E170

[Art at ISP]

Word has it the marketing geniuses at CCY reneged on the F class promise in the 170 and CRJ700s. It would be nice to see.

You are correct. The 170's are one class. HOWEVER, the seat pitch for the entire cabin is 35" if I recall correctly--roughly equivalent to the old Shuttle configuration. Therefore ALL customers get the extra comfort plus the capacity of the aircraft is increased.

As one who has been accused of being a whiner I can tell you that this move actually makes sense. Instead of fighting for 4 or 6 F seats, where the ONLY advantage would be comfort, I'd rather have the space throughout the cabin and make everyone happy.

As a side note I flew TED last week in E plus--if you want a comparison, on a flight of about 1.5 hours it was absolutely fine.

The jury is still out on the 170 though--staffing and compensation issues notwithstanding...we shall see...

My best to you all....

 

[BoeingBoy]

Art at ISP,

All I have is the Embraer specs - haven't seen our configuration - but here goes:

The standard "all-coach" interior is either 70 seats with a 32" pitch or 78 seats with a 31" pitch - I don't think you'll be seeing a 35" pitch.

The "scope" language limits the 170 to 76 seats, I believe. Presumably, the pitch will be somewhere between 31" and 32" - basically standard.

Embraer's standard seats are 18.5" wide (between armrests) - again pretty standard.

Jim

 

[USFlyer]

It is amusing to me however that Southwest and JetBlue and Airtran (the LCC's Dave wants us to compete with with a lower cost structure) doe not fly any RJ's at all. JetBlue ordered the 190 which is the equivalent of the Airbus 318 but cheaper to buy. It is not an RJ.

Airtran does have RJs in its network. They are flown by AWAC.

 

[2BorNot2B]

Go to Embraer for great pix, stats and 360 views of both aircraft.

 

[BoeingBoy]

USFlyer,

You are very correct. On the other hand, AirTran has higher CASM than LUV and I haven't heard Dave say "We have to get our cost structure in line with AirTran". mwereplanes made a little misstatement there.

Jim

 

[phllax]

Other questions about the 170 are where will it park in PHL, will the seats have power ports, will IFC be served on the MCI legs, etc?

 

[diogenes]

Jim,

Will the EMB 170/190's carry a full pax AND (not or, as is the case with the 145's) cx load, with a full fuel load? Will it carry that on a short haul, where landing weight limitations rears its ugly head, as well as the full length of its kite string?

I'd guess not, but one can hope.

 

[BoeingBoy]

diogenes,

Interesting questions. Just from the data on the Embraer website, I can provide no answers - just generalities.

That "double-bubble" cross-section looks like it will make the belly compartments somewhat bigger than the CRJ700 - especially in height. Don't know about the length, but would assume that it has more baggage/cargo volume available.

With any airplane, the limitation on short legs is usually landing weight. For the E-170 that takes off at max weight, 7,000 lbs of fuel needs to be burned to reach max landing weight - presumably that is a 1-1/2 to 2 hour flight.

Lastly, with full fuel there is about 13,000 lbs for passengers and baggage/cargo - not enough to fill every seat if they each check a bag. But again, this isn't unusual with most airplanes.

Jim

 

[Capecod]

Other questions about the 170 are where will it park in PHL, will the seats have power ports, will IFC be served on the MCI legs, etc?

I would also like to know where they are going to park these things? Are they going to be at tbe mainline gates or in the express terminals? -Cape

 

[Colby]

.... Will it say Operated by Us AirExpress on the Website?

With the Sim Problems I was wondering if the USAIR website still showed the Flights in April... It does !!! AND On the site it doesn't say USAIRWAYS EXPRESS... It just says USAIRWAYS !!! I found that rather Interesting !!!!

 

[usairways85]

they will most likely use Terminal F in PHL. Terminal B/C are already crowded during some parts of the day and US still hasn't met its full potential in Terminal F, so i think F would be a good place to operate the flights.

 

[Colby]

I agree with you............. Using F Terminal would probably be a good idea.... B and C DEFINATELY Are Busy !!!!!!!!!!!!

Guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens !!!!!

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Won't B and C be dramatically less busy if they roll the hub?

 

[flyin2low]

They can park them in the remote commuter world parking lot and use buses to get people into the B term.