Chautauqua Selected as a Continental Express Carrier - Page 4

cime_sp · April 22nd, 2006, 23:25

One benefit to the CRJ is that it's not quite so weight limited as earlier model ERJ's.....expecially on longer legs. I consistantly get booted off the ERJ commuting home on Chataqua but never used to have a problem when the flights were done by our CRJ's.....(roughly 2-2.5 hour flight). This becomes an even bigger problem when alternate fuel is required.

That being said, the ERJ will kick the 200's butt in climb performance. It is simply designed to fly higher (despite the published service ceilings).

WestIndian425 · April 23rd, 2006, 15:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

I'm not sure if you can put the words "performance", "climb" and "CRJ100/200" into the same sentence!

LOL! I rest my case.

Neil

Bog · April 24th, 2006, 19:12

Blah blah, what matters is block-to-block times. The CRJ will beat the ERJ (maybe not the XR) to the gate every time. Is it by much? Nope, maybe 30 seconds, maybe 3 minutes. If Bomba had made the CRJ-500, it would have outperformed the XR's numbers.

From an airline's viewpoint, it's better to get all 50 pax there, not leave a few behind. A few weeks ago, I had to deadhead on one of our ERJs from IAD to BNA. They couldn't take the full 50 people and passengers. There was no need for an alternate. I've flown that route many many times in the -200, and have never been weight-restricted, even with an alternate.

What really matters is how much money goes into your pocket. Who cares what's faster or has taller winglets.

OldTownPilot · April 24th, 2006, 19:42

As far as weight restrictions go, I have to agree the CRJ is much better than the non XR ERJs. The CRJ gets restricted when an alternate is required to CVG, and all the time to MSP. I have only been landing weight restricted once, that was when BOS had an alternate of MDT. The ERJ-ER is always restricted (ZFW), it is pretty much a 45 seat airplane. The LR is pretty good for 400-600 mile segments, beyond that it gets restrictions. I have never had an XR restricted, granted that was nly going to EWR. Of course the CRJ-700 is better than all of them performance wise.

[Anet] As far as a passegers go, I like the ERJ over the CRJ-100/200. The DL CRJs have old saging seats (way non-ergonomic), the lav is WAY too small, and the windows are WAY too low. The CRJ-700 and the ERJ are pretty much a wash.[/Anet]

Bog · April 26th, 2006, 17:21

I think I'd prefer a DC-9 or F100. Those would me my favorite RJs.

Dugie8 · April 26th, 2006, 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

The only time you should use the phrase "good looking" is when talking about the DC-8 stretch.

Then only the -70 series, long legs, and 4 big jugs!

I can't wait to get my hands on this one http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1017954/L/

Not a stretch, but she will climb like a homesick angle whos ass is on fire!

casey · April 26th, 2006, 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTownPilot

As far as weight restrictions go, I have to agree the CRJ is much better than the non XR ERJs. The CRJ gets restricted when an alternate is required to CVG, and all the time to MSP. I have only been landing weight restricted once, that was when BOS had an alternate of MDT. The ERJ-ER is always restricted (ZFW), it is pretty much a 45 seat airplane. The LR is pretty good for 400-600 mile segments, beyond that it gets restrictions. I have never had an XR restricted, granted that was nly going to EWR. Of course the CRJ-700 is better than all of them performance wise.

CHQ's people weigh a bit more than XJT's and i think thier gate checks are also heavier (for w&b purposes, not in actuality). Thier summer weights are more than our winter weights for example. While i do agree the ER's are limited quite a bit, all of XJT's have a SB that increases the ZFW and that helps out a bit. on the LR the restriction is almost always landing weight, so a longer leg (more burn) helps us get everyone on.

Doug Taylor · April 26th, 2006, 22:47

What's I'm talkin' 'bout, Dugie8!

You don't ever run into another -8 pilot there named Matt Macri, do ya?

Matt was the kind of guy you'd go bar hopping downtown with in Prescott knowing full well you had an 80% chance of being arrested!

Tokyo007 · April 26th, 2006, 22:53

woa that would make an interesting evening!

April 24th, 2006, 19:12	#78
Bog Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,170	Re: Chautauqua Selected as a Continental Express Carrier Blah blah, what matters is block-to-block times. The CRJ will beat the ERJ (maybe not the XR) to the gate every time. Is it by much? Nope, maybe 30 seconds, maybe 3 minutes. If Bomba had made the CRJ-500, it would have outperformed the XR's numbers. From an airline's viewpoint, it's better to get all 50 pax there, not leave a few behind. A few weeks ago, I had to deadhead on one of our ERJs from IAD to BNA. They couldn't take the full 50 people and passengers. There was no need for an alternate. I've flown that route many many times in the -200, and have never been weight-restricted, even with an alternate. What really matters is how much money goes into your pocket. Who cares what's faster or has taller winglets. __________________ "To be old and wise you must first be young and stupid." - Anon

April 24th, 2006, 19:42	#79
OldTownPilot Old Skool Join Date: May 2005 Location: BGR (Bangor, ME) Posts: 3,037 Blog Entries: 6	Re: Chautauqua Selected as a Continental Express Carrier As far as weight restrictions go, I have to agree the CRJ is much better than the non XR ERJs. The CRJ gets restricted when an alternate is required to CVG, and all the time to MSP. I have only been landing weight restricted once, that was when BOS had an alternate of MDT. The ERJ-ER is always restricted (ZFW), it is pretty much a 45 seat airplane. The LR is pretty good for 400-600 mile segments, beyond that it gets restrictions. I have never had an XR restricted, granted that was nly going to EWR. Of course the CRJ-700 is better than all of them performance wise. [Anet] As far as a passegers go, I like the ERJ over the CRJ-100/200. The DL CRJs have old saging seats (way non-ergonomic), the lav is WAY too small, and the windows are WAY too low. The CRJ-700 and the ERJ are pretty much a wash.[/Anet] __________________ As a wise man said, sumb!tch flew in, sumb!tch'll fly out. Ski Hard. Party Harder.

April 26th, 2006, 17:21	#80
Bog Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,170	Re: Chautauqua Selected as a Continental Express Carrier I think I'd prefer a DC-9 or F100. Those would me my favorite RJs. __________________ "To be old and wise you must first be young and stupid." - Anon

April 26th, 2006, 22:47	#83
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 41,223 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Chautauqua Selected as a Continental Express Carrier What's I'm talkin' 'bout, Dugie8! You don't ever run into another -8 pilot there named Matt Macri, do ya? Matt was the kind of guy you'd go bar hopping downtown with in Prescott knowing full well you had an 80% chance of being arrested! __________________ Doug Taylor http://76school.flyblog.com (old!) http://30west.flyblog.com (updated 11/28)

April 26th, 2006, 22:53	#84
Tokyo007 Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 262	Re: Chautauqua Selected as a Continental Express Carrier woa that would make an interesting evening!

April 22nd, 2006, 23:25	#76
cime_sp Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: ATL Posts: 782	One benefit to the CRJ is that it's not quite so weight limited as earlier model ERJ's.....expecially on longer legs. I consistantly get booted off the ERJ commuting home on Chataqua but never used to have a problem when the flights were done by our CRJ's.....(roughly 2-2.5 hour flight). This becomes an even bigger problem when alternate fuel is required. That being said, the ERJ will kick the 200's butt in climb performance. It is simply designed to fly higher (despite the published service ceilings).

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode