Flew thru CLT this past Saturday and could see some America West painted RJS running up and down the alleyway between B and C concourses. Anyone have info on why they were there and what they were doing? Looked like maybe running some kind of proving runs, but MESA already operates in CLT so I couldnt figure it out. They were not at the Express terminal, but in the BC alley between 4pm and 5pm. Thanks.
America West RJs in CLT
- Thread starter tadjr
- Start date
Barbell
Senior
- Nov 16, 2005
- 335
- 0
Since YV owns and operates the planes, they're responsible for scheduling their operational movement w/i the published schedule. It's probably more cost-effective/convenient for YV to run a plane say PHX-MEM-CLT-FLL-CLT-MEM-PHX than say PHX-MEM-PHX-LAX, which conceivabely is what it would have done pre-merger. They're now flying as HPX/USX.
Hope this helps clear that up.
Hope this helps clear that up.
Tadd, those are the CRJ-900's that Mesa is operating for US Express out of CLT but for now in HP Express colors. They are actually worked in CLT by Mainline Customer Service and Ramp and use Gates C4,5,6,7,9,11 and 13. I belive there are 10 in service and from CLT they go to (in no particliar order) IAH,IAD,JAX,SAV,BNA,BHM,CHS,GSO,MEM,ORF,MCI,DFW,MYR,ILM,IND,ATL,MHT, and MSP. I hope this helps, if others have more info feel free to chime in.
Regards
LGA777
Regards
LGA777
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #4
Thanks for the note. I couldnt see anything other than the tail so I didnt see what type they were. I was comfortably resting away from the windows and didnt want to get up. 
Makes sense now. I couldnt figure out why the Express would be between B and C, but this explains it.
Makes sense now. I couldnt figure out why the Express would be between B and C, but this explains it.
SegmentKing
Veteran
Maybe those pilots are afraid to let Express ramp touch their planes. I believe that CLT or PHL had 2 incidents in the same day-- same incident! Agents pulled GPU away from plane while still hooked up to plane *ouch*
SoldWholeSale
Advanced
- Mar 4, 2004
- 230
- 0
It has gone completely unnoticed that those CRJ-900's are operating on AAA routes against the CBA without even a word from ALPA.
Anyone remember a couple years ago when PSA wanted the CRJ-705 (CRJ-900 with only 75 seats)? Remember the storm ALPA caused in regard to express aircraft that large?
Now there are 10 CRJ-900's flying mainline routes, from mainline gates in CLT, and not a word from ALPA....
First 737 routes with CRJ-900's and soon Airbus routes with outsourced ERJ-170's. Whats next, shall we let MesChataquStates Express fly transcon 757 routes? Maybe just a few internatioal routes?
Gimme a break, AAA ALPA is impedant....
SH
Anyone remember a couple years ago when PSA wanted the CRJ-705 (CRJ-900 with only 75 seats)? Remember the storm ALPA caused in regard to express aircraft that large?
Now there are 10 CRJ-900's flying mainline routes, from mainline gates in CLT, and not a word from ALPA....
First 737 routes with CRJ-900's and soon Airbus routes with outsourced ERJ-170's. Whats next, shall we let MesChataquStates Express fly transcon 757 routes? Maybe just a few internatioal routes?
Gimme a break, AAA ALPA is impedant....
SH
PropPiedmont
Senior
- Dec 10, 2003
- 273
- 0
They're over on the C Concourse for two reasons.
1. 86 passangers per flight with 4 aircraft on the gates at a time requires seating for 300 plus people inside. That is not available on the E Concourse.
2. E concourse is already too conjested. Not enough room to add all of that flying into the E Con gates.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Yeah.
That looks a lot like a 737 log book enty after a couple of 4 day trips.
Hows the bank stub look? Eh? :censored:
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Please forgive my humble suggestion that the word you may have been intending to use was "impotent", and it has not escaped the notice of a few pilots that there seems to exist a fair number of evidences to the contrary, though the potency appears to be misdirected. Perhaps a clarion of bo hica is in order, though it is getting to be rather mundane and routine. I should hope that the MDA law suit proves effective in addressing ALPOs wandering eye.
ringmaruf
Veteran
There's no contract violation. It was a previous concessionary agreement where PSA couldn't operate the CRJ-705s. With the latest concessions, Express can fly a boatload of CRJ-900s.
Doesn't mean AAA ALPA isn't incompetent, just that there's no contract violation.
SegmentKing
Veteran
So then why can't AWAC throw their 146-200s on the US side and put F-cabins in them? While some of those planes are aging, its an awesome bird that could really give US some much needed lift (and its WAY more comfy than any RJ out there).
ringmaruf
Veteran
Now those are still very much not permitted by the pilots' contract to be flown at Express. The only 90-seat birds allowed at Express are the CRJ-900. And even if AWAC removed some seats and got them somehow below the number of seat limit, there's an MTOW limit in the contract, and the BAe-146s are too heavy for Express. I could dig up the contracts if you really want.
And I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but a good number of the BAe 146's at Air Wisconsin are actually ex-US birds and were once flown by PSA and USAir, at mainline.
I'll agree that they're quite comfy, though.
(I wish I could say the same about their CRJs, of which I've flown on 2 as USX, and had 2 negative experiences.)FCYTravis
Senior
That sucks, because it means we who ride in the back get stuck with shitcan birds like the CRJ9 instead of a good large regional jet like the 146.
The CRJ-900 as operated by Mesa is the most uncomfortable craft in the sky. Misaligned windows, piss-poor seats, crummy service... need I say more?
Besides, if US is going to operate RJs with that many seats, they need F cabins a-la UA's explus product.
The CRJ-900 as operated by Mesa is the most uncomfortable craft in the sky. Misaligned windows, piss-poor seats, crummy service... need I say more?
Besides, if US is going to operate RJs with that many seats, they need F cabins a-la UA's explus product.
ringmaruf
Veteran
Only 2 out of the 6 legacy carriers have managed to fly the 146 as an Express plane, so I don't see why people feel suddenly that US should be doing it. And at least NW is restricted to 69 seats on the thing; I think what's really ridiculous is UA letting ZW fly those things around, they should be mainline planes.
I haven't been on the CR9 yet (heck, I haven't even been on the CR7 yet), so I can't comment on them. But I'd note that Parker ordered them, not US.
And you don't *need* an F cabin. It'd be nice, sure. But it's all a function of how you configure the plane. The EMB-170s don't have an F cabin, and they're an absolute dream. On a short (non-meal) flight, I'd much rather be on the -170 than in a dirty F seat on a 733. But why? Because US has them configured in a very pax-friendly layout. Some carriers get 78 seats on their -170s. (Of course, the wonderful service from the Embraer Division angels doesn't hurt either.)
And Travis, I believe you're a US3. If they put 6 F seats on the 70-to-90 seat planes, you'd often still be sitting in the back, and the carriers with two-classes on those planes have even more cramped coach sections.
