Chautauqua Selected as a Continental Express Carrier

buffalopilot said:
CHQ taking these 69 aircraft, what exactly does that mean?
Click to expand...
Chautauqua, a subsidiary of Republic Airways Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: RJET - News), will operate any aircraft returned by ExpressJet as a second Continental Express carrier at each of Continental's domestic hubs -- Newark Liberty, Houston and Cleveland. Continental Airlines will continue to schedule and market all its regional jet service as it does today.
Click to expand...
Sorry to repost that buffalopilot... but that is really what it means...

They are not "taking" any aircraft that XJT doesn't want them to take. In other words... If XJT says "fine... we give up... take all 69 aircraft." then Yes, CHQ will take them. If XJT says "we're just gonna take the XR's... buh bye..." then that means that CHQ would gete 25 LR's. If however, XJT finds flying for all 69 ERJ's then CHQ won't get any of the aircraft. They will have to come up with their own 50 seat RJ's (Due to CAL's Scope) that are capable of long haul routes (IAH-BOI,YYZ,RDU,RIC,ONT,LAX, etc...) with full fuel (enough for an alternate) and full bags... That could be tricky.

So basically, the ball's in XJT's court right now. They don't have to make their intentions known until September. We'll see how it goes.

Bob
 
Continental owns the aircraft but XJT has the right to keep them but pay a slightly higher rate to use them then they are now.
 
Actually some bank owns the planes, Wells Fargo, Chase or somesuch institution. Continental leases the a/c from the bank and we sublease them from CO.

As previously stated, XJT has first rights to the a/c at slightly higher rates. If they choose to excercise the rights and fly them for another carrier then the rates will need to be at or above what CO is paying under the current CPA--there's a "most favored nation" clause in the current contract which allows CO to lower XJTs rates if they fly for another carrier for less. That makes me think that it is unlikely that XJT will pick up 145 flying at another airline.

There have been rumors about XJT Europe, however, if that pans out, it's unlikely that any crew would follow those a/c across the pond unless they have JAA certs.

There have also been rumors about flying corporate, charter and cargo flights, how likely this is to happen is anyone's guess. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
 
Are these ERJs dogs when it comes to high density altitudes? The reason I ask is that they rarely come to Denver for any airline.
 
Timbuff10 said:
Are these ERJs dogs when it comes to high density altitudes? The reason I ask is that they rarely come to Denver for any airline.
Click to expand...

it was in the mid 80's last time i flew into puebla, mx, and that is 7000ft up in the mountains.

I know we do at least red-eyes into denver.
 
The XRs are not Dogs. I've flown it a few times out of Denver (on the red-eye turn). The reason we don't bring it into Denver is because it is such a big market for CAL. The bring the big 737s (most of the time) and even a 757 sometimes into there. It's the same reason we don't do much in AUS or SAT. Big CAL markets.

Hot, heavy and high are no problems for the XR. We operate into Toluca, MX. It's 8700 feet or so above sea level. No problem for this thing. It's a one helluva good airplane.
 
Yeah I remember when I was working in the tower at DIA I would see the ExpressJet ERJ in the morning doing a turn, and then at night one would come in and RON. I also saw one in American colors (I assume TSA) but other than that I don't think any others come to DEN.

So the big question is, does an ERJ out perform a CRJ in terms of climb performance, t/o & landing distances, etc?
 
Yes it will probably outperform the CRJ 200 in all those areas. The CRJ-700, no, but then again, that's a larger airframe.

The oldest ERJ's are weight restricted, but even they have a lower stall/approach speed (and therefore better runway performance), a better climbing wing, and a lighter empty weight than the CRJ 200.

The 145 XR's will give you 2000fpm+ below 10,000 feet with 50 people, 2500 lbs of cargo, and 13,000 pounds of fuel. In high altitude climb you can keep them at about .60 mach all the way up without rubbing against the buffet margins. From what I understand the CRJ needs to stay above .70, which impedes it's high altitude time to climb, and thus the overall fuel burn for the flight.

The CRJ-200 has a higher red line, .82 or .84 I believe, but realistically the engines aren't powerful enough to sustain those speeds. The E145's redline at .78 or .80, and you can almost always achieve those speeds using normal thrust in cruise flight.

Not that it matters, I'd fly whichever one comes with the better paycheck. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that either aircraft will be a stellar performer in that department.
 
Interesting, I guess it just happened to work out that most of the regionals in DEN operate the CRJ instead of the ERJ. Seems like the ERJ may even be the better option.
 
Yes, the XR is the only one with winglets: There are four 145 subfleets, the ER, EP, LR, and XR. The differences are weights, engine thrust ratings, fuel capacity, and a few other minor items. The ER is the oldest and worst performer, the XR the best.
 
Alchemy said:
Yes, the XR is the only one with winglets: There are four 145 subfleets, the ER, EP, LR, and XR. The differences are weights, engine thrust ratings, fuel capacity, and a few other minor items. The ER is the oldest and worst performer, the XR the best.
Click to expand...

It was the LR that I was thinking about. I see the XJT XR here in PHX and those things look larger then a 50 seat CRJ.
 
The XR's are pretty much the same size as the other 3. The only visible differences are the winglets and the ventral fuel tank on the bottom of the fuselage (hold an extra 275 gallons of fuel).

IMO, 145 does usually look larger than the CRJ-200 because it's longer. The extra width of the ERJ is more noticeable to my eyes than the extra width of the CRJ.....hmmmm the age old debate over length vs. girth continues.
 
From a passenger perspective, I like the CRJ better. It seems quieter and a bit roomier. That being said, I've only ridden in the back of the ERJ DFW-SHV and probably never went above FL230 where any airplane exceeding 300 kts will be loud. The wind noise just seemed a bit excessive.

Also. . . for you ERJ drivers, it seemed a bit pitch sensitive. . . or was that pilot technique??
 
txpilot said:
I just went over to the regional board over at that "other" site...man, all those guys/gals really are all over each other, aren't they? It's scary over there...glad y'all on here aren't like that.
Click to expand...

That explains why the regionals will continue to get crappy payrates and why ALPA National could give a damn about us. Once the "Hey, that's my flying!" cries from 800 and 8000 hour pilots goes away, maybe we'll learn to work together and make some progress. How people get so possessive about their own contract work is beyond me.
 
SkyWChris said:
Also. . . for you ERJ drivers, it seemed a bit pitch sensitive. . . or was that pilot technique??
Click to expand...

Probably just our wonderful autopilot. You have to be very careful and very smooth about pitch inputs to it. Otherwise, it'll do EXACTLY what you ask it to do. It's not a very smooth piece of equipment.
 
I really think if you buy a ticket on United, you should be flying on a UAL aircraft with UAL pilots.

The entry level position could be the CRJ (or whatever the smallest aircraft there is in the whole dumbasssed 'porfolio' concept)

If you treat and compensate your employees well, you're still going to attract the best pilots even if the entry level position is a 50 seat jet. Lower turnover, lower costs, a legion of employees that are all pulling on the same side of the rope.

But the whole idea of competing subcontractors beating their brains out to provide lift under an "Express/Connection/Whatever" banner is another facet of what's destroyed the piloting profession.

One airline, one carrier, one pilot group, one seniority list.
 
IMO, the CRJ is a better looking jet. The ERJ, especially the 145, looks like it could snap in half at any time. Hell, even the slaab is a wee bit wider than an ERJ. :)
 
The only time you should use the phrase "good looking" is when talking about the DC-8 stretch. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top