new 30 Embraer 175 aircraft to US Airways Express
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
Yes, but Air Canada only has 73 seats in their 175s. 64Y/9F, so I'm sure they're more comfortable than the 86-seat config. will be.
I have commuted on CHQ J/S on several occasions. You guys do a good job with fuel conservation, as do the other carriers.
US Airways Executive Vice President Sales and Marketing Scott Kirby said, "Both Republic and Embraer offer an exceptional product and we're pleased to expand our current partnership with both companies. The comfort of the Embraer 175 aircraft is important to our customers and the economics of the aircraft make good business sense."
To bad USAirways didn’t expand a current partnership with THERE OWN EMPLOYEES
To bad USAirways didn’t expand a current partnership with THERE OWN EMPLOYEES
I have commuted on CHQ J/S on several occasions. You guys do a good job with fuel conservation, as do the other carriers.
Thanks. By the way based I'm GSO based and a hockey fanatic, so gotta say LOVE the avatar! Got to games 1 and 5 of the ECF and game 1 of the Cup finals. Never gonna forget the run this year!
Art at ISP
Veteran
Also, for what it's worth, this is another example of NOT being competitive with other airlines.
DL and UA operate the 170 series with a small F cabin, and UA operates the CRJ-700 with a small F cabin as well. While US is going to configure the 190 with F, I would think they would at least consider doing all the large EMB series with F, for CONTINUITY and CONSISTENCY of product.
This is a small issue compared to the outsourcing issue, of course, but worth mentioning in my opinion.
My best to you all...
DL and UA operate the 170 series with a small F cabin, and UA operates the CRJ-700 with a small F cabin as well. While US is going to configure the 190 with F, I would think they would at least consider doing all the large EMB series with F, for CONTINUITY and CONSISTENCY of product.
This is a small issue compared to the outsourcing issue, of course, but worth mentioning in my opinion.
My best to you all...
AtlanticBeach
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 341
- 2
Art, to further support your argument as it relates to the CRJs, consider the percentage of flights that are weight restricted. When more seats are crammed into an airframe and those seats are sold, there are two bad results. First, the number of people denied boarding increases. Second, the seat pitch becomes less tolerable, resulting in decreased comfort for the remaining passengers.
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
LCC is INCREASING its reliance on and obligations to Republic?!?!
wow, I thought the weren't fond of each other.
wow, I thought the weren't fond of each other.
Flying Titan
Veteran
- Oct 14, 2003
- 773
- 0
Looks like most, if not all of these planes, will be replacements for relatively new RJs.
I'm still trying to figure out what's driving this move. Is it the fuel calculation???... i.e. that the economics of the 50-seat RJs are deteriorating so badly that US wants to start cutting them from the fleet?
Is this because so many of the 737s will be going away in the next few years that they need these to fill the void (on top of the much-rumored new CRJ900s and the new 190s due to start arriving in a few months)?
I see that this agreement runs through 2012. Does that extend the current E170 agreement with Republic? Much of this doesn't seem to make sense. Why have two separate groups flying planes with the same type rating (170 & 190)? Is it just another labor wedge? After all, with the new pay structure, is using Republic really any cheaper than in-house flying of these aircraft?
I'm still trying to figure out what's driving this move. Is it the fuel calculation???... i.e. that the economics of the 50-seat RJs are deteriorating so badly that US wants to start cutting them from the fleet?
Is this because so many of the 737s will be going away in the next few years that they need these to fill the void (on top of the much-rumored new CRJ900s and the new 190s due to start arriving in a few months)?
I see that this agreement runs through 2012. Does that extend the current E170 agreement with Republic? Much of this doesn't seem to make sense. Why have two separate groups flying planes with the same type rating (170 & 190)? Is it just another labor wedge? After all, with the new pay structure, is using Republic really any cheaper than in-house flying of these aircraft?
Are the other carriers F seats "real" F seats or just sold as F with a little more leg room and free booze,etc? Just curious if US decided to do an F cabin if this could be a way around having to have 2 separate seats, etc for the cabin. More leg room and the amenities, but with the regular Y seats? This way they could try out F on these planes and not have to spend money to get them redone if they decide to pull the F out. I know a full F seat would be nice, but wouldnt some type of F product on these planes be better than nothing at all?
Off topic- I really think they need to do away with the First Class name and just use Business Class on domestic/Caribbean and Envoy Class on Transatlantic flights.
Off topic- I really think they need to do away with the First Class name and just use Business Class on domestic/Caribbean and Envoy Class on Transatlantic flights.
Singleflyer
Senior
- Mar 27, 2003
- 466
- 6
The seats are diferent. ON UA it is a 1 & 2 on the CRJ. They are wider, more pitch, and better padding. Are the real 1st class seats????
If this works, here is a link to Embraer's site for the 86 seat configuration with 31" pitch:
http://www.embraercommercialjets.com/engli...sp?tela=layouts
Singleflyer
Senior
- Mar 27, 2003
- 466
- 6
Not want to discuss the labor issue of this move, as a customer I have mixed feelings about the move.
The 175 is much better product than the 145 it is replacing, but it is being done in a half a$$ed fashion.
US is giving me more and more reasons to move about half my business to other carriers.
I see little additional value to this move. If they had a small 1st cabin I would see great value and probably fly US even more on long thin routes since I choose my flying on the airline that has the biggest planes on the routes I fly. This plane would be just a larger capicity RJ.
I flew yesterday MHT-PHL on a CRJ. While it been an RJ for quite some time, it was mainline in the past. 50 seats are not enough for this flight and it is often sold out on Sunday night. This plane will give more seats, but very little in additional value. I have trouble justifying a $525.00 one-way Y fare to PHL on a CRJ, and the same would be true on a 175. If I could get up-graded to slightly more room than paying more than $1.00 per mile would not be as bad. BTW, the 8:10 PM departure had TIX for $108.00, but my company booked me on the earlier flight.
The 175 is much better product than the 145 it is replacing, but it is being done in a half a$$ed fashion.
US is giving me more and more reasons to move about half my business to other carriers.
I see little additional value to this move. If they had a small 1st cabin I would see great value and probably fly US even more on long thin routes since I choose my flying on the airline that has the biggest planes on the routes I fly. This plane would be just a larger capicity RJ.
I flew yesterday MHT-PHL on a CRJ. While it been an RJ for quite some time, it was mainline in the past. 50 seats are not enough for this flight and it is often sold out on Sunday night. This plane will give more seats, but very little in additional value. I have trouble justifying a $525.00 one-way Y fare to PHL on a CRJ, and the same would be true on a 175. If I could get up-graded to slightly more room than paying more than $1.00 per mile would not be as bad. BTW, the 8:10 PM departure had TIX for $108.00, but my company booked me on the earlier flight.
