What routes do the Piedmont Dash 8 -100 currently operate? Really keen to get on one when I'm next in the USA which will be next summer

MLIAA wrote:

flightsimer wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

The AA E175 options are in fact for Envoy and Envoy alone. If anyone at American gets more E175s, it will be Envoy. And it only makes sense for those AA-owned 175s at CP to come back to Envoy when the contract ends. It has nothing to do with hard feelings between MQ and CP. It has to do with economics and staffing, and if CP cannot deliver on those, they will lose the flying. It's not personal, it's business.

"Back to Envoy." There has not been one flight flown by Enovy using one of the 20 airplanes flown by CP. Boeing 778X has stated that the contract with CP has not been renewed and that the planes are going to Envoy, yet has provided no, none, zero evidence of this. You're correct, is has nothing to do with feelings, but there is a reason those airplanes went to CP and it could certainly happen if they have the "economics and staffing."

Varsity1 wrote:

F27500 wrote:

I am curious about service to 2 cities in particular when Piedmont (finally) parks those old Dash 8s:

New Haven and Hilton Head.

There may be other cities, but due to runway length (and violently opposed airport area residents), these 2 cities are not candidates for RJs (even as small as the EMB145s) from what I understand.

Curious If these 2 will lose service altogether when the last Dash is gone?

I think the 140's can get out of HXD with opspec revisions (no TODRx1.25/75 margins). 4300ft at sea level shouldn't be too difficult for a light RJ.

Piedmont has said the E145's cannot operate out of HVN. The E140's are better off short fields and might work at HVN, but I doubt at HHH or HXD. HHH or HXD 4300 foot runway also has 300 foot displaced thresholds at both ends.The 145's are runway hogs, from ROA to PHL and LGA, only 40 seats are shown to be available.

MLIAA wrote:

Of course we are bragging about opening MIA. It's called recruiting. Don't consider RP a permanent fixture at MIA. The day may come when Envoy gets the 100th-odd E175 and we open a crew base in South Florida with it.

I have to agree here. A 76 seater aircraft, coupled with flexible scheduling (operating 3X, and 4X weekly to two separate destinations) could easily enrich yields (via furthering the connection opportunities at MIA). Considering AA's presence at MIA - it's not an illogical (and/or perhaps cost ineffective move medium term) to further capitalize upon MIA's base.
If the flying goes North; competent access to specific, some-what high yielding markets.
If the flying goes South; pick a few destinations that could essentially support more frequencies to MIA, or even, new markets to 'tip-toe' into. If capacity grows, up to an A319, or 737 - and move towards daily service. I would have previously argued that luggage allowances/cargo capacity would have been an issue here (especially when heading south of MIA); however most passenger are well accustomed to the almost decade-long era-of-baggage-fees, and these aircraft are also rather 'lightly' configured (compared to other non U.S. RJ operators of the same types).
So, all in all - the aircraft could provide a potent (and potentially high yielding) solution to enrichen MIA as a base. If for no other reason, AA has to consider; post-consolidation, how to capitalize at MIA (in the face of growth at FLL, and how that potentially affects them at MIA) - thus, by adding these 'light' aircraft, they essentially add the ability to quite apropos serve smaller communities, and transfer those to either AA long-haul (including their JVs, Alliance, and codeshare flying), and/or even perhaps onto the same aircraft serving a 'smaller' Caribbean, or U.S. city that AA never really had the aircraft to (or the L-US style 'testing the waters' frequency chutzpa) serve before. As is, AA's MIA marketshare is dramatically good, and once the true cost advantages of the merger become clearer; AA will still also have to answer some distinct questions about the hubs themselves. MIA's becomes; how do we capitalize further (and how do we, or perhaps even, is a response to WN's and B6's growth at FLL necessary, to safeguard yields to MIA, and/or South Florida as a whole, as a market).

Off topic, slightly - considering the broad smiles I see those AC pilots shine when they fly their EJets down to the Bahamas, or into LGA. If we can put the same smiles on a few more MIA based pilots, and grow an interest in flying (and, a skilled base of pilots to move up the ranks at MIA), then I am all for it. An entire generation of South Floridian pilots are ready and waiting to start at MIA, and if not them, I can imagine that it would be an attractive base to many hoping to 'start out'. Sure, rent is higher than your service ceiling, and humidity here will make you swim to work in the afternoons - but hey, the food, the music, the people, the culture, and hell - the flying; well worth it. If we can recruit pilots to willingly want that, and enjoy it - a well motivated work force meets a great aircraft (for the passenger, more comfortable that anything other in class - for the airline, decent costs and a decent test case for upping to mainline in future). Send me the link when the job is offered on line, I've got CFIs working on their 1500 hours, who are dreaming of that right now.

MLIAA wrote:

As for west-coast flying, I think the majors, at least DL and AA, would like another dominant, stable, economic carrier out west to compliment and compete with OO. Be that Compass or Mesa or Republic or a wholly-owned... whoever.

OK, so my thought was AA should (under whomever they see fit, be it Envoy, Republic, etc) at LAX. The case here is that with the loss of the broad code-share opportunities at AS, they would need to better serve the LAX base (and attempt to 'enrichen' that base) to pass that onto the competencies at LAX, and their Trans-Pacific services. Surely mainline can provide a decent way of taking care of quite a lot of that (and certainly in the medium term, with the construction projects planned at LAX - the growth will have to (perhaps awkwardly) come from here as resources on the ground will be pressured/squeezed by the project). However, once the project wraps up, AA could well advantage themselves of the issues with OO by opening a base there and essentially solving the problem for themselves (and if they choose to do so with a wholly owned operator, the bonus to them being, they solve that issue for themselves - and shaft UA/DL to fight it out with OO). So, medium-long term, if AA can design a decent RJ hub/solution at LAX it would perhaps best advantage AA on the West Coast. As is, consider the effect of AA's LAX-SFO operation; All EJets.

All that said, I default to PHX here, and wonder if it is high-yielding enough to support the need of a 'fattened' O/D and connection opportunities.

General Question;

Can someone explain the costs (relative to mainline operations) of the use of 'large RJs', at American Eagle?

What are the best missions for these aircraft? Where are the best used? What are the ideal audiences?

Varsity1 wrote:

F27500 wrote:

I am curious about service to 2 cities in particular when Piedmont (finally) parks those old Dash 8s:

New Haven and Hilton Head.

There may be other cities, but due to runway length (and violently opposed airport area residents), these 2 cities are not candidates for RJs (even as small as the EMB145s) from what I understand.

Curious If these 2 will lose service altogether when the last Dash is gone?

I think the 140's can get out of HXD with opspec revisions (no TODRx1.25/75 margins). 4300ft at sea level shouldn't be too difficult for a light RJ.

KHXD/HHH is currently undergoing a runway expansion project to 5000 ft. So that should open up to E-140/145's being able to be flown into there.

http://savannahnow.com/news/2017-03-15/hilton-head-airport-expand-runway

redwingspilot wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

F27500 wrote:

I am curious about service to 2 cities in particular when Piedmont (finally) parks those old Dash 8s:

New Haven and Hilton Head.

There may be other cities, but due to runway length (and violently opposed airport area residents), these 2 cities are not candidates for RJs (even as small as the EMB145s) from what I understand.

Curious If these 2 will lose service altogether when the last Dash is gone?

I think the 140's can get out of HXD with opspec revisions (no TODRx1.25/75 margins). 4300ft at sea level shouldn't be too difficult for a light RJ.

KHXD/HHH is currently undergoing a runway expansion project to 5000 ft. So that should open up to E-140/145's being able to be flown into there.

http://savannahnow.com/news/2017-03-15/hilton-head-airport-expand-runway

I believe the plan at HHH-HXD is to extend the runway in two stages, first to 5000 feet and then to 5400 feet. 5400 feet might work, but 5000 would probably have weight restrictions. DL might return with service to ATL.
Regarding HVN, the judge is to issue a ruling soon on whether the state can prevent HVN from extending its runway by paving the overruns, 1000 feet at one end and 400 or 500 feet at the other end of runway 2-20. The states opposition seems to be about protecting BDL numbers as BDL is a state run airport. Years back HVN had yearly boarding's well over 100K and with the runway as planned coming to fruition, it should surpass those numbers easily. I look forward to HVN being able to offer service that is so lacking for the greater New Haven area.The first new service will probably be HVN-CLT on AA.

Rajahdhani wrote:

All that said, I default to PHX here, and wonder if it is high-yielding enough to support the need of a 'fattened' O/D and connection opportunities.

Based purely on fares and average loads without doing any full blown math, AA does quite well yield wise on the regional side in PHX despite the lower yielding nature of PHX as a whole. PHX's biggest limitation is gate space in peak times as well as aircraft availability (currently, any added aircraft would require pulling from DFW or ORD).

Rajahdhani wrote:

What are the best missions for these aircraft? Where are the best used? What are the ideal audiences?

The best mission is really all over the board. For the 175s, the audience doesn't notice much of a difference when compared with Mainline, however, they do poorly in PHX, DEN, TUS, ELP, etc. where WX factors into the performance. For the 900s, as much as everyone hates the headroom, the best missions are for 2.5 hour runs and out of markets where performance is needed. Currently out West, the 700 is the launch aircraft of choice for 90% of routes, versus back East you typically get CR2/E145s.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

flightsimer wrote:

lol, you guys and your Koolaide.

Compass' contract is not up yet and supposedly has extensions available. Secondly, if they are not extended, you have no clue on whether or not you will get that flying. All three majors have come to Republic asking us to open a west coast base and our company will not do it without a 3 year contract to start. I have also heard a rumor saying Delta wants us to replace Compass out of SEA. AAG's options for E175 are not for just Envoy, they are for Eagle. They will place them wherever they see fit to do so.

Your bragging about opening up MIA again, but you will only ever have 145's there, so if your heading to an all E175 fleet, expect MIA to once again close.

You yourself don't work for any AAG airline, so how could you even say that with confidence?

The 20x Compass E175s belong to AAG, and when they are brought back, who's going to operate them? Piedmont? PSA? Republic?

Secondly, who could possibly be awarded the additional E175s other than Envoy? (P.S. Envoy technically is Eagle. Watch out)

Thirdly, you're not paying attention. The 145s are slowly being transferred. By the end of next year, we'll only have a few dozen, and most of the E140s are staying up North. MIA will eventually host MQ E175s, and I wonder why you think we'd close MIA.

Lastly, Koolaid? Come on, don't go there.

I don't work for any AAG related carrier, I just can't stand people salivating over other professionals not having a job to support themselves and their families with. Its all too rampant with 2 pilot groups at the regional level. The AAG owned regionals and OO, they salivate over putting other professionals out of business.

I think that's the reason these companies exist. It's all about low-balling and taking business away from your competitor, only to lose the work later after someone else under bids you. The mainline airlines love this game.

9252fly wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

You yourself don't work for any AAG airline, so how could you even say that with confidence?

The 20x Compass E175s belong to AAG, and when they are brought back, who's going to operate them? Piedmont? PSA? Republic?

Secondly, who could possibly be awarded the additional E175s other than Envoy? (P.S. Envoy technically is Eagle. Watch out)

Thirdly, you're not paying attention. The 145s are slowly being transferred. By the end of next year, we'll only have a few dozen, and most of the E140s are staying up North. MIA will eventually host MQ E175s, and I wonder why you think we'd close MIA.

Lastly, Koolaid? Come on, don't go there.

I don't work for any AAG related carrier, I just can't stand people salivating over other professionals not having a job to support themselves and their families with. Its all too rampant with 2 pilot groups at the regional level. The AAG owned regionals and OO, they salivate over putting other professionals out of business.

I think that's the reason these companies exist. It's all about low-balling and taking business away from your competitor, only to lose the work later after someone else under bids you. The mainline airlines love this game.

That's right. The regional business can be very tough, just ask anyone at Comair or Colgan... or even current players that have been to Hell and back, like Envoy and Republic for example. This business is evolving quickly, and I hate to say it, but we may be losing some more regionals in the coming years.

MLIAA wrote:

9252fly wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

I don't work for any AAG related carrier, I just can't stand people salivating over other professionals not having a job to support themselves and their families with. Its all too rampant with 2 pilot groups at the regional level. The AAG owned regionals and OO, they salivate over putting other professionals out of business.

I think that's the reason these companies exist. It's all about low-balling and taking business away from your competitor, only to lose the work later after someone else under bids you. The mainline airlines love this game.

That's right. The regional business can be very tough, just ask anyone at Comair or Colgan... or even current players that have been to Hell and back, like Envoy and Republic for example. This business is evolving quickly, and I hate to say it, but we may be losing some more regionals in the coming years.

Comair yes, they're gone. Colgan, while gone in name, many people there still work for the company it turned into. I agree, regional consolidation is coming quickly. My prediction is L-ASA goes quickly (as does XJT, but not quite as quickly), as does the entirety of TSH (TSA, GoJet and Compass), as well as maybe Mesa.

[quote="alasizon"][quote="Varsity1"]All of the 200s are temporary lift for ORD, at some point they will be replaced by PSA 700s/Envoy 175s.[quote]
Does that mean that MKE-ORD will eventually go 700s/175s?..... Please?

alasizon wrote:

Based purely on fares and average loads without doing any full blown math, AA does quite well yield wise on the regional side in PHX despite the lower yielding nature of PHX as a whole. PHX's biggest limitation is gate space in peak times as well as aircraft availability (currently, any added aircraft would require pulling from DFW or ORD).

Ok, and thank you for correcting some of the fallacies that I previously though. I always knew that there was value to PHX, and thank you for accurately clarifying the strengths and weaknesses so well. What do you think the medium-long term will hold for PHX? More international expansions? More regional? A new terminal?

alasizon wrote:

The best mission is really all over the board. For the 175s, the audience doesn't notice much of a difference when compared with Mainline, however, they do poorly in PHX, DEN, TUS, ELP, etc. where WX factors into the performance. For the 900s, as much as everyone hates the headroom, the best missions are for 2.5 hour runs and out of markets where performance is needed. Currently out West, the 700 is the launch aircraft of choice for 90% of routes, versus back East you typically get CR2/E145s.

WOW! Mind blown. Thank you for this! I think that this adds a dimension (an almost topographical nature) to the discussion that is amazing. Bravo!

DiamondFlyer wrote:

MLIAA wrote:

9252fly wrote:

I think that's the reason these companies exist. It's all about low-balling and taking business away from your competitor, only to lose the work later after someone else under bids you. The mainline airlines love this game.

That's right. The regional business can be very tough, just ask anyone at Comair or Colgan... or even current players that have been to Hell and back, like Envoy and Republic for example. This business is evolving quickly, and I hate to say it, but we may be losing some more regionals in the coming years.

Comair yes, they're gone. Colgan, while gone in name, many people there still work for the company it turned into. I agree, regional consolidation is coming quickly. My prediction is L-ASA goes quickly (as does XJT, but not quite as quickly), as does the entirety of TSH (TSA, GoJet and Compass), as well as maybe Mesa.

Mesa is on super thin ice. They are frequently the topic of jokes and criticism from many at Envoy, myself included. Their operations are sub-optimal with mediocre product and services, to put it lightly. Unfortunately, I must D2 on them a lot. If Parker was not CEO, I cannot say, with confidence, that Mesa would be with AAG.

I already think they will be sent away come a new eventual CEO. The reason AAG awards new aircraft and routes to MQ is because of our performance, and if we reopen LAX, which I think is a good possibility, and it's a E75E base, that will make Mesa all the more redundant, especially at DFW.

Compass will likely go 100% Delta.

Trans States...What a joke of an airline themselves. E145s have been returned to AA as mechanical wrecks.

will there be more ER175's at ORD? Seems like they do a lot of 50 seat flying out of there where they could bump some flights up. Will ORD ever see CR9's?

Boeing778X wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

MLIAA wrote:

That's right. The regional business can be very tough, just ask anyone at Comair or Colgan... or even current players that have been to Hell and back, like Envoy and Republic for example. This business is evolving quickly, and I hate to say it, but we may be losing some more regionals in the coming years.

Comair yes, they're gone. Colgan, while gone in name, many people there still work for the company it turned into. I agree, regional consolidation is coming quickly. My prediction is L-ASA goes quickly (as does XJT, but not quite as quickly), as does the entirety of TSH (TSA, GoJet and Compass), as well as maybe Mesa.

Mesa is on super thin ice. They are frequently the topic of jokes and criticism from many at Envoy, myself included. Their operations are sub-optimal with mediocre product and services, to put it lightly. Unfortunately, I must D2 on them a lot. If Parker was not CEO, I cannot say, with confidence, that Mesa would be with AAG.

I already think they will be sent away come a new eventual CEO. The reason AAG awards new aircraft and routes to MQ is because of our performance, and if we reopen LAX, which I think is a good possibility, and it's a E75E base, that will make Mesa all the more redundant, especially at DFW.

Compass will likely go 100% Delta.

Trans States...What a joke of an airline themselves. E145s have been returned to AA as mechanical wrecks.

That's a whole lotta Envoy propaganda right there. Instead of wishing for the demise of other individuals jobs, how about you just be happy and conetent with what you have?

For everyone else- take this drivel with a grain of salt. The lowest bidders will stay, because that's what this industry is about, sadly.

flight152 wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Comair yes, they're gone. Colgan, while gone in name, many people there still work for the company it turned into. I agree, regional consolidation is coming quickly. My prediction is L-ASA goes quickly (as does XJT, but not quite as quickly), as does the entirety of TSH (TSA, GoJet and Compass), as well as maybe Mesa.

Mesa is on super thin ice. They are frequently the topic of jokes and criticism from many at Envoy, myself included. Their operations are sub-optimal with mediocre product and services, to put it lightly. Unfortunately, I must D2 on them a lot. If Parker was not CEO, I cannot say, with confidence, that Mesa would be with AAG.

I already think they will be sent away come a new eventual CEO. The reason AAG awards new aircraft and routes to MQ is because of our performance, and if we reopen LAX, which I think is a good possibility, and it's a E75E base, that will make Mesa all the more redundant, especially at DFW.

Compass will likely go 100% Delta.

Trans States...What a joke of an airline themselves. E145s have been returned to AA as mechanical wrecks.

That's a whole lotta Envoy propaganda right there. Instead of wishing for the demise of other individuals jobs, how about you just be happy and conetent with what you have?

For everyone else- take this drivel with a grain of salt. The lowest bidders will stay, because that's what this industry is about, sadly.

Ridiculous. What would I have to gain for "wishing" for the demise of jobs? It seems silly to assume that.

But you are correct in me being happy. I work for one of the best, if not, the best Regional out there. And your poor view of the industry, while understandable, is proof that you have not been watching.

Boeing778X wrote:

Mesa is on super thin ice. They are frequently the topic of jokes and criticism from many at Envoy, myself included. Their operations are sub-optimal with mediocre product and services, to put it lightly. Unfortunately, I must D2 on them a lot. If Parker was not CEO, I cannot say, with confidence, that Mesa would be with AAG.

This was very true - Mesa was the butt of jokes all around AAG, but recently they have dramatically improved their numbers and gotten their operation in line. Today, I don't think that they are any different from any other regional carrier that provides lift for the majors. Their numbers are no worse than Skywest or Republic for AA.

Envoy is well positioned to receive additional 175 flying, but that is dependent solely on their ability to attract new pilots. The new recruiting strategy at regionals is guaranteed job placement at a mainline carrier. Envoy arguably has the best flow through agreements of any regional, but the flip side of the coin is that you still have to attract enough qualified pilots each month to offset the number who leave. Right now you can upgrade to captain at Envoy in a matter of months. Nobody is staying, not here or at any other regional, because ATP-qualified pilots are so in demand. If Envoy can reliably staff the 175s, ERJs, and remaining CRJ-700s, more large regional jets will be here soon.

-

Here in MHK we are now getting the ExpressJet CRJ-700s. These are very nicely configured 65-seat birds that got complete new interiors when they were taken out of DL connection service in the last few months. These are the same ex-Horizon jets that were among the first off the BBD assembly line for the 700s. The ExpressJet crews are great but they are all worried about what's going on at their company. Hopefully they can reach an agreement with OO, Inc. and their union.

I think a lot of the animosity toward Mesa from Envoy came as soon as Mesa shifted the flying from CLT to DFW, which took a lot of flying from Envoy on (then) sub-par CRJ-900s with old, worn out interiors, dismal OTP, and lower pay. This was in the midst of the dark days at Envoy, and the feelings stuck. Since then, Mesa has updated the interiors of their aircraft, raised their pay and vastly improved their performance. I look forward to each and every Mesa flight I'm on- new interiors, friendly crew, and usually pretty good service.

The same thing is happening at ORD right now between SkyWest and Envoy. OO is the butt of each joke of ORD Envoy crews. Tons of flying has gone to SkyWest with worn-out old CRJ-200s and their OTP at ORD has been flat out bad. I suspect it will get better like DFW Mesa did.

why has OO taken so much MQ flying at ORD?

aaflyer222 wrote:

why has OO taken so much MQ flying at ORD?

Mainly in order for MQ to shift several of its ERJs to LGA, as well as to send them to PDT.

Amazing, less than a week ago I said the L-ASA would basically be gone, and here it comes. Sure, they're bailed out with 20 CR7's total for AA (up from 12) but my guess is that's short term, prior to being moved to OO.

Boeing778X wrote:

Ridiculous. What would I have to gain for "wishing" for the demise of jobs? It seems silly to assume that.

But you are correct in me being happy. I work for one of the best, if not, the best Regional out there. And your poor view of the industry, while understandable, is proof that you have not been watching.

Not for nothing but not to long ago Envoy was the butt of many jokes because of their 17 year contract and decade long upgrade times. So be proud but not cocky because as we've seen time and time again in the regional world is that the shiny gold plated future that is planned out eventually turns dull

Varsity1 wrote:

I think the 140's can get out of HXD with opspec revisions (no TODRx1.25/75 margins). 4300ft at sea level shouldn't be too difficult for a light RJ.

Unfortunately it is not that easy. These RJ's lack slats, meaning their takeoff and one-engine out scenarios spec means they need a long runway. Add enroute weather fuel, and that 140 isn't going anywhere without at leat 6,000 ft of pavement.

I've managed W&B for the 140,145, and CRJ. Recently we started getting the CR7 here. It is SO much nicer to not have to constantly worry about weight and balance. MHK has a 7,000 ft runway - anytime it snows, or there is enroute or destination weather, or you have 50 pax, you are ALWAYS worrying about weight..

On a 4,000 ft runway, you can forget it. That kind of runway need a prop, or an airplane with slats. Bottom line.

Envoy is moving 20 x E175 to ORD and American just bought another 10 x E175 for placement at Envoy, brining their total to 54 when delivered.

With Eagle in the process of down-gauging all their CR7s to 65 seats, it should lift the lid off their large RJ scope and could allow Envoy to take delivery of the remaining 76 x AA E175 options as well as the “Compass 20” and re-open an LAX base for a better hard product of 150 x E175 all around the system. This can give the AA WOs a flexible fleet of Envoy 150 x E175, PSA 150 x CR9, CR7 & CR2 (for now) and Piedmont E145 x all owned by AA out there in the system.

The compas 20 already count against AA scope, they could be shuffled around AE with or without the reduction in “large RJs”

EVs future with AAG was mentioned earlier but I think most recently it was announced that they are picking up some additional -700 flying for AAG.

Last I saw, EV will be operating 20xCR7 for Eagle, primarily in the Northeast.

jgcotter wrote:

Last I saw, EV will be operating 20xCR7 for Eagle, primarily in the Northeast.

Any source for this? I was under the impression the 20 CR7s would be transferred to the OO certificate rather than being on the EV certificate.

OK, found it:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/expressj ... 00866.html

* Related to above, agreed with AA for placement of an additional 8 CRJ700s during 2Q18. EV goes from flying 28 CR9s and 33 CR7s for Delta, with 12 AA CR7s, to a total of 20 CR7s for AA.

It would make sense to have them on the OO certificate.

jgcotter wrote:

OK, found it:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/expressj ... 00866.html

* Related to above, agreed with AA for placement of an additional 8 CRJ700s during 2Q18. EV goes from flying 28 CR9s and 33 CR7s for Delta, with 12 AA CR7s, to a total of 20 CR7s for AA.

My understanding is all 20 of those are staying in DFW (12 were already there). There are a remaining 22 CR7s coming from DL don't have homes yet and those were the ones I heard were going to OO to be operated for AA (ORD & PHX)

mhkansan wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

I think the 140's can get out of HXD with opspec revisions (no TODRx1.25/75 margins). 4300ft at sea level shouldn't be too difficult for a light RJ.

Unfortunately it is not that easy. These RJ's lack slats, meaning their takeoff and one-engine out scenarios spec means they need a long runway. Add enroute weather fuel, and that 140 isn't going anywhere without at leat 6,000 ft of pavement.

I've managed W&B for the 140,145, and CRJ. Recently we started getting the CR7 here. It is SO much nicer to not have to constantly worry about weight and balance. MHK has a 7,000 ft runway - anytime it snows, or there is enroute or destination weather, or you have 50 pax, you are ALWAYS worrying about weight..

On a 4,000 ft runway, you can forget it. That kind of runway need a prop, or an airplane with slats. Bottom line.

There was a whole thread on HHH not too long ago. Basically the consensus was that when the runway gets to 5000 ft the CR7 could operate there given the slats issue you note above. The benefit is that ATL & CLT are so close, not a lot of weight is spared on fuel. With that said, there was even some talk of if a 73G could make the ATL run since they make it from Key West.

jgcotter wrote:

It would make sense to have them on the OO certificate.

Which is likely to happen. The EV CR7 contract is only through 2018, IIRC, then they'll probably move it over to OO, in order to expedite winding down EV.

Any plans for the 175 to be based in SJU for deep Carib rotations in conjunction with MIA Flying?

xdlx wrote:

Any plans for the 175 to be based in SJU for deep Carib rotations in conjunction with MIA Flying?

I highly doubt that flying will ever come back.

mhkansan wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

I think the 140's can get out of HXD with opspec revisions (no TODRx1.25/75 margins). 4300ft at sea level shouldn't be too difficult for a light RJ.

Unfortunately it is not that easy. These RJ's lack slats, meaning their takeoff and one-engine out scenarios spec means they need a long runway. Add enroute weather fuel, and that 140 isn't going anywhere without at leat 6,000 ft of pavement.

I've managed W&B for the 140,145, and CRJ. Recently we started getting the CR7 here. It is SO much nicer to not have to constantly worry about weight and balance. MHK has a 7,000 ft runway - anytime it snows, or there is enroute or destination weather, or you have 50 pax, you are ALWAYS worrying about weight..

On a 4,000 ft runway, you can forget it. That kind of runway need a prop, or an airplane with slats. Bottom line.

That’s not necessarily true. On the 145 I’ve used 8 at PHL (5,000’) and 33/15 (5200’) DCA for departure with a full load and have had no issue. Full thrust and a higher flaps setting should allow for it as long as there isn’t a close in obstacle or a ton of fuel.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

jgcotter wrote:

It would make sense to have them on the OO certificate.

Which is likely to happen. The EV CR7 contract is only through 2018, IIRC, then they'll probably move it over to OO, in order to expedite winding down EV.

Except for 100+ ERJs in the United system contracted through 2022.

flight152 wrote:

mhkansan wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

I think the 140's can get out of HXD with opspec revisions (no TODRx1.25/75 margins). 4300ft at sea level shouldn't be too difficult for a light RJ.

Unfortunately it is not that easy. These RJ's lack slats, meaning their takeoff and one-engine out scenarios spec means they need a long runway. Add enroute weather fuel, and that 140 isn't going anywhere without at leat 6,000 ft of pavement.

I've managed W&B for the 140,145, and CRJ. Recently we started getting the CR7 here. It is SO much nicer to not have to constantly worry about weight and balance. MHK has a 7,000 ft runway - anytime it snows, or there is enroute or destination weather, or you have 50 pax, you are ALWAYS worrying about weight..

On a 4,000 ft runway, you can forget it. That kind of runway need a prop, or an airplane with slats. Bottom line.

That’s not necessarily true. On the 145 I’ve used 8 at PHL (5,000’) and 33/15 (5200’) DCA for departure with a full load and have had no issue. Full thrust and a higher flaps setting should allow for it as long as there isn’t a close in obstacle or a ton of fuel.

I second that!

On several occasions, I've worked E145s with full loads out of MHK and TYR, and on one occasion, RWY 13/31 at Tyler. The E145 has exceptional short field performance, and the E140 is only better at it.

Boeing778X wrote:

On several occasions, I've worked E145s with full loads out of MHK and TYR, and on one occasion, RWY 13/31 at Tyler. The E145 has exceptional short field performance, and the E140 is only better at it.

Oh, I don't doubt it. We send full 145s out of MHK all the time, often with lots of cargo and a jumpseater. However, in the winter, with the engine anti icing system on, and a spot of weather at your hub, its gonna be restricted. I'm just saying, coping with those restrictions on our 7,000 foot runway is a pain. I would hate to do that in LGA or HHH / HXD. If Runway 4 is used in LGA, for example, the 140s are often limited to 30 or so passengers. It gets really bad with the ERJ, and an airplane with slower takeoff speeds and better performance like a CRJ-700, or a prop, solves those issues.

The 140 is actually landing weight restricted when it gets that bad. You can take maybe 6 or 7,000 lbs of fuel and a full load.

Boeing778X wrote:

flight152 wrote:

mhkansan wrote:

Unfortunately it is not that easy. These RJ's lack slats, meaning their takeoff and one-engine out scenarios spec means they need a long runway. Add enroute weather fuel, and that 140 isn't going anywhere without at leat 6,000 ft of pavement.

I've managed W&B for the 140,145, and CRJ. Recently we started getting the CR7 here. It is SO much nicer to not have to constantly worry about weight and balance. MHK has a 7,000 ft runway - anytime it snows, or there is enroute or destination weather, or you have 50 pax, you are ALWAYS worrying about weight..

On a 4,000 ft runway, you can forget it. That kind of runway need a prop, or an airplane with slats. Bottom line.

That’s not necessarily true. On the 145 I’ve used 8 at PHL (5,000’) and 33/15 (5200’) DCA for departure with a full load and have had no issue. Full thrust and a higher flaps setting should allow for it as long as there isn’t a close in obstacle or a ton of fuel.

I second that!

On several occasions, I've worked E145s with full loads out of MHK and TYR, and on one occasion, RWY 13/31 at Tyler. The E145 has exceptional short field performance, and the E140 is only better at it.

Quote "The E145 has exceptional short field performance". Piedmont could not operate the E145 from HVN to PHL which has a 5600 foot runway, so PSA will be using CRJ-200's at HVN. I don't see where the E145 is good off short runways, the E140 may be a different story. The CRJ-700 is the best among smaller RJ's off short runways but at HHH with 4300 feet and 300 foot displaced thresholds at both ends, airlines will have to wait for the 5000 runway. It was mentioned in the media a few years ago the plan was to extend the runway to 5000 feet and then the second phase to 5400 feet. Have not heard any news on the second phase.

mhkansan wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

On several occasions, I've worked E145s with full loads out of MHK and TYR, and on one occasion, RWY 13/31 at Tyler. The E145 has exceptional short field performance, and the E140 is only better at it.

Oh, I don't doubt it. We send full 145s out of MHK all the time, often with lots of cargo and a jumpseater. However, in the winter, with the engine anti icing system on, and a spot of weather at your hub, its gonna be restricted. I'm just saying, coping with those restrictions on our 7,000 foot runway is a pain. I would hate to do that in LGA or HHH / HXD. If Runway 4 is used in LGA, for example, the 140s are often limited to 30 or so passengers. It gets really bad with the ERJ, and an airplane with slower takeoff speeds and better performance like a CRJ-700, or a prop, solves those issues.

The 140 is actually landing weight restricted when it gets that bad. You can take maybe 6 or 7,000 lbs of fuel and a full load.

Side note, the Bluemont Hotel is a crew favorite! Love that place

On several instances, we’ve left with about that much fuel from smaller airports. 7000lbs doesn’t really leave much room for much diversion, but DFW is only an hour fifteen away.

Wasn’t Expressjet doing MHK with the CRJ-700, or has it gone back to Envoy?

MO11 wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

jgcotter wrote:

It would make sense to have them on the OO certificate.

Which is likely to happen. The EV CR7 contract is only through 2018, IIRC, then they'll probably move it over to OO, in order to expedite winding down EV.

Except for 100+ ERJs in the United system contracted through 2022.

You mean the 100 ERJ's that EV can't staff? The ones that INC management has said a fleet of less than 100 isn't a profitable situation? Yeah, I don't see EV lasting until 2020, let alone 2022.

Will there be a time when CLT will put more 737-8 based there? When im on Flight aware looking at traffic out of ILM, I only see a mass of CR9's and some A319/320's which we see 3 a day. I'd love to see 737-800's fly to ILM/MYR on peak times.

cheapgreek wrote:

Quote "The E145 has exceptional short field performance". Piedmont could not operate the E145 from HVN to PHL which has a 5600 foot runway, so PSA will be using CRJ-200's at HVN. I don't see where the E145 is good off short runways, the E140 may be a different story.

Which E145? There were a series of PIPs that improved runway performance (airframe and engine PIPs). The winglets helped as did an engine thrust improvement PIP. The AE 3007 engine has quite a bit of thrust variation among ERJ145 models. Last I looked, there were 8 variants running on the ERJ 145. In particular the AE3007A1E has much better hot/high performance than the other variants. Is the A2 only for the business jets? I believe so, but I do not know if it was offered as a retrofit.

So what was Piedmont operating? Which MTOW?

I know Continental insisted on improvements before buying. What version did Piedmont buy?

Lightsaber

[/quote]That's a whole lotta Envoy propaganda right there. Instead of wishing for the demise of other individuals jobs, how about you just be happy and conetent with what you have?

For everyone else- take this drivel with a grain of salt. The lowest bidders will stay, because that's what this industry is about, sadly.[/quote]

Seeing as Envoy is the real and true American Eagle, their pilots have every reason to be pissed off about Compass having those airplanes. Compass only got them because AAG was trying to teach the MQ pilot group a lesson. At one point the MQ pilot group was 3,000 strong and was the only feeder for AA. Via bankruptcy other wholly owned carriers have joined the fray, but it is not a selfish thing for Envoy pilots to want the planes that should have been theirs but aren't due to a screw job back. In an ideal world, AA would only use Envoy, Piedmont, PSA, and Republic (because they are 25% owned by AAG), and I believe Trans States will be the next carrier to exit the AAG regional family. Why pay others to fly your flights when you can "pay" your wholly owned companies and keep all of the money?

lightsaber wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

Quote "The E145 has exceptional short field performance". Piedmont could not operate the E145 from HVN to PHL which has a 5600 foot runway, so PSA will be using CRJ-200's at HVN. I don't see where the E145 is good off short runways, the E140 may be a different story.

Which E145? There were a series of PIPs that improved runway performance (airframe and engine PIPs). The winglets helped as did an engine thrust improvement PIP. The AE 3007 engine has quite a bit of thrust variation among ERJ145 models. Last I looked, there were 8 variants running on the ERJ 145. In particular the AE3007A1E has much better hot/high performance than the other variants. Is the A2 only for the business jets? I believe so, but I do not know if it was offered as a retrofit.

So what was Piedmont operating? Which MTOW?

I know Continental insisted on improvements before buying. What version did Piedmont buy?

Lightsaber

Piedmont did not buy the E145's, but AA pulled them from Envoy and some that were parked and transferred them to Piedmont. What ever model they have, the CRJ-200 can operate from HVN while the E145 cannot.The HVN-PHL route is about 200 miles so it does not speak well of the E145. Piedmont also said they could not operate the E145 out of SBY and its 6400 foot runway. Again I don't know what version Piedmont has, but any RJ should be able to operate off a 5600 or 6400 foot runway.

cheapgreek wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

Quote "The E145 has exceptional short field performance". Piedmont could not operate the E145 from HVN to PHL which has a 5600 foot runway, so PSA will be using CRJ-200's at HVN. I don't see where the E145 is good off short runways, the E140 may be a different story.

Which E145? There were a series of PIPs that improved runway performance (airframe and engine PIPs). The winglets helped as did an engine thrust improvement PIP. The AE 3007 engine has quite a bit of thrust variation among ERJ145 models. Last I looked, there were 8 variants running on the ERJ 145. In particular the AE3007A1E has much better hot/high performance than the other variants. Is the A2 only for the business jets? I believe so, but I do not know if it was offered as a retrofit.

So what was Piedmont operating? Which MTOW?

I know Continental insisted on improvements before buying. What version did Piedmont buy?

Lightsaber

Piedmont did not buy the E145's, but AA pulled them from Envoy and some that were parked and transferred them to Piedmont. What ever model they have, the CRJ-200 can operate from HVN while the E145 cannot.The HVN-PHL route is about 200 miles so it does not speak well of the E145. Piedmont also said they could not operate the E145 out of SBY and its 6400 foot runway. Again I don't know what version Piedmont has, but any RJ should be able to operate off a 5600 or 6400 foot runway.

The 145 should be able to do a flaps 22 takeoff on a 5600 foot runway. Hell, we do flaps 9 out of DBQ and that’s 6500 feet. When TYR was using the short runway we were flying out of there as well.

cheapgreek wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

Quote "The E145 has exceptional short field performance". Piedmont could not operate the E145 from HVN to PHL which has a 5600 foot runway, so PSA will be using CRJ-200's at HVN. I don't see where the E145 is good off short runways, the E140 may be a different story.

Which E145? There were a series of PIPs that improved runway performance (airframe and engine PIPs). The winglets helped as did an engine thrust improvement PIP. The AE 3007 engine has quite a bit of thrust variation among ERJ145 models. Last I looked, there were 8 variants running on the ERJ 145. In particular the AE3007A1E has much better hot/high performance than the other variants. Is the A2 only for the business jets? I believe so, but I do not know if it was offered as a retrofit.

So what was Piedmont operating? Which MTOW?

I know Continental insisted on improvements before buying. What version did Piedmont buy?

Lightsaber

Piedmont did not buy the E145's, but AA pulled them from Envoy and some that were parked and transferred them to Piedmont. What ever model they have, the CRJ-200 can operate from HVN while the E145 cannot.The HVN-PHL route is about 200 miles so it does not speak well of the E145. Piedmont also said they could not operate the E145 out of SBY and its 6400 foot runway. Again I don't know what version Piedmont has, but any RJ should be able to operate off a 5600 or 6400 foot runway.

Perhaps it’s a NIMBY thing?