Best seats in an Air Wisconsin UAX BAe-146?
Jun 28, 2002, 4:53 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Reno NV/San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,168
Best seats in an Air Wisconsin UAX BAe-146?
Hello everyone,
I've never been on this type of aircraft.
1)Do you guys have any preferences when flying on this aircraft type?
2)Is it a comfortable decent aircraft?
I currently have 9A ORD-ATW, and 8F ATW-ORD.
Thanks for the info!
------------------
SFnFlaGuy
I've never been on this type of aircraft.
1)Do you guys have any preferences when flying on this aircraft type?
2)Is it a comfortable decent aircraft?
I currently have 9A ORD-ATW, and 8F ATW-ORD.
Thanks for the info!
------------------
SFnFlaGuy
Jun 28, 2002, 5:57 pm
#2
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: UA UGS 1K; US Chairman: AA Platinum: Marriott Platinum Premier; *wood Gold
Posts: 315
I was on the BA146 this morning from FSD to DEN. I've only been on this type of plane a couple of times, so I don't claim to be an expert. It appeared that the seats were a little wider than on a 737; but the leg room is very tight. The seating is 2-3. The 2 seat side are seats A and C (no B). Since seat width is more important to me than the leg room, it was ok. I do think it would be quite uncomfortable for taller passengers.
Jun 28, 2002, 6:17 pm
#3
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northside in tha house
Posts: 1,284
It's been a while but I was forced to fly these a little. I liked the back of the bus the best. Legroom sux in general on this equipment, imo, so I always looked for fewer seats around me. On the -200 I would shoot for row 18, two seats on the right side were not bad as you could stick your legs out to either side. I think this is the same as row 21 on the -300 series. Edited as I forgot about bulkheads, and would trust others who fly this equipt more frequently like hobson.
[This message has been edited by gregseattle (edited 06-29-2002).]
[This message has been edited by gregseattle (edited 06-29-2002).]
Jun 28, 2002, 9:23 pm
#4
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 846
The only seats on this plane with any legroom are the bulkhead seats. I generally do not favor the bulkhead row, but on this plane, that's what I'd go for if you can snag one. Fortunately, the distance from appleton to ORD isn't too long, but I wouldn't want to fly those puppies from MKE to DEN.
Jun 28, 2002, 9:37 pm
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Reno NV/San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,168
Thanks for the info everyone! 
Unfortunately, all the bulkhead seats are taken and both flights are on 146-100 type aircraft.
I have 9A and will switch the other to 9A also.
We'll see what happens!
------------------
SFnFlaGuy
Unfortunately, all the bulkhead seats are taken and both flights are on 146-100 type aircraft.
I have 9A and will switch the other to 9A also.
We'll see what happens!
------------------
SFnFlaGuy
Jun 29, 2002, 12:00 am
#6
Join Date: Sep 2001
Programs: Alaska Tanzanite 100K
Posts: 3,858
Rows 8 - 10 on the -200s do not have much overhead bin space, if any at all...
and in terms of legroom, it's a 32-33" seat pitch.... maybe you all are used to Economy Plus..
Actually, the 146s use the seats from the 1980s, so they have a LOT thicker seat backs and bottoms... more comfy than any 737 seat.
Rows 1-3 are the best in terms of views, rows 16 and on give you good views and access to the rear lav. I'd be leary of the 18 w/ a single seat, as you are sitting next to a "closet" that stores the air stairs on some models.
-nate
and in terms of legroom, it's a 32-33" seat pitch.... maybe you all are used to Economy Plus..
Actually, the 146s use the seats from the 1980s, so they have a LOT thicker seat backs and bottoms... more comfy than any 737 seat.
Rows 1-3 are the best in terms of views, rows 16 and on give you good views and access to the rear lav. I'd be leary of the 18 w/ a single seat, as you are sitting next to a "closet" that stores the air stairs on some models.
-nate
Jun 29, 2002, 12:01 am
#7
Join Date: Sep 2001
Programs: Alaska Tanzanite 100K
Posts: 3,858
the -100 model has 3 x 3... which is way worse than 2 x 3...... and there is only 1 dash 100 in the AWAC fleet.
Also, the -200s last row is 18, the -300s is 20/21 I believe.
-nate
Also, the -200s last row is 18, the -300s is 20/21 I believe.
-nate
Jun 29, 2002, 12:58 am
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Reno NV/San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,168
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by UAPremierExec:
the -100 model has 3 x 3... which is way worse than 2 x 3...... and there is only 1 dash 100 in the AWAC fleet.
Also, the -200s last row is 18, the -300s is 20/21 I believe.
-nate</font>
the -100 model has 3 x 3... which is way worse than 2 x 3...... and there is only 1 dash 100 in the AWAC fleet.
Also, the -200s last row is 18, the -300s is 20/21 I believe.
-nate</font>
I'm confused now.....united.com lists the seat map on my flight....a -100 as a 2x3 configuration. Is this right?
------------------
SFnFlaGuy
Jun 29, 2002, 1:38 am
#9
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Programs: QF Platinum One (LTG), UA Plat IHG Plat
Posts: 5,836
AWAC has one 146 turkey aircraft in a 3-3 config, and this one is a shocker. N616AW I believe is the registration. If you get it, every seat sucks! 
------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.
------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.
Jun 29, 2002, 3:06 am
#10
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Denver, CO
Programs: UA 1K 25 years/2MM, Honors LT Diamond, AVIS & Hertz Prez Club
Posts: 4,753
I've been on every one of the configs and I will fight for a bulkhead seat. On each flight, they showed unavailable, but on check-in, I was always able to snag the window or aisle. The 1D seat is best, when available, as you can even stick your legs forward toward the galley.
I have on three instances found someone in my seat, who was put there by the FA upon boarding. Each time I had to show my boarding pass and make a mild fuss to get my assigned seat. The pax was simply being "accomodated" when they saw that this seat was nicer.
I have on three instances found someone in my seat, who was put there by the FA upon boarding. Each time I had to show my boarding pass and make a mild fuss to get my assigned seat. The pax was simply being "accomodated" when they saw that this seat was nicer.
Jun 29, 2002, 8:57 am
#11
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Reno NV/San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,168
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SFO 1K:
I've been on every one of the configs and I will fight for a bulkhead seat. On each flight, they showed unavailable, but on check-in, I was always able to snag the window or aisle. The 1D seat is best, when available, as you can even stick your legs forward toward the galley.
I have on three instances found someone in my seat, who was put there by the FA upon boarding. Each time I had to show my boarding pass and make a mild fuss to get my assigned seat. The pax was simply being "accomodated" when they saw that this seat was nicer.</font>
I've been on every one of the configs and I will fight for a bulkhead seat. On each flight, they showed unavailable, but on check-in, I was always able to snag the window or aisle. The 1D seat is best, when available, as you can even stick your legs forward toward the galley.
I have on three instances found someone in my seat, who was put there by the FA upon boarding. Each time I had to show my boarding pass and make a mild fuss to get my assigned seat. The pax was simply being "accomodated" when they saw that this seat was nicer.</font>
Thanks for the tip! I'll try to get seat 1D when I check-in. (Just as with my connection, on a B744 from ORD to SFO, I'm stuck in 16H but will try for 15A or 15H)
I just want to be comfortable. My friends/co-workers think that I'm being to anal about seat assignments. Oh well, that's how I am! :-)
------------------
SFnFlaGuy
Jun 29, 2002, 9:24 am
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: UA Plat 2MM. DL Plat, AS MVP
Posts: 12,752
The 146 is my favorite aircraft in the sky. You get a helluva view, comfy seat, and nice service.
Jun 29, 2002, 9:40 am
#13
Join Date: Sep 2001
Programs: Alaska Tanzanite 100K
Posts: 3,858
146-100 is the generic aircraft decode listing from the GDS.... such as a 733 decodes to a Boeing 737-300, 735 is Boeing 737-500.. and 146 for SOME reason comes out to BAe (bring another engine) 146-100 when in fact you can be on the -200 or -300. It all depends on what the last row is.
-nate
-nate
Jun 29, 2002, 11:44 am
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Reno NV/San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,168
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by UAPremierExec:
146-100 is the generic aircraft decode listing from the GDS.... such as a 733 decodes to a Boeing 737-300, 735 is Boeing 737-500.. and 146 for SOME reason comes out to BAe (bring another engine) 146-100 when in fact you can be on the -200 or -300. It all depends on what the last row is.
-nate</font>
146-100 is the generic aircraft decode listing from the GDS.... such as a 733 decodes to a Boeing 737-300, 735 is Boeing 737-500.. and 146 for SOME reason comes out to BAe (bring another engine) 146-100 when in fact you can be on the -200 or -300. It all depends on what the last row is.
-nate</font>
------------------
SFnFlaGuy
Jun 30, 2002, 8:31 am
#15
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Denver, CO
Programs: UA 1K 25 years/2MM, Honors LT Diamond, AVIS & Hertz Prez Club
Posts: 4,753
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SFnFlaGuy:
Thanks for clearing that up. Upon closer inspection, (I compared the seat maps for each version), I am on a -200 not on a -100 as indicated for my respective flights!
</font>
Thanks for clearing that up. Upon closer inspection, (I compared the seat maps for each version), I am on a -200 not on a -100 as indicated for my respective flights!
</font>