E-170/175 Best Regional Jet?
Apr 27, 2019, 5:36 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: EZE
Programs: UA Gold,Delta Gold Bonvoy Titanium Elite, HH Diamond , AA Platinum, EENational, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 1,548
E-170/175 Best Regional Jet?
The E-170/175 was already my favorite regional jet but with the service Delta provided during the weather delay at JFK would make me choose it again. I have flown it on a United but one thing I don’t like about it on United is the placement of the power outlet ( the plug doesn’t stay plugged in due to angle outlet is on seat ). Delta decided for a more usable design 😆. Below was my experience on JFK-CLE in F. Would love to hear or see yours.
Apr 27, 2019, 5:57 am
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
The Delta Connection carriers has a few more CR9s (157) than they do E70s (21) and E75s (101) as of 12/31/18, but yes, the 2-class E-jets are nice. I appreciate the extra shoulder room vs. the CR7/CR9 in coach. They have been in the fleet for a while -- I can think of Shuttle America flights (DTW-SLC?) in 2007 or earlier.
Apr 27, 2019, 2:43 pm
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Programs: DL PM, MR Titanium/LTP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 10,130
E175 >>> CR9 >>> E170 >>> CR7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>CR2
Main reason for CR9 over E170 is the generous F/Y ratio that makes upgrades easier to obtain on the CR9.
But if paying for F from the start, E170 wins
Main reason for CR9 over E170 is the generous F/Y ratio that makes upgrades easier to obtain on the CR9.
But if paying for F from the start, E170 wins
Apr 27, 2019, 3:13 pm
#5
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 3,097
I don't think we should assume this. We already know that Delta will offer the upgrades at different prices to different people. There's no reason to think they wouldn't take the number of seats into account when pricing these. If they sell them cheaper on flights with (relatively) more F seats, then this advantage would evaporate almost instantly.
Apr 27, 2019, 3:14 pm
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: RDU
Programs: AA LT Gold, DL SM, HY Disc, Marriott LT Gold
Posts: 12,507
I was astounded that I actually had a pleasant CR2 flight the other night CRW-ATL. I wish the aisle armrest went up, it'd make getting out of those seats easier.
I fly a lot of CR9s, especially low-season ORD-SLC and various routes out of RDU. The new RDU-ORD was announced as 3x175 which made me incredibly happy, but they lost the 175s before the route even started with the BOS expansion. So now it's 1xCR9 and 2xCR7, which is ok because I should have a high upgrade percentage as a Platinum. The CR9s are fine in F or in row 4, less fine behind that.
RDU-AUS has been downgraded from a CR9 to a CR7, which I understand. But I don't want to fly a CR7 for that long, even in F.
I fly a lot of CR9s, especially low-season ORD-SLC and various routes out of RDU. The new RDU-ORD was announced as 3x175 which made me incredibly happy, but they lost the 175s before the route even started with the BOS expansion. So now it's 1xCR9 and 2xCR7, which is ok because I should have a high upgrade percentage as a Platinum. The CR9s are fine in F or in row 4, less fine behind that.
RDU-AUS has been downgraded from a CR9 to a CR7, which I understand. But I don't want to fly a CR7 for that long, even in F.
Apr 27, 2019, 4:43 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: RDU
Programs: AA LT Gold, DL SM, HY Disc, Marriott LT Gold
Posts: 12,507
I do find that the CR9 seems to have a little more headroom in Y and doesn't feel as clausterphobic. And F may have a little more legroom on the CR9.
Last edited by ElmhurstNick; Apr 27, 2019 at 4:49 pm
Apr 27, 2019, 6:47 pm
#9
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: DSM
Programs: UA 1K, AA EP, DL PL, HH Dia, Marriott Gld, National Exp
Posts: 722
Apr 27, 2019, 8:45 pm
#11
Join Date: Dec 2009
Programs: DL DM
Posts: 262
I agree with many others here, I think I’d prefer a 175 over any other narrow-body in DL fleet (*except a D1 seat on 752). I love that they board fast, have big and well placed windows, seem quieter than CR7/9, roomy seats, option for 1 seat side in F and no middles in C+ and Y.
I’d be all for the 175 becoming the domestic equivalent of the 787, allowing for more point-to-point, long distance flights instead of hub and spoke on 737s, 321s etc. How is the 175 operationally for airlines (I would guess that it doesn’t offer a big efficiency bump like the 787/350s)?
I’d be all for the 175 becoming the domestic equivalent of the 787, allowing for more point-to-point, long distance flights instead of hub and spoke on 737s, 321s etc. How is the 175 operationally for airlines (I would guess that it doesn’t offer a big efficiency bump like the 787/350s)?
Apr 27, 2019, 9:25 pm
#12
Join Date: May 2015
Location: DCA
Programs: AA EXP, DL FO, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 6,712
I agree with many others here, I think I’d prefer a 175 over any other narrow-body in DL fleet (*except a D1 seat on 752). I love that they board fast, have big and well placed windows, seem quieter than CR7/9, roomy seats, option for 1 seat side in F and no middles in C+ and Y.
I’d be all for the 175 becoming the domestic equivalent of the 787, allowing for more point-to-point, long distance flights instead of hub and spoke on 737s, 321s etc. How is the 175 operationally for airlines (I would guess that it doesn’t offer a big efficiency bump like the 787/350s)?
I’d be all for the 175 becoming the domestic equivalent of the 787, allowing for more point-to-point, long distance flights instead of hub and spoke on 737s, 321s etc. How is the 175 operationally for airlines (I would guess that it doesn’t offer a big efficiency bump like the 787/350s)?
Apr 27, 2019, 9:41 pm
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Programs: DL PM, MR Titanium/LTP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 10,130
I don't think we should assume this. We already know that Delta will offer the upgrades at different prices to different people. There's no reason to think they wouldn't take the number of seats into account when pricing these. If they sell them cheaper on flights with (relatively) more F seats, then this advantage would evaporate almost instantly.
On RDU - NYC, it's a virtual lock for me as a PM to clear on the E175/CR9 flights but E170 my rate is much lower and I've flown them all enough it's probably statsitically valid at this point.
I've also never missed on RDU - AUS on the CR9 so not surprising it got downgraded to a CR7 (which I wasn't aware of before the mention up thread)
Apr 28, 2019, 5:00 am
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
I’d be all for the 175 becoming the domestic equivalent of the 787, allowing for more point-to-point, long distance flights instead of hub and spoke on 737s, 321s etc. How is the 175 operationally for airlines (I would guess that it doesn’t offer a big efficiency bump like the 787/350s)?
Apr 28, 2019, 5:10 am
#15
Join Date: May 2006
Location: GA
Programs: VA-PLT, QF-GLD, DL-GM, UA-ex1K, AA-exPLT, HH-DM, IHG-PLT, MR-GLD
Posts: 8,242