So my mother is a gate agent for a major US airline and she asked me why said airline doesn't operate the E175 into Aspen. I told her I didn't have a solid answer but my thoughts were:
1. Some kind of performance restriction with the short runway and terrain. IMO that can be mitigated with a weight restriction.
2. Ramp space. 175 has about a 10 foot longer span than the 700 and the Gulfstream/Globals that frequent ASE have huge spans that take up space and even hold up commercial traffic when extra busy.
3. Lack of qualified pilots. Pilots need to be specially trained for ASE and it could be that a 175 carrier doesn't have a training regiment for that.
Just my slightly educated thoughts on the matter. Anyone have a more accurate take on it?
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- Italianflyer
- Posts: 874
- Joined:
Re: E175 and Aspen
It's an intriguing idea. Given the tightness and expense of accommodation inventory ranging from $500 to $1600 (USD) a night I would love to know where they plan on putting all these extra people. It's not like Pitkin county hands up building permits like Halloween candy.
-
- TonyClifton
- Posts: 747
- Joined:
Re: E175 and Aspen
Update here: https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/asp ... 27994.html
Have to laugh at “noisier and dirtier” referring to E175 instead of CRJ700. Ignore they have the same engines and broadly similar economics…
Have to laugh at “noisier and dirtier” referring to E175 instead of CRJ700. Ignore they have the same engines and broadly similar economics…
Re: E175 and Aspen
Execs from Republic said its an engine-out performance on takeoff issue on the E170 family of aircraft that prevents them from operating in and out of Sardy Field.
-
- GalaxyFlyer
- Posts: 10709
- Joined:
Re: E175 and Aspen
The Global 7500 and GLF650 have too wide a span, KASE has a plan to replace the runway a bit west to allow more wing clearances permitting larger planes.
Re: E175 and Aspen
DLASFlyer wrote:
The wingspan of the 175 is only 85 feet and MTOW is just south of 90000 lbs.
Re: E175 and Aspen
The issue with Aspen has always been go around performance. As far as I know the 175
doesn’t have the go around performance.
There is no aircraft that is capable of single engine go around. You’re committed to landing after the FAF. If we lost an engine inside the FAF the only option is to land. If for some reason you did need to go around after the FAF up to the midpoint of Rwy 15 it was considered an emergency terrain escape maneuver.
Flying the CRJ into Aspen a long long time ago as long as the runway was dry there wasn’t any issues. We could land at mlw of 67000lbs. But as soon as 15 was wet runway our landing performance only allowed a max landing weight of 55000lbs which equates to a pax load of 5 pax and we would have to involuntarily deny boarding to 60 pax.
So usually the tactic was to go anyway and divert to Grand Junction and bus the passengers the rest of the way.
doesn’t have the go around performance.
There is no aircraft that is capable of single engine go around. You’re committed to landing after the FAF. If we lost an engine inside the FAF the only option is to land. If for some reason you did need to go around after the FAF up to the midpoint of Rwy 15 it was considered an emergency terrain escape maneuver.
Flying the CRJ into Aspen a long long time ago as long as the runway was dry there wasn’t any issues. We could land at mlw of 67000lbs. But as soon as 15 was wet runway our landing performance only allowed a max landing weight of 55000lbs which equates to a pax load of 5 pax and we would have to involuntarily deny boarding to 60 pax.
So usually the tactic was to go anyway and divert to Grand Junction and bus the passengers the rest of the way.
-
- stratosphere
- Posts: 2153
- Joined:
Re: E175 and Aspen
Need to bring back the RJ85/BAE146. Seemed to be perfectly suited for Aspen.
Re: E175 and Aspen
ASE has a posted a document on their website that has some discussion about the current limitations and proposed updates. https://aspenairport.wpenginepowered.co ... 082618.pdf
Re: E175 and Aspen
It's climb performance. Specifically second segment being the biggest issue. When republic bought Frontier they only kept the lynx Q-400s on the certificate because of ASE.
I also trained the initial cadre of instructors and FAA inspectors on the airplane for Skywest. We sat in ground school with APG data for both comparing side by side. The CRJ-700 is much better in and out of ASE. They couldn't legally operate the 175 with more than about 25pax. Hardly economical.
I also trained the initial cadre of instructors and FAA inspectors on the airplane for Skywest. We sat in ground school with APG data for both comparing side by side. The CRJ-700 is much better in and out of ASE. They couldn't legally operate the 175 with more than about 25pax. Hardly economical.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests