One of Chip Munn's posts in usaviation.com had this interesting tidbit:

"US has said it anticipates ordering up to 500 RJs, with 200 firm orders and 300 options. The order will likely include the EMB-170 with six first class seats and the EMB-175 with eight first class seats, both with forward lavatories and wing mounted engines."

Looking at the Embraer web site, these seats look awfully comfy(if US opts for them). I especially like the legrest!

http://www.embraer.com/english/content/aeronaves/aviacao_comercial/erj170/tour360/tour360d.asp

Frankly, these look far more desireable than a 737. What other airlines have F seating in their RJ's?

NW has 16 FC seats in its ARJ-85 RJ's (which are five across in coach and 4 across in FC) and I heard America West was getting some new RJ's with FC seating, but I'm not sure what kind and how much seating.

With only 6/8 FC seats, they might be pretty hard to come by on some routes, especially DCA routes!

(DISCLAIMER: this post isn't meant to offend anybody...)

Gotta love the atitude on FT! Regional jets = BAD!!! Regional jets with first = comfortable!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
NW has 16 FC seats in its ARJ-85 RJ's (which are five across in coach and 4 across in FC) </font>

The ARJs are different from Embraer and Canadair jets in that they have wider and taller cabins. The ARJs (Avro regional jets) are, IIRC, derivatives of the BAe 146 which was more of a small jetliner than a regional jet (PSA used these). They are either configured 5 or 6 abreast in EC, and I've them used by various QF regionals in Australia with 4-abreast BC (using the old QF int'l BC seats which makes them very comfortable).

1-1 BC/FC seating in the ERJs and CRJs would be nice but the cabin is still a bit low.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by IndustrialPatent:
(DISCLAIMER: this post isn't meant to offend anybody...)

Gotta love the atitude on FT! Regional jets = BAD!!! Regional jets with first = comfortable!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif</font>

Darn Right! We FF's need some extra comfort, afterall we spend plenty of hours each week in these seats. Glad to hear US might finally be thinking again.

------------------
US-CP; UA PE; AA Plat; Hilton Gold VIP; Six Continents Gold

[This message has been edited by US1@ORF (edited 09-12-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by terenz:
1-1 BC/FC seating in the ERJs and CRJs would be nice but the cabin is still a bit low.</font>

The EMB web site shows 2-1 F seating.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by terenz:
The ARJs are different from Embraer and Canadair jets in that they have wider and taller cabins. The ARJs (Avro regional jets) are, IIRC, derivatives of the BAe 146 which was more of a small jetliner than a regional jet (PSA used these). They are either configured 5 or 6 abreast in EC, and I've them used by various QF regionals in Australia with 4-abreast BC (using the old QF int'l BC seats which makes them very comfortable).

1-1 BC/FC seating in the ERJs and CRJs would be nice but the cabin is still a bit low.</font>

The ERJ-170/175 (and other bigger derivitives) have no relation to the existing ERJ's operated by US, they are a totally new design very similar to "conventional" airliners with underwing engines and a relatively "full-size" cabin with 2-2 seating, which will be 2-1 seating in an FC cabin most likely (as shown in the link provided in the first post).

I'm not sure how economic the ARJ's are anyway given they have four engines, I think that would kill them in terms of maintenance costs ... that may be why NW is going with CRJ's instead of ARJ's now I suppose ...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
The ERJ-170/175 (and other bigger derivitives) have no relation to the existing ERJ's operated by US,</font>

Was going to mention this except I wasn't sure how big they were. These a/c are larger in fuselage diameter than the ERJs and CRJs. I believe the Dornier Fairchild jet was similar?

Agreed that the ARJs are probably too high cost with 4 Lycoming (IIRC) turbines. I'm surprised NW uses them. I think a UA express carrier also used them.

How long will it take for these RJ's to come on line? I understand the back-order on these things is lengthy and I'm sure EMB doesn't
have anything sitting on the lot.

Pretty impressive cockroach seating!!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by foodguy:
How long will it take for these RJ's to come on line? I understand the back-order on these things is lengthy and I'm sure EMB doesn't
have anything sitting on the lot.

Pretty impressive cockroach seating!!</font>

The EMB-170/175 is not even in service yet ...

However, leasing companies like GECAS and ILFC have many orders for them, and US could likely get some pretty quickly after they are introduced.

Found what I was looking for ... the EMB-170 is expected to be certified in the first quarter of 2003, so that's the earliest US could possibly get there hands on any ... GECAS (GE's aircraft leasing arm) has 50 of them on order ...

As long as the booze in first in free, I'm a happy RJ CLT camper! That might be enough to pull be off the ATA flights.

As long as the booze in first in free, I'm a happy RJ CLT camper! That might be enough to pull be off the ATA flights.

Has anyone had extened experience with ATA. I did 8 segments and found them to be pretty darn good. Planes are spotless, folks are nice, Midway Hub is what it is. Can anyone confirm the rumor of ATA starting a frequent flyer program?

PineyB--I fly ATA almost every week now since they started in CLT. I do like the planes and the folks that serve on them. A freq flier program would be nice but I have not seen anything that seems to suggest one is on the way. You just cannot beat the price to Midway out of CLT! US Airways is my secondary carrier now. I do wish ATA would expand their breadth of cities served.

ATA regularly offers FF-type promos; e.g. "Fly 3, Get 1 Free" (travel 3 RT in a 6-month period, get 1 free).

Rolling-hub or not, ATA needs to retime their flights... FNT-LAX/SFO requires either a 3 or 4 hour layover (each way) at MDW. 2 or 3 hours traveling to BOS, NYC.