America West RJs in CLT

[SegmentKing]

Of the AWAC Fleet, well a few years ago, we had a handful of 86 and 88 seat 146-200s, and I believe 5 were ex PSA birds (Had N..US tail #s, and N...TR which went to TriStar airlines in Nevada, another former PSA bird). The difference is configuration.. the 88 seat birds didn't have airstairs, the 86 seat birds did (and are used for Aspen ops, mainly).

The seat pitch on these planes is marvelous, 33 inches, and FULL SIZE MAINLINE SEATS!

The 146-300s seat 100, and I can see ALPA throwing a fit, unless AWAC were to put in 3 rows of F, then you could get that # below 90....

I can come up with a handful of markets that these airplanes would perform beautifully, and not just because of their capacity... we've got a lot of short runways on the east coast that could use these lil birds!

btw- AWAC has 5 of them just sitting at the hangar in ATW... UA has been converting a lot of 146 routes to the E170s I'll miss feeling these things land (or in a better word, NOT FEELING them land... *grin).

 

[ringmaruf]

Of the AWAC Fleet, well a few years ago, we had a handful of 86 and 88 seat 146-200s,

[...]

The 146-300s seat 100, and I can see ALPA throwing a fit, unless AWAC were to put in 3 rows of F, then you could get that # below 90....

As I said, it's not just the seats, there's an MTOW number in the scope clause, and the 146s are way too heavy to be operated by Express.

They are great birds, though. I was thrilled to get to fly one about two weeks ago when it subbed for a CRJ on IAD-PIT, I'd already given up hope of getting on another one before they were retired. Almost made up for UA stranding me in that godforsaken bus terminal G for five hours. Anyone who complains about PHL obviously doesn't conx in IAD very often.

 

[SegmentKing]

As I said, it's not just the seats, there's an MTOW number in the scope clause, and the 146s are way too heavy to be operated by Express.

They are great birds, though. I was thrilled to get to fly one about two weeks ago when it subbed for a CRJ on IAD-PIT, I'd already given up hope of getting on another one before they were retired. Almost made up for UA stranding me in that godforsaken bus terminal G for five hours. Anyone who complains about PHL obviously doesn't conx in IAD very often.

I wonder if they just yank a motor off the wing if that will get it within the limits They're supposively APU's with a fan in front of them, right?

 

[Barbell]

Besides, if US is going to operate RJs with that many seats, they need F cabins a-la UA's explus product.

The HPX CR9 fleet about which we are talking used to have an F cabin. It was yanked because the all-coach config makes much more revenue. However, they are the most godawful uncomfortable plane in the sky. :down:

 

[FCYTravis]

And Travis, I believe you're a US3. If they put 6 F seats on the 70-to-90 seat planes, you'd often still be sitting in the back, and the carriers with two-classes on those planes have even more cramped coach sections.

Agreed about the E170s. Flew one for the first time, DCA-BTV, and it was an awesome flight. A 70-seat craft is, OK, no F for an hour or so, that's fine. No quibble. But they're flying these CR9s and E-Jets on friggin' two-hour-plus midcons - IAH, DFW, MSP, etc. That's a competitive joke when UA has explus E-Jets and many other majors are running mainline equipment on the same sort of route.

Anyone up for a transcon aboard a CRJ-900? I think you can route it now... LAX-PHX-MEM-CLT, yay, three legs in a sardine can!

(And actually, I'm a "US2" now, as I automagically jumped to HP Gold for no apparent reason in the middle of my mileage run. Of course, as soon as the four-tier system goes in, I'm back to US3. :sigh: I'd take my chances with 6F/70Y... I've not missed an upgrade yet.)

 

[john john]

The US Airways and America West collective bargaining agreements with ALPA will be modified to allow for a combined maximum of ninety-three (93) CRJ-900, or other aircraft within the seating and maximum take-off weight limits specified in Paragraph B above, to be operated in revenue service at any given time at Express Carriers except that for every two (2) aircraft in excess of the combined 360 aircraft (excluding EMB 190 aircraft) operated at both US Airways and America West, that are added to revenue service in the mainline fleet, the Company may allow three (3) additional CRJ-900, or other aircraft within the seating and maximum take-off weight limits specified in Paragraph B above, to be operated in revenue service at Express carriers.
----- CRJ900–Bombardier’s newest and largest version of the immensely successful CRJ family of regional jets drew its first sale in some two years in late January, when Phoenix-based Mesa Air Group agreed on a still-undefined mix of 20 CRJ700s/CRJ900s for its America West Express network. By early last month Mesa had taken 15 of the 86-seat airplanes claimed in earlier orders, but remained the only customer for a program Bombardier executives once advertised as a solid bridge between existing 70-seat RJs and the emerging class of narrowbodies poised to compete for the bottom of the mainline market. Still, nearly four years after the program’s launch at the 2000 Farnborough Air Show, the firm order tally showed just 25 airplanes, leaving many wondering whether the “sweet spot†about which they talked had turned sour before its time.Introduced on the strength of a launch order for 10 airplanes from leasing giant GECAS, the CRJ900 drew its first airline customer in March 2001, when Mesa signed a letter of intent that included a firm order for 20 of the 86-seat jets and an option for another 20. Once its own prospects for placing the airplanes disintegrated, however, GECAS canceled its order. Mesa subsequently converted firm orders for five CRJ700s to a follow-on order for five CRJ900s, bringing the program total to 25.Mesa placed the first aircraft–dressed in America West Express livery and configured in a two-class, 80-seat cabin layout– into service on a route between Los Angeles and Phoenix late last April. A year later, the Phoenix-based airline remains one of the last major carriers in the U.S. whose regional affiliates enjoy unfettered access to regional jets certified to carry more than 70 passengers. Despite widespread relaxation of limits on 50- and 70-seat jets at regional affiliates, the manufacturers’ early projections of more lenient capacity restrictions have yet to materialize, a fact that remains perhaps the CRJ900’s biggest obstacle.Such constraints again revealed their disruptive potential last July, when union pressure compelled US Airways to convert a firm order for 25 Bombardier CRJ705s to positions for 70-seat CRJ700s. Scheduled originally for first delivery to wholly owned US Airways subsidiary PSA Airlines early this year, the CRJ705–a planned 75-seat, 82,500-pound mtow version of the CRJ900–exceeds the 75,000-pound mtow, 70-seat limits imposed on US Airways regional affiliates by the mainline pilots’ union scope clause. Although it agreed to an exemption for the Embraer 170 and 175, ALPA’s US Airways division refused to grant further concessions for the Bombardier jet.More recently, Air Canada told representatives from its mainline pilot union that it might replace half a proposed order for 30 CRJ705s with 15 Embraer 170s or 175s. In December Air Canada split a commitment for 90 airplanes between the two manufacturers, but ongoing negotiations over regional-mainline flying rights led the bankrupt airline to reconsider the planned fleet mix to place the Embraer jets with the mainline. It would then convert the remaining CRJ705 positions to an order for 15 CRJ700s, all of which it would assign to wholly owned regional subsidiary Air Canada Jazz.Meanwhile, in Europe, where scope clauses present virtually none of the market constraints they do in the U.S., the CRJ900 has faced an even tougher sell, drawing just a single firm order from France’s Brit Air for four airplanes, only to see it canceled a few months later.Of course, when Bombardier introduced the CRJ900, no one could have predicted the economic upheaval 9/11 would eventually produce, and the severe interruption in the flow of financing for new airplanes in virtually every seat class. Although its commonality attributes appeal most to regional airlines already flying CRJs, the 86-seat jet might have also filled a role at the lowest end of the single-aisle mainline range, surmised Bombardier. It has failed to deliver on that promise, however, as rival Embraer prepares to fill its first order from the emerging low-fare niche with the larger, 98-seat Embraer 190.The CRJ900 reached the market some two years before the scheduled first delivery of the 78- to 86-seat Embraer 175, its closest competitor in terms of seating capacity and weight. Embraer promotes the 175’s more spacious cabin and baggage capacity as vital attributes for the longer routes it believes airplanes in that seat class will serve. Nevertheless, a tentative launch order from India’s Jet Airways fizzled last year, leaving Embraer with only a tentative commitment from US Airways to convert some positions for 70-seat 170s to 175s.In reaction to “competitive pressures,†Bombardier last year assigned more range to the CRJ900 with a so-called paperwork mod that increased its maximum reach to 1,914 nm. Dubbed the CRJ900LR, the variant promises a maximum takeoff weight of 84,500 pounds–4,000 more than the standard CRJ900 and 2,000 pounds higher than the mid-range CRJ900ER. Bombardier v-p Barry McKinnon explained that the company arrived at the extra range by apportioning the higher takeoff weights, thus expanding the airplane’s payload-range envelope without modifying the airframe.

 

[mdsbear]

The HPX CR9 fleet about which we are talking used to have an F cabin. It was yanked because the all-coach config makes much more revenue. However, they are the most godawful uncomfortable plane in the sky. :down:

Then why not at least bring F back? Will the loss of revenue be greater by reinstituting F or by keeping an inferior product (long term)?

 

[Barbell]

According to the beancounters running this insane asylum. :blink:

I don't know, how do you frequents feel about the different RJ fleets and whether or not they should/shouldn't have F (and I know the obvious is that they all should)? Just curious...

 

[SpinDoc]

According to the beancounters running this insane asylum. :blink:

I don't know, how do you frequents feel about the different RJ fleets and whether or not they should/shouldn't have F (and I know the obvious is that they all should)? Just curious...

SpinDoc replies:

Four F seats in an EMB170 or CRJ900
would certainly differentiate US
product and would not significantly
dilute coach revenue. The problem
comes with the level of service that
can be offered on these types of A/C.

The service would consist entirely of
a larger seat, free drinks and snacks,
and not much else. It is doubtful that
a bulkhead divider would be used, and
the small number of seats would not
justify adding another crew member to
service the front section eclusively.

It has been proven that the vast
majority of FC seats are occupied
by customers on upgrades, and it is
rare that anyone actually pays the
F fare (exception being corporate
customers on Transatlantic flights)

For the 50 and 70 seat CRJ's and
EMB145's, adding an F cabin would
be like putting ti*s on a bull.
Not much use, or practicality.

UA has the F cabin on the EMB170
only as a differentiating factor,
and it is mostly a novelty. Now,
what would make sense is to offer
the first 2 rows on EMB170 and
CRJ900 flights to CP and A4Coach
customers. That would give them
the opportunity to board and
deplane first, which is what they
really want anyway. It's a
metaphorical experience for
CP's, as they always want to be
number 1 in everything they do.

 

[ILMgwm]

I have been working this aircraft in ILM ( Wilmington, North Carolina, for the west coast people, we had flight attendant's the other day "Say welcome to Wilmington, Delaware" the passengers laughed as they got off). But, this plane is the most labor intensive aircraft i have ever worked for ramp employees. Carry on bags are stored in the F1 and F2 compartments. Ramp agents toss them up the jetway and place them in the jetway and with 86 passengers on board, that's a lot of carry on's. Meanwhile, where trying to turn the aircraft quickly but passengers cluster on the jetway and stand in front of the door. Meanwhile, i am developing huge shoulders and nice upper arms, thanks to my new aircraft. I am just waiting for a bag to fall on my face as i lift them up to the jetway person.

 

[FCYTravis]

Four F seats in an EMB170 or CRJ900 would certainly differentiate US product and would not significantly dilute coach revenue. The problem comes with the level of service that can be offered on these types of A/C. The service would consist entirely of a larger seat, free drinks and snacks, and not much else.

Four seats? I think they can spare six out of an 80-seat jet. That's still a worse F-to-Y ratio than the US 733s.

Obviously all you're going to get is a bigger seat and more drink service, better snack, etc. - but guess what? That's about all you get on US F for midcons *anyway.* It's not like US Mainline F is something special now, so as long as the service is comparable (I'm sure there's room for snack basket stuff), it won't make much of a difference.

Don't downplay the importance of a cabin like that, competitively. I'm a person who doesn't demand much from F, but I *really* want a bigger, more comfortable seat - because in Y, my frame feels like it's a sardine. In CRJ-900 Y, I feel like a vacuum-sealed sardine.

I avoid the CRJ-900 like the plague because it is the worst, most uncomfortable mid-range aircraft. Even as a US2, I will *avoid* those planes to the point of flying *other carriers* if necessary. I can't stand them for a 90-minute PHX-OAK flight and I'm sure as hell not going to take one from CLT to DFW. That is, unless there's an F cabin I have a shot in hell of upgrading to - I am not going to sit in CR9 Y for a midcon flight, but if there's an F cabin I'll at least be semi-comfortable.

F on a CRJ/ERJ, of course not. Those planes, well, that would truly be, as you said, tits on a bull, and those are one-hour flights anyway. That's not an issue. What is unacceptable to me is replacing 737s with 90-seat all-sardine-CR9-Y aircraft for two-hour-plus midcon flights to major business destinations.

 

[john john]

SpinDoc replies:

Now,
what would make sense is to offer
the first 2 rows on EMB170 and
CRJ900 flights to CP and A4Coach
customers. That would give them
the opportunity to board and
deplane first, which is what they
really want anyway. It's a
metaphorical experience for
CP's, as they always want to be
number 1 in everything they do.

What good would that do if you have to wait for your carryon from the cargo bin? I have US1 US2 US3 wait till last to board so there carryon will be loaded last so it will be the first off.

 

[Hope777]

I am guessing there is a limit on the Number of Aircraft they can use as USAirways Express (CRJ-900). Starting on the January 10th Schedule, Sabre currently shows some NEW CRJ-900 Routes being operated by America West Express, NOT USAirways Express-Mesa.

 

[john john]

http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...ndpost&p=331929

 

[HP_JACK]

I saw one of these crews on a van in MSP. In HP color and uniforms but they were reassigned to operate the USAIRWAYS express MSP-CLT. It seems that they didn't even know what was going on.

"On behalf of the New USAIRWAYS and this America West Express dressed crew which is operated by Mesa airlines we would like to thank you for flying with us today and we hope to see you on a future American Western US Mesa Aiways flight"