United and Regional Jets - Are RJs more efficient and economical than mainline?
Jul 20, 2014, 4:04 pm
#46
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: DEN
Programs: UA Plat
Posts: 754
I get the small market argument for the RJs. For example, UA has the only non-stop service from DEN to several cities in Western Canada, small markets that require an RJ if you are going to have more than one flight a day. But why CR700's on DEN-YYZ? AC flies ER190s on that same route, with $30 extra for an "E+" seat. All seats have inflight entertainment, power, and the ER190 is a cabin you can stand up in. UA flies the CR700 with $39 extra for an E+ seat, has no entertainment, no power, and one lav at the back that is a joke in terms of size. I am finally starting to see some ER170s and ER190s on the route. That's movement in the right direction.
Jul 20, 2014, 4:11 pm
#47
Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 67,129
The Q200s and Q300s are really annoying; at least the Q400s have E+ and F on some flights. The 200s and 300s are cramped and slow... much worse than a RJ.
Jul 20, 2014, 4:32 pm
#48
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,158
UX doesn't have any ER190s yet.
AC still flies the occasional A320 along with their ER175s with AVOD in every seat. It's really a no-brainer in terms of which to choose except for UA-metal only counting towards MM status and CPU chances (which used to be almost guaranteed for 1Ks - not so much anymore).
Jul 20, 2014, 6:06 pm
#50
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: MDE
Programs: AA EP, CM PP, AV GM, UA Silver, SPG Gold, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Plat, Accor Plat
Posts: 1,002
It's just going to be a newer, cleaner, more spacious version of misery on all the 2 hour+ routes where they will go. I can't tell you how many times I have flown between DFW and SFO on CR700s (Scheduled flight time: 3:26), always arriving with physical pains that torment me for days thereafter. Riding in an E175 with those same seats isn't going to change that.
Jul 21, 2014, 10:50 pm
#53
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
A lot of people on this forum like to kid around that, if he could, Smisek would fly RJ's all across the world...
Actually, this plane flew across the Atlantic for about 30 years...
Its cabin was 5 inches narrower than the E170, only had one class of service with 2-2 seating, 38 " seat pitch, no video IFE at all (unless you count an airspeed indicator as entertainment) and yet the world's wealthiest people and its most celebrated stars boasted they had flown it across the Atlantic.
Yes, sure it was fun to fly faster than Mach 2.0, but it's still a little funny that so many of us complain bitterly about flying an RJ for "over 3 hours" when that's about how long it took Concorde to cross the pond.
The final irony is that while it cost as much as $15,000 to fly Concorde it also had trouble making money without a few "back door" subsidies, especially the AF SST's.
Actually, this plane flew across the Atlantic for about 30 years...
Its cabin was 5 inches narrower than the E170, only had one class of service with 2-2 seating, 38 " seat pitch, no video IFE at all (unless you count an airspeed indicator as entertainment) and yet the world's wealthiest people and its most celebrated stars boasted they had flown it across the Atlantic.
Yes, sure it was fun to fly faster than Mach 2.0, but it's still a little funny that so many of us complain bitterly about flying an RJ for "over 3 hours" when that's about how long it took Concorde to cross the pond.
The final irony is that while it cost as much as $15,000 to fly Concorde it also had trouble making money without a few "back door" subsidies, especially the AF SST's.
Last edited by TWA Fan 1; Jul 21, 2014 at 11:07 pm
Jul 22, 2014, 3:57 am
#54
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AADULtArer
Posts: 5,683
A lot of people on this forum like to kid around that, if he could, Smisek would fly RJ's all across the world...
Actually, this plane flew across the Atlantic for about 30 years...
Its cabin was 5 inches narrower than the E170, only had one class of service with 2-2 seating, 38 " seat pitch, no video IFE at all (unless you count an airspeed indicator as entertainment) and yet the world's wealthiest people and its most celebrated stars boasted they had flown it across the Atlantic.
Yes, sure it was fun to fly faster than Mach 2.0, but it's still a little funny that so many of us complain bitterly about flying an RJ for "over 3 hours" when that's about how long it took Concorde to cross the pond.
The final irony is that while it cost as much as $15,000 to fly Concorde it also had trouble making money without a few "back door" subsidies, especially the AF SST's.
Actually, this plane flew across the Atlantic for about 30 years...
Its cabin was 5 inches narrower than the E170, only had one class of service with 2-2 seating, 38 " seat pitch, no video IFE at all (unless you count an airspeed indicator as entertainment) and yet the world's wealthiest people and its most celebrated stars boasted they had flown it across the Atlantic.
Yes, sure it was fun to fly faster than Mach 2.0, but it's still a little funny that so many of us complain bitterly about flying an RJ for "over 3 hours" when that's about how long it took Concorde to cross the pond.
The final irony is that while it cost as much as $15,000 to fly Concorde it also had trouble making money without a few "back door" subsidies, especially the AF SST's.
Jul 22, 2014, 4:11 am
#55
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,309
well..
the pilot shortage was probably the nail in the coffin, but CLE was closed because it simply lost money. Good local markets were kept - and there are 70 flights a day. All the money losing feeders that were drains on the hub went away (why do you need 4 x CLE-BUF, why do you needd 4X-CLE-ERI, etc).
CLE generated healthy yields.
CLE was closed because of the pilot shortage -- they don't have enough pilots to fly the small planes at current wages.
DL saw this coming and shrewdly sourced smaller mainline planes (717s) so as not to reduce their network. UA had no such solution, so they must shed routes and close a hub, which is why CLE was a victim.
CLE was closed because of the pilot shortage -- they don't have enough pilots to fly the small planes at current wages.
DL saw this coming and shrewdly sourced smaller mainline planes (717s) so as not to reduce their network. UA had no such solution, so they must shed routes and close a hub, which is why CLE was a victim.
Jul 22, 2014, 5:50 am
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: DEN
Programs: UA MM Plat; AA MM Gold; HHonors Diamond
Posts: 15,866
I've started using AA on my regular DEN--MAF (Midland, TX) hops because I can go FC all the way now that AA has started using 700s on the DFW--MAF legs. Just booked my October trip...$661 on a CRJ--200 vs $749 FC on AA.
I just won't do it anymore. The CRJ-200 is just too uncomfortable a plane. Same for DEN--YYC...way too many 200s on that route as well.
I'll fly on the "A" side of a 145 any day, by the way.
I figure if I keep hammering on this in this forum that UA will see my posts, get the message, and get rid of those accursed 200s.
Yea, right
Jul 22, 2014, 6:34 am
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,168
