New summer routes PHL-YHZ CLT-SJD CLT-PVR

[libertybell]

Just curious any one know if Vancouver BC will ever return to PHL with non stop service? Seems like the route when it ran didn't work well being a late arrival into Vancouver. The company should look into Victoria BC with flights to PHX I hear the airport is expanding. I would like to see mainline service but would an EMB 175 have the range?

 

[FutureUScapt]

Just curious any one know if Vancouver BC will ever return to PHL with non stop service? Seems like the route when it ran didn't work well being a late arrival into Vancouver. The company should look into Victoria BC with flights to PHX I hear the airport is expanding. I would like to see mainline service but would an EMB 175 have the range?

I think YYJ could be a good addition for US from PHX too. It wouldn't be operated by a E75 (Republic) though, as YV has an exclusive contract on all RJ flying out of the PHX hub until 6/2012, so you would most likely be looking at a CR9. While far from ideal from a passenger-comfort perspective, it most certainly has the range as CR9s are used on PHX-YEG during parts of the year.

As for YVR, I think it would've had more of a chance if they had opted for a morning return out of YVR (instead of the red-eye) so that it could connect both ways to TATL flights. It probably didn't help that fuel hit $147/barrel the only summer that the route was around for.

 

[john john]

I think YYJ could be a good addition for US from PHX too. It wouldn't be operated by a E75 (Republic) though, as YV has an exclusive contract on all RJ flying out of the PHX hub until 6/2012, so you would most likely be looking at a CR9. While far from ideal from a passenger-comfort perspective, it most certainly has the range as CR9s are used on PHX-YEG during parts of the year.

As for YVR, I think it would've had more of a chance if they had opted for a morning return out of YVR (instead of the red-eye) so that it could connect both ways to TATL flights. It probably didn't help that fuel hit $147/barrel the only summer that the route was around for.

An E-170/175 is not a RJ

 

[smoot4208]

An E-170/175 is not a RJ

ERJ-175= Embraer Regional Jet; US classifies it as one as well

 

[FutureUScapt]

An E-170/175 is not a RJ

I guess I could've written "Express" to be more correct, but you know what was meant by that statement.

 

[john john]

ERJ-175= Embraer Regional Jet; US classifies it as one as well

I’m sorry your right Embraer dropped the ERJ prefix. Embraer and USAirway sucker ALPA....... YV not so much

 

[Hope777]

I guess I could've written "Express" to be more correct, but you know what was meant by that statement.

Well, this is Incorrect. When USAirways Flew the EMB170 under the Mid-Atlantic Name (With Mainline Crews) the Titles on the Aircraft Cleary Stated USAIRWAYS EXPRESS !

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Well, this is Incorrect. When USAirways Flew the EMB170 under the Mid-Atlantic Name (With Mainline Crews) the Titles on the Aircraft Cleary Stated USAIRWAYS EXPRESS !

good point....

 

[BoeingBoy]

The FAA identifies the 170 family as ERJ's....

Jim

 

[john john]

The FAA identifies the 170 family as ERJ's....

Jim

and ALPA

 

[BoeingBoy]

And apparently USAPA, but that's not what I was referring to. The official FAA designation of the 170 family is ERJ - ERJ-170, ERJ-175, ERJ-190, ERJ-195. The "EMB" designation is used for the 145 and smaller Embraer commercial jets.

Embraer uses the ERJ designation for the 145's and just refers to the 170-195's as Embraer or the family as the E-Jets. According to Embraer, the only EMB is the EMB 120.

So while saying "ERJ-170" is proper per the FAA, saying "EMB-170" isn't proper per either the FAA or Embrear (and I'm as guilty of doing it as anyone else).

Jim

 

[john john]

refers to the 170-195's as Embraer or the family as the E-Jets.

Like I said suckers