Was chatting with a pilot on a flight to somewhere about a month ago. He told me that US pilots were training on this aircraft. It is a full size RJ with large overhaeds and a FC cabin. US has an order for 85 planes...Is this the future of the RJ?? Could this plane be the savior for US?

According to the May press release
http://www.usairways.com/about/press/nw_03_0512.htm
they also got a great deal.

As someone who flies frequently from a small airport, I'm looking forward to the arrival of the Embraer 170s starting November. Soon, there'd be no more need for plane-side check-in of carry-on bag, and FC availability in a RJ is a nice touch!

I would consider the Embraer 170/175/190/195 family as much an RJ as the DC-9, Boeing 717, and Fokker 100 ... the 190/195 are in the same league as all of those while the 170/175 is a scaled down version ... the only relationship to what most folks consider an "RJ" and the new Embraers is 2-2 seating, which in a decent size cabin is actually a great plus (no middle seat!).

Embraer homepage for EMB-170 (http://www.embraer.com/english/content/aeronaves/aviacao_comercial/erj170/default.asp)

There are rumors (unconfirmed thus far) that the EMB-170s might not be coming equipped with FC.

I think US would be nuts not to, but the folks at CCY never cease to amaze me with some of their antics.

It does look like a "small jet" as opposed to a "lawn dart with turbofans," tho. We'll have to wait and see what the final product looks like.

------------------
Don't feed the trolls.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ClueByFour:
There are rumors (unconfirmed thus far) that the EMB-170s might not be coming equipped with FC.

I think US would be nuts not to, but the folks at CCY never cease to amaze me with some of their antics.

It does look like a "small jet" as opposed to a "lawn dart with turbofans," tho. We'll have to wait and see what the final product looks like.

</font>

I was about to ask which configuration US had ordered. The configurations that they have listed on the site kinda shock me - 70 seats at 32" pitch, 78 seats at 31" pitch - does one inch of pitch really make that big of a diference?

I somehow doubt they'll be coming with F cabins.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by dcmike:
I somehow doubt they'll be coming with F cabins.</font>

Seeing that US stated in the press release (linked above) that the 70 seaters from Bombardier and Embraer both would be two-class aircraft, I think they probably will have F cabins.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by dcmike:
I was about to ask which configuration US had ordered. The configurations that they have listed on the site kinda shock me - 70 seats at 32" pitch, 78 seats at 31" pitch - does one inch of pitch really make that big of a diference?</font>

Sure. About 70" worth, which at 31-32" of pitch, leaves enough for 2 more rows (of 2x2 seating). Ergo, you go from 70 to 78 seats.

I hope they come with an F cabin.

I'll wait until I (or one of my fellow cockroaches) actually sits in one of these F seats before declaring victory.


------------------
Don't feed the trolls.

We will see how good these planes really are in practice. They've already had a certification delay, and the 717 will still hold about 15 more people than the biggest one, the 195, in comparable seating configurations. 717's (and maybe DC-9's) will still be flying when these things have already started going into the recycling bin if they are built as disposables like the ERJ's currenly flying.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ClueByFour:
Sure. About 70" worth, which at 31-32" of pitch, leaves enough for 2 more rows (of 2x2 seating). Ergo, you go from 70 to 78 seats.

</font>

Since it's 70 seats, not 70 rows, taking out 1" would only free up about 18". I'm not sure how they get 2 more rows freeing up 18".

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CPRich:
Since it's 70 seats, not 70 rows, taking out 1" would only free up about 18". I'm not sure how they get 2 more rows freeing up 18".</font>

Just look at the Embraer website (http://www.embraer.com/english/content/aeronaves/aviacao_comercial/erj170/configuracao_interna/), the 78 seat configuration removes part of the galley and a closet, it's not just about seats the differenced between the 70 and 78 seat configurations.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CPRich:
Since it's 70 seats, not 70 rows, taking out 1" would only free up about 18". I'm not sure how they get 2 more rows freeing up 18".</font>


Gack. Complete mental block on my part. As Tom mentions, you don't need a huge galley for 78 coach seats (since hot food won't be served) or a closet (since you don't need to hang Y pax coats).

------------------
Don't feed the trolls.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
Seeing that US stated in the press release (linked above) that the 70 seaters from Bombardier and Embraer both would be two-class aircraft, I think they probably will have F cabins.</font>


I sit corrected! DOH!