Viasistina

$400 plus booking on next flight to COS via Denver.

YYZ_TVGuy

Try YYT-LHR on an A319 on AC

aluminumdriver

Nope, most of us do not want to fly small 70 seaters. That's besides the point though, we're talking about the stage length of these small jets, how uncomfortable they are, and how we are losing passengers overall due to United's massive love affair with them.

Not necessarily. A 319 could fly that route just fine, and since the operating costs would be less, more profitably.

Nope, has nothing to do with that. I would hate to see us getting more RJ's even if we were flying them and giving up the bigger jets that our passengers enjoy more. I avoid flying United ever now when I fly business, I refuse to fly the barbie jets everywhere. United loses customers, but they can't see the forest for the trees. There is a reason United is losing market share monthly to SWA in Denver. It's because United is probably almost half RJ flights now while SWA is 737's. There are a lot of passengers like me who refuse to fly on the RJ's due to their uncomfortable seats and not sure what experience we have up front.

AD

DXjr

I see no problem with the regionals going rogue and doing their own routes, branding, etc.---as long as you realize that the major domestic networks would be vastly thinner, if not self-destruct without the feed. Also, it should be noted that many of these regionals were flying routes that the majors never touched, or could only touch with 4-5 stops along the way (and even then, couldn't really make a profit.) If you look at Mesaba and SkyWest, their networks pretty much matches what they were doing prior to hooking up with Northwest and Western, respectively. Sure, there'd be lots of RJs running around, but basically, the interstate air system would be back to where we were prior to 1984.

UA may also have the 100+ seat aircraft, but most markets won't support those planes---even with massive schedule cuts. Taking this topic's once daily IAD-COS flight, sure the A319 would have no problem flying the route, but at the same time, it would probably run in the negative most of the time. That's not smart business sense.

As I've said before: I agree with you that these planes should not be running obvious mainline routes, but you can't deny that these aircraft are perfect for most all secondary/tirtiary routes.

And weren't you fresh meat at one time? I can certainly bet that people once pondered your experience levels. And frankly, I'd advise you not fly anywhere domestically in Japan, China, or heck, most places outside of North America, Australia, and Europe. Especially when they put fresh, 250 hour pilots in the right seat of a 747-400, you know, with 400+ passengers aboard.

-----------------------------------

Now, as far as the OP is concerned, IAD-COS is generally not a problem with the CRJ-700, operationally; however, when the headwinds get bad, as has been the case with the jetstream lately, there may be a slight weight restriction, or possibly a fuel stop if it gets really bad. The problem here is that this plane was NOT designed for these missions in mind; the fuel tanks were intentionally designed small by Bombardier to limit the true potential range of the aircraft when it's operating on a revenue flight. Mind you, this aircraft can fly NYC-LAX non-stop without passengers.

AFJon

I'm a little dated (left SAT a year ago) but for the longest time there was only the Airbus doing the late night from DEN and the mid morning to DEN.

mre5765

If you say so. Seems to be a lot mainline commercial pilots driving 90 seaters. I agree with you that they are uncomfortable, at least in economy class.

And fly mostly empty since there is just one flight per day on that non-stop. Thus driving down profit on the flight.

WN doesn't fly to a half of the places UX flies to ex-DEN, and I live in one of those places (and I'm guessing you spent 4 years there too, albeit when there was still UA mainline service to DEN and ORD, but no UA/UX nonstops to IAH, IAD, and SFO). And WN can't get me to MUC period, much less get me there from COS in one connection, now via IAD in addition to ORD.

That reminds me, I keep meaning to ask, but how exactly does Bombardier and Embrauer deliver these things to Eurasia, since I know from experience there are airlines over there that use RJs.

DXjr

Usually, it'd be done with multiple stops via Alaska and Russia, or via Hawaii and the Pacific islands. In either case, there would be ferry tanks installed that would nearly double the range of the aircraft.

Bear96

1. I assume you mean operating costs per ASM, as opposed to total operating costs per flight. If so and even if what you are saying is true, what if the additional number of people needed to fill up an A319 above and beyond what would be needed to fill up an RJ are not willing to pay the fare to cover thse operating costs per ASM on a consistent basis?

2. What if UA only has the number of A319s to be able to fly X number of routes profitably, and IAD-COS would not be as profitable as those other routes? Shouldn't UA allocate its equipment and resources on the most profitable routes? Or do you think UA is purposefully putting equipment and resources on less profitable routes for some reason?

rsolomon

Never done that route myself (COS-IAD) - I routed through DEN when I needed to go. As others have said, the extra miles (assuming elite status) and comfort of a real airplane outweigh the lack of directness.

What's really sad is that DEN-SJC has gone RJ for about half the daily flights, so on a bad day it's an RJ hop COS-DEN then misery for the DEN-SJC haul. I'll probably be doing more SFO for that reason but then it's the 101 mess

Richard

P.S. One is *WAY* more likely IME to be weight-restricted *OUT* of COS due to the altitude - especially in the summertime! It's never pretty when the gate agent is trying to get a dozen or so volunteers off an RJ.

jspector106

If you don't like, don't fly it. Many folks in the Springs associated with military were happy to have the COS-IAD flight. Saves them time. I haven't flown it yet, but I can do 3 hours in an RJ if I have to.

The real problem lies with the pilot agreement with CO pilots. The mainline pilots get any flight over 50 seats, so you will see a lot of 200s flying routes that might have be a 3XX or a 37. Until they get that straightened out.

My worst experience was a full to the brim 727 out of SFO to DET in a middle seat with no music and no food surrounded by UAW workers going to a convention for 3+ hours. That was torture.

IADtoWhere

Great posts from an insider at Emb about delivery flights can be found here:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...441022&s=ferry

espostor

I couldn't agree more with the previous poster who said that the E-170 is miles above the CR7 in terms of comfort. Certainly the CR7 is better than the E-14x, and infinitely better than the CRJ, but the E-170 is top notch and I could handle a 3-4 hour flight in it no problem.

I'm curious though -- does the comfort of the E-170 over the CR7 come at a cost in terms of economics?


Bottom line, just give us more comfortable regional jets and we'll be happy. I'm getting really sick of the E-145 on my weekly DEN-MEM and MEM-IAH flights.

323power

I fly the ER4 between ABE and ORD all the time, and even on the 2hr15m west bound and 1hr45min eastbound flight, it's unconformatable, and I'm only 6'. 75% of the time the seats don't recline. I've fortunately never flown on a UA CR2 (US Airways though), and that's the most uncomfortable experience I've ever had on a plane. A CR7 though, I don't mind (especially in F). As for IAD/COS, I don't get the complaints about it? Would you rather have it a on CR7 or not have the option at all? My home base, ABE, is an hour north of PHL, and an hour west of EWR, so we get the shaft. Our farthest west flight is to ORD. I would kill for a once daily CR7 to DEN. So, your nightmare is my dream

goodeats21

Umm...speak for yourself

While more comfortable planes are always preferable to less comfortable, there are many other reasons I will never be happy with UAX. They are the first flights to get delayed or canceled, especially with weather issues. Then, there is no accurate information ever given about revised times. Just endless 15 minute delays after 15 minute delays announced. I habitually take an earlier UAX flight to the hub just to protect myself for canceled flights when I really have to make an international connection. Massive waste of time and the RCCs are no consolation.

There are many other reasons (standing in the snow or rain waiting for green-tagged bags, lavs that never have water to wash your hands....the "experience" of the A-Gate Hell at IAD is enough to convince anyone to avoid UAX at all costs).

espostor

Fair enough. But regional jet travel isn't going away.

Doesn't this apply to all regional carriers for all of the airlines, sometimes even mainline, not just UA/UAX? I've been in MEM when there was weather there and in ATL, and DL didn't even bother to post rolling delays. They didn't announce anything because there was nothing to announce. I'm not sure which way is worse.

Also, even if we did wake up tomorrow in an all-mainline world, wouldn't basically the same routes as today be affected during IRROPS at a hub? It's not UX that's the problem, it's the weather. A hypothetical A319 from DAY-ORD still loses to an int'l widebody or a hub-hub widebody when UA loses half of its landing slots due to wx at ORD.

This is prudent on int'l trips regardless of aircraft type.

Remember the G gates at IAD? Makes the A gates look like heaven. And I agree with you on the tagged bags. I fly a good mix of UA, CO, and DL these days and it's a PITA on all of them. (Although, E-170s take most normal-sized carryons, so it'd be nice to get more of those.)