California Pacific...
08-27-2011, 12:32 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: WB Bunkie
Posts: 1,246
Originally Posted by HAL39
Seems like a good business plan...in theory.
I've been amazed by how many pax are willing to pay $150 for an upgrade at the counter on a 30-minute flight from MSP-MSN. Seems nuts to me...but then again my cash reserves are pretty trim. 3 class makes sense, especially in the so-cal market, where most people have a little extra $$$
What will probably kill this project is operating E170's out of a 4,900' runway at a southern latitude. There's no way a 170 could get out of this place when it's 100F, no wind, full pax. Even if they used flaps 4, TO-1, No Flex, ECS REF OFF, its still VERY sketchy at best. Even if this were approved by the FAA, they would be weight restricted on most summer flights out of there. + Imagine all the overruns they would have on landing into CRQ, the 170 does have a tendency to float, esp when its light.
Tho, I wouldnt mind getting a west coast base again, would be niiiiiice
I've been amazed by how many pax are willing to pay $150 for an upgrade at the counter on a 30-minute flight from MSP-MSN. Seems nuts to me...but then again my cash reserves are pretty trim. 3 class makes sense, especially in the so-cal market, where most people have a little extra $$$
What will probably kill this project is operating E170's out of a 4,900' runway at a southern latitude. There's no way a 170 could get out of this place when it's 100F, no wind, full pax. Even if they used flaps 4, TO-1, No Flex, ECS REF OFF, its still VERY sketchy at best. Even if this were approved by the FAA, they would be weight restricted on most summer flights out of there. + Imagine all the overruns they would have on landing into CRQ, the 170 does have a tendency to float, esp when its light.
Tho, I wouldnt mind getting a west coast base again, would be niiiiiice
08-27-2011, 04:58 AM
#32
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,289
Originally Posted by HAL39
Seems like a good business plan...in theory.
I've been amazed by how many pax are willing to pay $150 for an upgrade at the counter on a 30-minute flight from MSP-MSN. Seems nuts to me...but then again my cash reserves are pretty trim. 3 class makes sense, especially in the so-cal market, where most people have a little extra $$$
What will probably kill this project is operating E170's out of a 4,900' runway at a southern latitude. There's no way a 170 could get out of this place when it's 100F, no wind, full pax. Even if they used flaps 4, TO-1, No Flex, ECS REF OFF, its still VERY sketchy at best. Even if this were approved by the FAA, they would be weight restricted on most summer flights out of there. + Imagine all the overruns they would have on landing into CRQ, the 170 does have a tendency to float, esp when its light.
Tho, I wouldnt mind getting a west coast base again, would be niiiiiice
I've been amazed by how many pax are willing to pay $150 for an upgrade at the counter on a 30-minute flight from MSP-MSN. Seems nuts to me...but then again my cash reserves are pretty trim. 3 class makes sense, especially in the so-cal market, where most people have a little extra $$$
What will probably kill this project is operating E170's out of a 4,900' runway at a southern latitude. There's no way a 170 could get out of this place when it's 100F, no wind, full pax. Even if they used flaps 4, TO-1, No Flex, ECS REF OFF, its still VERY sketchy at best. Even if this were approved by the FAA, they would be weight restricted on most summer flights out of there. + Imagine all the overruns they would have on landing into CRQ, the 170 does have a tendency to float, esp when its light.
Tho, I wouldnt mind getting a west coast base again, would be niiiiiice
08-27-2011, 06:39 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: 21°00'18.5"N 156°39'00.0"W
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by duvie
As you probably know, coastal SoCal (CLD in this case) is very rarely above 32 C, and more often 25 mid summer. Furthermore, Max takeoff weights vary depending on how much you pay the manufacturer. It isn't a hard and fast number... a lot of aircraft "performance" is contingent on what package you buy...
Even during the winter, when temp is a non-issue, the E170 will have a heckuva time getting out of a 4,900' runway. I've done MDW several times in our 170's, even with cooler temps (<20C), we needed TO-1, No Flex, ECS OFF, Flaps 4, with enuf gas to get to MSP + 3000 lb rsv and 76 pax. We rotated in the far-end touchdown zone of a 6,500' runway.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just a bit skeptical. I know the 170 is a runway hog, esp compared to other jets in the 70-80 seat market
Still, if they could find a way to make it work...might be kinda sweet.......if the airline doesn't go TU in the first year
08-29-2011, 11:33 AM
#34
New Hire
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Position: B1Rd
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by HAL39
I know the 170 is a runway hog, esp compared to other jets in the 70-80 seat market
08-29-2011, 02:04 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: 21°00'18.5"N 156°39'00.0"W
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by FauxPilot
What others are you thinking, I was under the impression of that market the 170 has the best runway performance.
Just seems like CRQ is more of a turboprop market than a jet market. QX received DOT approval for SJC-CRQ a while back, it would probably be a great route for them.
Last edited by HAL39; 08-29-2011 at 02:07 PM. Reason: spelling
08-30-2011, 08:01 AM
#36
New Hire
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Position: B1Rd
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by johnso29
Not happening. That's the status. Fuel is way too high, & investors are way too capacity discipline driven to put money into an airline that will only increase capacity, decrease profits for the industry, and bleed cash trying to establish themselves in an already saturated West Coast market. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I seriously doubt it will ever happen.
As a CA kid I hope they make their niche work.
08-30-2011, 10:24 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: B777/CA retired
Posts: 1,483
Originally Posted by etflies
Yeah, it certainly is, but todays hiring at an established carrier can quickly become tomorrow's furlough too. jetBlue was probably risky too when they started in an already saturated east coast market but they made it work, so why not these guys? The odds are against them but then again, maybe a slightly eccentric 90yr old billionaire founder is just the ticket to make the place work.
JetBlue had 150 million in the bank when they started.That gives you sustaining power.
08-30-2011, 10:35 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Self employed
Posts: 3,048
Originally Posted by HAL39
I don't know much about the CR9's takeoff perf. It's thrust:weight ratio is better than the 170, I just assumed that was sufficient. Anyone out there know for sure?
The CRJ-705 would be a good choice (big engine -700).
The Carlsbad runway is 4897 x 150 ft. Any jet airliner coming out of there will be weight restricted, IMHO. As we all know, just getting out isn't the criteria to meet. Rejected take-off at V1 is. I don't know how low V1 can go....
08-31-2011, 01:27 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: CRJ FO
Posts: 306
Originally Posted by FauxPilot
What others are you thinking, I was under the impression of that market the 170 has the best runway performance.
Last edited by jheath; 08-31-2011 at 01:56 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
