I dunno, I don't really see the issue here. Is the problem that BE travellers aren't permitted a carry on? Is it the semantics of the wording? As I read it, the wording can easily be interepreted as "there's enough ROOM for everyone to bring a carry on". That doesn't mean that everyone can. There's enough ROOM on the plane for a butt in each of the 50 seats and also 15 people standing in the aisle, but we're all well aware that people are not allowed to fly standing in the aisle, it's not like a bus.

So I'm not really sure what the post is about...

I'm a little confused. Perhaps you can point out where they said that? The nearest I can see is the comment that "there should be enough space for every traveler to bring a rolling carry-on" but that makes no comment on the ability for any specific passengers to actually be allowed being on such a bag - just that if they did then there would (probably) be sufficient space.

The baggage hold also likely has sufficient space to fit 2 suitcases for each and every passenger too, but if the United representative had stated that would you have immediately presumed that UA was waiving all baggage charges for flights on that model of plane?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to try and get a free flight on AirAsia. After all, they do have the slogan "Now everyone can fly"...

Twitter video
 

United Airlines (@united) Tweeted:
Regional flying, revolutionized. Say goodbye to gate-checked bags and hello to a state-of-the-art interior and more legroom. The world's first two-cabin, 50-seat aircraft -- the CRJ-550 -- is coming soon. See where it's flying first: https://t.co/Hke9LIcZPu https://t.co/LLwhTQ8vVr

Work for GoJet or TSH first and you’ll see my comment is actually being too polite. This isn’t surprising though, United usually chooses the lowest bidder in the regional world and it shows.

Time has a value.

The amount of time to dissect definitions and look for loopholes is probably more costly than just paying the extra $20 to book above the WELL-DEFINED basic economy rules (which UA goes out of their way to define during the booking process).

I concur with everyone else that has noted that United doesn't offer a carry-on with BE (exception being TATL) like AA and DL(?). Kinda makes it a no brainer when choosing to who to fly when you've got no loyalty and are looking for the best price/value; you'd think they'd want to be competitive, considering that their carry-on restricted BE is typically (on routes I've looked for) more expensive that AA.

Exactly my point.... and the TravelBank card doesn't even appear to be branded on the card with "MileagePlus" so there may not be any currently offered individual MilagePlus cards that aren't "qualifying".

I am curious about the contract constraints United is under for CRJ500. What are they? I for one am excited about not having to gate check my bag but too lazy to go back a read the referred to in the post.

UA has a restriction (by pilot contract) on the number of 70/76 seat aircraft that can be flown by contractors under the United Express banner. As they put more E175s in service, they have to take out CRJ700s. The solution is to convert them to 50 seat aircraft which is a "win" for customers.

54 posts all come down to a lack of precision. UA's perfunctory response to OP was far nicer than a truthful response, e.g. "you didn't read what the guy said."

The UA statement regarding the aircraft makes the point that it can accommodate carryons for all passengers. That is a true statement. It cannot reasonably be read the other way as suggesting that all passengers may bring such a bag onboard.

The concept is important because it is certainly true of most single aisle aircraft in domestic use that if the aircraft is full and all passengers seek to bring their allotted carry on onboard that there will be space for those bags. Hence gate checking.

Indeed the aircraft's spaciousness and the F service area is a great concept. The fact that the underlying motivation is to make full utilization of available aircraft and live within the pilot contract or that it is to maximize shareholder value, is 100% irrelevant to the customer.

Thanks JimInOhio. I am all for UA maximizing share holder value and resulting a win for customer.

It's sort of laughable that anyone points to this - scope - with derision, as though it's an issue unique to the CRJ-550. After all, scope compliance is pretty much the only reason we have 70/76-seat jets in the first place. All of them (E70/E75/CR7/CR9) are certified to carry more pax than their respective configurations, but 'me-too' pilot contracts restrict seats and gross weight.

I would prefer to see more jobs/flying at the mainline, but the CRJ-550 is just an extension of that same logic (with which few in the traveling public seem to have a problem) to a smaller category.

I would prefer to see A380's with "apartments" and showers, but for whatever reason there isn't the demand at a reasonable PRASM.

I am quite happy with the larger "regional" jets as they permit service to stations which might otherwise be unserved or at least served a good deal less.

In fact, I much prefer the 2-1 F / 2-2 Y seating to the 3-3 sardine cans.

I'm not in the airline industry, I can only speak to the experience I have, as a passenger that has flown at a station that is primarily UAX, with a variety of carriers including GoJet, so almost every trip involves at least 1-2 UAX flights. I've been pretty happy on GoJet, whose staff, for the most part are pretty good, and doesn't have, again, in my experience, delays more than any other UAX carrier. I've flown on pretty much every UAX carrier, and experienced far more issues on Mesa and Republic, for example. IME, GoJet is pretty good - feel free to avoid if you feel differently.

Or they feel they need to offer the fares, while encouraging passengers to book regular fares. The best price/value is going to be very subjective based on travel needs/requirements - I haven't seen any trip since BE has been released where I would be better off on a BE fare - and can only envision a very narrow set of circumstances where it would be - to each his/her own, though.

OP sounds like they want to bring on a full-size carry on, despite buying a fare which specifically doesn't allow that. Doesn't sound like they chose the best 'value' to me, but again, to each his/her own.

It technically isn't, but it's a bit weird - the spending still counts toward the MP card waiver this year, obviously, they've changed that for next. UA and MP are essentially one, so I just lump them in the same.

Whatever their motivation - works for me.

Agreed.

During the tour this was brought up, with one of the HQ folks talking about enabling service at non-peak times during the day, allowing them to keep a higher frequency schedule that business travelers want. They were also touting the availability of F for connecting customers, who could come off F in longhaul and not have to be in a Y seat on the last mile.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...480562dd1a.jpg

-J.