I have actually been amazed at the amount of destinations I’ve flown a 737 to that used to be all SkyWest such as BUR, FAT, PSP, EUG, MFR, BZN, MSN to name a few. Heck, not too long ago I saw an Airbus operating DEN-MTJ. Haters gotta hate...but I feel it’s trending in the right direction.

Caspian27 wrote:

I have actually been amazed at the amount of destinations I’ve flown a 737 to that used to be all SkyWest such as BUR, FAT, PSP, EUG, MFR, BZN, MSN to name a few. Heck, not too long ago I saw an Airbus operating DEN-MTJ. Haters gotta hate...but I feel it’s trending in the right direction.

Same. I remember at one point there were some routes that only skywest would fly (not trying to pick on them, just an example I remember specifically). The tickets were ridiculous. We would fly this route once a year for family reunions and would pay the ridiculous rate because we didn't want to drive 10 hours instead. For the longest time it was argued that they couldn't fill the route with a 737 because they never had the capacity for it.

Well then southwest swooped in, undercut the pricing and have full flights. This helped lower the rates elsewhere. Will still fly skywest if the timing is appropriate but almost always fly southwest now multiple times a year. Able to fly our kids on the route now with us for basically the same price we used to pay for just two tickets. win win (WN WN!)

trpmb6 wrote:

Caspian27 wrote:

I have actually been amazed at the amount of destinations I’ve flown a 737 to that used to be all SkyWest such as BUR, FAT, PSP, EUG, MFR, BZN, MSN to name a few. Heck, not too long ago I saw an Airbus operating DEN-MTJ. Haters gotta hate...but I feel it’s trending in the right direction.

Same. I remember at one point there were some routes that only skywest would fly (not trying to pick on them, just an example I remember specifically). The tickets were ridiculous. We would fly this route once a year for family reunions and would pay the ridiculous rate because we didn't want to drive 10 hours instead. For the longest time it was argued that they couldn't fill the route with a 737 because they never had the capacity for it.

Well then southwest swooped in, undercut the pricing and have full flights. This helped lower the rates elsewhere. Will still fly skywest if the timing is appropriate but almost always fly southwest now multiple times a year. Able to fly our kids on the route now with us for basically the same price we used to pay for just two tickets. win win (WN WN!)

Confused at the comparison as Southwest flies to exactly one destination I referenced (BUR).

My point was that I literally flew CRJ-200s to every one of those cities and now I’ve flown 737s to them as well.

I love these CR2-hating threads. So therapeutic. Yes, it sucks. It only doesn't suck if someone isn't sitting next to you. And I always have a sore back after disembarking, from bending over or slouching heavily to be able to look out. I've been able to avoid flying on a CR2/ERJ for a few years now.

I recall being eager to be scheduled in F on a CO 772 EWR-IAH; because my connecting flight got to EWR very early, I decided to see if I could take an earlier flight since I had no checked luggage; I hadn't checked to see what earlier flights were on the schedule (I was hoping there might be another 772, 764 or even a 762, the latter which I still haven't flown on to this day). My choices were: a 738 leaving in 20 minutes, and 3 ERJ145XRs within a span of 2 hours. Gee, that was a hard decision. Even if it meant waiting 3 hours for the 772.

Caspian27 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Caspian27 wrote:

I have actually been amazed at the amount of destinations I’ve flown a 737 to that used to be all SkyWest such as BUR, FAT, PSP, EUG, MFR, BZN, MSN to name a few. Heck, not too long ago I saw an Airbus operating DEN-MTJ. Haters gotta hate...but I feel it’s trending in the right direction.

Same. I remember at one point there were some routes that only skywest would fly (not trying to pick on them, just an example I remember specifically). The tickets were ridiculous. We would fly this route once a year for family reunions and would pay the ridiculous rate because we didn't want to drive 10 hours instead. For the longest time it was argued that they couldn't fill the route with a 737 because they never had the capacity for it.

Well then southwest swooped in, undercut the pricing and have full flights. This helped lower the rates elsewhere. Will still fly skywest if the timing is appropriate but almost always fly southwest now multiple times a year. Able to fly our kids on the route now with us for basically the same price we used to pay for just two tickets. win win (WN WN!)

Confused at the comparison as Southwest flies to exactly one destination I referenced (BUR).

My point was that I literally flew CRJ-200s to every one of those cities and now I’ve flown 737s to them as well.

sorry, I wasn't referencing your list of airports - piggy backed on with my own situation

Janj wrote:

AA and UA/CO flew GSO-DFW and GSO-IAH, respectively, although I can't remember the exact aircraft used. Now DFW is the only one operating and it's on an E175. Both are about a thousand miles long.

I think that Delta was the first with CRJ200 on DFW-GSO as AA was still flying F-100s at that point. Then Delta dismantled their DFW ops and I'm guessing AA did CRJ200/S-80 mix before going with the CRJ700s. Would have to do some research.

IAH-GSO (and RDU/CLT) were consistently flown by the XJet E-145s as the CO 735s disappeared and then "upgraded" to the E-145XRs when they came around. Now RDU/CLT get E170/175s and some mainline - plenty of practice on these routes b/c I'd fly the IAH-GSO direct if they ever bring it back... As someone said, think IAH-RIC was one of the longest RJ routes out of IAH until CO/UA started the Boise and ND oil routes.

My two longest are RIC-MSP on NW and PHX-EUG on HP both coming in a hair under 1000 miles. Given that it has been more than a decade since I did the last one I don't remember them being awful, but not exactly great flights... I suppose a lot of that was mitigated by what was waiting for me upon arrival.

UA IAH-YYZ on an E145...yuck

NW used to fly them on MSP-TUS, 1298sm.

UALFAson wrote:

UAX flies them BNA-DEN, which is 1000-1100 miles and pushes 3 hours westbound.

I have deliberately avoided this flight and taken connections on other airlines instead to avoid spending 3+ hours in that rat jet.

UA flies ONE flight with a CR7, this thread is about the CRJ, not CR7 or CR9

Janj wrote:

AA and UA/CO flew GSO-DFW and GSO-IAH, respectively, although I can't remember the exact aircraft used. Now DFW is the only one operating and it's on an E175. Both are about a thousand miles long.

Delta also flew from Atlanta to Aguadilla and Ponce in Puerto Rico, both using CRJs.

Air Canada also has various long CRJ routes. YYZ-JAX, YYC-IAH, and YVR-SAN all clock in at about a thousand miles each. The longest (although on a CRJ-900) is Vancouver-DFW, at about 1,700 miles and four hours (with an extra half hour for the return flight).

AC doesnt fly YYC-IAH and YVR-SAN with CRJ-200s. CRJ705s or CRJ900s. Delta flew to Puerto Rico on CR7s not CRJ2s

Super80Fan wrote:

Judge1310 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Come on United, you were getting much better at eliminating 50 seaters right after Jeff left and now with Kirby at the helm it's 50 seater love all over again.

It’s not “...50 seater love all over again.”



It’s: try out a market on a tester aircraft (in this case), hopefully stoke interest and increase demand, and eventually up-gauge to a 2-class cabin when demand warrants it. Sheesh, the lot of you want certain aircraft types launched on new routes but then will complain why it didn’t work out.
UA has shown that they’re quick to up-gauge a route when the time is right and the market allows.

No, it is 50 seater love. Most airlines, including AA are trying to get rid of their CRJ's. UA is picking as many CRJ's up as they can because they are all scoped out at the moment. They definitely are back to "let's throw a 50 seater on a route that can support a CR7/E175".

That is patently untrue.

Anything more than an hour on that thing is torture. Very glad AA-MIA sees none. Get an occasional one out of CLT.

Bobloblaw wrote:

AC doesnt fly YYC-IAH and YVR-SAN with CRJ-200s. CRJ705s or CRJ900s. Delta flew to Puerto Rico on CR7s not CRJ2s

They’re showing as CRJ-900 for me in October.

Also I don’t see why you’re so adamant about only talking about the -200? You’ve replied to at least three people saying this, including me twice for some reason. Yeah the -700s and -900s are longer/might have business class but it’s still a CRJ, no? I wouldn’t want to do US-Eastern Caribbean on a CRJ or ERJ.

Miamiairport wrote:

Anything more than an hour on that thing is torture. Very glad AA-MIA sees none. Get an occasional one out of CLT.

Last time I was in CLT was before the merger and it was US-Airways CRJ heaven. Where have the Ex-US CRs gone?

Janj wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

AC doesnt fly YYC-IAH and YVR-SAN with CRJ-200s. CRJ705s or CRJ900s. Delta flew to Puerto Rico on CR7s not CRJ2s

They’re showing as CRJ-900 for me in October.

Also I don’t see why you’re so adamant about only talking about the -200? You’ve replied to at least three people saying this, including me twice for some reason. Yeah the -700s and -900s are longer/might have business class but it’s still a CRJ, no? I wouldn’t want to do US-Eastern Caribbean on a CRJ or ERJ.

As the thread starter I specified the CRJ2 for a specific reason, it will be the a/c starting new service between DEN and STS. The CRJ2 is a very different aircraft from the CRJ-700 and -900 and the E175. The latter aircraft have Econ Plus and first class and are better suited due to their being newer with more features for longer flights.

I confess, I've only flown the CRJ2 from SFO to STS. The taxing to the runway in SFO was longer than the flight. It was fine for an hour (including ground time) but three hours (its blocked at 3h10m westbound) is a long time. Yes I can read a book and yes I can bring a spare USB battery for the Pad/phone etc but most airlines are phasing these things out for a good reason.

Kindly stick to a CRJ2 based discussion please.

As was pointed out, that AC SAN-YVR CR2 flight was up there. Flew it many times between '06-'08. GCM has it at 1,177mi and if I recall correctly, flight usually took just over 3 hours. Experienced the same flight on other equipment during the same time but it seemed pretty long on the CR2. Still a nice bird despite her shortcomings!

KLM11

Bobloblaw wrote:

Janj wrote:

AA and UA/CO flew GSO-DFW and GSO-IAH, respectively, although I can't remember the exact aircraft used. Now DFW is the only one operating and it's on an E175. Both are about a thousand miles long.

Delta also flew from Atlanta to Aguadilla and Ponce in Puerto Rico, both using CRJs.

Air Canada also has various long CRJ routes. YYZ-JAX, YYC-IAH, and YVR-SAN all clock in at about a thousand miles each. The longest (although on a CRJ-900) is Vancouver-DFW, at about 1,700 miles and four hours (with an extra half hour for the return flight).

AC doesnt fly YYC-IAH and YVR-SAN with CRJ-200s. CRJ705s or CRJ900s. Delta flew to Puerto Rico on CR7s not CRJ2s

I love this! Come through with the facts bobloblaw! The same folks who deign to do some simple research are the same ones lamenting about the aircraft (CR2). What a lot of folks on here seem to have “conveniently” forget is a little bit thing called 9/11. If it wasn’t for the CR2 and DoJet328 and J41s and EMB-120s (then 135s, etc...) most of your cities would have had even more reduced service...OR NONE AT ALL!

Without those aircraft you’d be relegated to driving, and/or taking the bus or the train (if you’re lucky). You’re, literally, screaming across the sky in an aircraft that, for most people, would be the closest they’d ever get to flying private. No more than 50 people, minding their business, staying in their seats and not bumping into yours, entertaining themselves, and all knowing that the gate checked bags will be available at Planeside Valet. Are the windows hella low? Yes, but that’s expected in a cabin with a height of ~74”.

Contrary to popular (and increasingly amusingly wrong) A.net belief, network planners don’t just choose an aircraft type because they feel like it. It’s far better to start a route and stoke its demand while gaining minimal loss than to assume a certain risk and lose funds and market share just because some airchair CEO thinks they know more than the professionals.

In the end, is the CR2 the best plane to fly? I’ll concede and say no, however it’s a great “test the market and gauge results” aircraft. The beautiful science of flight, I’d argue, is something even more evidently noticed and felt when flying in the CR2.

Janj wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

AC doesnt fly YYC-IAH and YVR-SAN with CRJ-200s. CRJ705s or CRJ900s. Delta flew to Puerto Rico on CR7s not CRJ2s

They’re showing as CRJ-900 for me in October.

Also I don’t see why you’re so adamant about only talking about the -200? You’ve replied to at least three people saying this, including me twice for some reason. Yeah the -700s and -900s are longer/might have business class but it’s still a CRJ, no? I wouldn’t want to do US-Eastern Caribbean on a CRJ or ERJ.

If youve been on a CR2 versus a CR7 or CR9, youd know the reason why the OP wanted to keep it CRJ-100/200.

Judge1310 wrote:

The same folks who deign to do some simple research are the same ones lamenting about the aircraft (CR2). What a lot of folks on here seem to have “conveniently” forget is a little bit thing called 9/11. If it wasn’t for the CR2 and DoJet328 and J41s and EMB-120s (then 135s, etc...) most of your cities would have had even more reduced service...OR NONE AT ALL!

Without those aircraft you’d be relegated to driving, and/or taking the bus or the train (if you’re lucky). You’re, literally, screaming across the sky in an aircraft that, for most people, would be the closest they’d ever get to flying private. No more than 50 people, minding their business, staying in their seats and not bumping into yours, entertaining themselves, and all knowing that the gate checked bags will be available at Planeside Valet. Are the windows hella low? Yes, but that’s expected in a cabin with a height of ~74”.

Contrary to popular (and increasingly amusingly wrong) A.net belief, network planners don’t just choose an aircraft type because they feel like it. It’s far better to start a route and stoke its demand while gaining minimal loss than to assume a certain risk and lose funds and market share just because some airchair CEO thinks they know more than the professionals.

In the end, is the CR2 the best plane to fly? I’ll concede and say no, however it’s a great “test the market and gauge results” aircraft. The beautiful science of flight, I’d argue, is something even more evidently noticed and felt when flying in the CR2.

... what

really though what is the point of your rant? calm down

United’s CRJ-200s and CRJ-700s both have a seat pitch of 31 and a width of 17. If you’re not flying in first there’s not a real difference.

Janj wrote:

Judge1310 wrote:

The same folks who deign to do some simple research are the same ones lamenting about the aircraft (CR2). What a lot of folks on here seem to have “conveniently” forget is a little bit thing called 9/11. If it wasn’t for the CR2 and DoJet328 and J41s and EMB-120s (then 135s, etc...) most of your cities would have had even more reduced service...OR NONE AT ALL!

Without those aircraft you’d be relegated to driving, and/or taking the bus or the train (if you’re lucky). You’re, literally, screaming across the sky in an aircraft that, for most people, would be the closest they’d ever get to flying private. No more than 50 people, minding their business, staying in their seats and not bumping into yours, entertaining themselves, and all knowing that the gate checked bags will be available at Planeside Valet. Are the windows hella low? Yes, but that’s expected in a cabin with a height of ~74”.

Contrary to popular (and increasingly amusingly wrong) A.net belief, network planners don’t just choose an aircraft type because they feel like it. It’s far better to start a route and stoke its demand while gaining minimal loss than to assume a certain risk and lose funds and market share just because some airchair CEO thinks they know more than the professionals.

In the end, is the CR2 the best plane to fly? I’ll concede and say no, however it’s a great “test the market and gauge results” aircraft. The beautiful science of flight, I’d argue, is something even more evidently noticed and felt when flying in the CR2.

... what

really though what is the point of your rant? calm down

United’s CRJ-200s and CRJ-700s both have a seat pitch of 31 and a width of 17. If you’re not flying in first there’s not a real difference.

I’m quite calm, thanks for the suggestion nonetheless.

My point was, as others have referenced, is that in the original spirit and theme of discussion (CR2) if one is going to espouse what they think is truth here, they better be able to back it up...or, at least, ask questions. As a long time professional in the business who’s flown that aircraft a lot, some of us may have a fair bit of insight to share — and we bristle when fallacies are bandied about as truth.

Anyway, back to the regular programming...

Judge1310 wrote:

Janj wrote:

Judge1310 wrote:

The same folks who deign to do some simple research are the same ones lamenting about the aircraft (CR2). What a lot of folks on here seem to have “conveniently” forget is a little bit thing called 9/11. If it wasn’t for the CR2 and DoJet328 and J41s and EMB-120s (then 135s, etc...) most of your cities would have had even more reduced service...OR NONE AT ALL!

Without those aircraft you’d be relegated to driving, and/or taking the bus or the train (if you’re lucky). You’re, literally, screaming across the sky in an aircraft that, for most people, would be the closest they’d ever get to flying private. No more than 50 people, minding their business, staying in their seats and not bumping into yours, entertaining themselves, and all knowing that the gate checked bags will be available at Planeside Valet. Are the windows hella low? Yes, but that’s expected in a cabin with a height of ~74”.

Contrary to popular (and increasingly amusingly wrong) A.net belief, network planners don’t just choose an aircraft type because they feel like it. It’s far better to start a route and stoke its demand while gaining minimal loss than to assume a certain risk and lose funds and market share just because some airchair CEO thinks they know more than the professionals.

In the end, is the CR2 the best plane to fly? I’ll concede and say no, however it’s a great “test the market and gauge results” aircraft. The beautiful science of flight, I’d argue, is something even more evidently noticed and felt when flying in the CR2.

... what

really though what is the point of your rant? calm down

United’s CRJ-200s and CRJ-700s both have a seat pitch of 31 and a width of 17. If you’re not flying in first there’s not a real difference.

I’m quite calm, thanks for the suggestion nonetheless.

My point was, as others have referenced, is that in the original spirit and theme of discussion (CR2) if one is going to espouse what they think is truth here, they better be able to back it up...or, at least, ask questions. As a long time professional in the business who’s flown that aircraft a lot, some of us may have a fair bit of insight to share — and we bristle when fallacies are bandied about as truth.

Anyway, back to the regular programming...

But much of what you said was a fallacy too.

ELP and PWM would have done just fine post-9:11 without CRJs to MSP. The vast majority of routes discussed in this thread involve cities with copious mainline to other hubs; most of the historical Long CR2 flights overflew other hubs (e.g. MSP-PWM) or and/or involved cities with lots of mainline OAL service where the business case for being in the market at all was questionable (e.g. MSP-ELP). That’s different from much of what UA does today.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

The CRJ2 is a very different aircraft from the CRJ-700 and -900

Totally agree. I have done some 2+ hours flights on CRJ-900s and CRJ-1000s and it was OK (actually better than the A320s of some European legacies). 2+ hours in a CRJ200 is not OK.

It must have to do with the higher windows and lower floor of the CRJ NG. Not with the cabin size, because I've also flown quite long sectors on ERJ-135/145 and found them much better than the CRJ200.

Once took the CRJ from
MSP-PNS that was a long flight. If the windows were larger and more level it wouldn’t be too bad. The CRJs were definitely a step up from the prop planes they replaced, but I’d take a 50 seat ERJ any day over the CRJ much more comfortable and I love that you can have an aisle and window seat all to yourself

Cubsrule wrote:

Judge1310 wrote:

Janj wrote:

... what

really though what is the point of your rant? calm down

United’s CRJ-200s and CRJ-700s both have a seat pitch of 31 and a width of 17. If you’re not flying in first there’s not a real difference.

I’m quite calm, thanks for the suggestion nonetheless.

My point was, as others have referenced, is that in the original spirit and theme of discussion (CR2) if one is going to espouse what they think is truth here, they better be able to back it up...or, at least, ask questions. As a long time professional in the business who’s flown that aircraft a lot, some of us may have a fair bit of insight to share — and we bristle when fallacies are bandied about as truth.

Anyway, back to the regular programming...

But much of what you said was a fallacy too.

ELP and PWM would have done just fine post-9:11 without CRJs to MSP. The vast majority of routes discussed in this thread involve cities with copious mainline to other hubs; most of the historical Long CR2 flights overflew other hubs (e.g. MSP-PWM) or and/or involved cities with lots of mainline OAL service where the business case for being in the market at all was questionable (e.g. MSP-ELP). That’s different from much of what UA does today.

I respect your opinions and posts and such, but i believe we’re comparing different things here.

You see, I was more focused on the smaller cities that barely survived bankrupt airlines and resultant cuts in service. Heck, I just flew on a EWR-IAD route on mainline, and I remember working it, after 9-11, on both a CR2 and EMB120.

When you say stations like ELP and PWM would have done fine to MSP, I must ask: by whom’s perspective, the passenger or the airline? We had to drop prices so low just to get people back on airplanes right after 9-11; indeed, profitability was a pipe-dream, we were all just trying to stay afloat with what we had in reserves.

I’ve worked (flown) Chicago to San Antonio, Dulles to New Orleans, DFW to CAE, Chicago to Colorado Springs, all on the CR2 in the era after 9/11. The main point it is that airlines sought a way to maintain some type of marginal market share in an industry that was absolutely shook to its core. After 10,15, and soon, 20 years, we’re finally righting the ships (so to speak). The CR2 is an important Machine, yet many folks on here seem to forget just how it helped to keep service to many places when we were working with Load Factors of 5-10%..

When they were first received, Belavia used their CRJ 200ER/LRs to open new routes from Minsk. I believe all of these have been upgraded to ERJ or B737 equipment now, but for a while they were operating numerous red-eye flights to the Caucasus and Central Asia, and daytime flights to other destinations:

MSQ-LGW - 1,197 miles
MSQ-EVN - 1,218 miles
MSQ-LCA - 1,340 miles
MSQ-TSE - 1,816 miles
MSQ-KGF - 1,931 miles

The later in particular was right on the range limit for the CRJ 200LR - must have been an interesting operation.

I honestly don't loathe them as much as some do (but I'm not tall..5'7") with the exception of the window placement. Love to look out so they're brutal on the neck for me.
We used to get a ton of them here at XNA but AA/DL/UA have all scaled them back. Tomorrow it looks like only 3 of the ~40 flights on regional jets are CR2s and seems only UA is using them.

Judge1310 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Judge1310 wrote:

It’s not “...50 seater love all over again.”



It’s: try out a market on a tester aircraft (in this case), hopefully stoke interest and increase demand, and eventually up-gauge to a 2-class cabin when demand warrants it. Sheesh, the lot of you want certain aircraft types launched on new routes but then will complain why it didn’t work out.
UA has shown that they’re quick to up-gauge a route when the time is right and the market allows.

No, it is 50 seater love. Most airlines, including AA are trying to get rid of their CRJ's. UA is picking as many CRJ's up as they can because they are all scoped out at the moment. They definitely are back to "let's throw a 50 seater on a route that can support a CR7/E175".

That is patently untrue.

Not in my experience. Routes that used to be 50 seaters went 1-2 years ago CR7/E175. As soon as AA dumped Air Wisconsin and UA picked them up all those routes went back to CRJ-200's. I would've been OK with it if it was E145's but I'm not flying on CRJ-200's on 2+ hour flights.

stxbohn wrote:

As someone said, think IAH-RIC was one of the longest RJ routes out of IAH until CO/UA started the Boise and ND oil routes.

I took that Boise flight on the ERJ-145 more times than I'd like to admit... all 1,494 miles of it. Having an aisle/window seat was nice, but not being able to stand up wasn't much fun. However, it beat connecting, which is why I flew it so often.

UA actually brought the flight back after the merger. It's now on a 175.

Judge1310 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Judge1310 wrote:

I’m quite calm, thanks for the suggestion nonetheless.

My point was, as others have referenced, is that in the original spirit and theme of discussion (CR2) if one is going to espouse what they think is truth here, they better be able to back it up...or, at least, ask questions. As a long time professional in the business who’s flown that aircraft a lot, some of us may have a fair bit of insight to share — and we bristle when fallacies are bandied about as truth.

Anyway, back to the regular programming...

But much of what you said was a fallacy too.

ELP and PWM would have done just fine post-9:11 without CRJs to MSP. The vast majority of routes discussed in this thread involve cities with copious mainline to other hubs; most of the historical Long CR2 flights overflew other hubs (e.g. MSP-PWM) or and/or involved cities with lots of mainline OAL service where the business case for being in the market at all was questionable (e.g. MSP-ELP). That’s different from much of what UA does today.

I respect your opinions and posts and such, but i believe we’re comparing different things here.

You see, I was more focused on the smaller cities that barely survived bankrupt airlines and resultant cuts in service. Heck, I just flew on a EWR-IAD route on mainline, and I remember working it, after 9-11, on both a CR2 and EMB120.

When you say stations like ELP and PWM would have done fine to MSP, I must ask: by whom’s perspective, the passenger or the airline? We had to drop prices so low just to get people back on airplanes right after 9-11; indeed, profitability was a pipe-dream, we were all just trying to stay afloat with what we had in reserves.

I’ve worked (flown) Chicago to San Antonio, Dulles to New Orleans, DFW to CAE, Chicago to Colorado Springs, all on the CR2 in the era after 9/11. The main point it is that airlines sought a way to maintain some type of marginal market share in an industry that was absolutely shook to its core. After 10,15, and soon, 20 years, we’re finally righting the ships (so to speak). The CR2 is an important Machine, yet many folks on here seem to forget just how it helped to keep service to many places when we were working with Load Factors of 5-10%..

I said that ELP and PWM would be fine with no service to MSP. Both had plenty of service, including mainline, to many other hubs. Likewise, COS never needed service to ORD on a CR2.

How about a little perspective and appreciation? Not too long ago you'd be riding a stagecoach from A to B, getting dusty, hit by diseases and robbers. Three hours on a CR2 is luxury compared to a three hour car drive for a Thanksgiving visit somewhere...

[list=][/list]

flyguy84 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Come on United, you were getting much better at eliminating 50 seaters right after Jeff left and now with Kirby at the helm it's 50 seater love all over again.

If the market could support a larger aircraft it would get one...

Heh heh snort

Western727 wrote:

I love these CR2-hating threads. So therapeutic. Yes, it sucks. It only doesn't suck if someone isn't sitting next to you.

Yes, and how long do flights with 50% load factors survive in the U.S.?!

CR7s and CR9s, with F cabins, Y,+, and wifi suck a little less if one is an FF elite with a shot at a free upgrade. Dropping the floor an inch and raising the windows didn't fix the problem with CRJs - a stunning lack of width at shoulder level.

As for those arguing it's a good aircraft to test a route, how does putting a lousy product on a new route gauge demand?

MIflyer12 wrote:

As for those arguing it's a good aircraft to test a route, how does putting a lousy product on a new route gauge demand?

What if the alternative is two flights with a potentially inconvenient connection, often using the same 'lousy product'. Suddenly a direct lousy flight doesn't seem so bad.

The longest flight I've ever flown on the CRJ-200 was ATL-SWF. I didn't really care much about the airplane itself as I was perfectly comfortable despite being over 300 lbs. It was the level of the windows that drove me nuts (though it's not as bad when you're airborne, but on the ground it's terrible).

evank516 wrote:

The longest flight I've ever flown on the CRJ-200 was ATL-SWF. I didn't really care much about the airplane itself as I was perfectly comfortable despite being over 300 lbs. It was the level of the windows that drove me nuts (though it's not as bad when you're airborne, but on the ground it's terrible).

Its these comments about windows that make me realize we'll never be able to get rid of windows on airplanes. No matter how far we advance. (even though it's something I think we desperately need to do if we are to break the next aircraft empty weight barrier)

Last week I flew a UA Express CRJ2 from DEN to EUG and returned. About 1,050 miles per flightaware, with 3 hours westbound and 2:45 eastbound. Not a fun flight. Always cabin temp issues in the CRJ2.
The EUG to DEN CRJ2's next destination was San Luis Obispo (SBP) which was a 990 mile flight at 2:45. They fly them on some long flights.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

STS has worked hard to get service to SLC on DL or DEN on UA. The eastbound service isn't great for east coast connections with a 4:30 p.m. DEN arrival time and the a/c choice isn't good at all but UA is so tight on E75/70s that all they had to use is the CRJ2.

I hope advance bookings convince them to upgauge quickly before too many folks are turned off by the hard product. Some product is better than no product I agree but this is a rough way to attempt to develop a new market in an area which has demonstrated it will support a good product. AS upgauged their service to SAN and a PDX flight to the E75 and is doing very well.

I don't understand it either. We lived in the Roseland neighborhood of STS for about six years. We would see A319s so it should not be an issue for UA. We now live in OTH and have an E175 twice a week to DEN and it seems like a waste. They could very easily use CRJs like they do OTH-SFO and move the E175 to a more useful route. Just my opinion.

seb146 wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

STS has worked hard to get service to SLC on DL or DEN on UA. The eastbound service isn't great for east coast connections with a 4:30 p.m. DEN arrival time and the a/c choice isn't good at all but UA is so tight on E75/70s that all they had to use is the CRJ2.

I hope advance bookings convince them to upgauge quickly before too many folks are turned off by the hard product. Some product is better than no product I agree but this is a rough way to attempt to develop a new market in an area which has demonstrated it will support a good product. AS upgauged their service to SAN and a PDX flight to the E75 and is doing very well.

I don't understand it either. We lived in the Roseland neighborhood of STS for about six years. We would see A319s so it should not be an issue for UA. We now live in OTH and have an E175 twice a week to DEN and it seems like a waste. They could very easily use CRJs like they do OTH-SFO and move the E175 to a more useful route. Just my opinion.

Has DEN-STS even started yet? Give it time, there are plenty of routes that are upgauged after a few months. SLC-BUR started with CR2s and now they're up to E175s. I'm not sure how wealthy the area is around STS, but I'm sure there will eventually be demand for a premium cabin on that route as well. The area is probably full of UA FFs.

Also, in regards to STS working hard to get DL service from SLC or UA flights to DEN, STS is served by 2 out of the three majors now. DL is the only one missing, but that is common with lots of the smaller California airports. Maybe once the terminal construction is over in SLC we might see new routes such as SLC-STS/SBA, etc.

evank516 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

STS has worked hard to get service to SLC on DL or DEN on UA. The eastbound service isn't great for east coast connections with a 4:30 p.m. DEN arrival time and the a/c choice isn't good at all but UA is so tight on E75/70s that all they had to use is the CRJ2.

I hope advance bookings convince them to upgauge quickly before too many folks are turned off by the hard product. Some product is better than no product I agree but this is a rough way to attempt to develop a new market in an area which has demonstrated it will support a good product. AS upgauged their service to SAN and a PDX flight to the E75 and is doing very well.

I don't understand it either. We lived in the Roseland neighborhood of STS for about six years. We would see A319s so it should not be an issue for UA. We now live in OTH and have an E175 twice a week to DEN and it seems like a waste. They could very easily use CRJs like they do OTH-SFO and move the E175 to a more useful route. Just my opinion.

Has DEN-STS even started yet? Give it time, there are plenty of routes that are upgauged after a few months. SLC-BUR started with CR2s and now they're up to E175s. I'm not sure how wealthy the area is around STS, but I'm sure there will eventually be demand for a premium cabin on that route as well. The area is probably full of UA FFs.

Also, in regards to STS working hard to get DL service from SLC or UA flights to DEN, STS is served by 2 out of the three majors now. DL is the only one missing, but that is common with lots of the smaller California airports. Maybe once the terminal construction is over in SLC we might see new routes such as SLC-STS/SBA, etc.

When we left in January, STS was being served by AS, AA, and UA. G4 had just pulled out. They were flying 319s in. Sonoma County has money and is a destination. It is sometimes called a great alternative to SFO for North Bay travelers. We always flew out of OAK. We also always flew WN, so there is that.

Bobloblaw wrote:

UALFAson wrote:

UAX flies them BNA-DEN, which is 1000-1100 miles and pushes 3 hours westbound.

I have deliberately avoided this flight and taken connections on other airlines instead to avoid spending 3+ hours in that rat jet.

UA flies ONE flight with a CR7, this thread is about the CRJ, not CR7 or CR9

They may have upgauged the route for the summer (some days both flights are EMB-175s), but I assure you UA was running 200s on this route as recently as a few months ago. I looked at non-revving on one but flew through ORD instead.

Kronesian wrote:

Elite flies PWM-MLB with the CRJ-200, about 1,219 miles direct. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/MNU ... /KPWM/KMLB

They also fly PWM-VRB on the CRJ2, at 1,242 miles direct. They are starting PWM-EYW next month.