YEG - YYC at 9000 Ft

[ScudRunner]

So I've noticed over the past while your Dash's are flying at 9000 ft from YEG-YYC. I know its a short hop but what is that doing to your fuel burns down there, anyone know the reasoning and such?

[AuxBatOn]

Winds perhaps?

We did YHZ to YSM at 14K once, in a Dash 8, for that very reason.

[flygirl123]

Traffic maybe????

[Tiny Tyke]

pressurization deferred...???

[Donald]

Winds perhaps?

We did YHZ to YSM at 14K once, in a Dash 8, for that very reason.

1900+ nm at 14K feet in a Dash 8?

Must have been a strong push!

[pilotbzh]

YHZ to YSM .....Halifax to Fort Smith ???? that's pushing for a dash... at 14kft.... air refuelling???

[AuxBatOn]

Apologies, YAM. Fingers were not doing what I wanted, so to speak!

[simplyput]

Halifax to Sault Ste Marie? Is that a new route? Again, mid-air refueling?

[AuxBatOn]

Nope, it can be done, we did it. It was in a military Dash 8.

[Donald]

Well that distance is only around 900nm, so that's a little more reasonable.

Do the military Dash 8's have the long range fuel tanks? They carry around 10.3K of fuel (IIRC), so it is possible to get a 8+ hour endurance out of them.

[ScudRunner]

wasn't winds its been consistently filed that way when there light or strong, with EPLUR crossing time restriction's into YYC traffic wouldn't really matter and being down low like that I would think dealing with the GA aircraft would be more of a hazard down there.

I also heard a ATC ask one flight and they didn't have a clue other than "that's the way they have been filing it for us" most of us are up at least 16 thousand or 190. But one plus is there out of my way!

[Mclovin]

Just did YHZ-YDF-YHZ at 9000 and 8000 ft in the RJ. Pressurization was deferred was an interesting ride both ways. Center asked us both ways to confirm our final altitude and aircraft type. Good times!

[PC12flyer]

Seriously! You know somedays I feel sorry that Air Canada has to pay our gas bill! I went to Deer Lake one night with the boards out and at about the same altitude on the RJ because we were over fuelled by 1000lbs, and wouldn't make our landing weight, if we waited to get defuelled we'd duty out.

[ahramin]

I also heard a ATC ask one flight and they didn't have a clue other than "that's the way they have been filing it for us" most of us are up at least 16 thousand or 190.

Am I the only one who thinks this is nuts?

[JazzJetDriver]

"You know somedays I feel sorry that Air Canada has to pay our gas bill!"

I don't. They got the CPA deal they wanted...it comes with the territory.

[yycflyguy]

"You know somedays I feel sorry that Air Canada has to pay our gas bill!"

I don't. They got the CPA deal they wanted...it comes with the territory.

Can you tell me how the CPA handicaps Jazz? Fuel bill paid, infrastructure costs paid, reservation system paid, guaranteed 15% profit on each flight. How can you not love the CPA?

If someone else was paying my fuel bill I would be enjoying the sights below 10,000 as well.

[teacher]

The CPA is steady income but it servely limits Jazz in it's ability to expand and increase revenue. New markets other than those offered by AC can not be explored other than "charter flying" that does in no way compete with mainline. It also binds Jazz with mainline as it's main customer comprising of 98% or it's flying. Good when mainline is doing good, bad when mainline is struggling. Lastly being tied to mainline imposes scope restrictions on fleet size and aircraft type which also hampers any expansion. Personally I think Jazz has a good thing going and should not venture into the large aircraft market however unless AC requests it we can't even upgrade a tired old dash to a new Q400.

The CPA provides great flexability to AC to move flying around and cover what needs to be covered.

[yycflyguy]

The CPA is steady income but it servely limits Jazz in it's ability to expand and increase revenue. New markets other than those offered by AC can not be explored other than "charter flying" that does in no way compete with mainline. It also binds Jazz with mainline as it's main customer comprising of 98% or it's flying. Good when mainline is doing good, bad when mainline is struggling. Lastly being tied to mainline imposes scope restrictions on fleet size and aircraft type which also hampers any expansion. Personally I think Jazz has a good thing going and should not venture into the large aircraft market however unless AC requests it we can't even upgrade a tired old dash to a new Q400.

The CPA provides great flexability to AC to move flying around and cover what needs to be covered.

I understand your point of view but let me ask you something, if Air Canada did not exist or they put the CPA regional flying out to tender to the likes of Eagle, Expressjet, Wasaba or your favourite flavour of US regional and their lower operating structure, what would Jazz do for their flying? Feed Westjet or Air Transat? Could they survive on their own without feeding a mainline?

[teacher]

I think Jazz would do just as well operating as a stand alone unit because of the estblished nature of the flying and the fact that it could expand into other markets currently restricted due to the "nature of feeding mainline" rather than serving communites. Just look at the flying that no longer exists that was dropped as non feeder flying but was making money.

Another dangerous thing is if it gets put out to tender and picked up by a cheapo depot US regional than what? Where does it stop. ACPA guys want to "take the flying back" and think "Jazz is paid too much" well be careful what you wish for. ACPA will lose a lot if it makes too sense much sense for the share holders. Encouraging lower wages at the regional level will only bring the mainline wages down as well (to "prevent further contracting out" of flying) and what's to say that a US regional that flies Embraers too doesn't pick up the flying. ACPA will be fighting a whole new regional industry willing to do it cheaper than anyone in Canada which isn't a good thing. The level of service does not compare either, you get what you pay for.

Never mind the political repercussions of having a US company do regional flying in Canada.

I've said it before, the 2 groups are better work'n together than against.

[yycflyguy]

I think Jazz would do just as well operating as a stand alone unit because of the estblished nature of the flying and the fact that it could expand into other markets currently restricted due to the "nature of feeding mainline" rather than serving communites. Just look at the flying that no longer exists that was dropped as non feeder flying but was making money.

Another dangerous thing is if it gets put out to tender and picked up by a cheapo depot US regional than what? Where does it stop. ACPA guys want to "take the flying back" and think "Jazz is paid too much" well be careful what you wish for. ACPA will lose a lot if it makes sense too much sense for the share holders. Encouraging lower wages at the regional level will only bring the mainline wages down as well (to prevent further contracting out of flying) and what's to say that a US regional that flies Embraers too doesn't pick up the flying. ACPA will be fighting a whole new regional industry willing to do it cheaper than anyone in Canada which isn't a good thing. The level of service does not compare either, you get what you pay for.

Never mind the political repercussions of having a US company do regional flying in Canada.

I've said it before, the 2 groups are better work'n together than against.

Couldn't agree more regarding the scenario that the flying is put out to tender it is bad for everyone. Period. Global Solution was supposed to be the catalyst to halt this cheapening of the industry but self interest agendas got in the way by more than one party.

I suspect you are going to get your chance to pick up more flying very soon as the landscape for ACPA and mainline flying will come under attack over the next 21 months. Another CCAA filing and this loosely worded TA ACPA ratified last week could open the door to worsening wages for all.

[Too_Low]

Could be shooting for a higher TAS to meet flow, or beat duty times, or trying to keep connecting pax happy. I've done YVR-YXT at 12000 because of howling north-westerly's. We shaved off more than half an hour versus being at 240.

[Swerved]

Hey ., how's it going? Hope the (not so) new job is treating you well...

As for the filed altitude, there must have been a reason. Maybe it was winds, maybe it was reported turbulence...who knows. All I know is that in the last two weeks, I've done sixteen legs between YEG and YYC (they're a little short-crewed out West), and only ONE was filed below 10000'. Most were 15000 or 16000.

Anyway, I'm sure they have a reason...I've talked to many a dispatcher, and despite the fact that there are lots of times that their flight-planning software often comes up with curious plans (i.e. parabolic flight plans where you're only level for one or two minutes), it usually did come up with the lowest fuel burn.

Anyway, happy flying...

Swerved.

[hbk]

Am I mistaking but I don't think an american airline could do canadian regional point to point flying

[teacher]

No they couldn't but cross border yes and any airline could apply for an exemption although I doubt it would be granted.

[flying4dollars]

95% of the time I go at 17,000 or higher, depending on the ceiling and winds. Lowest I've ever done on that route was 13,000. I guess everyone's got their own reasons for the alts they fly *shrugs*