737-900rj
01-10-2015 | 01:00 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 20
From: 7ER B...whatever that means.
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'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!
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!
01-10-2015 | 04:51 PM
#42
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
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.
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.
Last edited by gettinbumped; 01-10-2015 at 05:11 PM.
01-10-2015 | 07:15 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 6
From: 777
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.
If the fleet is retired, there won't be a market for parts either. "I'm not dead yet!"
01-10-2015 | 08:49 PM
#44
Don't say Guppy
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: Guppy driver
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?
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?
01-10-2015 | 09:48 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,032
Likes: 18
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.
01-11-2015 | 01:33 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
From: B737 Captain
In 23 years of flying Boeings, I've never seen or heard of a "wave off".
01-11-2015 | 05:02 AM
#47
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
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.
01-11-2015 | 05:10 AM
#48
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,750
Likes: 0
From: 737 CA
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.
01-11-2015 | 05:24 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,559
Likes: 0
From: A Nobody
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?
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?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
