Light Years
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 2,878
- 0
Us Airways Emb170
- Thread starter Light Years
- Start date
Flying Titan
Veteran
- Oct 14, 2003
- 773
- 0
Nice looking plane. I thought these were simply going to say "US Airways" on the aircraft and not "US Airways Express." Does anyone know the reason for the change, or was my impression mistaken from the start?
ringmaruf
Veteran
That's one pretty plane. The Express titles just don't look quite right, though.
OP
Light Years
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 2,878
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #4
Titan, you're correct. Originally these aircraft were to wear US Airways titles and have a dual class cabin. In traditional disasterous decision fashion they have decided to put the Express titles on so folks booking on us will picture a turboprop and book away from us as usual.
They will now be one class and have similar pitch to the former Shuttle aircraft. This aircraft is not what we think of as a regional jet, its's wide 2X2 cabin and 6 feet of standup room make it more like a mini-Airbus. This plane will be very popular with customers and crews.
I do think the Express branding is a terrible mistake. Our Express brand ranges from Beechcraft 1900s all the way up to this- these are two completely different customer experiences and should not fall under the same branding.
They will now be one class and have similar pitch to the former Shuttle aircraft. This aircraft is not what we think of as a regional jet, its's wide 2X2 cabin and 6 feet of standup room make it more like a mini-Airbus. This plane will be very popular with customers and crews.
I do think the Express branding is a terrible mistake. Our Express brand ranges from Beechcraft 1900s all the way up to this- these are two completely different customer experiences and should not fall under the same branding.
AtlanticBeach
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 341
- 2
If the pitch matches the old Shuttle, very positive step.Light Years said:
Your point about the wide variety of Express aircraft is accurate. If an average customer is shown two photos of the identical aircraft- one with Express painted on it and the other with "US Airways" only, I think that most people would believe the mainline aircraft is bigger/ more room/ better ride/ more reliable, etc.
Note to Crystal City- please rebrand ASAP.
OP
Light Years
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 2,878
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #7
Bob,
I disagree. Remember you are a very frequent flyer, and because of this, you know that every plane is just as safe as the other and you know where to sit on an ERJ or a SAAB. You seem to even be a good sport on the Beeches!
However, a lot of other people avoid any aircraft that has Express or Connection titles. When Delta called thier former LCC Delta Express (thier regionals are Delta Connection) they found themselves having to frequently explain that it wasnt a commuter on thier website and through reservations.
I know of many people who will not buy a ticket if that Express word pops up. They dont know an Embraer 170 from a Huffy bicycle, but they have visions of bouncing through the skies in a tiny, noisy plane with propellors on it. They also incorrectly view "commuter" aircraft to be unsafe and not operated or maintained to the same high standards as that 50 year old DC9 they just got off. Customer perception is a stong force.
Its also a lost opportunity in markets where other airlines are offering thier Connection or Express product, and we'll be rolling into town with a far superior product with the same negative connotation.
Plus, pay and contracts aside, when did a jet with 70 people on it that could fly from the East Coast to the Mountain states become "express"? The BAC111, BAE146, DC9, F70, F100 flew in thier respective mainline titles.
Doc-
When this plane hits the pavement I think alot of senior folks at US Airways who havent been paying much attention are going to do a double take. Our 737 replacement just arrived- its part of a flexible family of 70-110 seat versions, can fly about 90% of the US network, is very passenger friendly, we have loads on order, and guess what? Not a single mainline job.
I disagree. Remember you are a very frequent flyer, and because of this, you know that every plane is just as safe as the other and you know where to sit on an ERJ or a SAAB. You seem to even be a good sport on the Beeches!
However, a lot of other people avoid any aircraft that has Express or Connection titles. When Delta called thier former LCC Delta Express (thier regionals are Delta Connection) they found themselves having to frequently explain that it wasnt a commuter on thier website and through reservations.
I know of many people who will not buy a ticket if that Express word pops up. They dont know an Embraer 170 from a Huffy bicycle, but they have visions of bouncing through the skies in a tiny, noisy plane with propellors on it. They also incorrectly view "commuter" aircraft to be unsafe and not operated or maintained to the same high standards as that 50 year old DC9 they just got off. Customer perception is a stong force.
Its also a lost opportunity in markets where other airlines are offering thier Connection or Express product, and we'll be rolling into town with a far superior product with the same negative connotation.
Plus, pay and contracts aside, when did a jet with 70 people on it that could fly from the East Coast to the Mountain states become "express"? The BAC111, BAE146, DC9, F70, F100 flew in thier respective mainline titles.
Doc-
When this plane hits the pavement I think alot of senior folks at US Airways who havent been paying much attention are going to do a double take. Our 737 replacement just arrived- its part of a flexible family of 70-110 seat versions, can fly about 90% of the US network, is very passenger friendly, we have loads on order, and guess what? Not a single mainline job.
Since the planes is going to be flown under the "express" banner (which makes very little since) who is going to fly the planes, mainline, PSA etc.
Props don't bother me. Some of them are built like a rock and fly really well. I feel fairly safe when flying on props.
Props don't bother me. Some of them are built like a rock and fly really well. I feel fairly safe when flying on props.
autofixer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,804
- 241
Good looking airplane. However, will it save UAIR or will it just be another in the long line of "hail Marys"? 757s, Airbi, Mid-Field terminal at PIT, the LGA terminal, The Shuttle, Sabre. I will always recall Bob Crandall's statement, "Revenue is the Key!"
oldiesfan
Member
Hmmm, DC-9s flying back in 1954?Light Years said:
OP
Light Years
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 2,878
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #14
Ok, that was an exaggeration, but Northwests must be getting close!
- Banned
- #15
DC-9 Family
The DC-9 was designed specifically to operate from short runways and on short- to medium-range routes so that the speed, comfort and reliability of jet transportation could be extended to hundreds of communities previously served only by propeller-driven airliners.
Smaller than the DC-8, the trim DC-9 has a distinctive high-level horizontal stabilizer atop the rudder, commonly called a "T" tail. Two engines mounted on the aft fuselage power the aircraft at cruising speeds exceeding 500 mph (800 km/h) and altitudes over 30,000 feet (9,144 m).
Design, development and production of the DC-9 was centered in Long Beach, Calif., at what is now the Long Beach Division of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, where 976 of the twin jets were built during an 18-year production run. The first flight was Feb. 25, 1965; the final DC-9 was delivered in October 1982.
There are five basic DC-9 versions, designated Series 10, Series 20, Series 30, Series 40 and Series 50. Several models in each series provide operators maximum efficiency for diverse combinations of traffic density, cargo volume and route distances to more than 2,000 miles (3,218 km). All models use variants of the reliable workhorse Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine.
The DC-9 was designed specifically to operate from short runways and on short- to medium-range routes so that the speed, comfort and reliability of jet transportation could be extended to hundreds of communities previously served only by propeller-driven airliners.
Smaller than the DC-8, the trim DC-9 has a distinctive high-level horizontal stabilizer atop the rudder, commonly called a "T" tail. Two engines mounted on the aft fuselage power the aircraft at cruising speeds exceeding 500 mph (800 km/h) and altitudes over 30,000 feet (9,144 m).
Design, development and production of the DC-9 was centered in Long Beach, Calif., at what is now the Long Beach Division of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, where 976 of the twin jets were built during an 18-year production run. The first flight was Feb. 25, 1965; the final DC-9 was delivered in October 1982.
There are five basic DC-9 versions, designated Series 10, Series 20, Series 30, Series 40 and Series 50. Several models in each series provide operators maximum efficiency for diverse combinations of traffic density, cargo volume and route distances to more than 2,000 miles (3,218 km). All models use variants of the reliable workhorse Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine.
