Continental dropping Chautauqua?
02-09-2009 | 02:10 PM
#11
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
Oh yeah, I had those days. Nothing like metering telling you #65 for departure and to MONITOR ground. They always emphasized monitor. I always hated timing out after a 8 hour delay and a 4 hour taxi. Nothing PO'd the pax more.
02-09-2009 | 02:34 PM
#13
Che Guevara
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Likes: 0
Toilet,
Again, you don't work for a regional with large operation there. Stop trying to think how your few AMR flights a day their can relate to our operation. Of course our flights are now heavily over blocked. You forget that with a larger operation comes a lot more variables. One mainline flight delayed that has a enough connections on it can send a huge ripple effect through the system. CAL decides when certain planes leave.
Again, you don't work for a regional with large operation there. Stop trying to think how your few AMR flights a day their can relate to our operation. Of course our flights are now heavily over blocked. You forget that with a larger operation comes a lot more variables. One mainline flight delayed that has a enough connections on it can send a huge ripple effect through the system. CAL decides when certain planes leave.
Doesn't really matter though as far as Larry goes he likes CHQ and wants to continue business. He did say he doesn't like seeing people DHDing around so I'll just keep my fingers crossed on my IAH 145 base
02-09-2009 | 02:45 PM
#15
Che Guevara
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Likes: 0
Fat kids annoy you?
All I said was that Larry likes CHQ and recent numbers showed the company has the best performance numbers. Find whatever reasons you want to justify it but doesn't change the accuracy of the statement. Sorry if that hurt your feelings for some reason. You can send me a PM showing how distraught you are if it's that big of an issue for you.
All I said was that Larry likes CHQ and recent numbers showed the company has the best performance numbers. Find whatever reasons you want to justify it but doesn't change the accuracy of the statement. Sorry if that hurt your feelings for some reason. You can send me a PM showing how distraught you are if it's that big of an issue for you.
Last edited by IC ALL; 02-10-2009 at 08:24 AM. Reason: removed deleted quote
02-09-2009 | 04:50 PM
#16
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 680
Likes: 0
From: CH2T Worst plane ever
Can I ask, what kind of problems does CQH have with the CRJ? I work for AWAC and we do quite a mixed bag of flying, both short and longer stuff relatively (PHL-MSP which is 3+ hours, MKE etc.) and have never had a problem taking full pax and bags even with a second alt. Even shorter flight with the landing weight problems, I can't think of a time we had to bump someone off. I mean its been close sometimes, but it's always seemed to work out.
02-09-2009 | 04:58 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
From: EMB 145 FO
NO KIDDING! I remember helping my sister fly one of her babies back to CMH on them and I was very concerned with their health in that heat.
To the original poster I spoke with Larry and he said he likes CHQ a lot. Our recent numbers have put CHQ ahead of other regionals performance wise and that's with the CRJs.
To the original poster I spoke with Larry and he said he likes CHQ a lot. Our recent numbers have put CHQ ahead of other regionals performance wise and that's with the CRJs.
02-09-2009 | 04:59 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
From: EMB 145 FO
I don't need it explained to me how a regional operates out of a busy hub. We operate of out IAH, ATL, PHL, LGA, IAD, ORD, etc. I was simply saying that block times are built on historical averages. Therefore regardless of what happens it should be accounted for for the most part. Of course things will happen from time to time but then again that all just calculates into the grand scheme of things.
Doesn't really matter though as far as Larry goes he likes CHQ and wants to continue business. He did say he doesn't like seeing people DHDing around so I'll just keep my fingers crossed on my IAH 145 base
Doesn't really matter though as far as Larry goes he likes CHQ and wants to continue business. He did say he doesn't like seeing people DHDing around so I'll just keep my fingers crossed on my IAH 145 base
02-09-2009 | 06:44 PM
#20
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
From: EMB-170/175
The CRJ's for COex are going away as planned from the beginning of the lease a couple years ago. By the beginning of 2010 pretty much all of the CRJ's will be gone. All of the CRJ's have had their faults worked since about the first year they were leased and they have been great planes. We have never left a passenger behind for weight issues in all the time I have flown them. CHQ will still have over 15 145's flying as COex for an unknown amount of time. No CHQ is not "losing" any flying that wasn't planned more than 2 years ago. Stop causing drama.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Past V1
Regional
61
01-22-2009 07:17 AM
