Hey FTers

I'm pretty new around here, but I have a question that as of yet hasn't been answerd. Why all the hate for UX? In all of my experiences with them they've done very well, and one instance in particular is probably in my top 5 of all flight experiences. So why all the UX hate?

One word : Mesa

It's not hatred for me... it's just that UX planes (eventhough they now have Ex-plus), it's still smaller than mainline seats. I do my best to avoid UX flights as much as possible for that reason and have been very lucky thanks to (location) if not I am usually in F in Explus.

I don't mind UX because most of my travel with them happens to be SkyWest, which seems to be very good.

My experiences are limited to Skywest. Since I segment pad when I can SAN/CLD-LAX, my average UX segments per UA itin is just over 2 per roundtrip. I think the problems stem from the discontinuity of UA to UX in terms of benefits, comfort and service. As bad as the IAD and ORD UX operations seem to be, Skywest has been just the opposite for me.


Skywest at CLD/SAN
Generally good, occasionally even calling elite boarding. Some FAs decide that CLD-LAX is too short for drinks; others offer me unlimited bags of crackers and refills on soda. No complaints.

Skywest at LAX
My biggest complaint: too far from the RCC, and boarding times are unpredictable. I try to get to the gate 25 minutes before departure, and am usually early. A few times, gotten there 25 prior and heard my name called on the PA as a "last call"

Skywest at SFO
Really hit hard by weather, and I hate having a gate change pulled on me and I have to hike from 70's to the remote Its always chaotic, but FA's have always been courteous. SMF-SFO service, see CLD-LAX

Skywest at SEA/PDX
Gate area is a little cramped at both, and RCC is kinda far (trend!). The hike out to planes at PDX is either really cool or a total drag.

In general, the faults with Skywest are more assocaited with the airport design rather than unfriendliness. I have especially noticed on 120 routes that I have received what I perceive to be extra attention, but I could also be full of myself. In terms of legroom, 9BC on a EMB 120 are some of the best Y seats that fly in UA colors

You are from SAN, so I suspect most - or all - of your UX flights are on SkyWest. They are the cream of the UX crop and I agree, they do a good job most of the time. Most of the non-equipment related UX invective on the board is directed at other UX carriers. SW gets the occasional shot, but not like some of the others. As for the aircraft, I join the CRJ bashing and fervently hope SW will do away with it, or at least upgrade to CR7s, soon.

JR

I thought the Explus flights SFO-PDX/YYC/YEG were operated by OO? And LAX has a few, like COS, SLC, SJC ( I think). Unfortuneately, I don't think that a lot of the UX feed in California can support the demand to upgrade to a CR7. The two early morning SAN-LAX flights come to mind as a potential upgrade to 1 Explus flight, with a CRJ and a 120 leaving within 10 minutes of each other. That CRJ is there just for people who prefer "jets". Lots of em fly ps, or head to Asia in Europe.

In my experience:
SkyWest: ^ ^ ^
Mesa
Trans States:
Free Advice: get your morning cup of joe in the airport - NOT on board. UX does not necessarily have Starbucks (like the mainliners.)

I fly into MSN quite often, and UX service there is variable, at best. Most of the problems are beyond their control (weather), but when they have equipment issues, there tends to be a ripple effect that lasts throughout the day (one overcrowded plane overflowing onto the next which overflows onto the next...). And it's so much fun looking at the monitor and seeing a list of "cancelled" and "delayed" flights.

Of course, when you're feeding (and being fed by) O'Hare, that doesn't help either! ATC issues probably affect smaller regional carriers more than long-range planes that have already been in the air for many hours.

And then there are the planes, but even that may not be fair. Sometimes I wonder if people will be happy with anything the regionals fly, or if they're still being punished for all those BA146s and SAAB Boxcars that used to be the norm. Obviously the BA146s are still with us, at least enough to ensure full employment for the mechanics. A little jet with 4 engines? Did some government subsidize production of those silly planes? But the point is that it's something of a crapshoot as to what you might find yourself on when flying UX.

My experience is also limited to SkyWest (MOD-SFO) but personnel at the airport is pleasant and efficient; cheerful FA. Prop turbo planes but it's a short flight anyway...

Right, different perspectives on UX depending upon the particular company and airport location. Have had little experience of them over the past year, but before that plenty going in and out of IAD through the infamous, never to be missed, G terminal. Miserable experiences getting to/from G and waiting for flights there colors the thinking about UX, even if UX not directly responsible for those parts of the operation. And too many times waiting for ground crew to do what must be done to get aircraft out or in leaves a bad impression of UX, again whether strictly speaking UX's fault or not.

So...will UX to/from IAD be substantially better after transition to A terminal for all UX flights? It couldn't be worse.

My UX experiences have all been transstates and chataqua or chatataqua...or whatever that one is... Anyway, I've actually only had one Skywest experience. (Most of my UX experience is going to school ORD-SBN) And outside of weather, I've found the crews on UX (SBN-ORD) to be more pleasant than others, and while the planes leave something to be desired, outside of maybe 4 weekends a year SBN doesnt justify anything bigger than a CRJ.

Anyway, all the UX hate leaves me with a big But I suppose its only a matter of time until I have my bad UX experience...

My understanding from previous discussions about the BA146 is that it was developed for restricted runways that would normally be limited to turbo props. With four engines, you can do shorter and quieter takeoffs. Someone with more expertise can probably clarify.

That is essentially correct.
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=45
PSA bought a bunch of them in the early 80's, because they felt it was ideal for the noise restrictions at SNA and other airports they flew into. It worked very well, and PSA expanded service to Concord, CA and other small airports with this aircraft. It's not a very comfortable plane by any stretch of the imagination, but it's well designed and quiet. As RJ's go, you could do much worse than one of these.

At ORD, UX comes into terminal 2 and baggage takes forever to unload. The last time I flew UX, I waited over an hour for my bag.