Mesaba Future
08-12-2008, 03:48 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by matlok
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.
08-12-2008, 05:56 AM
#64
VHR-very happily retired
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,411
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
08-12-2008, 07:34 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: G550 Captain
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by 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?
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?
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.
08-12-2008, 08:08 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SkyWest Capt.
Posts: 2,963
Originally Posted by EFIScompmon
nuttin personal young feller. I dun have axess to alpa. I be AFA y0
BTW, you can stop with the 12 year old antics; seriously……………grow up and is the “cabin secure.”
I will give you props for your screen name............not many FA's understand that message.
08-12-2008, 08:59 AM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: G550 Captain
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by sigep_nm
The 900 doesnt put out 19500 a side, unless I have been flying the dumbed down version. It is in the 1370 range with an uptrim to 14500. I cant comment on the pax seating as I have never been in the 175. On a side not however I cant recall the last time that NWA ever cared about passenger comfort. The only reason they have the 200 is so they can p!ss off 50 people at a time. I think the 900 may be faster but we dont fly it anywhere near its top speed. Florida is Comair territory and I suspect it will probably stay that way. You may see some but it would be coming from MEM.
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.
08-12-2008, 09:14 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SkyWest Capt.
Posts: 2,963
Originally Posted by Lighteningspeed
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.
If XJ does have "enhanced" GE's then show us the proof. Also, nowhere on bombardier’s website do they mention this modification/option.
Last edited by JetJock16; 08-12-2008 at 09:25 AM.
08-12-2008, 09:17 AM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 330 B
Posts: 1,610
Originally Posted by Lighteningspeed
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.
"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.
08-12-2008, 09:26 AM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SkyWest Capt.
Posts: 2,963
Originally Posted by Tinpusher007
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.
"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.
Lighteningspeed, there's your numbers.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
