Yes you live a similar life style and yes you talk to them on overnights but when the door closes we are in two completely different worlds. Obviously, from your postings, everyone can tell that you do not understand the path that we have/have to travel or our futures.

BTW, you can stop with the 12 year old antics; seriously……………grow up and is the “cabin secure.” :D

I will give you props for your screen name............not many FA's understand that message.

Are we talking about XJ CRJ900? If we are, you are wrong. I do not know where you get your info but it is a fact that 19,450 lbs thrust per side for the XJ CRJ900. This is straight from the XJ POM and the Bombardier Systems manual and from Bombardier CRJ900 instructors at Montreal. So I guess all those information, including the Bombardier Customer Training Center Instructors are all wrong.

All this minor nitpicking is getting everyone off from the original question, which is the future of Mesaba. What is likely to happen to Mesaba in light of the latest developments and the upcoming NWA/DAL merger.

It is tied in with the future of the other regionals like Comair, Compass, Skywest etc. I certainly don't have the insight to this. It would be a pure speculation at this point.

I'm not calling you out but I think you have your numbers mixed up. The fuel load on the CR9 is 19,450 lbs not the engine thrust. If XJ’s engines do produce that much thrust then that's serious overkill seeing that the bird operates great with 13,600 pounds thrust at take-off (14,510 pounds thrust APR) when configured to 76 seats (per DAL scope).

If XJ does have "enhanced" GE's then show us the proof. Also, nowhere on bombardier’s website do they mention this modification/option.

Oddly enough, we were never required to know how much thrust the engines put out for our oral since fadec calculates it based on ambient temp and pressure. But the 19.5K did seem very off to me. So I got out my systems manual...the big green binder manual. On the first page of the powerplant section (20-10-1). I will retype the introduction paragraph word for word...

"The airplane is equipped with two General Electric CF34-8C5 high bypass ratio turbofan engines which have a normal take-off thrust rating of 13,600 pounds. The engines are controlled by a full authority digital engine control system (FADEC). In the event of an engine failure during takeoff, an automatic power reserve (APR) function of the FADEC, will increase the thrust on the remaining engine to 14,510 pounds."

What Jetjock said...I do believe you are quoting the fuel capacity which is just shy of 20K but there is no way the engines are putting out that much power.

Thank you, that sounds spot on.

Lighteningspeed, there's your numbers.

Plus, if you re-read your statement here, how could the 900 be 15% more fuel efficient than the E175 while putting out 10K lbs more thrust (read, fuel flow) than the E175 when the 175 is heavier?

I am not quoting the total fuel load. Talking about the NextGen Enhanced version thrust rating. Get back to the original question.

You are the one that stated the 30% more fuel efficiency, not I. Are you now saying CRJ9 is not even 15% more fuel efficient. You are only contradicting yourself. The thrust rating is for the NextGen Enhanced version. If I am wrong then the instructors who told us those figures were wrong.

Now get back to the original question.

This is starting to sound like a bunch of high school girls arguing over who stole who's boyfriend....

I've spent the better part of 2 hours looking for any proof and what I have found is that you are wrong. Unless you can generate something other than "an instructor told us so" I can't put any stock in your claims. BTW, you actually think that ground instructors know everything? Not only is there nothing on line stating anything greater than the 14500 lbs of thrust on the NG's but GE has nothing out there as well about NG CF34's producing 19K+.

It’s just doesn’t make any sense and it’s not backed up anywhere. I still think you heard wrong or they heard wrong. Without proof (that I or anyone else can find) it seems to not be so.

Although, oddly enough, your 19,450 lbs of thrust matched up perfectly with the CR9’s 19,450 lbs of fuel.

Good day and we just want facts, not "he said she said" hear say.

Amen! I'm not even sure what to say about all this.

Facts schmacts, I want some good ole fashioned mudslinging! My airline is better than your airline! Come on!

/my airline is NOT better than yours

Does anyone know if there is any noticeable difference in the 900 and the 900ng in fuel burn with I believe a little more wing area and redesigned winglet. I'm assuming the majority of change is within the cabin but figured I'd throw it out there

The 175 vs. CR9 efficiency/size/comfort/this seat that seat is a BS debate. But the statement about the NG’s producing 19,450 lbs of thrust is not. If the NG’s do produce almost 1/3 more thrust (almost 5000 lbs more) than the older CR9’s then I’d like to know if it’s true. After flying our CR9’s with 14,501 lbs of thrust for over 1000 hours and enjoying their performance I can’t imagine them with 5000 lbs more thrust. That would be incredible, you’d be able to fully pack one out and maintain 4000 fpm all the way to FL410.

Now I know that our CR9’s are around 15% more fuel efficient than the E-175 which has the same engines and weights more. I know that the CR9 is very comfortable when configured with 76 seats and cramped with 86 (mesa). I know the E-175 is even more comfortable than the CR9. But to think that the CR9NG has 5000 lbs more thrust and still 15% more fuel efficient than the E-175? That’s a technological breakthrough in engine design.

No fighting and no name calling. BTW, I hope he's right because that would be great for all of us if you really think about the break through 5000 lbs of more thrust with the same fuel burn would be and what it could/would do for you industry and our futures. Sadly I see no proof.

My postings have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with any airline and there is/was no mudslinging; you are ready something into nothing my friend.