Skywest Questions

Cazadores said:
The 175 trips are even better at my base, for now. I just found the 700 in particular to be very well balanced, easy to trim out, plenty of power and a wing that is effortless at cruise, the 7/9 loves .77+.

I think they are decent airplanes, just not great for long rides in the back. I get why people hate them, throw me in 20D from XNA to SFO I'd wish for all sort of ill on you and yours. Jet was never meant for that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
That's because it's super critical... or something.
 
Cazadores said:
The 175 trips are even better at my base, for now. I just found the 700 in particular to be very well balanced, easy to trim out, plenty of power and a wing that is effortless at cruise, the 7/9 loves .77+.

I think they are decent airplanes, just not great for long rides in the back. I get why people hate them, throw me in 20D from XNA to SFO I'd wish for all sort of ill on you and yours. Jet was never meant for that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
yeah but you guys fly around at .65 all the time
 
ian said:
yeah but you guys fly around at .65 all the time
Click to expand...
They'd damn well better not be (at least with respect to the CR2/7/9), but that's another, angry story.

I never once cruised at anything under .72 in the E75. The flight plan TAS is/was for .74, even if "CSTID" appears in the cruise block, so if you want to be bang-on the fuel, that's the speed you need to be doing.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
They'd damn well better not be (at least with respect to the CR2/7/9), but that's another, angry story.

I never once cruised at anything under .72 in the E75. The flight plan TAS is/was for .74, even if "CSTID" appears in the cruise block, so if you want to be bang-on the fuel, that's the speed you need to be doing.
Click to expand...
i haven't been on the JS in a CRJ in a while but in the past month on the 175 jumpseat i've seen .69 and .70...both times atc made them speed up.
 
ian said:
i haven't been on the JS in a CRJ in a while but in the past month on the 175 jumpseat i've seen .69 and .70...both times atc made them speed up.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
They all do it, at least OO in the CRJ. They have to in order to "make money"
Click to expand...

Back in the day .74 was the minimum in the 7/9 at FL350 and above. Then they took that chart away and told us to go cost index. Most of us didn't go below .74 though. But I think of the stalls happened when we set it to .74 and looked down for awhile. To hold .74 requires lots of works and constant throttle...er...thrust lever jockeying. It's too much work and no matter what the jet tends to settle out right at .77.
 
ian said:
i haven't been on the JS in a CRJ in a while but in the past month on the 175 jumpseat i've seen .69 and .70...both times atc made them speed up.
Click to expand...
Rode in a skywest e-jet jumpseat not that long ago. We were doing between .70 and .72 for about three quarters of the flight. Finally the captain gets the release out, starts calculating some fuel crap then confidently states "I think we can go fast. So we speed up to .74! WHOA there, you cowboy.

I would have just face palmed and gone back to playing on my phone, but the captain briefed me I was to keep my phone put up since I am a crewmember when riding up front.

Good flight.
 
poser765 said:
Rode in a skywest e-jet jumpseat not that long ago. We were doing between .70 and .72 for about three quarters of the flight. Finally the captain gets the release out, starts calculating some fuel crap then confidently states "I think we can go fast. So we speed up to .74! WHOA there, you cowboy.
Click to expand...

Our max is .82, and fuel burn is always a consideration.

Glad you enjoyed the ride.

-Fox
 
poser765 said:
Rode in a skywest e-jet jumpseat not that long ago. We were doing between .70 and .72 for about three quarters of the flight. Finally the captain gets the release out, starts calculating some fuel crap then confidently states "I think we can go fast. So we speed up to .74! WHOA there, you cowboy.

I would have just face palmed and gone back to playing on my phone, but the captain briefed me I was to keep my phone put up since I am a crewmember when riding up front.

Good flight.
Click to expand...

Meh, .74 is the "profile" and works pretty dang well for fuel burn/schedule most of the time. 78 and above seems like a marginal trade off between burning a lot of extra gas and not really making all that much time up. Anything below 74 is kind of annoying but I'm an FO, it's ultimately not my ship unless we're heavy and it's bumpy, then you're getting a little "uhh, I'm not comfortable going this slow"
 
crfguy51 said:
Got to love that guys who sit up front, act all gracious, then go post about how terrible it was on the internet. #classy
Click to expand...
Well, if you want to go there I omitted the part where when I asked if I could ride up front the captain looked at the fo and rolled his eyes. Literally rolled his eyes.
 
crfguy51 said:
Did you say something to your jumpseat committee?
Click to expand...
Um, why would I do that? Homeboy didn't do anything wrong, and I got to work. I'm not going to make a formal complaint (or even an informal one) because someone wasn't as nice to me as I thought they should be. No. I think I would much rather autonomously mention it in passing on the internet.
 
Meanwhile at Compass we're planned at .80... works great until LAX slows you to 210 kts for metering. Or you hit light chop and get nervous and pull it back to .78.
 
We've all experienced some issue whatever it may be. Crying about it online, no matter how eye-roll worthy, is lame. Just my opinion.

I just sit there, interact as much or little as engaged, and pretend like I've been MiB'ed in regards to what I've witnessed as soon as that door opens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top