EFIScompmon

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.

bored

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.

EFIScompmon

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

flythemuppets

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?

maxjet

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?

Lighteningspeed

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.

bored

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.

Lighteningspeed

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.

tsween

all this bashing of eachother belongs on FI.com

atpcliff

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