xjtr

If so, what did you think of it? Have you flown in a CRJ 700 or 900? How did they compare? How much overhead space. Do you still have to gate check?

fr8tmastr

Way more room in the 170/190. More overhead space, and no gate check. I personally like the gate check thing but it does not work with the 179/190 because they operate just as the ML does

dacm313

I have flown on both and feel the 170 is way more comfortable. Lots more room all around and the overhead bins i think are bigger than most bins i have seen.

xjtr

All I hear is good things about them. I wonder what the cost per seat mile is in a 170 as compared to the CRJ because even if it is a little higher, I think that pax will always choose a 170 instead. If this is the case, carriers that are expanding with 170s (like CHQ) it seems, will have an advantage in the future. Most travellers hate "small planes" and I don't think they percieve this as a "small plane" or even if they do, its more comfortable, especially if they used to fly on the 700s or even 50 seaters.

HotMamaPilot

they're all turds

CTPILOT

they are sweet, kind of like an optical illusion they make passengers think they look real big.

Window_Seat

Way to comfortable to be a regional aircraft at regional wages

ryguy

Embraer seems to take a Boeing like approach and designed a new aircraft for that market. Bombardier, like the other French company, just takes whatever they have and adds plugs to it. Both Boeing and Embraer are winning in their respective contests. Don't tell the Frenchies though, they wouldn't believe you anyway.

flyflorida2001

Maybe a few frequent business travelers will. The problem with this whole damn industry (one problem of many) is that most ignorant morons will click on whatever flight is cheapest on travelocity.com (or expedia, or orbiz, or cheaptickets, or...well you get it).

All they see is, this flight is 5 dollars cheaper than the other one, not whether they will be spending their 3 hour flight from Washington D.C. to Austin, TX on a 757 or a CRJ. Same reason that airlines can't up their prices and prices today are the same as they were 10 years ago (while the value of a dollar has changed a LOT). Airline X says, hey, were gonna try to get a little more realistic with our tickets prices, and Airline Y doesn't match the increase. Now everyone sees Airline Y's flight pop up at the top of the screen as the new cheapest one. Those damn websites are the downfall of this industry.

SharkyBN584

Flown on both, the 170 is definately more "passenger friendly". But people never look at what plane they're flying in until it pulls up to the gate. I loved the look on peoples faces a couple days ago when they were walking outside in MEM to hop on a SKW flight to Salt Lake City....and it was a 900. They had that "So is this plane going to take us to the real plane?" look. Kinda funny...kinda sad...

In my opinion, the 170/190/700/900 is a mainline aircraft getting operated on mainline routes at regional wages by regional pilots. I wish up and down they only exsisted at mainline carriers but that is not too be.