AimHigh1

Now that you mentioned that, does anyone have any insight on any possible changes with the CRJ9 flying?

Schwanker

They don't need ETOPS??? How is this not an ETOPS route? Third engine hidden somewhere? Magical runways in the Pacific? Maybe you meant they don't have the extra fuel capacity...

WhiskeyDelta

I’m guessing it was tongue in cheek since AA, through a series of unfortunate events, sent a non-ETOPS aircraft to Hawaii in the last year or two.

Schwanker

Ahhh, it must have been that magical island

deadseal

Lol, let me tell you a story. 2 Pilots get ready to work. Oh no! They both forgot to check the book. They strapped in, started her up, and went on their merry way. And thus the Feds met them at the gate with something to say.

forgot to bid

transcript of cs100 dumping from may 2017

Start at around page 168 when Delta's Espisto begins talking. It's all about RFPs. It's also talking 787 in there too. It's really fascinating stuff.

but the quote below is page 181 on cs100:

cynicalaviator

Airbus advertises the 350-900 with 325 seats in 3 class arrangement and a range of 8100 NM. Atl-Jnb distance is 7400 ish NM. And Lax-Syd is 7500 NM.
I seem to remember that we have 306 seats on ours. The aircraft should be capable of connecting those dots.
Could you explain why that's the not the case?

Bucking Bar

Great read. Thanks!

What I think might be happening is that Delta might be buying a Certificate with restrictions. Usually these are applied to limit the aircraft's weight, below the actual certified limits. To later raise the load carrying capacity you have to buy the revised certificate.

These are more common than most of us would think. The MD88 had a reduced weight to lower landing fees at KLGA for a while, the 40 seat CRJ was one of these deals, as are Republic's 175 fleet which would exceed the 86,000lb scope limit otherwise.

The manufacturers can pretty much bank on the fact network planning will change their mind and buy up the certificate later. If there is any constant in network planning it is change.

In Republic's case their mechanics can come out on an overnight, change the cockpit placard and make a logbook entry as to which Certificate that airframe is operating on. Takes 10 minutes. The FAA does not care if you want to limit your jet to less than what they have certified it to do.

Scoop

From FTBs post:

"In fact, our agreement is structured with maximum takeoff weight provisions that reflect our intended deployment plan to fly the aircraft, on average, on routes that are less than 1000 miles. If we exceed those averages, i.e., the plane needs to carry more fuel because it's flying longer distances, we're going to be required to pay Bombardier additional payments."

One way to read this is that if we "average" 1000 miles we don't have to pay extra. So - can we fly nine 900 mile flights and one 1900 mile flight and we are good to go? This almost makes it sound like its based on how we operate the aircraft rather than what the aircraft is capable of.

But what the hell do I know - I'm just pawn in game of life and I know how this guy feels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKRma7PDW10

Scoop

flyallnite

I suspect those range restrictions were put into place mainly to blunt any lawsuit by Boeing or AB. I think they will pencil whip those into Oblivion before the proving runs are finished...