When will UAX be all jet?
Jul 13, 2004, 12:16 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2002
Programs: UA 1MM, SPG Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Gold, IHG Platinum
Posts: 2,796
When will UAX be all jet?
When will the last turbo-prop be retired from the UAX fleet?
Jul 13, 2004, 12:37 am
#2
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Novato, CA
Programs: SAS EuroBonus, LH M&M, Finnair Plus, SPG Preferred Plus
Posts: 785
55 of SkyWest's EMB-120's will be with the company and under a United Express contract for at least the next four/five years or so (the majority of them are under long-term leases until at least 2008 I believe). Keep in mind turboprops provide efficient economical service to cities that may not otherwise be able to support/sustain a larger UAX CRJ (50 seat) jet aircraft. Some cities served by United Express are marginal or can't support a CRJ's requirements (runway length, etc.)
Plus... with all the EMB's gone... there'll be no more 9B&C!
Happy Travels!
Kai
----------
SkyWest Airlines - your friendly regional carrier and #1 On-Time airline for 2003!
Any opinions expressed by myself are mine alone and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer, SkyWest Airlines, or those of our majors partners, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and Continental Airlines, respectively.
Plus... with all the EMB's gone... there'll be no more 9B&C!
Happy Travels!
Kai
----------
SkyWest Airlines - your friendly regional carrier and #1 On-Time airline for 2003!
Any opinions expressed by myself are mine alone and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer, SkyWest Airlines, or those of our majors partners, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and Continental Airlines, respectively.
Jul 13, 2004, 12:38 am
#3
Moderator Hilton Honors, Travel News, West, The Suggestion Box, Smoking Lounge & DiningBuzz
Join Date: Jun 2000
Programs: Honors Diamond, Hertz Presidents Circle, National Exec Elite
Posts: 36,027
Originally Posted by zvezda
When will the last turbo-prop be retired from the UAX fleet?
As for me, I hope never. Give me an EMB turboprop ANY day over an rj.
(Edit: Is that great minds or what. Thanks Kai!)
Jul 13, 2004, 1:23 am
#4
Join Date: Feb 2004
Programs: AA 'kettle', Marriott Gold, ICH Gld, Hertz 5*
Posts: 5,258
Originally Posted by cblaisd
As for me, I hope never. Give me an EMB turboprop ANY day over an rj.
Where we live (VIS and FAT are locals), turboprops are a way of life. SkyWest does run some RJ's for the majors out of FAT but much of the time we end up on EM-120's, especially to SFO.
Only suggestion would be to have a spare EM in the bullpen; mechanicals seem to bite them more than the RJ's. I've ended up on a SkyWest Delta-branded AC more than once because of a UAX mechanical.
In any event, glad to hear they'll be around 'till '08 anyway....
Pat
Jul 13, 2004, 3:37 am
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2002
Programs: UA 1MM, SPG Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Gold, IHG Platinum
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by UAX@SFO
55 of SkyWest's EMB-120's will be with the company and under a United Express contract for at least the next four/five years or so (the majority of them are under long-term leases until at least 2008 I believe).
Keep in mind turboprops provide efficient economical service to cities that may not otherwise be able to support/sustain a larger UAX CRJ (50 seat) jet aircraft. Some cities served by United Express are marginal or can't support a CRJ's requirements (runway length, etc.)
Jets are so much faster, quieter, and safer than turboprops that I avoid the latter whenever possible. Of course, on very short flights, the speed makes little difference, but the safety difference is still large.
Jul 13, 2004, 6:09 am
#6
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: GSP (Greenville, SC)
Programs: DL Gold Medallion; UA Premier Executive; WN sub-CP; AA sub-Gold
Posts: 13,393
Originally Posted by zvezda
Jets are so much faster, quieter, and safer than turboprops that I avoid the latter whenever possible. Of course, on very short flights, the speed makes little difference, but the safety difference is still large.
Jul 13, 2004, 7:18 am
#7
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield,MO,USA
Programs: UA 1K MM, HH Diamond, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,604
Exit Row 9 on the right side of the Skywest EMB 120 is my favorite non-first class seat on any UX plane. Seems like as much leg room as 9C on a 757.
Jul 13, 2004, 8:14 am
#8
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by zvezda
Jets are so much faster, quieter, and safer than turboprops that I avoid the latter whenever possible. Of course, on very short flights, the speed makes little difference, but the safety difference is still large.
Jul 13, 2004, 9:29 am
#9
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Washington DC; UA 1MM, Marriott Lifetime Plat
Posts: 959
The EMB's are fine for travel up to a half hour. But putting up with the EMB for 1+ hour each way SEA-GEG and GEG-SEA every week is killing me...even though I have had 9B every time. If I'm not mistaken, Alaska flys a 737 SEA-GEG.
Jul 13, 2004, 9:42 am
#10
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: GSP (Greenville, SC)
Programs: DL Gold Medallion; UA Premier Executive; WN sub-CP; AA sub-Gold
Posts: 13,393
Originally Posted by randomman
The EMB's are fine for travel up to a half hour. But putting up with the EMB for 1+ hour each way SEA-GEG and GEG-SEA every week is killing me...even though I have had 9B every time. If I'm not mistaken, Alaska flys a 737 SEA-GEG.
UA6306 operated by United Express/SkyWest
EMB-120
Leave SEA 9:32 AM
Arrive GEG 10:30 AM
block time 58 minutes
AS349
737-700
Leave SEA 10:00 AM
Arrive GEG 11:00 AM
block time 1 hour
Unless Alaska adds a lot of padding, or ATC delays spike between 9:30 and 10 AM on a Saturday, apparently the aircraft type makes no difference.
Jul 13, 2004, 10:05 am
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: HH Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 10,458
Originally Posted by randomman
The EMB's are fine for travel up to a half hour. But putting up with the EMB for 1+ hour each way SEA-GEG and GEG-SEA every week is killing me...even though I have had 9B every time. If I'm not mistaken, Alaska flys a 737 SEA-GEG.
Jul 13, 2004, 10:13 am
#12
Join Date: May 2001
Location: IAD
Posts: 6,148
I thought the reason UA wanted Great Lakes Aviation out of the UAX system was their refusal to convert to jets? But now there will be props in the UAX system for at least 4 more years.... seems a little strange.
Jul 13, 2004, 10:27 am
#13
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Washington DC; UA 1MM, Marriott Lifetime Plat
Posts: 959
Originally Posted by JS
Unless Alaska adds a lot of padding, or ATC delays spike between 9:30 and 10 AM on a Saturday, apparently the aircraft type makes no difference.
And take a look at the actual flight information from www.flightview.com:
Alaska Airlines
Flight Number 349 (AS349)
Departure
Airport: Seattle/Tacoma, WA
Scheduled Time: 10:00 AM, Jul 12
Actual Time: 10:06 AM, Jul 12
Arrival
Airport: Spokane, WA
Scheduled Time: 11:00 AM, Jul 12
Actual Time: 10:41 AM, Jul 12
Status: Landed
Equipment: B737
Looks like 35 minutes.
My UX flight from that morning:
United Airlines
Flight Number 6307 (UA6307)
Departure
Airport: Seattle/Tacoma, WA
Scheduled Time: 12:15 PM, Jul 12
Actual Time: 12:19 PM, Jul 12
Arrival
Airport: Spokane, WA
Scheduled Time: 1:16 PM, Jul 12
Actual Time: 1:08 PM, Jul 12
Status: Landed
Equipment: E120
49 minutes
Randomman
Jul 13, 2004, 10:42 am
#14
Moderator Hilton Honors, Travel News, West, The Suggestion Box, Smoking Lounge & DiningBuzz
Join Date: Jun 2000
Programs: Honors Diamond, Hertz Presidents Circle, National Exec Elite
Posts: 36,027
Originally Posted by randomman
JS, its not all about how long the flight actually takes, but more about having to put up with the noise and horrible ride for that long. I would much rather take my E+/F seat in a 737 for an hour over 9B in the EMB for an hour...
I'll grant you, of course, that an E+/F seat on a 737 is much better than any seat on an EMB turboprop.
But if the context is a CRJ versus an EMB, then I'd much prefer the lower (especially over beautiful country) and (marginally) slower EMB -- even with the noise -- than be miserably seated on an utterly cramped and miserable CRJ which is a miserable experience all the way around.
Miserable. Did I say miserable?
YMMV
Jul 13, 2004, 2:02 pm
#15
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: port broad reach
Programs: NorthSails® | Starboard | ION
Posts: 6,525
Like cblaisd, I happen to like some prop travel.
SFO-MRY and SNA-LAX are my favorites (even if there was that one MRY flight on an A320 with the "bay tour" a couple of years ago.
SFO-MRY and SNA-LAX are my favorites (even if there was that one MRY flight on an A320 with the "bay tour" a couple of years ago.