And exactly how many times have you done a transcon with 173 seats filled in your RJ? Denver is a rare and maybe the only example of someplace we consistently send the ER that has a weight limitation relatively often. Even so, with the possible exception of the A321, it still hauls more passengers with the weight restriction than the other single aisle airplanes currently in production. Every time I left Hong Kong for Newark in the 777 we had close to 100 seats held due to cargo and that was burning down to MGTOW in the hold short. The reality is every airplane has restrictions when pushed to it's limits and your RJ has more limits than most.

I've flown the 737 ER since it's been around and am intimately familiar with its limitations. I have no love for the plane, but our industry is driven by economics. I've repeatedly heard the 757 is a great airplane and have no reason to doubt it, but the market didn't want it. Maybe the Neo 321 is a better plane than the 737 Max, it's beating it in orders, but the reality is our management isn't alone in its view of the 737 as its narrowbody of the near future. What drives me nuts when I read these threads is how pilots hold forth about being industry experts based on our view from the pointy end of the plane and anecdotes. We're experts in flying and have a good understanding of basic operations, but when it comes to the decisions that really determine our future, like which airplanes to fly where, we respond emotionally without numbers to back up our views.

I don't know what RJ you're flying, maybe the 70 seater or 74 seater, but the RJs that I commute on are weight restricted the VAST majority of the time when I was commuting from RDU-EWR.

50 seaters almost always restricted to 46-48 seats, which is 4-8% of its passengers. This is a daily occurrence year round.

As a matter of fact, UAL is flying all RJs from IAH-CLT and this summer, I trying to non-rev my parents and oldest 2 children on 50-seater.

There were 10 seats open, so good to go, right?

Got to 5 mins prior to boarding when I couldn't take it anymore since they were number 2 on the standby list. I ask the agent if there was a problem, and they informed me that the 50 seater was weight restricted to 29 seats out of 50. So that was a loss of 42% of it's seating capacity.

So either you're flying a super RJ or maybe a Q400, or I will call BS on this one.

I've flown the 737 for seven years now, and I have only flown one route that I've been weight restricted, and that was Guam to Fiji a long ETOPS route, which ended up getting canceled because not enough demand, and probably not the right aircraft for the route.

That route from ORD-DEN, I'm taking a guess, but I would bet that flight might get a weight restriction 1 or 2 days a year.

When I was commuting, those ****ty ass RJs were always weight restricted, almost every day of the year and it drove me crazy.

I know this comment was meant at an attempt at humor, so I apologize if the humor is lost on me.

I'm sure some other commuters will agree.

What does your RJ pay?

Which will hit the market when? When UCH ordered the 900ERs the 321neoLR was not an option it was the 900er, 800, or 320. Boeing and Airbus have always had a issue with selling current products once they start manufacturing the new replacements. They have to keep the production line moving seamlessly from one aircraft generation to another. So thats when buyers can get better deals which probably was the case with the 900er order. Add in that financing levels are very cheap right now you can see the pricing power of this capital expense. A none price today or a future of lots of unknowns with rising forward curves.

Now lets look at the used market for the 757. The used value of the 757 is going down everyday. The longer you hold on to them the less value they have. So either you sell them for something or hold on to them knowing you will get nothing. Allegiant's right down this past month on the 757 fleet reflects this. By the time we retire the rest of the fleet of 757s my guess is most will not enter the used market and be used for parts only.

Emotion - A sense of feeling we use to determine our views.

Statistic - A number we make up to back up our views.

Easy pal. It was a joke. I don't think anyone would argue that any 737 is less capable on a transcon vs. any RJ :rolleyes:

Ouch! Hittin' a guy while he's down!

Again fellas, a joke. I don't know of many RJ guys, myself included, who don't want to grow up into 737 drivers some day. If you're arguing that I'd rather deal with weight restrictions at my pay rate vs. yours, then you are out of your mind.

*sigh* getting off topic...but I'll address some points here:

I can believe those numbers on a CRJ-200. Those things are an unqualified piece of junk. There is no better example than the CRJ-100/200 of how your product doesn't need to be good or capable to sell, it just needs to be the first one to the market place. But I fly the E145. That's the Embraer 50-seater. And I have flown that route numerous times at all times of year. Never with a weight restriction. Even when the alternate is BUF or some nonsense. The VAST majority of the time on that route it seems we are taking 50 folks, all their bags, the ones the E170 or the Q400 left behind and two jumpseaters. So hop aboard next time I'm driving.

Now, I don't know old your data is, but the ExpressJet 145 LRs were all weight-modded many years (6 or more?) ago and basically made weight restrictions a very very rare occurrence.

I'll call BS on this one. That is an insane number. And if it were the norm, we wouldn't be flying that route. Ever. Unless there was some one-off maintenance issue like having to fly at 10,000' with the gear down all the way there, then there is no way I can see any flight being that restricted. So either it's BS and you were misinformed or there were some other extenuating circumstances.

It was humor. And my apologies if it fell on deaf ears.

Here's the facts guys, especially you commuters: I can't speak for other airlines and other airplanes. But if you come over to an ExpressJet Embraer 145 for a ride, you will find 2 jumpseats (double the number on the 737 btw), almost nary a weight restriction and a crew happy to get you where you want to go, even if that place is work. Period.

The A321 has been an option since 1994. The A321Neo was launched December 2010. First delivery planned in 2016.

The UCH -900er/Max 9 order had more to do with the legacy CAL all Boeing philosophy as well as some big discounts due to the 787 delays compensation. (my opinion)

But now that UCH (CAL management) has been exposed to the Airbus narrowbodies and seen how well they perform (fleet plan extension now planned thru 2025 and beyond) hopefully they will get some of the A321Neo for the Hawaii and international 757 replacements in due time, especially if the reports of the Max9 field performance issues are true. The -900er already suffers as compared to the 321. The MAX vs NEO only exacerbates this metric.

All good things eventually come to an end. The 757's is in its waning years. Is there a direct replacement? No, but the current Boeing and Airbus offerings are able to do 90%+ of the missions with a lot less operational expenses. At some point, acquisition costs of new aircraft are outweighed by the upkeep and operational expenses of older airframes.

DC

I flew the POS taco jet for 6 years. The EMB145ER was constantly weight restricted to 44. Btw that's 12%, but being a Riddle type you def did the math in your head. I used to make a point to tell every JSer I had what tail numbers were ALWAYS weight restricted and required good crews to squeeze people on. I also remember having to fuel stop in TYS trying to go to BHM, because we had holiday bag loads. Some how I think the new age guppy would of handled that just fine. Those things should have been turned into beer cans years ago...

I think everybody can agree on this. I can only hope mainline flying continues to grow and take back the regional stuff while hiring folks on to mainline along the way.