2/18 CLT Crew News Session

[john john]

Second, in another remark concerning the Express carriers Isom said that Republic was on the hook to loan US money if asked (no amount given). So are all sources of cash dried up or is Republic a potential source of cash?
Jim

So who is the bait and who is the hook?
No body gives money for free Republic is involved with US to what extent is the question.

 

[gabby]

Did you see the "Senior" 190 Instructor complain about the fuel burn of express?

Get out of the sim, in the real world 757 pilots fly coast to coast with 3 engines burning.
I never see any of them single engine taxi.

If you want to see money burning....get out of the sim and join us in the real world!

 

[BoeingBoy]

No body gives money for free Republic is involved with US to what extent is the question.

Isom didn't say anything about Republic "giving" US any money - it would be a loan just like last time. Whether that was one of the costs of Republic getting the 10 E190's or what is anybody's guess.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Did you see the "Senior" 190 Instructor complain about the fuel burn of express?

He had a point. For the affiliate Express carriers it doesn't matter if they run the most fuel efficient or inefficient operation possible - they make the same either way. Some airlines have language in their affiliate carrier contracts that make the affiliate responsible for the first $X/gallon of fuel cost, giving their affiliates a stake in how much fuel is burned. Why US hasn't is one of those unexplained mysteries.

Jim

 

[john john]

Some airlines have language in their affiliate carrier contracts that make the affiliate responsible for the first $X/gallon of fuel cost, giving their affiliates a stake in how much fuel is burned. Why US hasn't is one of those unexplained mysteries.

Jim

Because they give/gave US money

 

[cubfan]

Did you see the "Senior" 190 Instructor complain about the fuel burn of express?

Get out of the sim, in the real world 757 pilots fly coast to coast with 3 engines burning.
I never see any of them single engine taxi.

If you want to see money burning....get out of the sim and join us in the real world!

I think you need to get out on the line more, as a 75/76 pilot, I can't remember the last time the apu was left running. Also almost all my flights are done single engine on taxi, just not true anymore.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Because they give/gave US money

Nope - the fee for departure contracts have been that way all the time there have been fee for departure contracts at US.

Jim

 

[Kneecaps]

Did you see the "Senior" 190 Instructor complain about the fuel burn of express?

Get out of the sim, in the real world 757 pilots fly coast to coast with 3 engines burning.
I never see any of them single engine taxi.

If you want to see money burning....get out of the sim and join us in the real world!

Too bad he didn't point out the fact that US pays for the fuel to run CRJ/ERJs on over a dozen short haul routes that would be better served by the dash 8, and then runs the dash 8 on several medium range routes that would be better served by the crj/erj. Why?? Because marketing says to.

CLT-GSO/FAY/AVL/CAE/GSP/ILM/AGS/ROA are prime examples.

The CRJ/ERJ folks are even forced to burn off excess fuel on these legs simply to get the aircrafts down to landing weight. For marketing?? Wow..

 

[gabby]

Too bad he didn't point out the fact that US pays for the fuel to run CRJ/ERJs on over a dozen short haul routes that would be better served by the dash 8, and then runs the dash 8 on several medium range routes that would be better served by the crj/erj. Why?? Because marketing says to.

CLT-GSO/FAY/AVL/CAE/GSP/ILM/AGS/ROA are prime examples.

The CRJ/ERJ folks are even forced to burn off excess fuel on these legs simply to get the aircrafts down to landing weight. For marketing?? Wow..

The only time the CRJ's are weight restricted is if an alternate is listed and the flight is less than 1 hour.
The max t/o weight for a 200 is 53000lbs. Max landing weight is 47000. ZFW is 44000lbs.
Dispatch will always try have us land at 47,000lbs. To get the most bags on.
Because the CRJ is fuel efficient we can run into overweight landing problems. A lot of the time we have a jumpseater and that makes us burn a additional 200lbs.
A typical CRJ 200 burns $17/pax per hour of flight. A CRJ 700's cost is about $15.
Burn for the first hour is about 3200lbs. Or $955 ($2/gallon)
Part of our problem right now is that dispatch will give us an alternate even if legally we don't need it.
This makes everyones job more difficult, from the gate agents to pilots. Dispatch is 500 miles away from
the passenger or jumpseater that gets bumped. But that is what you get for $8/hr.

Just to compare apples to apples here. We all know management will lie to us to achieve their agenda. So here is what i ask. What is the fuel burn for a 1hr flight in a 190/737/321/757/767?
How much for each pax?

 

[Kneecaps]

The only time the CRJ's are weight restricted is if an alternate is listed and the flight is less than 1 hour.
The max t/o weight for a 200 is 53000lbs. Max landing weight is 47000. ZFW is 44000lbs.
Dispatch will always try have us land at 47,000lbs. To get the most bags on.
Because the CRJ is fuel efficient we can run into overweight landing problems. A lot of the time we have a jumpseater and that makes us burn a additional 200lbs.
A typical CRJ 200 burns $17/pax per hour of flight. A CRJ 700's cost is about $15.
Burn for the first hour is about 3200lbs. Or $955 ($2/gallon)
Part of our problem right now is that dispatch will give us an alternate even if legally we don't need it.
This makes everyones job more difficult, from the gate agents to pilots. Dispatch is 500 miles away from
the passenger or jumpseater that gets bumped. But that is what you get for $8/hr.

Just to compare apples to apples here. We all know management will lie to us to achieve their agenda. So here is what i ask. What is the fuel burn for a 1hr flight in a 190/737/321/757/767?
How much for each pax?

wow thats a lot of fancy math there..

you may have missed it, but the whole point of my post was that US Needs to right size the aircraft for the routes.

a one hour flight burns half on the turboprop. A half hour flight burns 1/4.

why not send it to the short haul cities, and your beloved mathematical wonder crj further out?

 

[gabby]

wow thats a lot of fancy math there..

you may have missed it, but the whole point of my post was that US Needs to right size the aircraft for the routes.

a one hour flight burns half on the turboprop. A half hour flight burns 1/4.

why not send it to the short haul cities, and your beloved mathematical wonder crj further out?

I think you missed it. Show me a release where a dash will burn 1/2.
It's a myth. Sure it will burn less but a lot more than you think. Plus the Dash is a lot more weight restricted.
Show me a release. If a dash burns $15/pax for an hour flight then would you rather pay the $2 more and be on a newer jet?
And the Q series is only 8% more fuel efficient than the CRJ 700. But are equal on flights over 500nm.

 

[Kneecaps]

I think you missed it. Show me a release where a dash will burn 1/2.
It's a myth. Sure it will burn less but a lot more than you think. Plus the Dash is a lot more weight restricted.
Show me a release. If a dash burns $15/pax for an hour flight then would you rather pay the $2 more and be on a newer jet?
And the Q series is only 8% more fuel efficient than the CRJ 700. But are equal on flights over 500nm.

A myth?? Wow, get off the kool-aid kid. You wear those aviator sunglasses too, don't you? A regular Howard Hughes no doubt.

This discussion was about Airways express fuel expenses. I then pointed out that the airplanes Airways already owns (not Q's, where did that come from?) were not being properly utilized to keep airways' express fuel expense to a minimum.

Single engine taxi means very little when you have airplanes circling to burn excess fuel every week.

It'll be the last time I attempt to explain it to you; the airplanes in Airways' express fleet are not being utilized properly. They should send fancy shiny things to far away places, and dirty nasty things real close in. You aren't even debating this fact.

The fuel burn on the dhc-8-100/300 is 1300/1800 lbs/hr respectively. Thats not per side, thats total. I will not show you a release, this is fact. A one hour zero wind flight with a cruise at 14k feet on a dhc8-300 would result in about 1800lb burnoff gate to gate.

CLT-GSP burnoff on the 300 is about 800 pounds, gate to gate.

Your quote: A typical CRJ 200 burns $17/pax per hour of flight. A CRJ 700's cost is about $15.
Burn for the first hour is about 3200lbs.

I'm not trashing anyone's equipment. I'm not saying we get rid of CRJs.

I am saying that if Airways wants to get serious about its express fuel expense, you send the right airplanes to the right cities.

Clear?

 

[gabby]

It'll be the last time I attempt to explain it to you; the airplanes in Airways' express fleet are not being utilized properly. They should send fancy shiny things to far away places, and dirty nasty things real close in. You aren't even debating this fact.

Small, close towns don't deserve small airplanes. US Airways should and could fly 737's to FAY. PSA does 6 flights a day and they are all full (70 seaters). I also heard that some military contracts require the airline to fly jets not TP's.
The right size airplane is the one that can be 99% filled 100% of the time. If that means sending a 757 to FAY then so be it. Should have nothing to do with the proximity of the town.
BTW PSA and Piedmont do pay for their own gas. Well US Airways writes the check but we don't have the same agreement as Republic/Mesa/Chautauqua.
The only realistic way to compare costs is to figure out what it costs each pax for gas. Because the Dash may only hold 37people vs a CRJ 50 or 70 or 90. If a dash has to do two trips to carry the same amount of people then your 1300lbs just became 2600.
For what it's worth, every city (Town) we go to that is also served by Delta there is a distinct difference in services. Right away when Delta (ASA) pulls up there is a ground power cart and Air Con. Not at US Air.
US Airways Management is not serious about fuel burn. We might be, they may shout words but there
actions show no effort.

 

[john john]

Nope - the fee for departure contracts have been that way all the time there have been fee for departure contracts at US.

Jim

ZW and RP negotiated favorable contacts because of their ability to give cash

 

[EastUS]

CO US? Never happen...there is NOTHING from US that CO wants or needs...plus current management would never be tolerated at CO...

I think they are just trying to set the unions up for tough negotiations and concessions, which I agree--you should not give.

Until they treat the employees properly, and realize that employees and customers are assets to be valued, not liabilities to be mistreated, there is no hope for this place.......

1) I doubt "current management" would be tolerated at even any halfway well run Burger King/etc.

2) "I think they are just trying to set the unions up..." Indeed sir. "nothing new to see here folks...move along" 🙄

3) Never happen. The only dim glimmer of hope I could possibly see, or even just imagine, is for complete "regime change".