Given the recent move by United to introduce the CRJ550, I was wondering if there is a market for the same with the plethora of smaller RJs? I know the economics are different, but say if it was a 4F 10 Y+ 30Y would that work.

For example, if there was an 80 LF on a 50 seater could some of that be upgraded to an F and therefore bring in more revenue? Given the deluge of 50 seaters in the market that offer only Y/Y+ or at worst 50 Y, could the same thing be done on the 50 seat model to bring in more revenue and increase the load factor to balance the cost of retrofitting?

I remember there were plenty of attempts at the "tweeter" models like NW with the CRJ 440 and, of course the EMB140. But if it was a 50 seater with first, would this make sense/ more money? Certainly would add something/ open some new markets I would think....

thoughts?

Disregarding operating cost challenges, the EMB-145 and like models would have challenges with regard to the floor level of the cabin. The aisle is a couple inches lower than the floor under the seats, which means you couldn't do a 1-1 FC section (and the rows alongside the galley wouldn't be wide enough to be F seats either). Might be doable as a few rows of single F seats on the 2-seat side, but that makes it loose the air of "exclusivity" of being separate from economy class.

The layout you proposed wouldn't make any sense as you'd have 1.3 rows of F at 3-abreast, 2.5 rows of Y+ at 4 abreast and then another 7.5 rows of regular Y on a CR2 or 2 rows of F at 2-abreast, 3.3 rows of Y+ at 3-abreast and then another 10 rows of Y at 3-abreast on an ER4.

At 3F/42Y the cabin size doesn't make sense on a CR2 (plus galley space in a 50-seater is very tight so there wouldn't be room for the required FC catering) to be economical as that would require that your 3F bring in the same amount of revenue as 8Y and I highly doubt you're going to find people willing to pay that much for an RJ given the stage lengths. Your example of an 80% LF leaves 10 seats un-occupied. If you already have 10 seats unoccupied, removing 8Y seats and replacing them with 3F still leaves seats unoccupied without the ability to fill all 50 seats; its not like adding F suddenly means you'll have a 100% LF and better yield.

The ER4 would have an even more challenging realistic layout as you would lose the 1A/2A seats by adding a First Class Cabin given the location of the galley unless you put first class behind a few rows of coach seats which negates part of the perks.

The CRJ-440 was never an attempt at having First Class but rather a scope clause issue and the E140 is simply just a smaller aircraft, again not an attempt to add premium seats. For more info on the 440: viewtopic.php?t=559459

Nothing about a CRJ with first is going to open a market. If the market can't stand on coach seats/pax, then the market has no business being launched.

On top of all of this, you also have FA considerations with there being only a single jumpseat on the aircraft and trying to do two different levels of service on such short flights.

caflyboy wrote:

Given the recent move by United to introduce the CRJ550, I was wondering if there is a market for the same with the plethora of smaller RJs? I know the economics are different, but say if it was a 4F 10 Y+ 30Y would that work.

For example, if there was an 80 LF on a 50 seater could some of that be upgraded to an F and therefore bring in more revenue? Given the deluge of 50 seaters in the market that offer only Y/Y+ or at worst 50 Y, could the same thing be done on the 50 seat model to bring in more revenue and increase the load factor to balance the cost of retrofitting?

I remember there were plenty of attempts at the "tweeter" models like NW with the CRJ 440 and, of course the EMB140. But if it was a 50 seater with first, would this make sense/ more money? Certainly would add something/ open some new markets I would think....

thoughts?

The only reason for the CRJ 550 is to get around pilot scope. It has nothing to do with making the experience better for the passengers, that’s just an unintended side effect.

astaz wrote:

caflyboy wrote:

Given the recent move by United to introduce the CRJ550, I was wondering if there is a market for the same with the plethora of smaller RJs? I know the economics are different, but say if it was a 4F 10 Y+ 30Y would that work.

For example, if there was an 80 LF on a 50 seater could some of that be upgraded to an F and therefore bring in more revenue? Given the deluge of 50 seaters in the market that offer only Y/Y+ or at worst 50 Y, could the same thing be done on the 50 seat model to bring in more revenue and increase the load factor to balance the cost of retrofitting?

I remember there were plenty of attempts at the "tweeter" models like NW with the CRJ 440 and, of course the EMB140. But if it was a 50 seater with first, would this make sense/ more money? Certainly would add something/ open some new markets I would think....

thoughts?

The only reason for the CRJ 550 is to get around pilot scope. It has nothing to do with making the experience better for the passengers, that’s just an unintended side effect.

It may not be the ‘reason’ for starting the project, but it doesn’t mean United hasn’t heavily invested in elements to improve the customer experience. Customers are absolutely loving the product.

Btw, just learned a fun fact... 94% of all CRJ-550 flights have been dispatched with ZERO gate checked bags - improving on time departure, speed of de-boarding and overall customer experience and satisfaction. And the 6% of flights that have required checking at gate/aircraft have mostly been caused by over-sized or oddly shaped bags that should have been checked before security. Insane improvement considering over 98% of normal 50 seater flight require checking bags at gate.

Here's a video trip report posted on YouTube featuring the inaugural CRJ 550 flight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xikB73-GJ4Q

The cabin refit to make the CRJ 550 premium-heavy seems okay, but it is no "Global Express" experience. Just some bigger seats, (F-only) carry-on lockers and a self-serve snack bar. For a typical CRJ hub-feeding mission of +/- 1 hour, this seems like overkill.

LHUSA wrote:

astaz wrote:

caflyboy wrote:

Given the recent move by United to introduce the CRJ550, I was wondering if there is a market for the same with the plethora of smaller RJs? I know the economics are different, but say if it was a 4F 10 Y+ 30Y would that work.

For example, if there was an 80 LF on a 50 seater could some of that be upgraded to an F and therefore bring in more revenue? Given the deluge of 50 seaters in the market that offer only Y/Y+ or at worst 50 Y, could the same thing be done on the 50 seat model to bring in more revenue and increase the load factor to balance the cost of retrofitting?

I remember there were plenty of attempts at the "tweeter" models like NW with the CRJ 440 and, of course the EMB140. But if it was a 50 seater with first, would this make sense/ more money? Certainly would add something/ open some new markets I would think....

thoughts?

The only reason for the CRJ 550 is to get around pilot scope. It has nothing to do with making the experience better for the passengers, that’s just an unintended side effect.

It may not be the ‘reason’ for starting the project, but it doesn’t mean United hasn’t heavily invested in elements to improve the customer experience. Customers are absolutely loving the product.

Btw, just learned a fun fact... 94% of all CRJ-550 flights have been dispatched with ZERO gate checked bags - improving on time departure, speed of de-boarding and overall customer experience and satisfaction. And the 6% of flights that have required checking at gate/aircraft have mostly been caused by over-sized or oddly shaped bags that should have been checked before security. Insane improvement considering over 98% of normal 50 seater flight require checking bags at gate.

Well you have a plane designed to hold 20 more people with bins that can actually fit carry-ones of larger size than a CR2 so naturally it should fit a majority of the bags. CRJs are now coming with larger bins.

LawAndOrder wrote:

LHUSA wrote:

astaz wrote:

The only reason for the CRJ 550 is to get around pilot scope. It has nothing to do with making the experience better for the passengers, that’s just an unintended side effect.

It may not be the ‘reason’ for starting the project, but it doesn’t mean United hasn’t heavily invested in elements to improve the customer experience. Customers are absolutely loving the product.

Btw, just learned a fun fact... 94% of all CRJ-550 flights have been dispatched with ZERO gate checked bags - improving on time departure, speed of de-boarding and overall customer experience and satisfaction. And the 6% of flights that have required checking at gate/aircraft have mostly been caused by over-sized or oddly shaped bags that should have been checked before security. Insane improvement considering over 98% of normal 50 seater flight require checking bags at gate.

Well you have a plane designed to hold 20 more people with bins that can actually fit carry-ones of larger size than a CR2 so naturally it should fit a majority of the bags. CRJs are now coming with larger bins.

Even the larger bins on the CR9 struggle to fit some roller bags these days. Quite simply its easier to just make people valet check a questionable size bag than it is to try to force it in the overhead and either cause boarding delays or break something.

LawAndOrder wrote:

LHUSA wrote:

astaz wrote:

The only reason for the CRJ 550 is to get around pilot scope. It has nothing to do with making the experience better for the passengers, that’s just an unintended side effect.

It may not be the ‘reason’ for starting the project, but it doesn’t mean United hasn’t heavily invested in elements to improve the customer experience. Customers are absolutely loving the product.

Btw, just learned a fun fact... 94% of all CRJ-550 flights have been dispatched with ZERO gate checked bags - improving on time departure, speed of de-boarding and overall customer experience and satisfaction. And the 6% of flights that have required checking at gate/aircraft have mostly been caused by over-sized or oddly shaped bags that should have been checked before security. Insane improvement considering over 98% of normal 50 seater flight require checking bags at gate.

Well you have a plane designed to hold 20 more people with bins that can actually fit carry-ones of larger size than a CR2 so naturally it should fit a majority of the bags. CRJs are now coming with larger bins.

Oh gee, is that the reason why? Couldn’t figure that out for the life of me.

The point is, it’s a better 50 seater experience

The trend is increasing the seating capacity, I.e. going from 737-700's and A319's to 737-800's and A320's and higher. The same with the RJ's, 37 seat RJ's are gone and only a few 44 seat RJ's are around. Airlines have found out that flying 65-76 passengers make better use of scarce cockpit crews than 50 passengers and small cities are being cut out. With the Dash-8 and Saab 340's gone, more profit can be made on larger planes. The CRJ-550 benefits from having a first class section that increases the yields on those flights.

MIflyer12 wrote:

caflyboy wrote:

I remember there were plenty of attempts at the "tweeter" models like NW with the CRJ 440 and, of course the EMB140. But if it was a 50 seater with first, would this make sense/ more money? Certainly would add something/ open some new markets I would think....

I'm really skeptical you could get increased yield on the remaining seats to justify pulling out a row to introduce Y+. I don't think United's 50-seats in a 70-seat package CR550 is going to work, either, but I can let the market decide: let's see if it's still around in five years.

Delta had the right plan for 50-seaters nine years ago: confine them to domestic routes of 750 miles or less, and drop hundreds of them from the fleet. (They had ~500 E145/CR2 in 2009, and about 115 CR2s today.)

https://ir.delta.com/news/news-details/ ... fault.aspx

As another aside about the CRJ-550, while operated by GoJet, SkyWest holds the cancellation rights on the leases with very limited notice. Should the CRJ-550 become a success, another airline (read: AA or DL) could just as easily request that SkyWest fly them on their behalf and then UA is up a creek. Likewise, if AA was to want additional CR7s from OO, there is a feedstock available that OO would much rather fly than lease out. I'm not sold that the CRJ-550 experience is going to actually work at any sort of large scale.

LHUSA wrote:

Btw, just learned a fun fact... 94% of all CRJ-550 flights have been dispatched with ZERO gate checked bags - improving on time departure, speed of de-boarding and overall customer experience and satisfaction. And the 6% of flights that have required checking at gate/aircraft have mostly been caused by over-sized or oddly shaped bags that should have been checked before security. Insane improvement considering over 98% of normal 50 seater flight require checking bags at gate.

Shouldn't be getting compared to 50 seat flights but rather 65/70/76 seat flights since that is the aircraft being used. Yes it happens to have a good premium product and is catchy but if it doesn't make money then the aircraft become a waste. The new Atmosphere cabin's bins hold most/all regular sized carry-ons (not expanded, those that are truly 22x14x9) and there are better/more effective ways from a cost perspective to improve the valet/planeside baggage process that allows there to be little to no time lost for connecting passengers.

Sounds like an idea suited for contour on their 145s, or the new Midwest on their CRJ200s...

An ideal configuration would be a 145 or CRJ with 6F and 38Y, or 6F, 12Y+, and 22Y.

Though, I think the only viable situation for this is to get a 37 seater down to the 30 public charter maximum, so an ideal configuration would be a 135 with 6F and 24Y+...

LHUSA wrote:

It may not be the ‘reason’ for starting the project, but it doesn’t mean United hasn’t heavily invested in elements to improve the customer experience. Customers are absolutely loving the product.

Btw, just learned a fun fact... 94% of all CRJ-550 flights have been dispatched with ZERO gate checked bags - improving on time departure, speed of de-boarding and overall customer experience and satisfaction. And the 6% of flights that have required checking at gate/aircraft have mostly been caused by over-sized or oddly shaped bags that should have been checked before security. Insane improvement considering over 98% of normal 50 seater flight require checking bags at gate.

As a flyer, this is a great stat that makes me want to see the CRJ-550 rolled out to more airlines and markets. But I think the real business question is does the lack of gate checking bags and increased deboarding time throughout a whole day allow for an additional revenue generating flight? If this is generating an additional 15 minutes of available flying time per cycle and a CRJ-550 is averaging 6 flights per day, that’s an extra 1.5 hours of available flying time. And I believe the 550’s are flying about 1.5 hours from ORD.

alasizon wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

caflyboy wrote:

I remember there were plenty of attempts at the "tweeter" models like NW with the CRJ 440 and, of course the EMB140. But if it was a 50 seater with first, would this make sense/ more money? Certainly would add something/ open some new markets I would think....

I'm really skeptical you could get increased yield on the remaining seats to justify pulling out a row to introduce Y+. I don't think United's 50-seats in a 70-seat package CR550 is going to work, either, but I can let the market decide: let's see if it's still around in five years.

Delta had the right plan for 50-seaters nine years ago: confine them to domestic routes of 750 miles or less, and drop hundreds of them from the fleet. (They had ~500 E145/CR2 in 2009, and about 115 CR2s today.)

https://ir.delta.com/news/news-details/ ... fault.aspx

As another aside about the CRJ-550, while operated by GoJet, SkyWest holds the cancellation rights on the leases with very limited notice. Should the CRJ-550 become a success, another airline (read: AA or DL) could just as easily request that SkyWest fly them on their behalf and then UA is up a creek. Likewise, if AA was to want additional CR7s from OO, there is a feedstock available that OO would much rather fly than lease out. I'm not sold that the CRJ-550 experience is going to actually work at any sort of large scale.

LHUSA wrote:

Btw, just learned a fun fact... 94% of all CRJ-550 flights have been dispatched with ZERO gate checked bags - improving on time departure, speed of de-boarding and overall customer experience and satisfaction. And the 6% of flights that have required checking at gate/aircraft have mostly been caused by over-sized or oddly shaped bags that should have been checked before security. Insane improvement considering over 98% of normal 50 seater flight require checking bags at gate.

Shouldn't be getting compared to 50 seat flights but rather 65/70/76 seat flights since that is the aircraft being used. Yes it happens to have a good premium product and is catchy but if it doesn't make money then the aircraft become a waste. The new Atmosphere cabin's bins hold most/all regular sized carry-ons (not expanded, those that are truly 22x14x9) and there are better/more effective ways from a cost perspective to improve the valet/planeside baggage process that allows there to be little to no time lost for connecting passengers.

I completely disagree - they should be compared to other 50 seaters bc they are replacing 50-seater flights and they are 50 seats themselves. And, even the 70 seaters and mainline have a very high percentage of flights with gate checked bags.

If you want to compare the 550 to the other 70 seaters from a CASM and P/L perspective I would agree

OKCDCA wrote:

LHUSA wrote:

It may not be the ‘reason’ for starting the project, but it doesn’t mean United hasn’t heavily invested in elements to improve the customer experience. Customers are absolutely loving the product.

Btw, just learned a fun fact... 94% of all CRJ-550 flights have been dispatched with ZERO gate checked bags - improving on time departure, speed of de-boarding and overall customer experience and satisfaction. And the 6% of flights that have required checking at gate/aircraft have mostly been caused by over-sized or oddly shaped bags that should have been checked before security. Insane improvement considering over 98% of normal 50 seater flight require checking bags at gate.

As a flyer, this is a great stat that makes me want to see the CRJ-550 rolled out to more airlines and markets. But I think the real business question is does the lack of gate checking bags and increased deboarding time throughout a whole day allow for an additional revenue generating flight? If this is generating an additional 15 minutes of available flying time per cycle and a CRJ-550 is averaging 6 flights per day, that’s an extra 1.5 hours of available flying time. And I believe the 550’s are flying about 1.5 hours from ORD.

You won't see the 550's go much further than a 90 minute flight, at least at United. They simply don't have more range.

Yet the deuce is flying 2-2.5 hour flights now...?

93Sierra wrote:

Yet the deuce is flying 2-2.5 hour flights now...?

In addition to cutting 20 seats for scope, they had to cut 10,000 lbs out of the MTOW for scope. It's barely a 90 minute bird.

Maybe it's because of my limited experience with RJs in while in the US, but is first class really needed on a RJ? In all fairness my RJ flights either end or start in EVV, which is not a hotspot, but the flights to CLT or DFW that I've bren on are not that long to justify paying for a first class seat or using FF points...unless you have an endless supply of both.

csturdiv wrote:

Maybe it's because of my limited experience with RJs in while in the US, but is first class really needed on a RJ? In all fairness my RJ flights either end or start in EVV, which is not a hotspot, but the flights to CLT or DFW that I've bren on are not that long to justify paying for a first class seat or using FF points...unless you have an endless supply of both.

Depends on the market. ASE/JAC/EGE, for example, have a lot of first class passengers, plus all of the passengers that purchase a first or business class ticket that has multiple legs with at least one being a regional flight.

alasizon wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

caflyboy wrote:

I remember there were plenty of attempts at the "tweeter" models like NW with the CRJ 440 and, of course the EMB140. But if it was a 50 seater with first, would this make sense/ more money? Certainly would add something/ open some new markets I would think....

I'm really skeptical you could get increased yield on the remaining seats to justify pulling out a row to introduce Y+. I don't think United's 50-seats in a 70-seat package CR550 is going to work, either, but I can let the market decide: let's see if it's still around in five years.

Delta had the right plan for 50-seaters nine years ago: confine them to domestic routes of 750 miles or less, and drop hundreds of them from the fleet. (They had ~500 E145/CR2 in 2009, and about 115 CR2s today.)

https://ir.delta.com/news/news-details/ ... fault.aspx

As another aside about the CRJ-550, while operated by GoJet, SkyWest holds the cancellation rights on the leases with very limited notice. Should the CRJ-550 become a success, another airline (read: AA or DL) could just as easily request that SkyWest fly them on their behalf and then UA is up a creek. Likewise, if AA was to want additional CR7s from OO, there is a feedstock available that OO would much rather fly than lease out. I'm not sold that the CRJ-550 experience is going to actually work at any sort of large scale.

LHUSA wrote:

Btw, just learned a fun fact... 94% of all CRJ-550 flights have been dispatched with ZERO gate checked bags - improving on time departure, speed of de-boarding and overall customer experience and satisfaction. And the 6% of flights that have required checking at gate/aircraft have mostly been caused by over-sized or oddly shaped bags that should have been checked before security. Insane improvement considering over 98% of normal 50 seater flight require checking bags at gate.

Shouldn't be getting compared to 50 seat flights but rather 65/70/76 seat flights since that is the aircraft being used. Yes it happens to have a good premium product and is catchy but if it doesn't make money then the aircraft become a waste. The new Atmosphere cabin's bins hold most/all regular sized carry-ons (not expanded, those that are truly 22x14x9) and there are better/more effective ways from a cost perspective to improve the valet/planeside baggage process that allows there to be little to no time lost for connecting passengers.

Can you expand on your remark about OO having contractual control over G7s CR5’s operating for UA? I haven’t heard anything about this in the UA Fleet/Network thread nor anywhere else on the web. Seems awfully risky for UA to invest in the conversions from CR7 to CR5 knowing that the rug could be pulled out from under them with little notice. Beyond that, UA seems to have really gone out of their way in terms of publicity surrounding the addition of the CR5 into the network.

Not saying you’re wrong but seems a little far fetched. Do you have a source ?

Even if true, seems unlikely that OO would yank the CR5s from UA as you describe. Doing so would very likely jeopardize their other contracts with UA. Can’t see them looking favorably upon OO after pulling a move like that.

77H

csturdiv wrote:

Maybe it's because of my limited experience with RJs in while in the US, but is first class really needed on a RJ? In all fairness my RJ flights either end or start in EVV, which is not a hotspot, but the flights to CLT or DFW that I've bren on are not that long to justify paying for a first class seat or using FF points...unless you have an endless supply of both.

If you look at the “spoke” markets UA is deploying the CR5 on you’ll notice that most have a premium demand component. Many of the markets host large corporate headquarters or have a population base of well heeled travelers. XNA and MSN come to mind among many others.

77H

eeightning wrote:

93Sierra wrote:

Yet the deuce is flying 2-2.5 hour flights now...?

In addition to cutting 20 seats for scope, they had to cut 10,000 lbs out of the MTOW for scope. It's barely a 90 minute bird.

And even at 90 minutes, with an alternate, they’re going to have to kick pax or bags off.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

eeightning wrote:

93Sierra wrote:

Yet the deuce is flying 2-2.5 hour flights now...?

In addition to cutting 20 seats for scope, they had to cut 10,000 lbs out of the MTOW for scope. It's barely a 90 minute bird.

And even at 90 minutes, with an alternate, they’re going to have to kick pax or bags off.

They do have some routes over 2 hours, including RIC-ORD, ABE-ORD, and OKC-ORD.

OKC-ORD comes in at about 2.5 hours.

BBDFlyer wrote:

csturdiv wrote:

Maybe it's because of my limited experience with RJs in while in the US, but is first class really needed on a RJ? In all fairness my RJ flights either end or start in EVV, which is not a hotspot, but the flights to CLT or DFW that I've bren on are not that long to justify paying for a first class seat or using FF points...unless you have an endless supply of both.

Depends on the market. ASE/JAC/EGE, for example, have a lot of first class passengers, plus all of the passengers that purchase a first or business class ticket that has multiple legs with at least one being a regional flight.

There are some routes that first class is desperately needed because pax choose to pay for it. It is also about consistency when comparing the product to Mainline.

77H wrote:

alasizon wrote:

As another aside about the CRJ-550, while operated by GoJet, SkyWest holds the cancellation rights on the leases with very limited notice. Should the CRJ-550 become a success, another airline (read: AA or DL) could just as easily request that SkyWest fly them on their behalf and then UA is up a creek. Likewise, if AA was to want additional CR7s from OO, there is a feedstock available that OO would much rather fly than lease out. I'm not sold that the CRJ-550 experience is going to actually work at any sort of large scale.

Can you expand on your remark about OO having contractual control over G7s CR5’s operating for UA? I haven’t heard anything about this in the UA Fleet/Network thread nor anywhere else on the web. Seems awfully risky for UA to invest in the conversions from CR7 to CR5 knowing that the rug could be pulled out from under them with little notice. Beyond that, UA seems to have really gone out of their way in terms of publicity surrounding the addition of the CR5 into the network.

Not saying you’re wrong but seems a little far fetched. Do you have a source ?

Even if true, seems unlikely that OO would yank the CR5s from UA as you describe. Doing so would very likely jeopardize their other contracts with UA. Can’t see them looking favorably upon OO after pulling a move like that.

77H

I don't have a quotable source as it came to me through some folks that were responsible for the leasing deals. I certainly agree its not all that likely as it would put OO in a bad position with UA (not like the relationship has been the coziest recently though) but technically it does exist. From what I recall each jet after it reaches a year in the lease only requires a 3 or 4 month notice to re-purpose the aircraft.

93Sierra wrote:

Yet the deuce is flying 2-2.5 hour flights now...?

Sadly, the 200 is still a quite capable aircraft. Its no 145XR but pushing 2.5 hours isn't really a problem unless WX throws a wrench into things.

United would inflict some major pain on SkyWest for such a maneuver. It would be stupid. It would be much more likely that OO would pull the leases and fly them themselves for UA if they wanted to.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Delta had the right plan for 50-seaters nine years ago: confine them to domestic routes of 750 miles or less, and drop hundreds of them from the fleet. (They had ~500 E145/CR2 in 2009, and about 115 CR2s today.)

United's problem with this is that they hit the scope cap on large RJ operations (e.g. 70/76 seat aircraft like E-170/175 and CRJ-700). Delta and United have basically the same contracted limit, but Delta increased their 76 seat cap when they brought in the 717 (and now A220). United still lacks a small narrowbody plane below the 737-700 and A319, which they'd need to trigger the increased 76 seat cap that Delta has. Instead they got creative as there's no limit on 50-seaters and reconfigured the CRJ-700 into the 50-seat CRJ-550.

csturdiv wrote:

Maybe it's because of my limited experience with RJs in while in the US, but is first class really needed on a RJ? In all fairness my RJ flights either end or start in EVV, which is not a hotspot, but the flights to CLT or DFW that I've bren on are not that long to justify paying for a first class seat or using FF points...unless you have an endless supply of both.

I have several friends in SW Indiana that travel TATL in F on UA and regularly begin and end their trips in EVV. They would love to have F available on the EVV-ORD segments. I think this would be a step up from the CRJ-100/200s and ERJ145s that fly the route now.

Gulfstream500 wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

eeightning wrote:

In addition to cutting 20 seats for scope, they had to cut 10,000 lbs out of the MTOW for scope. It's barely a 90 minute bird.

And even at 90 minutes, with an alternate, they’re going to have to kick pax or bags off.

They do have some routes over 2 hours, including RIC-ORD, ABE-ORD, and OKC-ORD.

OKC-ORD comes in at about 2.5 hours.

I'm hoping for a HVN-ORD route as it should be better off short runways than the CRJ-200.

In the case of the ERJ-135.. when they did the 16pax 1+1 shuttle configuration that was going to be the backbone of Indigo's Air Taxi service out of Teteboro , Embraer had to redo the entire floor to make it flat and change up the bins. You'd have to do something similar with an ERJ-145. (It would be awesome to see a 30pax 15 row 1+1 ERJ145.... but that's just me dreaming)

hawaiian717 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Delta had the right plan for 50-seaters nine years ago: confine them to domestic routes of 750 miles or less, and drop hundreds of them from the fleet. (They had ~500 E145/CR2 in 2009, and about 115 CR2s today.)

United's problem with this is that they hit the scope cap on large RJ operations (e.g. 70/76 seat aircraft like E-170/175 and CRJ-700). Delta and United have basically the same contracted limit, but Delta increased their 76 seat cap when they brought in the 717 (and now A220). United still lacks a small narrowbody plane below the 737-700 and A319, which they'd need to trigger the increased 76 seat cap that Delta has. Instead they got creative as there's no limit on 50-seaters and reconfigured the CRJ-700 into the 50-seat CRJ-550.

Not to nitpick, but the A220 additions at Delta do not allow any extra 76 seat RJ flying to be added.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

hawaiian717 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Delta had the right plan for 50-seaters nine years ago: confine them to domestic routes of 750 miles or less, and drop hundreds of them from the fleet. (They had ~500 E145/CR2 in 2009, and about 115 CR2s today.)

United's problem with this is that they hit the scope cap on large RJ operations (e.g. 70/76 seat aircraft like E-170/175 and CRJ-700). Delta and United have basically the same contracted limit, but Delta increased their 76 seat cap when they brought in the 717 (and now A220). United still lacks a small narrowbody plane below the 737-700 and A319, which they'd need to trigger the increased 76 seat cap that Delta has. Instead they got creative as there's no limit on 50-seaters and reconfigured the CRJ-700 into the 50-seat CRJ-550.

Not to nitpick, but the A220 additions at Delta do not allow any extra 76 seat RJ flying to be added.

No but if delta ever drops below 88 small mainline narrow bodies (717's, a220, e190/195), they have to ground 1.25 76 RJ's for every small mainline narrow body below the 88 they are operating, so if they want to retire 717's ever they need a replacement

Gulfstream500 wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

eeightning wrote:

In addition to cutting 20 seats for scope, they had to cut 10,000 lbs out of the MTOW for scope. It's barely a 90 minute bird.

And even at 90 minutes, with an alternate, they’re going to have to kick pax or bags off.

They do have some routes over 2 hours, including RIC-ORD, ABE-ORD, and OKC-ORD.

OKC-ORD comes in at about 2.5 hours.

Flight time not advertised Block.

Those are sub 90 min flights with the block padded out 140-150 minutes. Easily do-able in the duece with 50 pax and alternate fuel. Do-able in a 550 with about 30 minutes of fuel for alternate/holding.