This increased reliance on RJ's is what bothers me the most.

One can do the usual rant about the cramped seats, no carryon luggage, no premium cabin and no jetways but the main issue is that these RJ's are NOT DELTA. They are operated by subsidiaries and, in some cases, totally unrelated companies. The standards for service (or lack of it) are totally different. Flying ASA is an experience usually reserved for third-world countries.

If Mullin wants to improve customer service, he will have to institute a minimum level for ALL flights.

Perhaps this is off topic, but I was just looking through seatguru.com, and noticed that the NW ARJs have an FC. Is this new or am I just getting up to date? Are they the normal FC, or a smaller version? Anyone tried them out? Good, bad, ugly?

Has anybody got access to the memo to see what he actually had to say?

Coach is 2x3 and First is 2x2 seating, so it's similar to an MD-80.

There is no bulkhead or curtain or anything between First and Coach. The seats are the same color, so you have to look at the row numbers carefully to make sure you sit in the correct "cabin"! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

You do get to board first, a pre-departure drink, coffee in a mug, the big armrest, etc. It is the same as mainline but without the cabin divider.

------------------
"Yippie-kay-yay, Mr. Falcon!" -- John McClane, Die Hard II As Seen on TV

While there may be a FEW examples of this, I think by-and-large that is an incorrect statement.

From SLC, the CRJ's first replaced EM2's and smaller prop planes to smaller metropolitan airports in Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, subsequently became a scorge by replacing mainline metal, initially in a mixed mainline/CRJ fashion and sometimes, but far from always adding one or two CRJ flights per day. Now this will expand to major metropolitan cities in those States as well as to California, Portland, Southwest including Texas, Midwest States including ( http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif) the Eastern part of the Midwest. Best I can tell, this will be done on a close to "one 737 for one CRJ" basis, some undoubtedly the 70 seaters CRJ's, with the decreased capacity likely being the calculated loss of people who any day would chose to jump to other mainline metal through connections, take the train, drive bikes or walk for the shorter distances, then being tortured in the tin can.

But to claim that for every mainline metal departure being replaced with CRJ's there will be two of those departures is IMHO absurd.


[This message has been edited by Flying_Duck (edited 10-08-2003).]

two things...
Does this mean BizE will finally be revamped for the sake of competing with CO/VS/AF/BA/LH/etc's new biz classes? ( http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif)

Does it mean DL's coach might get something equivalent to E+ or MRTC? ( http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif)

...or does it mean all shuttle aircraft, all the time? ( http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsdown.gif)


Inaccurate.

Star will still command some 2% more (21 vs 23%) of worldwide ASMs than SkyTeam, even with NW/CO/KL added

------------------
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy

Try the Unofficial Continental Airlines Dictionary

You're right. There will be a loss of capacity out of SLC, which is something to be concerned about. Still, the use of RJs can benefit smaller markets by providing increased frequencies. I believe the preference of several FlyerTalk members for fewer main line frequencies instead of more RJ frequencies is not held by the majority of people flying short routes.

Obviously, DL and other network carriers, have placed too many RJs on too many routes. Everyone, except DL Yield Management, agrees they’d rather fly a ‘mainline’ aircraft on a flight over 90 minutes.


[This message has been edited by sxf24 (edited 10-08-2003).]

Concordeboy, that assumes that Star doesn't lose share (which is very possible in the timeframe stated) or that one of its large carriers doesn't go bust (a very likely scenario).

At the moment, the biggest bust risk at Skyteam is Alitalia, at Star you can choose one of several (as UA IS in Ch. 11, Air NZ did go bust and was bailed out, etc.)

Yes sxf24, you definately are missing something.

This is a "use the right tool for the right job" situation. Lets see, SLC-FCA is 532 miles, SLC-MSO is 436 miles & SLC-GTF is 464 miles. All reasonable lengths for a RJ and all but SLC probably qualify as regional airports (I have only hit FCA, and SLC ofcourse). Plus- you are flying on the highly ranked SkyWest.

Want to see what you are missing? Try taking ASA from DFW-OAK. And you say somebody out there prefers this, and for what, increased frequency? No, my feeling is that playing the ASA departing at ??:?? game, followed by four hours of forced sitting in a unneccessarily compact cabin is pure pain and torture. DFW to OAK in a RJ is like using a butter knife to drive sheetrock screws.

Right, but its not just the skies. Anybody notice how bad the morning taxi out of LGA has become? Last couple months my best case was 30 minutes (sunny day) and worse case was 1:45 minutes (low cloud cover). It is deja vu to 1999, with one big exception. As we begin the long crawl to the runway, I often count as many as 2/3 of the aircraft parade to be RJs (various "connection" carriers for all the legacy airlines).

[This message has been edited by traveling_again (edited 10-08-2003).]

dup

[This message has been edited by traveling_again (edited 10-08-2003).]

It's not as bad in the afternoon or really, really early in the morning.

You can thank Bill Clinton for trashing the LGA slots! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsdown.gif

------------------
"Yippie-kay-yay, Mr. Falcon!" -- John McClane, Die Hard II As Seen on TV

LGA is definitely becoming a disaster again. This is really a collective action problem. All of the airlines want to gain customers by offering the most frequencies out of LGA and do so by using RJ's. Instead all of the airline customers end up steamed because they are always late.

IMO, the Port Authority and the FAA need to crack down and force the airlines to reduce frequencies (thereby producing the happy consequence that there would be more mainline flights). As you may notice from my handle, I'm in Brooklyn and LGA is closest airport mile-wise but I only fly from there in the direst of circumstances (or a really, really cheap fare http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif).

that doesn't follow at all. no more than California's quackpot plan to constrict flights at SFO to "force" airlines to only fly widebodies there to "reduce delays"...

Do you remember September of 2000 (or was it 1999?) Per Bill Clinton, the LGA regulations were relaxed, and airlines could fly as many RJ flights as they wanted.

Delays were reaching FOUR hours on a daily basis! It was truly unbelievable. I guess the delays didn't get any longer because four hours' worth of airplanes pretty much fills up the taxiways at LGA.

There are a few airports that have terrible congestion problems at certain times of the day -- LGA, JFK, EWR and SFO. Limiting flights at crowded airports is not much different from those metered ramps on Loop 110 in Phoenix.

If there's only a certain amount of space, there is no point in having massive amounts of congestion. You end up wasting enormous amounts of time and money (and fuel).

------------------
"Yippie-kay-yay, Mr. Falcon!" -- John McClane, Die Hard II As Seen on TV