Back in August 2022, American Airlines revealed a new partnership with Air Wisconsin. These flights are now on sale for travel as of next spring. While more regional capacity is a good thing, there are also some things to not look forward to here…
In this post:
Air Wisconsin will fly CRJ-200s for American Eagle
We’re currently dealing with a pilot shortage in the United States, which is having the greatest impact on regional airlines. This has caused service to many smaller markets to be cut, as there simply aren’t enough pilots to operate all regional jets.
This is an issue for the major legacy airlines, as service to small markets is a key part of the overall hub & spoke business model. American Airlines is launching a new five year partnership for regional flying, which helps address this issue.
Air Wisconsin will be doing some flying on behalf of American Eagle, which is American’s regional subsidiary. Air Wisconsin will fly up to 60 CRJ-200 aircraft on behalf of American Eagle. The service will start as of April 2023, and will be focused primarily on American’s Chicago O’Hare (ORD) hub.
Based on the initial schedule filing, the airline will operate the CRJ-200 on 10 routes from Chicago O’Hare, including to Appleton (ATW), Bishop (FNT), Dayton (DAY), Eastern Iowa (CID), Huntsville (HSV), Kalamazoo (AZO), Manhattan (MHK), Milwaukee (MKE), Omaha (OMA), and Waterloo (ALO).
It’s normal for regional airlines to operate on behalf of multiple airlines. It’s interesting to see the way Air Wisconsin has bounced around over time. Back in the day Air Wisconsin operated for US Airways Express, then for American Eagle, then for United Express, and now Air Wisconsin is going back to American Eagle.
Why I’m not excited about Air Wisconsin CRJ-200s
There are a couple of things that make this development noteworthy. First of all, most airlines have been phasing out 50-seat jets, and in particular the CRJ-200. American Eagle had completely phased out the CRJ-200 as of early 2020, when partner PSA stopped flying CRJ-200s around the start of the pandemic.
The CRJ-200 is my least favorite regional jet, plain and simple. The plane has a capacity for 50 passengers, and the cabin is in a 2-2 configuration, with no first class. When it comes to 50-seat regional jets, I far prefer the Embraer ERJ-145, as the cabin is in a 1-2 configuration.
While American Eagle also operates CRJ-700s and CRJ-900s, these planes generally have a first class cabin, so at least it’s potentially a more comfortable ride.
Furthermore, it has been years since I’ve flown with Air Wisconsin, though going back a decade I flew on Air Wisconsin regional flights all the time. At the time I remember Air Wisconsin being one of the least reliable regional operators. I believe the airline is doing a bit better nowadays with operational reliability, though the airline still has quite a bit reputation in that regard.
Bottom line
Air Wisconsin will start doing some regional flying on behalf of American Airlines’ regional subsidiary, American Eagle. The service is expected to start by April 2023, using CRJ-200s. The flights will primarily be out of Chicago O’Hare, and the first 10 routes are now on sale. While American having access to more regional planes is a good thing, I can’t say I’m particularly excited about CRJ-200s being reintroduced to the American Eagle fleet.
What do you make of Air Wisconsin flying on behalf of American Eagle?
Today is my third flight on Wisconsin Air operating as American Eagle. It is the third delayed flight due to maintenance.
As an AA Executive Plat, I can say I will take Amtrak over any CRJ-200. AA is going to wish they never did this as load factors among elites is going to tank.
I was a pilot for Air Wisconsin. Hated flying for them. Scheduling was the worst I've ever worked for. So glad I left. Honestly don't know how they are still in business. Pay is below all the other regionals at least a handful of them. Instead of investing in the 175, they decided to buy the 700, which by the way they did while laying us off saying they don't have money to pay us.
Who will be the new partner replacing Air Wisconsin for United? Any updates or word on that?
ERJ-145 overhead bin is too small for carryon, only personal item can be put in.
CRJ-200 has more reasonable overhead bin space.
Air Whiskey Exec’s after taking a ride in an AA oasis aircraft:
Hold my beer
My home airport is ORD (see handle). My preferred carrier is UA. Due to my job, I do a lot of flying to small towns, especially in the Midwest. Because of that, I have been put through the torture chamber of numerous flights on Air Whiskey 200s. My latest flight on one was less than a month ago to/from DAY. I therefore know of what I speak.
Between the cramped conditions and the guaranteed surly...
My home airport is ORD (see handle). My preferred carrier is UA. Due to my job, I do a lot of flying to small towns, especially in the Midwest. Because of that, I have been put through the torture chamber of numerous flights on Air Whiskey 200s. My latest flight on one was less than a month ago to/from DAY. I therefore know of what I speak.
Between the cramped conditions and the guaranteed surly FAs that ZW specialize in hiring, it's distilled misery from boarding to disembarking. I had a much better experience on a couple of Q400s that I used for an RJ trip in Washington state a few months ago. Less noisy, more comfortable, and Horizon FAs seem to always be friendly. Gold stars for Horizon and AS for choosing them to be a regional partner.
This deal must be so good for Air Whiskey that we'd be shocked if a copy of it ever leaked and we read it. All they have to do is pull out of Terminal 2, get a quick paint job, and head to Terminal 3. And good riddance to them. UA is upping their game with RJ travel, and I'm very, very pleased about it. Of course, due to the loss of some places I actually go, I have to choose between driving and flying AA. I choose driving.
And, Tim, you're just mad because ORD threw DL into the Naughty Terminal with WN, F9, and NK, right where it belongs. It's okay, though; Delta's stench will live on in Terminal 2 until the wrecking ball hits it.
Delta undoubtedly has escaped the sky high costs that AA and UA will have to bear to rebuild the ORD palace that will make Chicago the most unprofitable connecting hub in the US as long as ANY 50 seat RJs are part of the deal for any airline - and that includes UA's neutered CRJ700s faking it as 50 seaters.
Oh, and relative to the other discussion on the interwebs today, Delta has a...
Delta undoubtedly has escaped the sky high costs that AA and UA will have to bear to rebuild the ORD palace that will make Chicago the most unprofitable connecting hub in the US as long as ANY 50 seat RJs are part of the deal for any airline - and that includes UA's neutered CRJ700s faking it as 50 seaters.
Oh, and relative to the other discussion on the interwebs today, Delta has a beautiful and LARGE new Sky Club over there in terminal 5.
Delta has made more money at ORD due to its savvy facilities moves than any airline has made flying from there. First it was concourse L and now it is escaping Terminal 2.
Seems like you have distaste for ORD @Tim Dunn
No, Peter, I have no distaste for any airport.
I have lived in Chicago and have watched the aviation situation there for decades.
AA used to be a real competitor and powerhouse but United has clearly won the battle for hub dominance while the city has 3 airlines at hubs with 2 airports.
ORD is a strategic necessity for AA so they have no choice but to muddle there way through.
...
No, Peter, I have no distaste for any airport.
I have lived in Chicago and have watched the aviation situation there for decades.
AA used to be a real competitor and powerhouse but United has clearly won the battle for hub dominance while the city has 3 airlines at hubs with 2 airports.
ORD is a strategic necessity for AA so they have no choice but to muddle there way through.
Specific to the ORD terminal situation, the rebuild that will fix the decades long error of making terminal 5 the only international arrivals facility will cost a massive amount of money and leave ORD with the highest costs per enplaned passenger of any major connecting airport - which will erode AA and UA's ability to profitability connect passengers there.
Regarding DL, which someone else brought up, I am certain that DL doesn't want to pay for the huge new terminal which AA and UA need in order to successfully compete for international traffic and DL's costs per passenger will be passed equally on to local passengers on an equal basis as AA and UA.
As for Chicago and the Midwest, remember that DL, like WN, serves both Chicago markets and DL performs very well in the local markets in which it competes. DL is also the largest airline in the Midwest because of its dual Midwest hub strategy at DTW and MSP
So, no, I don't have anything against ORD or Chicago but strategic mistakes take lots of money to correct. DL and NW both recognized years ago that reducing Chicago to a spoke city made the most economic sense while allowing the other 3 of the big 4 to duke it out even as DL has a larger operation at MSP and DTW combined and DL still is the next largest non-hub carrier in Chicago.
I wish AA well with their latest attempts at remaining relevant in Chicago but am not optimistic based on the high costs of RJs on a per seat basis and the fact that AA is now a much reduced version of what it used to be (and yes, I remember the days when AA had dozens of DC10s and 767s at its terminals - but I also remember multiple L10s at DL gates).
You're pimping out Delta's presence at Midway? Really? Two gates and about a half-dozen flights, all of them to MSP or DTW (mostly MSP)? Yeah, that's some presence. There are ULCCs at Midway now with almost as much presence. Volaris right down the hall in A Concourse has as much presence (albeit only one gate). And DL has no presence whatsoever south of Detroit until you get to Atlanta. Also, DL is not the "next...
You're pimping out Delta's presence at Midway? Really? Two gates and about a half-dozen flights, all of them to MSP or DTW (mostly MSP)? Yeah, that's some presence. There are ULCCs at Midway now with almost as much presence. Volaris right down the hall in A Concourse has as much presence (albeit only one gate). And DL has no presence whatsoever south of Detroit until you get to Atlanta. Also, DL is not the "next largest non-hub carrier in Chicago" because WN doesn't have hubs. We'd call them hubs, but they don't.
How long will it take you to admit that the big and new Sky Club in Terminal 5 is supposed to be a SkyTeam lounge, not just for the CC Diamonds that Delta's greed with Amex created? Probably never.
ORD2,
AA and UA simply don't fly to MDW at all.
Doesn't matter what WN calls it hubs; they connect a higher percentage of traffic at MDW than legacy carriers do at some of their hubs which they actually call hubs.
DL is the largest non-hub airline at both ORD and MDW.
And the use of the Sky Club as a Sky Club lounge is precisely why DL has made more money...
ORD2,
AA and UA simply don't fly to MDW at all.
Doesn't matter what WN calls it hubs; they connect a higher percentage of traffic at MDW than legacy carriers do at some of their hubs which they actually call hubs.
DL is the largest non-hub airline at both ORD and MDW.
And the use of the Sky Club as a Sky Club lounge is precisely why DL has made more money at ORD than alot of airlines ever had. You do remember that Concourse L was THE international terminal and DL's Crown Room at the time was packed w/ international airline passengers while DL ground handled those international airlines? Or was that before your time.
And DL still will be avoiding the massive cost that AA and UA will be spending to build a new terminal which will benefit both but at enormous cost.
And DL doesn't operate 50 passenger regional jets at ORD and will have them all gone in months, far sooner than AA and UA. The economics of 50 passenger jets used in connecting service doesn't work now but AA and UA both have to use them (including UA's CRJ550s) in order to build enough volume at ORD because the Midwest and the ORD local market is simply not large enough for both to get by with larger aircraft and an extensive network.
And there are literally dozens of cities between Chicago and Atlanta where DL is the largest airline. thank you for demonstrating that you simply do not understand the basic facts of the US airline industry.
someone get this white American man a hanky
While the contract might be for several years, the chances are low that the contract will end with the same number of aircraft at the end of the contract.
The economics of regional jet flying continues to deteriorate not just because of growing pilot and other employee costs but also because of fuel prices. The 50 seaters produce seat costs 3-4X pre-covid levels. Both AA and Air Wisconsin can and renegotiate the contract and...
While the contract might be for several years, the chances are low that the contract will end with the same number of aircraft at the end of the contract.
The economics of regional jet flying continues to deteriorate not just because of growing pilot and other employee costs but also because of fuel prices. The 50 seaters produce seat costs 3-4X pre-covid levels. Both AA and Air Wisconsin can and renegotiate the contract and remove capacity if it becomes apparent that the jets can't be staffed at costs that make the flyiing profitable for AA.
AA has given up nearly all of the longhaul international market to UA at ORD; UA has more capacity and has better corporate travel penetration in Chicago than AA. Holding onto all of the spokes from Chicago - which is mostly what these RJ markets are about - is the strategy that AA has to pursue in order to hold onto in Chicago.
Let's also not forget that ORD is committed to a massively expensive terminal rebuild project that will make the airport the most expensive connecting airport in the US, further pressuring the ability to make money.
To address your last point: ORD's fees will be highest only if you compare their future fee to today's fees for its peer airports. EWR, JFK, LAX and others are also embarking on big reconstruction projects which will increase their fees. When looking in the long-term ie when announced projects are done, ORD will be where it's always been: somewhere near average. For UA specifically ORD has always been, and will continue to be, much...
To address your last point: ORD's fees will be highest only if you compare their future fee to today's fees for its peer airports. EWR, JFK, LAX and others are also embarking on big reconstruction projects which will increase their fees. When looking in the long-term ie when announced projects are done, ORD will be where it's always been: somewhere near average. For UA specifically ORD has always been, and will continue to be, much cheaper than EWR which is one of the most expensive airports.
The cheapest big airport is ATL and will likely remain that way by large margin. But anyone outside of DL must choose other airports to build their hubs in, and in that regard ORD will continue to do quite well. Heck, even Delta requested more gates in the new ORD. Having the least sunk costs in ORD, plus alternative hubs, you'd think DL would be the first to cut and run if costs were making ORD unprofitable. But they're planning to add flights.
So either you're wrong about ORD'S
Long term outlook, or your beloved Delta is wrong in wanting to expand service there. Which is it?
Airports have to provide estimates of the cost per enplaned passenger(CPE) as part of the application process for construction since part of the cost of airport construction is funded by the federal government through PFCs. Also, airports are government agencies and provide transparency in the total cost of contracts. The FAA has the data on airport CPEs - now and projected.
Construction is expensive but ORD's construction plan is one of the most costly...
Airports have to provide estimates of the cost per enplaned passenger(CPE) as part of the application process for construction since part of the cost of airport construction is funded by the federal government through PFCs. Also, airports are government agencies and provide transparency in the total cost of contracts. The FAA has the data on airport CPEs - now and projected.
Construction is expensive but ORD's construction plan is one of the most costly including relative to the percentage of connecting capacity. (total seats minus those seats used by the local market). Airlines have to pay the cost of handling every passenger; a connecting passenger can easily transit other hubs including DTW or MSP in the Midwest or DEN, IAH or DFW which are less costly hubs and compete for east-west flow traffic. Unless AA starts construction of a massive new terminal at DFW, ORD will be disproportionately more expensive. in terms of CPE, DFW DTW and MSP are both 1/3 of the cost or less of ORD while DEN is falling as terminal expansion there is relatively cheap compared to the increased amount of capacity the new gates add.
No, Delta is not looking to add connecting capacity via ORD. Even if DL paid the same CPE for ORD passenger as AA and UA, they would be doing so on the same basis as AA and UA for local ORD traffic. ORD's cost competitiveness for local traffic is reduced relative to MDW - which is one of the more costly airports for WN on a CPE basis but is still much lower than ORD.
Since DL's gate positions were in the way of the new terminal at ORD and Terminal 5 will shift to increasingly be a mixed domestic/international terminal, DL and other airlines including WN are undoubtedly going to pay less for gate space at ORD than AA and UA. And let's remember that AA and UA will gain faster and smoother international to domestic connections but that is much more of a benefit for UA since AA has such a small international network
It would be helpful to have a more complete picture of the changeover from UA to AA on other routes beyond the initial 10 you mention. For ORD to/from Ottawa, Canada (YOW), for example, United Express has provided smooth and mostly reliable connections, and under a UA banner as part of Star Alliance, onward baggage and through tickets have been easy. Same for Newark. AA had a monopoly on YOW to/from Philadelphia but suspended the...
It would be helpful to have a more complete picture of the changeover from UA to AA on other routes beyond the initial 10 you mention. For ORD to/from Ottawa, Canada (YOW), for example, United Express has provided smooth and mostly reliable connections, and under a UA banner as part of Star Alliance, onward baggage and through tickets have been easy. Same for Newark. AA had a monopoly on YOW to/from Philadelphia but suspended the route in 2020 and hasn't reinstated it, having shifted its focus to the Caribbean. Doubt this inheritance will mean a new commitment from AA. And AC and its regional sub are ceding ground to Porter.
Originally from YOw and tons of family still there. But I live in SFO now. I’ve been frustrated with now AA service or oneworld service to Ottawa. It’s a complete monopoly for AC and UA. I am an AS 100k flyer. I dumped AC years ago and good riddance except when I need to go home. I hope AA comes back. Even if it’s a CRJ. But UA was the same. Heck. I’ll take a new AS SEA>>YYZ flight if it came along.
^^NO YOW
The CR2s are a rough ride ... but better than to have no service at all.
Do these even have internet?
Btw, we call them CR “number two’s”
Hey Lucky, have you tried any of the regional AA bus 'flights'? Saw a video from Jeb Brooks recently and was wondering what your opinion was on them
You said it has been years since you have flown with Air Wisconsin (over a decade ago) and remember Air Wisconsin being one of the least reliable regional operators. Maybe you should have flown with them again before expressing your thoughts and feelings or even check on the operational stats. Air Wisconsin has very reliable operations. Yes the 50 seater 2-2 makes for a cozy flight sometimes but it is a regional. And they have...
You said it has been years since you have flown with Air Wisconsin (over a decade ago) and remember Air Wisconsin being one of the least reliable regional operators. Maybe you should have flown with them again before expressing your thoughts and feelings or even check on the operational stats. Air Wisconsin has very reliable operations. Yes the 50 seater 2-2 makes for a cozy flight sometimes but it is a regional. And they have fantastic crew members on every flight. They really care about the safety, customer service and on time flights. In this world today let's try a little less negativity. Thank you.
I also wonder if the long term plan is to get the now very expensive to operate Envoy Air out of the 50-seater business. The planes being added from ZW just about equals out to the number of remain EMB-145's Envoy will have after it transfers some to PI.
This would be a pretty smart way to lower the 50-seater costs.
This is bizarre. They must have gotten a pretty good deal from Air Wis since UA cut them loose and their planes are old, nasty, and the airline has no future.
That said, even with the ZW pilots presumably not being paid as much as the AAE ones, this has to be an expensive way to add capacity out of ORD, where AA was already losing money before Covid.
From UA's standpoint, it's consistent with...
This is bizarre. They must have gotten a pretty good deal from Air Wis since UA cut them loose and their planes are old, nasty, and the airline has no future.
That said, even with the ZW pilots presumably not being paid as much as the AAE ones, this has to be an expensive way to add capacity out of ORD, where AA was already losing money before Covid.
From UA's standpoint, it's consistent with their plans to reduce their 50-seaters. When UA said it was going to do a "refresh" of Commutair's EMB-145's and there wasn't a peep about ZW's CRJ's, you knew the handwriting was on the wall.
It would be a responsible thing to actually know what you are talking about before posting a wrong response. UA didn't cut ZW loose. It was actually the exact opposite. ZW signed with AA while UA was expecting a new agreement with ZW. The AA deal was better than UA was offering, so ZW walked away from the table.
And you know this how?
Air Wisconsin is the worst regional carrier out them all. the DRJ200 are terrible in terms of reliability and passenger comfort. The seats are cramped and none are equipped with wi-fi either. UA had at least use them for some long routes as well in terms of regional flights. Worst regional carrier.
If you were important enough to *need* wifi on a flight under an hour, you'd be able to afford to fly private...and this wouldn't even be a conversation.
Thank you!
Nooooo!
UA is my primary airline.
Good riddance to United Express operated by Air Wisconsin CRJ200.
I really liked when Air Wisconsin had BAE146 and provided United ground service at SGF, but no love for the devils chariot. AA can have them.
Just in regards to your operational reliability statement: Air Wisconsin has led all UAX operators in reliability ( as measured by D:0) for the last 6 months. Maybe do some research before bad mouthing a very hard working group of aviation professionals.
Of course D:0 has as much to do with the ground handling, which is not handled by ZW, as it does with the actual operation of the plane.
Absolutely correct! Thank you. And without flying with them for a decade how can the comments even be made. SMH
I like flying on these small planes especially if you’re in taxiing alongside a 777 or vice versa on a 777 looking down at the pencil it’s comical.
I find it rather hard to believe you ever took Air Wisconsin, even a decade ago, "all the time."
@JC
I think I remember the University of Wisconsin kids flying Air Wisconsin out of LGA in the 2000s.
Problem with the Emb 145. It’s weight restricted especially when need extra fuel for weather.
UA has ditched all of the old Expressjet standard EMB145's and only operates the "X" version now. That may take care of the weight restrictions issue.
The most remarkable part of all of this is not the comfort level of the CRJ but that the economics will almost certainly not work esp. at Chicago. American's regional jet subsidiaries are offering pilot pay that is comparable to mainline pilot pay; obviously mainline pilot costs are spread across a whole lot more passengers.
Add in that AA is doing this in Chicago - a highly competitive hub with United where the entire...
The most remarkable part of all of this is not the comfort level of the CRJ but that the economics will almost certainly not work esp. at Chicago. American's regional jet subsidiaries are offering pilot pay that is comparable to mainline pilot pay; obviously mainline pilot costs are spread across a whole lot more passengers.
Add in that AA is doing this in Chicago - a highly competitive hub with United where the entire airport is on track to become the most expensive airport in the US based on cost per enplaned passenger due to all of the construction and connecting passengers through Chicago on a regional jet is a money-losing proposition.
The only reason AA is doing this is because they cannot afford to give up on their Chicago.
The answer for regional jets is the small mainline jet = the 717 at Delta which is being supplemented by the A220 but neither American or United are interested in that class of jet so they will fight to keep their regional operations afloat by pouring more and more money into RJ flying.
Southwest figured out a long time ago that it isn't worth serving cities that can't fill a 737 size aircraft.
The regional jet era is coming to a close and yet American clings to the notion that serving hundreds more cities and using regional jets on many of those flights will give it an advantage; what is most likely is that this is yet another of AA's major strategic mistakes.
A few problems here:
1. AA's recent increase in regional pilot pay was for their wholly-owned subsidiaries. ZW is not one of those, so we have no idea what the financial structure of this deal looks like.
2. The assumption that the regional flights don't do well is extremely misguided. Looking at a regional flight from ORD to AZO (or pick your favorite small midwestern town) is useless. The metric that airlines care...
A few problems here:
1. AA's recent increase in regional pilot pay was for their wholly-owned subsidiaries. ZW is not one of those, so we have no idea what the financial structure of this deal looks like.
2. The assumption that the regional flights don't do well is extremely misguided. Looking at a regional flight from ORD to AZO (or pick your favorite small midwestern town) is useless. The metric that airlines care about is not the money made on that particular flight, but how having that flight adds revenue to the entire network. As someone who has a far better idea than you what works on AA and what doesn't, let me just say that the regionals are not nearly as bad as you always claim they are. Most of them are rather profitable, when viewed through the correct lens. For an airline focused on running a network, rather than a spaghetti-pile of point to point flights, the flight level view is useless.
3. In light of point 2, this comment "The only reason AA is doing this is because they cannot afford to give up on their Chicago" is completely false. They're doing it because UA and DL are giving up on regional routes in the area and AA sees a chance to claim some of them for themselves. Again, those regional routes add plenty of revenue to the system, so this seems like a smart play.
IF there was money to be made, other airlines would be adding their own flights using aircraft that make economic sense. The fact that the number of small city flights is dropping is indication that there are not alternatives.
In a labor market such as exists for pilots, one company cannot pay its pilots less and expect to remain staffed. We are seeing pilots leaving even JetBlue and Spirit and Frontier for the big...
IF there was money to be made, other airlines would be adding their own flights using aircraft that make economic sense. The fact that the number of small city flights is dropping is indication that there are not alternatives.
In a labor market such as exists for pilots, one company cannot pay its pilots less and expect to remain staffed. We are seeing pilots leaving even JetBlue and Spirit and Frontier for the big 4 so to think that regional carriers are going to retain pilots when they pay less than other regional carriers doesn't make economic sense.
It also doesn't make economic sense to run one segment of an itinerary at a loss in order to gain a passenger on a mainline flight out of a hub. It simply does not and never will when other airlines manage to fill their mainline planes with connecting passengers that are profitable.
May I remind you that AA has sat at the bottom of industry profitability for years. The encouraging part is that UA actually posted lower margins than AA the most recent quarter and B6 and NK didn't even make money but AA has made a LOT of strategic mistakes for years to end up at the bottom of the industry's profitability.
Good riddance. These birds are old and tired. A big win for UA flyers.
C'mon, give the CRJ just a little respect. Before it there were absurd props that were noisy, turbulent, and completely uncomfortable. If not for the CRJ we would have never seen regional jets evolve to where they are now. But, agreed, their time has come to step down. I still have a soft spot for them in how they revolutionized flying into smaller markets.
Makes an Oasis 738 look and feel like a luxury liner.
Looks like the back of my neck is going to be hurting again
No reason to dislike these birds. If you live in or need to get to remote towns , the last thing you want to see is less CRJs. They are amazing little jets with a high MMO. I get it the seats are tiny but let’s face it … it’s amazing we can get around the country to such remote places so quickly. We take transport for granted. Even with delays and cancellations. E145does win though between the two.
I can't imagine where AA will fly an additional 60 CRJ's out of ORD.
Premium cabins notwithstanding, there's a significant interior difference between the CR2 and CR7/9/10 - the height of the cabin floor. The cabin floor is a few inches lower within the fuselage for the larger CRJs, making it feel far less cramped, and (added bonus) putting the window at a height where many adults can see out.
That said, I, too, find the ERJ-145 to be more comfortable than the CRJ-200. But, none of the airlines...
Premium cabins notwithstanding, there's a significant interior difference between the CR2 and CR7/9/10 - the height of the cabin floor. The cabin floor is a few inches lower within the fuselage for the larger CRJs, making it feel far less cramped, and (added bonus) putting the window at a height where many adults can see out.
That said, I, too, find the ERJ-145 to be more comfortable than the CRJ-200. But, none of the airlines I use in the United States still fly the ERJ-145. Alas.
I agree about the experience in Y being about the same on all of those jets - but the premium cabin makes all the difference!