E145's

Old Mar 17, 10, 10:23 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ORD, MDW or MKE
Programs: No change fees keep me tied to WN. Choice and Marriott hotels primarily.
Posts: 5,999
E145's

I took a 145 for the first time ( to Omaha ). Those seats are just to uncomfortable. I will pass in the future.
lougord99 is offline  
Old Mar 17, 10, 10:54 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,800
Originally Posted by lougord99 View Post
I took a 145 for the first time ( to Omaha ). Those seats are just to uncomfortable. I will pass in the future.
What side of the plane were you on? The row with 1 seat or two seats?

Personally, I find the E145 to be a pretty comfortable plane for short hop flights, especially if you get the side with only one seat in each row (row A I believe).

The E145 is a vast improvement comfort wise over the CRJ200.
BlueHorseShoe2000 is offline  
Old Mar 17, 10, 3:25 pm
  #3  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ORD, MDW or MKE
Programs: No change fees keep me tied to WN. Choice and Marriott hotels primarily.
Posts: 5,999
I was on the 2 side. Since it is equally close for me to go to MDW and take a WN 737, that will probably be what I do even though Midwest is often cheaper.
lougord99 is offline  
Old Mar 17, 10, 3:51 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,653
I'm in Blue's camp on the 145's...definite improvement on the CRJ's. The ERJ's are tight when you board but pretty good when sitting. The CRJ's look promising when you get onboard but wear out their welcome after you've sat down.

I did have an experience on an American E145 to STL a few years ago where my seat felt like there was a mis-shapen bar the back of the cushion which was hard on the tailbone. Kind of like sleeping on a hide-a-bed couch. But since that time I haven't had trouble with E145 seats.

Was your discomfort more about the seat design? Cabin wall? Seat ptich or width?

Some of Midwest's OMA flights are E170 and others are E145, so depending on what flight you book you might be on either plane.
knope2001 is offline  
Old Mar 17, 10, 3:51 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 344
MKE-OMA is served by 145s, 170s and 190s. If you don't like the 145s you can always try planning your trip around what plane you want to be on. This may be a better option then dealing with MDW.
MostlyAir is offline  
Old Mar 17, 10, 4:43 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: MKE
Posts: 2,161
Originally Posted by MostlyAir View Post
MKE-OMA is served by 145s, 170s and 190s.
My personal favorite is STRETCH on a 190.
RSVP is offline  
Old Mar 17, 10, 5:54 pm
  #7  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ORD, MDW or MKE
Programs: No change fees keep me tied to WN. Choice and Marriott hotels primarily.
Posts: 5,999
Originally Posted by knope2001 View Post
I'm in Blue's camp on the 145's...definite improvement on the CRJ's. The ERJ's are tight when you board but pretty good when sitting. The CRJ's look promising when you get onboard but wear out their welcome after you've sat down.

I did have an experience on an American E145 to STL a few years ago where my seat felt like there was a mis-shapen bar the back of the cushion which was hard on the tailbone. Kind of like sleeping on a hide-a-bed couch. But since that time I haven't had trouble with E145 seats.

Was your discomfort more about the seat design? Cabin wall? Seat ptich or width?

Some of Midwest's OMA flights are E170 and others are E145, so depending on what flight you book you might be on either plane.
I was on a 145 going and a 170 coming back. I was fine with the 170. Maybe it was simply the one seat I was in. It was extremely hard and I moved around, but never could get my rear end comfortable. I am only 5' 8" and pitch is never really a problem for me.
lougord99 is offline  
Old Mar 17, 10, 7:53 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 55
The 145, 170, 190 are commuter planes flown by commuter crews. If you want to avoid that, fly Airtran or Southwest. They have big airplanes flown by crews that are over 25 years old. Stop complaining, bring your business to another carrier that doesn't pretend to be Midwest. You have a choice Milwaukee, Midwest is gone...
Straight talker is offline  
Old Mar 17, 10, 8:21 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,653
Originally Posted by Straight talker View Post
The 145, 170, 190 are commuter planes flown by commuter crews. If you want to avoid that, fly Airtran or Southwest. They have big airplanes flown by crews that are over 25 years old. Stop complaining, bring your business to another carrier that doesn't pretend to be Midwest. You have a choice Milwaukee, Midwest is gone...
The E170 and E190 are most certainly not "commuter" planes, and they are quite comparable in size to most of the aircraft Midwest flew for most of their history.

As for MKE-OMA the alternative AirTran service is flown by "commuter planes flown by commuter pilots"...Skywest CRJs.

Last edited by knope2001; Mar 17, 10 at 8:37 pm
knope2001 is offline  
Old Mar 17, 10, 8:50 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards, Delta Sky Miles
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by Straight talker View Post
The 145, 170, 190 are commuter planes flown by commuter crews. If you want to avoid that, fly Airtran or Southwest. They have big airplanes flown by crews that are over 25 years old. Stop complaining, bring your business to another carrier that doesn't pretend to be Midwest. You have a choice Milwaukee, Midwest is gone...
The most uncomfortable airplane ride I ever had was an AirTran 717. (Twice) Those seats are very uncomfortable. The size of the airplane doesn't help that any. I also seem to remember that those DC-9-10's were pretty comfortable back in the day for a small plane. Since when is that a determining factor?

And what is the average age of a Republic pilot flying the Midwest lines? Most I've met while working the line are well over 25.
sideflare75 is offline  
Old Mar 18, 10, 5:42 am
  #11  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ORD, MDW or MKE
Programs: No change fees keep me tied to WN. Choice and Marriott hotels primarily.
Posts: 5,999
Originally Posted by Straight talker View Post
The 145, 170, 190 are commuter planes flown by commuter crews. If you want to avoid that, fly Airtran or Southwest. They have big airplanes flown by crews that are over 25 years old. Stop complaining, bring your business to another carrier that doesn't pretend to be Midwest. You have a choice Milwaukee, Midwest is gone...
However, I have no desire to avoid the crews who fly commuter planes. I am not clear why you would bring that up when I said nothing about it.
lougord99 is offline  
Old Mar 18, 10, 7:20 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: TPA-MKE-PHX
Programs: Ex DL-DM. MM. TWA-Aviator Plat. HHonors-DVIP, MR-Gold. Nat-Emerald. Avis Chairmn.
Posts: 1,893
Originally Posted by Straight talker View Post
The 145, 170, 190 are commuter planes flown by commuter crews. If you want to avoid that, fly Airtran or Southwest. They have big airplanes flown by crews that are over 25 years old. Stop complaining, bring your business to another carrier that doesn't pretend to be Midwest. You have a choice Milwaukee, Midwest is gone...
Maybe you need to actually look at the guys who fly these things. I have never had someone who looks younger than 40 on the 170 and 190's I have flown.
tvnwz is offline  
Old Mar 18, 10, 7:38 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,800
Originally Posted by Straight talker View Post
The 145, 170, 190 are commuter planes flown by commuter crews. If you want to avoid that, fly Airtran or Southwest. They have big airplanes flown by crews that are over 25 years old. Stop complaining, bring your business to another carrier that doesn't pretend to be Midwest. You have a choice Milwaukee, Midwest is gone...
As others have pointed out, the E170 and E190 are definately not commuter planes. Here in the States, both U.S. Airways and JetBlue operate the E190 as mainline aircraft. Up north, Air Canada's mainline fleet includes the E170. You know full well that if it weren't for scope clause restrictions, a lot more carriers would have the E170/E175 as part of their mainline fleet.
BlueHorseShoe2000 is offline  
Old Mar 18, 10, 3:20 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: MKE
Programs: Midwest Miles, AirTran A+ Rewards
Posts: 1,445
Originally Posted by sideflare75 View Post
The most uncomfortable airplane ride I ever had was an AirTran 717. (Twice) Those seats are very uncomfortable. The size of the airplane doesn't help that any. I also seem to remember that those DC-9-10's were pretty comfortable back in the day for a small plane. Since when is that a determining factor?

And what is the average age of a Republic pilot flying the Midwest lines? Most I've met while working the line are well over 25.
I second the AirTran 717 comment. Only the business class seats are comfortable on those planes. I doubt I will ever fly an AirTran 717 again. As for Straight talker's comment about pilot age... On the E190 flights I just took, both pilots looked to be above the age of 35. I also noticed they never mentioned the name Republic when doing any announcements. Is it because Republic has the YX code now?
flyYX is offline  
Old Mar 18, 10, 4:43 pm
  #15  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ORD, MDW or MKE
Programs: No change fees keep me tied to WN. Choice and Marriott hotels primarily.
Posts: 5,999
Republic was mentioned on both of my flights. An interesting side note. On my flight to OMA, our FA was stuck at LGA. We were delayed about 40 minutes while they got a local to fill-in. SHe could not have been nicer or more responsive. She was telling everyone how she was thrilled to help out in an emergency and was just happy and bubbly.
lougord99 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread