brendog

Having spent many a day suffering through the 35A experience at DCA, I can vouch for this. US has found a way to make the CTT (Canadian Torture Tube) experience that much worse. Give me 12A on an E45 any day over that.

Interestingly, save for my IAD-STL CR7 flight later this week, I can't recall the last time one of my UA flights wasn't mainline. I guess there is an upside to mainly flying IAD-LAX and DCA-ORD.

3Cforme

Of the regionals count, for AA the now-revised scope clause kept the 2-class RJ count to 47 CR7s of that 244.

Of Delta's 568 regionals, fully 255 are 2-class CR7/CR9/E70/E75.

What's the breakout for UA's 552?

LASUA1K

This is the life we live in. People want 13 flights a day to every city. I would take half on a mainline aircraft and I don't think I'm alone. CMH had a huge UA presense but like everything else in the Midwest, WN has taken customers away. I can fly into CMH early Morning from Chicago and leave late evening on WN back to Chicago. WN has the best schedule for a Chicago Business Person. Early morning flights out and late evening flights back to mostly every major city. Soon they will expand DSM, and that will cover every midwest city I need. UA is only now used on flights West of DEN for me. And again, I'm not alone, every flight I'm on, I meet a new WN flyer former UA Gold or 1K.

Also, before someone adds the frequency thing, WN matches or comes close to matching most of UA's frequencies in the Midwest from Chicago.

Karl-MDW

Unfortunately, I agree with you on all points.

However, WN does not ALWAYS have the best fares.

I just wish WN had reserved seating. I know! They tested it and decided not to do this. Too bad. If they did, everyone who flies to major cities might move to WN for good! I know that I would.

UAPremierGuy

I'll add my 2 cents: I'm writing this from aboard an AA B757 between MIA & ORD. I just enjoyed a nice meal, hot nuts, warm cookie, served on china, and, of course, wi-fi. On UA, I'd be flying on an RJ with a snack box. Yeah, I'm happy with my decision.

LASUA1K

Ya its amazing that WN was the cheapest in the past but now they are equal or more if purchased last minute. I usually do BS fares and usually get row 1 with a drink. It feels like UA. Usually I'll get another free drink on the house just by being nice.

greathustle

And a lav up front. I flew SFO-DFW round trips a lot last year, and back before the AA status match I was exclusively on UA CR7s. Awfully long flight for 1 bathroom and minimal service.

Pi7473000

The other issue now that United has merged with CO the use of Prop planes on routes that never saw them before. The props are awful and you don;t see American and Delta using them like United. IN Denver you may have to fly on a prop to places like OKC, MCI, or OMA. This never happened to cities like this for years until Continental and its poor service standards came to take over United.

star_world

I presume you mean the brand-new Q400s? In many cases UA has upgraded from E145s to these. Significant improvement IMO.

channa

Not in terms of reliability.

And comfort seems about the same if you don't have F. What am I missing?

pigx5

And Significant cancellation ratio as well.

anc-ord772

When I plan a trip I look at RJ segments and lengths of flight. I am not price sensitive. I am not the only one I know who cares about this stuff. I refuse to sit on an UNITED RJ for 3 and 4 hours in their current state of service. Delta gets it, and AA has indicated they get it as well. UNITED can do what it thinks is best, and so will I.

UA-NYC

or in general cabin ambience (or lack thereof in front of the props - holy cow those are deafening)

LASUA1K

Brand new does not mean reliable. Have you seen the complaints from DEN based flyers about these things? What about the poor people in MCI, who now have to deal with unreliable aircraft on the DEN run? How can you justify "significant improvement"? UA took the 319's away on MCI-DEN flights and gave the people what they wanted, more Q's. That how you would spin it..

star_world

I'm not spinning anything. I've spent hundreds of hours crammed into E145s and almost as many in Q400s - give me the Q400 any day. I'm saying they are a net upgrade in comfort compared to the older RJs that UA and CO were operating. Nothing to do with A319s. And compared to the E145 they absolutely are a "significant improvement" - they are more spacious, they can take larger carry-on bags, and they have an F cabin.

I don't believe the aircraft are unreliable so much as the operator is unreliable. The comment I was responding to was related to how UA was taking a step backwards and putting "prop planes" on routes - that in itself isn't a negative. But perhaps they need (another) more reliable operator to improve the dispatch rate and overall reliability.