CRJ900
Topic Author
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:22 am

I was browsing through seatguru.com and noticed that DL and US have put 2 lavs on their CRJ700s, which is great for pax, I'm sure, but how does that extra lav up front impact on operating economics and baggage?

They still have 70 seats, which means that the cabin is extended one row back and taking up space from the rear cargo hold, so do these aircraft have more baggage issues than 1-lav CRJ700s?

Are these aircraft flown on longer routes only? Do they have extra galley features as well next to the forward lav?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7069
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:52 am

I would guess that they have problems. But I dont know the exact specs of the CR7 baggage compartment. Maybe HPramper could help us out. Can someone whos familiar with the CR7 help give us info on whether it would be restricted or not restrcted with bags?

MCOflyer
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
UN_B732
Posts: 3529
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 12:57 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:14 am

One lav per 35 pax, that's crazy.
-Mr. X
What now?
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7069
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:18 am

Quoting UN_B732 (Reply 2):
One lav per 35 pax, that's crazy.

Agreed. Its totaly insane.

MCOflyer
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
FutureFO
Posts: 2811
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2001 10:58 pm

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:20 am

And the forward Lav is probably no bigger than your hall closet.



Sean
I Don't know where I am anymore
 
bohica
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:20 am

Quoting UN_B732 (Reply 2):
One lav per 35 pax, that's crazy.

Better than 1 lav for 70 pax.
 
KDCA
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:42 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:25 am

Quoting Bohica (Reply 5):
Better than 1 lav for 70 pax.

I think the earlier posters meant that 1 lave for every 35 passengers is a lot of lav capacity.

Think about an A320, 2 lavs in the back for over 100 pax.
 
CRJ900
Topic Author
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:52 am

Quoting KDCA (Reply 6):
I think the earlier posters meant that 1 lave for every 35 passengers is a lot of lav capacity.

It is. In the 737-800, 63 pax must share one lav when flying FR in their 189-seat config.

Does DL and US have two lavs on the CRJ700 in case one goes tech halfway through a 3-hour flight so they don't have to land ASAP?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
tinpusher007
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:03 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:43 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 7):
Does DL and US have two lavs on the CRJ700 in case one goes tech halfway through a 3-hour flight so they don't have to land ASAP?

I worked the ramp for DL and saw the very first CR7 that ASA aquired, even before Comair. To my knowledge, I thought they were all made with two lavs. Things can and do get pretty tight in the back sometimes. However if we ever ran out of room, we could put some smaller bags in the forward cargo hold used for the gate-checked carry-ons. Overall, I think 2 lavs is good for these aircraft, especially as they are used on increasingly longer legs. Plus it gives the CR7 a more 'mainline' feel; it is a vast improvement over the CRJ-200, however inferior to the E170.
"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
 
FutureFO
Posts: 2811
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2001 10:58 pm

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:45 am

Everything is inferior to the Embraer family of airplanes. But yes the CR7 is majorly inferior to the 170 family.


Sean
I Don't know where I am anymore
 
tinpusher007
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:03 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:50 am

Quoting FutureFO (Reply 9):
Everything is inferior to the Embraer family of airplanes. But yes the CR7 is majorly inferior to the 170 family.

Not the whole family, the E135/140/145 is just as much junk as the CRJ200. IMHO, the only thing that the E135/145 has going is a higher window line. Other than that, it's just as (un)comfortable as a CRJ. And I find the CR7 to be comfortable, however the E170 is obviously more comfortable.
"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
 
B4REAL
Posts: 2557
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 5:53 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:58 am

Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 8):
. Plus it gives the CR7 a more 'mainline' feel;

Errrrr How? Not feeling you at all here.

Quoting FutureFO (Reply 9):
But yes the CR7 is majorly inferior to the 170 family.

 checkmark 
B4REAL, spelled like it sounds
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:02 am

Quoting FutureFO (Reply 4):
And the forward Lav is probably no bigger than your hall closet.

Good one... however, MY hall closet IS bigger than the 700's lav!!  Smile

Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 10):
IMHO, the only thing that the E135/145 has going is a higher window line.

Oh, and the single row of seats and larger lav!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
tinpusher007
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:03 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:02 am

Quoting B4real (Reply 11):
Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 8):
. Plus it gives the CR7 a more 'mainline' feel;

Errrrr How? Not feeling you at all here.

Generally speaking, mainline aircraft tend to have a forward and an aft lav. Im not speaking to size of the aircraft here, but more than one lav is something that pax would identify with bigger aircraft.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 12):
Oh, and the single row of seats and larger lav!

I'll give you the single row of seats, but I almost never go to the lav on airplanes, especially not RJ's. BTW 'IMHO' mean In My Humble Opinion.
"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
 
supa7E7
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:05 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:46 am

The CR7 is the most efficient way to carry 70 humans on 500-1000 mile segments. It is much lighter than an E-170. It is a good performing airplane that rarely weight restricts. It's not as comfortable as the E-170, but financially I believe it performs better.
"Who's to say spaceships aren't fine art?" - Phil Lesh
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:58 am

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 14):
The CR7 is the most efficient way to carry 70 humans on 500-1000 mile segments.

Nope. The Q400!

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 14):
It's not as comfortable as the E-170, but financially I believe it performs better.

Nope. The 700 has lower trip costs (around 4%) but the E170 has lower CASM since it seats up to 10 pax more (or turn it around and look at the 170's extra revenue capability from the additional 10 seats).
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:24 am

If I remember correctly from peeking over my pilots' shoulders, our 1-lav CR7's have a maximum bag capacity of 91 bags. That seems like an arbitrary number, so maybe someone else can explain better. But that's for 66 passengers. If they have made the aft cargo hold smaller for 70 passengers, one would think there could be some issues.
Dear moderators: No.
 
supa7E7
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:05 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:21 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 15):
Nope. The 700 has lower trip costs (around 4%) but the E170 has lower CASM since it seats up to 10 pax more (or turn it around and look at the 170's extra revenue capability from the additional 10 seats).

Hmm, "10 seats" is really stretching it. More like 2 to 4 seats according to seatguru.com.

Likewise, you say the CR7 has a 4% cost advantage, but the BBD website says 10% cheaper per trip. I really think its fuel savings are important... that's why I personally dig the CR7.
"Who's to say spaceships aren't fine art?" - Phil Lesh
 
FCYTravis
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:21 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:11 pm

Yes, but on longer legs the comfort advantage of the E-Jets series over the CR7 is extremely compelling. One provides mainline-or-better ergonomics and no gatecheck hassles, the other is a CR2 shoved into a taffy puller.

Ask 100 pax which they prefer, an E-170 or a CR7. You'd get 100 people voting for the E-Jet.
USAir A321 service now departing for SFO with fuel stops in CAK, COS and RNO. Enjoy your flight.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:50 pm

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 17):
Hmm, "10 seats" is really stretching it. More like 2 to 4 seats according to seatguru.com.

At the same 31" pitch of the CR7, the E170 does indeed have 10 more seats. In fact, EMB announced this configuration at Farnborough. That an airline choses to provide greater pitch and reduce the number of seats to increase pax comfort is always their choice.

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 17):
Likewise, you say the CR7 has a 4% cost advantage, but the BBD website says 10% cheaper per trip.

And on an EMB site it is the opposite... what do you expect manufacturers to state?

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 18):
One provides mainline-or-better ergonomics

Indeed, the E-jets have better ergonomics than mainline single aisle jets.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
HPRamper
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:03 pm

Quoting FutureFO (Reply 4):
And the forward Lav is probably no bigger than your hall closet.

Neither is very big. I do agree, two lavs are better than one on a CR7. I've actually only worked a CR7 one time in my experience, and it was a Frontier (operated by Horizon) at ABQ during training. There is a world more difference between a CR2 and a CR7 than there is between the CR7 and the CR9.
 
CRJ900
Topic Author
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Fri Aug 18, 2006 1:32 am

Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 8):
I worked the ramp for DL and saw the very first CR7 that ASA aquired, even before Comair. To my knowledge, I thought they were all made with two lavs. Things can and do get pretty tight in the back sometimes. However if we ever ran out of room, we could put some smaller bags in the forward cargo hold used for the gate-checked carry-ons.

How forward-thinking of them... or had they heard people complaining about long lav queues on other CR7s and decided to stop complaints before they got started? Was longer-haul flying in DL's plans from the beginning? What are baggage limitations on domestic routes in the US? In Europe, 15-20kgs (32-45lbs??) checked-in per person seem to be the norm and I seldom hear about overstuffed cargo holds here...
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:09 am

Quoting KDCA (Reply 6):
Think about an A320, 2 lavs in the back for over 100 pax.

You seem to have left out the forward lav.

Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 10):
Not the whole family, the E135/140/145 is just as much junk as the CRJ200. IMHO, the only thing that the E135/145 has going is a higher window line.

Not to mention 1x2 seating from the Brasilia.

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 17):
Hmm, "10 seats" is really stretching it. More like 2 to 4 seats according to seatguru.com.

You see that because most E170s are configured with a F cabin of ~6 seats. In a similar, all Y configuration, the E170 holds 10 more.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 21):
What are baggage limitations on domestic routes in the US?

50 pounds which is ~24kg
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
FutureFO
Posts: 2811
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2001 10:58 pm

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:14 am

The DL 170's are configured as 6/60.



Sean
I Don't know where I am anymore
 
COERJ145
Posts: 1140
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:22 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:09 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 22):
Quoting KDCA (Reply 6):
Think about an A320, 2 lavs in the back for over 100 pax.

You seem to have left out the forward lav.

Usually, the forward lav's are reserved for the first class pax, while the rear lav's are for cattle class pax.
 
AV8AJET
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:10 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:19 am

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 17):
Likewise, you say the CR7 has a 4% cost advantage, but the BBD website says 10% cheaper per trip. I really think its fuel savings are important... that's why I personally dig the CR7.

Also I love it because the CR7 can fly at .80 mach and carry 70-pax, while the E70 has to fly at .72 mach or less for the same or more fuel burn carrying the same 70-pax's!!! The E70 is a HEAVY fuel HOG!!! and slow as a snail!!! They cause us CR7's into SLC to slow to "slow flight" following them into SLC, it's like following a turbo-prop!
"To fly or not to fly there is no question!"
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7069
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:25 am

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 20):
There is a world more difference between a CR2 and a CR7 than there is between the CR7 and the CR9.

Agreed. HPRamper, I have seen your postings and think they are quite good. Welcome to my RU list.

HPRamper is right, there is a whole lot of diffrence. You have more rows, an extra lav, and more rows with that extra leg room. I'll take both th E170 and CR7 anyday.

The Q400 is great STOL a/c, but can it do segments like MIA-JFK? If it can, then tell ASA, Comair, and Sky West to buy it.

MCOflyer
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
AV8AJET
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:10 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:26 am

Quoting FutureFO (Reply 23):
The DL 170's are configured as 6/60.

Nope 6 F & 64 Y

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 18):
Ask 100 pax which they prefer, an E-170 or a CR7. You'd get 100 people voting for the E-Jet.

Doubt it, the E70 is so "slow" the CR7 can do the same flights much quicker and use less fuel. I would rather get there on the CR7, than take all day on the E70. When the OO CR9's come online they will greatly improve the customers view on the Canadair product.

[Edited 2006-08-18 01:32:08]
"To fly or not to fly there is no question!"
 
tinpusher007
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:03 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:27 am

Quoting AV8AJET (Reply 27):
Doubt it, the E70 is so "slow" the CR7 can do the same flights much quicker and use less fuel. I would rather get there on the CR7, than take all day on the E70.

Most pax have absolutely no idea how fast an airplane is going inflight. Pax will however, readily notice how big and comfortable the cabin is, or lackthereof.
"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
 
HPRamper
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:07 pm

Quoting AV8AJET (Reply 27):
Doubt it, the E70 is so "slow" the CR7 can do the same flights much quicker and use less fuel. I would rather get there on the CR7, than take all day on the E70. When the OO CR9's come online they will greatly improve the customers view on the Canadair product.

You're exaggerating a bit. Far from being noticeable, on even longer flights the time difference may end up 15 minutes at most. Time is money, but how much are you really losing for the sake of comfort? As for improving the customer's view, I don't recall the CR9 helping the customer's view of Mesa.

And thank you MCOFlyer  Smile I have also enjoyed your posts, welcome to my RU.
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:08 pm

Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 28):
Pax will however, readily notice how big and comfortable the cabin is, or lackthereof.

And in that case, they will still demand a 747, and the tempurature cranked up to 95 degrees. :P
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
AV8AJET
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:10 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:46 pm

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 29):
You're exaggerating a bit. Far from being noticeable, on even longer flights the time difference may end up 15 minutes at most. Time is money, but how much are you really losing for the sake of comfort? As for improving the customer's view, I don't recall the CR9 helping the customer's view of Mesa.

I am not talking about Mesa. I'm talking about the split FY combination with Skywest's 10 F & 60Y. The seat pitch and comfort will be considerably better than on current CR2 & CR7 planes in the DL fleet. Fuel is money and the E70 is not living up to expectations. The fact is that the E70 burns more to carry the same amount of passengers than the CR7, so it may favour the passenger but not the airlines bottom line.
"To fly or not to fly there is no question!"
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:21 pm

Quoting AV8AJET (Reply 31):
I am not talking about Mesa. I'm talking about the split FY combination with Skywest's 10 F & 60Y.

Huh? 10F and 60Y on Skywest?

Quoting AV8AJET (Reply 31):
Fuel is money and the E70 is not living up to expectations.

Embraer 170 yields improved fuel burn, higher payload
Dateline: Monday December 13, 2004

Embraer announced increased efficiencies on its new 170 that yield a 2% better fuel burn rate than previously predicted.

Embraer has been able to confirm the final fuel burn numbers more accurately with the more than 40 170s in operation, and said it will revise related aircraft manuals to reflect the lower consumption rates. Operators could save an estimated $30,000 per aircraft per year based on 2,600 flight hr., according to the company. A fleet of 15 aircraft could produce savings of close to $5 million over a 20-year period on a present-value basis.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/archive/index.html?issue=dec1304

Quoting AV8AJET (Reply 31):
The fact is that the E70 burns more to carry the same amount of passengers than the CR7, so it may favour the passenger but not the airlines bottom line.

The E170 can carry 10 more pax than the CRJ700, so if an airline choses to put the same number of seats in it as a CRJ700, then that means that the airline is offering far greater comfort to its passengers. And the airline doesn't do it (take out seats) out of the goodness of its heart but because it produces increased revenues that outweigh the cost of marginally higher fuel burn than the CRJ700.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
HPRamper
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:01 pm

Quoting AV8AJET (Reply 31):
The fact is that the E70 burns more to carry the same amount of passengers than the CR7, so it may favour the passenger but not the airlines bottom line.

The point in my using Mesa as an example was to show that what favors the passenger is often good for the bottom line, as those customers will want to keep coing back. For the most part, the CR9 is not an aircraft that draws praise from the passengers, and Mesa sure enough does not get much in the way of praise from anyone.
Yeah it's nice that Skywest is putting in FC, but I'm still standing by the fact that the Embraer is still a more comfortable plane overall. Never heard any complaints. I've even talked to people who just flew a leg on an Embraer regional and asked if they'd been on an RJ and they say "no, it was definitely a mainline."
 
CRJ900
Topic Author
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:40 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 22):
Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 21):
What are baggage limitations on domestic routes in the US?

50 pounds which is ~24kg

Okay, thanx... so if 70 pax have 4kgs more per suitcase in the US than in Europe, then 70 x 4 = 280kgs extra weight (560lbs??). Will that impact range much?

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 32):
The E170 can carry 10 more pax than the CRJ700, so if an airline choses to put the same number of seats in it as a CRJ700, then that means that the airline is offering far greater comfort to its passengers.

Well, E170s in the US are comfy because scope clauses limit seats to 70, although USX E170s have 72 seats - how were they able to add those 2 seats, exclusive excemption to the 70-seat rule? If airlines put in 80 seats, there would be loads of complaints, I'm sure.

Now-defunct Styrian Spirit (Austria) had 74 seats in their CRJ700s (with one lav) @ 31 inch pitch, that would help lower CASM a little...? However, that will mean less cargo space, just like...

Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 8):
Things can and do get pretty tight in the back sometimes. However if we ever ran out of room, we could put some smaller bags in the forward cargo hold used for the gate-checked carry-ons.

... but obviously it can be done.

Why are USX E170 allowed to have 72 seats but the USX CRJ700 only 70 seats? Those extra 2 seats would help the bottom line, no?

I am very aware that the E170 is more spacious than the CRJ700, but there are 200(?) CRJ700s flying in the USA and they will be flying for many years to come, so pax and airlines should try to find creative solutions to make flying on these aircraft more enjoyable instead of just bashing them.
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
AV8AJET
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:10 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:02 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 32):
Huh? 10F and 60Y on Skywest?

Yes this the configuration of Skywest's CR9's for DL starting in Sept. After Jan '07 they are able to add six more seats per DL's pilot contract.
"To fly or not to fly there is no question!"
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:43 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 34):
If airlines put in 80 seats, there would be loads of complaints, I'm sure.

No, why would there "be loads of complaints" if the E170 had 80 seats. At 80- seats the E170 is still quite a more comfortable aircraft than the CRJ700 with 70-seats.

Quoting AV8AJET (Reply 35):
Yes this the configuration of Skywest's CR9's for DL starting in Sept. After Jan '07 they are able to add six more seats per DL's pilot contract.

OK, I did not think that you made it clear that you were refering to the CRJ900 in your post. I thought that you were refering to the 700.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
supa7E7
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:05 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:53 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 34):
Okay, thanx... so if 70 pax have 4kgs more per suitcase in the US than in Europe, then 70 x 4 = 280kgs extra weight (560lbs??). Will that impact range much?

No, the limit is 2x 50 lbs or 100 lbs total, plus a carryon which can weigh 20 lbs easily. Although it never happens, each passenger is allowed 120+ lbs or 55 kg of luggage by most carriers.

WN allows 3x 50 lbs I believe, plus carryon, per passenger!
"Who's to say spaceships aren't fine art?" - Phil Lesh
 
CRJ900
Topic Author
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: 1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s

Sat Aug 19, 2006 2:33 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 36):
No, why would there "be loads of complaints" if the E170 had 80 seats.

Ah, I was unclear on that... I meant loads of complaints from our fellow A.netters.  Smile

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 37):
No, the limit is 2x 50 lbs or 100 lbs total, plus a carryon which can weigh 20 lbs easily. Although it never happens, each passenger is allowed 120+ lbs or 55 kg of luggage by most carriers.

WN allows 3x 50 lbs I believe, plus carryon, per passenger!

Good Lord, can you really bring that much baggage on a domestic flight in Y? No wonder there are numerous threads here on A.net from people complaining about US travellers packing everything except the kitchen sink - they ARE packing everything except the kitchen sink!

SAS and LH have 20kg + 8kg max for Y on their European network. I had a huge suitcase packed to the brim when going on holiday for 8 days in June - it weighed 16,5 kgs, I thought that was plenty...
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Aesma, B737900ER, CALTECH, eicvd, flymco753, GloomyDe, Google Adsense [Bot], Jano, jfk777, mrromalley, PlymSpotter, rutankrd, seahawk, StTim and 241 guests