Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- United (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/)

- - 737-900rj (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/85829-737-900rj.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by intrepidcv11 (Post 1800437)

I flew the POS taco jet for 6 years. The EMB145ER was constantly weight restricted to 44. Btw that's 12%, but being a Riddle type you def did the math in your head. I used to make a point to tell every JSer I had what tail numbers were ALWAYS weight restricted and required good crews to squeeze people on. I also remember having to fuel stop in TYS trying to go to BHM, because we had holiday bag loads. Some how I think the new age guppy would of handled that just fine. Those things should have been turned into beer cans years ago...

I don't know what to tell you. Yes, the -ER/EP (what few are left) are the ones that you're going to run into the most issues with. That said, I have never been able to take less than 47 or 48 on an -ER/EP. And that was because ops made the decision to take bags instead of people. That's why those things don't make it more than about an hour from IAH anymore. And for what it's worth, there are no more ERs in the UAX fleet. They have all been re-engined and weight modded to the EP designation.

I've come to a couple conclusions here: Either I am the luckiest ERJ driver in the world, or I have been doing something wrong for almost a decade. Also, some folks get awfully touchy about the guppy around here. Note to self: do NOT joke about the -900! :rolleyes:

Finally, not sure how you drew your conclusion, but didn't go to Riddle. Just know how to use a calculator to do division. You can thank Mrs. Smith's third grade math class for that!

Quote:

Originally Posted by El10 (Post 1800291)

Which will hit the market when? When UCH ordered the 900ERs the 321neoLR was not an option it was the 900er, 800, or 320. Boeing and Airbus have always had a issue with selling current products once they start manufacturing the new replacements. They have to keep the production line moving seamlessly from one aircraft generation to another. So thats when buyers can get better deals which probably was the case with the 900er order. Add in that financing levels are very cheap right now you can see the pricing power of this capital expense. A none price today or a future of lots of unknowns with rising forward curves.

Now lets look at the used market for the 757. The used value of the 757 is going down everyday. The longer you hold on to them the less value they have. So either you sell them for something or hold on to them knowing you will get nothing. Allegiant's right down this past month on the 757 fleet reflects this. By the time we retire the rest of the fleet of 757s my guess is most will not enter the used market and be used for parts only.

No, when UAL ordered the 900ER they combined it with 100 Max's. The option they had at the time was present day 321's with winglets (ala jetBlue) and future A321NEO's. And I'm quite sure we could have gotten the present 321's VERY cheaply.... same as we did for the 900ER's. There is NO WAY Airbus wasn't pitching the idea of the 321NEOLR to UAL when they decided on the order. Could have replaced the 757's at exactly the same pace as we are right now, and converted some or all of our 321NEO's to 321NEOLR's and had a TRUE 757 replacement. It's not a secret that the management team that is now making the decisions leans Boeing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by El10 (Post 1800291)

Now lets look at the used market for the 757. The used value of the 757 is going down everyday. The longer you hold on to them the less value they have. So either you sell them for something or hold on to them knowing you will get nothing. Allegiant's right down this past month on the 757 fleet reflects this. By the time we retire the rest of the fleet of 757s my guess is most will not enter the used market and be used for parts only.

Let's beat a dead horse. There are no 757's available. I count about 5 available world wide. FedEx can't get them fast enough or enough of them. As far as I know, not many 757's are now being parted out or in the near future. Yes, it's days are limited, but with the current fuel prices, take a 757 with winglets, it's going to be hard to beat--and never weight restricted.

If the fleet is retired, there won't be a market for parts either. "I'm not dead yet!"

The 321's are not nearly as performance restricted, or require as much runway as a 900ER. But when heavy they still require a lot more runway than a 757. I would call it a "clipped wing" 757. They have a bunch of power (34k per side), but the V speeds are high when heavy. They do get to those high V-speeds quickly, but they chew up some runway doing it.

The LR 321 NEO will be closer to a 757 replacement, but not quite. I doubt it would get off the ground in OGG and fly to the West Coast with a full load.

Did I mention they are quiet and comfortable for both pax and crew?

Quote:

Originally Posted by XHooker (Post 1800232)

Every time I left Hong Kong for Newark in the 777 we had close to 100 seats held due to cargo and that was burning down to MGTOW in the hold short. The reality is every airplane has restrictions when pushed to it's limits and your RJ has more limits than most.

That wasn't a weight restriction necessarily, those seats were more than likely purchased by the freight forwarding companies for the express purpose of leaving them empty to accommodate more freight underneath. I've been going to HKG for ten years and I've never seen that many empty seats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grumble (Post 1799532)

In the event they filled it, you iced up, lost an engine, and had to wave off.... You woulda been screwed! Otherwise it's a great airplane 99% of the time. Just takes forever to load/unload. Had 188 SOB one the other day.

In 23 years of flying Boeings, I've never seen or heard of a "wave off".

:cool:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4th Level (Post 1800808)

In 23 years of flying Boeings, I've never seen or heard of a "wave off".

:cool:

I've been flying Boeings for 23 years as well and I've personally experienced and witnessed dozens and dozens of "wave offs". Mostly due to a foul deck, but I'm sure some were technique and weather related.

LIM-IAH on the 767-300 used to routinely bump up against max ZFW. 40,000lbs ++ of fish, flowers, and asparagus in the belly will do that to you. The flight is only 6 hrs, so light fuel load. The TOG might be 40K below MTOG, but you're maxed on payload. Done. Bad deal for SAs.... they see open seats, but are left at the gate.

Ok who made the change in dispatch policy on this enroute icing penalty?

Historically the original Prat powered guppy had the same issues, a huge single engine go around penalty if icing was encountered enroute and could not be removed. Even our ETOPS 767 had enroute icing penalties for ETOPS flights from th Islands.

So historically how did we operate them (737 not 767 ETOPS, they came up with different solution there)? We never applied the penalty unless the Captain or Dispatcher thought it was necessary. In several thousand hours of Cap and F/O time on the airplane I only saw one Captain ask for the penalty to be applied.

So who seems to have made it mandatory these days?

Hey 4th, have you ever heard of an "un-start?"

Term used by test pilots on really fast jets.