Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Longest flights in RJ

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 29, 2014, 5:10 pm
  #61  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
Originally Posted by Tennen
How is that different from pmUA A319/A320 aircraft, which AFAIK, are a large part of the narrowbody fleet? Don't those have 2 lavs for Y (and similar lav to pax ratio) as well?
It's similar, yes, except that the ration on the A319 is a little more favorable and can be as low as 56 pax per lav (50 is generally considered the "normal" ratio).

Also, while PMCO used the 738 as the backbone of it single-aisle fleet (at one points the type represented about 80% of its single-aisle fleet), UA had a large fleet of 757-200's which always had a third lav in Y, which meant one was much less likely to run into a single-aisle Airbus on the really long flights.

On PMCO, on the other hand, for years almost every single transcon was on a 738, with the occasional 752 or 752 thrown in.
TWA Fan 1 is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2014, 5:30 pm
  #62  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 8,634
Because of the potential for poopers, there is a huge difference between one lav and multiple lavs, even if the ratio is the same.
mgcsinc is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2014, 5:40 pm
  #63  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: BOS
Programs: riding the lifetime status. DL MM / AA MM
Posts: 2,968
Originally Posted by drvannostren
That's interesting the AC ones have a lav up front as well. It's small, but most airplane bathrooms are, J config being 1-LAV, 1-2, 1-2, 1-2. Never really thought about it, but I suppose it's nice that it's there.
the AC ones are CRJ-705's, which are really CRJ9's with reduced certified weights.

on DL, the CRJ7 is equivalent to UA, with one lav in the rear. the CRJ9 has two lavs -- one at the back of Y, and one at the front of F. i'll adjust times within reason to get a CRJ9 over a CRJ7 on a longer flight.. if they're going to keep serving me drinks, i want to have ready access to a lav..

(the DL CRJ9's are nextgens, and have 12-seat F cabins. i'll book those almost any time.)
Seat1A is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2014, 10:09 am
  #64  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 70
EWR-AUS, 4:01, 1,501 miles E-170.
t18c97 is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2014, 10:47 am
  #65  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Suburban Philadelphia
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG Gold
Posts: 3,392
Originally Posted by t18c97
EWR-AUS, 4:01, 1,501 miles E-170.
That doesn't count.

I think ERJ 135/145 and CRJ200/700's should only be considered. I'd fly a transcon in an E170, those planes are just fine.

If UA replaced every single RJ in the fleet with a 170/190 I'd be a happy customer.
Cargojon is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2014, 10:58 am
  #66  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,172
Originally Posted by t18c97
EWR-AUS, 4:01, 1,501 miles E-170.
I have an Austin trip in a couple weeks, and I will happily be connecting (at DFW) to avoid a 4 hour RJ trip
UA-NYC is online now  
Old Jul 3, 2014, 11:17 am
  #67  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,480
Originally Posted by mgcsinc
Because of the potential for poopers, there is a huge difference between one lav and multiple lavs, even if the ratio is the same.
Which is why we should all be thanking UA for cutting meals and serving undrinkable "coffee"
Kacee is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2014, 11:28 am
  #68  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 21,607
Originally Posted by bluedemon211
MCI-SFO 1,498 miles at 3:39............on slim-line seats!
Even in F, the new seats were uncomfortable on my last MCI-SFO CR7. 4:02:00 flight due to headwinds and other silliness..
FriendlySkies is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2014, 11:44 am
  #69  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 6km East of EPAYE
Programs: UA Silver, AA Platinum, AS & DL GM Marriott TE, Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,582
Originally Posted by FriendlySkies
Even in F, the new seats were uncomfortable on my last MCI-SFO CR7. 4:02:00 flight due to headwinds and other silliness..
The new seats on the CRJ7 are awful!

Did MIA-IAD last week, and couldn't believe the change
Madone59 is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2014, 12:57 pm
  #70  
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
Originally Posted by Cargojon
That doesn't count.

I think ERJ 135/145 and CRJ200/700's should only be considered. I'd fly a transcon in an E170, those planes are just fine.

If UA replaced every single RJ in the fleet with a 170/190 I'd be a happy customer.
No wifi, snack box as a meal, plastic cups in F, small E+ cabin...I think I'd rather not have every flight on one of those, especially not very long ones.
CMK10 is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2014, 1:18 pm
  #71  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: DEN
Programs: UA MM Plat; AA MM Gold; HHonors Diamond
Posts: 15,866
Originally Posted by JDS747
... and the ability for two grown men to sit next to each other without one being smashed into the wall and the other spilling out into the aisle....
This is why I don't understand the disdain for the ERJ-145s. Put me in an "A" seat on one of those versus being in Y on a mainline bird any day. Been on too many flights where I sat next to a guy my size (not POS, just big guys) and was uncomfortable the entire flight.
Bonehead is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2014, 1:27 pm
  #72  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
Originally Posted by Bonehead
This is why I don't understand the disdain for the ERJ-145s. Put me in an "A" seat on one of those versus being in Y on a mainline bird any day. Been on too many flights where I sat next to a guy my size (not POS, just big guys) and was uncomfortable the entire flight.
Seat 12A on an ERJ-145 is fine, especially when the Y offering on other UA a/c has been downgraded over the years.

On a long flight, though, the lack of any IFE/WiFi and catering is definitely an issue.
TWA Fan 1 is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2014, 1:38 pm
  #73  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: ORF, RIC
Programs: UA LT 1K, 3 MM; Marriott Titanium; IHG Platinum
Posts: 6,958
Changed to 18A

Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
Seat 12A on an ERJ-145 is fine, especially when the Y offering on other UA a/c has been downgraded over the years.

On a long flight, though, the lack of any IFE/WiFi and catering is definitely an issue.
Apparently, you have not flied UA for a while. It is now 18A on ERJ-135/145.
Happy travels.
Kmxu is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2014, 1:55 pm
  #74  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: GRR
Posts: 544
The first week of March I'm finding STL-SFO in a 175. 1,735 miles, 4 hr 30 min.
3 hr 48 min the other way.
BigJC is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2014, 2:03 pm
  #75  
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
Originally Posted by Bonehead
This is why I don't understand the disdain for the ERJ-145s. Put me in an "A" seat on one of those versus being in Y on a mainline bird any day. Been on too many flights where I sat next to a guy my size (not POS, just big guys) and was uncomfortable the entire flight.
As far as an ER4 vs. no flight at all or a CRJ-200 I agree.

However, I like the opportunity to upgrade/buy First. And, as we all know, RJ flights cancel first in any type of weather. There's no reason RDU-IAH should be an ER4, frankly. AA is all mainline RDU-DFW.
CMK10 is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.