We use the "drive to DFW" plan based on the flight options, not necessarily cost. I've spent far too many frustrated days in the OKC airport after American has canceled or delayed flights, causing me to miss connections at DFW. And no, I don't plan the travel times so tightly I can't account for some delays, but I'm also not willing to fly to DFW early in the morning and waste all day there waiting for a 5:00 p.m. flight. It's a far better insurance policy for my time to drive to Dallas (also increasing the possibility my bags get on the correct flight) and catch my "primary" flight. Best example is the Gunnison flight - there is only one per day on American from DFW. If you get delayed in OKC - which I have on at least 5 occasions - you lose a full day waiting to get to Gunnison.

Same thing goes for international travel. On more than one occasion we've had delayed baggage after arriving overseas, due to mixups from the OKC to DFW flights. I hear you on the need to avoid a 3 hour drive after a transatlantic flight, but we typically unwind and grab a nice dinner before the drive home.

Years ago I would have been really averse to driving back and forth to DFW, but the last few years of avoiding those problems made a believer out of me. I suppose it's just an individual cost/benefit analysis. Sorry if I contribute to the lack of demand, but the reduction in travel frustrations makes it a no-brainer for me.

Pardon me for being argumentative, but I just don't see why anyone would have to "waste all day" for a 5pm flight out of DFW when AA offers this out of OKC:

10453

Pardon me for being argumentative, but I just don't see why anyone would have to "waste all day" for a 5pm flight out of DFW when AA offers this out of OKC:


10453

There are obviously a number of exceptions if you look at it in a vacuum. To be more clear, when I would book a flight, I would base my OKC to DFW on the time of departure of my DFW - WHEREVER flight. I certainly wouldn't want to catch the earliest flights out of OKC, but also not want to cut it too close. For the sake of argument, let's say I don't catch the last OKC flight before my DFW flight, but perhaps the next to the latest before my DFW leg - a layover of an hour or two would seem safe. Surprise, your OKC to DFW flight has "mechanical issues", "flight delayed", or "FAA regulations / waiting on the flight crew". So I try to get on the next flight - whoops, sorry sir, it's full. Now I'm out of luck - can't get another flight to DFW in time to make my connection, and only if I scramble can I drive to Dallas in time to catch my connection.

I get it. When you look at the schedules it doesn't seem that hard, but I've been screwed far too many times. That's why I suggested it's a subjective cost/benefit analysis. Could be I just have horrible luck.

I get it. When you look at the schedules it doesn't seem that hard, but I've been screwed far too many times. That's why I suggested it's a subjective cost/benefit analysis. Could be I just have horrible luck.

Nah - you have a point - just a few weeks ago my wife and I nearly got screwed. Were on our way to Europe on AA. Originally booked out of OKC with 3 hours in DFW until our tatl flight. All was well until the threat of weather came. AA starts proactively canceling flights. I call to get rebooked - our 3 hour layover becomes 5. No problem, at least we grabbed seats on an earlier flight. But then the day of travel, AA's horrific operations team shines through as usual. Our inbound from DFW gets indefinitely delayed so we have no idea when we'll get out. Ironically a different flight from DFW arrives into OKC ontime, but apparently AA wouldn't allow the same aircraft to be sent back to DFW - we had to wait for the exact aircraft that was still stuck in DFW for some ungodly reason. OKC's ground crew literally pushes the plane back from the gate and parks it in front of us with no explanation as to why it can't be turned around and sent to DFW with the same crew. In the meantime AA had scheduled an extra sector to go to DFW, but didn't have crew for it as they were supposed to come in on the flight that was still stuck in DFW. Seeing the situation, one of the FAs who just got off the flight that arrived volunteers to work an extra flight so that the extra sector could go. Took an hour or so to arrange everything but finally we made it to DFW in time to make our int'l flight. The frustrating part was it took an employee going the extra mile to save our vacation. AA is too incompetent to figure it out themselves.

Now on a good day it works out perfectly, I'd much rather drive 20 minutes to the airport rather than 3.5 hours. But I certainly can't fault those who drive to DFW.

Embraer 175.

Bomber, give that airplane a try. It's better than mainline offerings. Has two lavatories, 2-2 seating instead of cramped 3-3, wifi, and inseat power.

Correct - the E75 is a solid aircraft, far superior to the CR7/ERJ offerings.

I wish AS was running a morning flight up to SEA to connect with their Hawaii bank - would've been useful!

Nah - you have a point - just a few weeks ago my wife and I nearly got screwed. Were on our way to Europe on AA. Originally booked out of OKC with 3 hours in DFW until our tatl flight. All was well until the threat of weather came. AA starts proactively canceling flights. I call to get rebooked - our 3 hour layover becomes 5. No problem, at least we grabbed seats on an earlier flight. But then the day of travel, AA's horrific operations team shines through as usual. Our inbound from DFW gets indefinitely delayed so we have no idea when we'll get out. Ironically a different flight from DFW arrives into OKC ontime, but apparently AA wouldn't allow the same aircraft to be sent back to DFW - we had to wait for the exact aircraft that was still stuck in DFW for some ungodly reason. OKC's ground crew literally pushes the plane back from the gate and parks it in front of us with no explanation as to why it can't be turned around and sent to DFW with the same crew. In the meantime AA had scheduled an extra sector to go to DFW, but didn't have crew for it as they were supposed to come in on the flight that was still stuck in DFW. Seeing the situation, one of the FAs who just got off the flight that arrived volunteers to work an extra flight so that the extra sector could go. Took an hour or so to arrange everything but finally we made it to DFW in time to make our int'l flight. The frustrating part was it took an employee going the extra mile to save our vacation. AA is too incompetent to figure it out themselves.

Now on a good day it works out perfectly, I'd much rather drive 20 minutes to the airport rather than 3.5 hours. But I certainly can't fault those who drive to DFW.

Because that crew likely was scheduled to overnight in OKC and they did not have the flight time available. That's why they pushed and parked the plane remote -- it and its crew were scheduled to overnight in OKC.

Just because there's a plane and a crew doesn't mean they have the legal or contractural available hours to just do an extra section on the fly. Especially to rescue a delayed flight. Airlines prefer to keep their schedule integrity as much as possible. Throwing in extra sections to cover delays is costly, and jeapordizes the following day's operation. If it were opposite, and you were in DFW or other crew domicile, there would have been reserve pilots that could be called in with fresh time to do the extra leg.

It's my theory of the pharmacist: for the life of me I don't understand why it takes so long to fill a prescription, which seems largely to be a matter of counting. That being said, I try not to be too critical, as I readily admit I don't know what all goes on behind the counter. The same holds true for me about the airlines - it certainly doesn't seem to be a complicated fix, but I'm not informed enough to be too outraged. My solution is simply a workaround.

Because that crew likely was scheduled to overnight in OKC and they did not have the flight time available. That's why they pushed and parked the plane remote -- it and its crew were scheduled to overnight in OKC.

Just because there's a plane and a crew doesn't mean they have the legal or contractural available hours to just do an extra section on the fly. Especially to rescue a delayed flight. Airlines prefer to keep their schedule integrity as much as possible. Throwing in extra sections to cover delays is costly, and jeapordizes the following day's operation. If it were opposite, and you were in DFW or other crew domicile, there would have been reserve pilots that could be called in with fresh time to do the extra leg.

I thought it might've been an issue with duty hours/timing out. But then my question is - does AA really schedule crew to fly a DFW-OKC segment that gets into OKC around noon, and have that be the end of their duty period? That makes zero sense. OKC is an outstation, not a base (as far as I know as an outsider, I don't have nearly the inside info you do) - so wouldn't it make more sense (assuming that the crew is DFW-based) to just let them fly back? Of course the caveat is that maybe they really couldn't work a half hr more, in which case it's a moot point.

The other irritating thing I gleaned from eavesdropping near the gate was that for the "ferry" flight, the pilots and 1 FA were already in OKC, the 2nd FA was supposed to deadhead on the delayed flight from DFW, then work the flight back to DFW. If that's the case though, why didn't AA get in touch with her and put her on the DFW-OKC flight which was actually on time? Did they not think that hey if we switch her over to the flight that's actually going, we can at least get her on the CR7 and get some of the delayed pax out? And ok maybe the plane that arrived into OKC ontime was completely full - maybe the jumpseat was also taken - I don't know. But this is nothing new with AA. It's been well documented that in case of IRROPs, you have to take matters into your own hands. AA sure as hell isn't going to take care of you, elite status or not.

I don't know. But this is nothing new with AA. It's been well documented that in case of IRROPs, you have to take matters into your own hands. AA sure as hell isn't going to take care of you, elite status or not.
I have never been an apologist for any airline but they can only do so much regardless of your status. In my daily dealings with AA and other airlines I find the status to definitely be a plus, depending on what is needed. Quite often, I get things taken care of for people that the airlines will tell you isn't possible. If you want to just rely on the airline or yourself, that is up to you.

I thought it might've been an issue with duty hours/timing out. But then my question is - does AA really schedule crew to fly a DFW-OKC segment that gets into OKC around noon, and have that be the end of their duty period? That makes zero sense. OKC is an outstation, not a base (as far as I know as an outsider, I don't have nearly the inside info you do) - so wouldn't it make more sense (assuming that the crew is DFW-based) to just let them fly back? Of course the caveat is that maybe they really couldn't work a half hr more, in which case it's a moot point.

There definitely are crew schedules like that. You also have to consider that crew might have just done a red eye earlier that morning.

That's very true, venture. Most of the flying public doesn't have a clue about the complexities the airlines deal with in their scheduling and are only concerned about how it affects them. That's not to give the airlines a pass, though. They do sometimes make decisions that don't seem rational (computer driven).

There definitely are crew schedules like that. You also have to consider that crew might have just done a red eye earlier that morning.

Exactly.

That's very true, venture. Most of the flying public doesn't have a clue about the complexities the airlines deal with in their scheduling and are only concerned about how it affects them. That's not to give the airlines a pass, though. They do sometimes make decisions that don't seem rational (computer driven).

Exactly, also.

People think the airlines thoroughly enjoy delayed flights and cancellations. Airlines hate those more than the passenger does because delays and cancels add tens millions of dollars of costs each month.

Embraer 175.

Bomber, give that airplane a try. It's better than mainline offerings. Has two lavatories, 2-2 seating instead of cramped 3-3, wifi, and inseat power.

I was afraid of that. Guess I'll stick with Southwest and plane hop in Denver.

I was afraid of that. Guess I'll stick with Southwest and plane hop in Denver.

Have you ever been on one?

The E175, at United has on average equivalent and on some instances better Customer Satisfaction ratings than equivalent stage length flights on mainline equipment.

Bombermwc: I wouldn't dog the E175 just quite yet. I've flown in them and find them to be roomier than the 737.

Bombermwc: I wouldn't dog the E175 just quite yet. I've flown in them and find them to be roomier than the 737.

Also it can take standard size carry on bags. No gate checking. They are very great airplanes from a customer service and reliability standpoint. They suck from the ramp, because the cargo bin is literally about 3 feet tall. It's very cramped to load luggage in.

I was afraid of that. Guess I'll stick with Southwest and plane hop in Denver.

Echoing others here, don't avoid an aircraft you haven't flown yet. By all accounts you have more personal space than on most mainline jets. Heck...US Airways/American operates the E-190 as a mainline jet and it is just a few feet longer than the 175 with the same cabin width.

UA's 175's have incredibly hard seats though, but some might like that

UA's 175's have incredibly hard seats though, but some might like that

Good thing this is SkyWest for Alaska. :)

UA's 175's have incredibly hard seats though, but some might like that

Those are the same seats being introduced on all mainline, and express flights. While not the exact same, it's the same style going on across the entire fleet. So they are still equivalent.

And bomber, Southwest is installing the slimline bench seats too. So it is apples to apples.

Good thing this is SkyWest for Alaska. :)

just a general comment on the planes, not the specific route

Those are the same seats being introduced on all mainline, and express flights. While not the exact same, it's the same style going on across the entire fleet. So they are still equivalent.

And bomber, Southwest is installing the slimline bench seats too. So it is apples to apples.

what's the reason, lighter weight? I can't determine if I like them or not yet

what's the reason, lighter weight? I can't determine if I like them or not yet

Lighter weight (saves fuel), but also slims down enough that some airlines can fit an extra row of seats in...

Lighter weight (saves fuel), but also slims down enough that some airlines can fit an extra row of seats in...

of course, here we come 30" of pitch!

I was afraid of that. Guess I'll stick with Southwest and plane hop in Denver.

As you wish. Haven't experienced AS service yet, but from what I can see it's excellent, and light years ahead of UA/WN/LCC. They also (from what I can glean from their website) offer upgrades to F at reasonable prices. I really wish the SEA flight was timed to offer more connections, but it's probably targeted more at O&D pax.

It's not just that particular plane, I avoid ANY flight on that size aircraft regardless of the carrier. It's a personal preference but I absolutely HATE jumper jets like that. It's just a personal opinion but I refuse to get on one. It's probably because of some awful experiences as a kid on that size aircraft but for me, that's just how it is. I don't think that's going to be an issue for most people though. I think most people will rather take the non-stop flight.

OKC always gets shafted on non-stop flights by all the carriers by using these little crappers because we just don't have the volume. It's a personal choice for me to say "no thank you" and stick with a larger aircraft. That's one reason why I love Southwest. I always know what plane I'm going to be on without question. Even if one leg gets messed up and changes planes, it's still the same model plane. No changing from a 757 to a re-route on a ERJ from somewhere else.

I'm just one of those weirdos willing to sacrifice the ease of the direct flight for the larger plane. Those 4 hour flights on ERJs....ugh, shudder.

I'll give you that as far as those "eagle/express" flights go on puddle jumpers, this one is a much better option. It's just not one I would still choose to select. I'm sure the aircraft is perfectly fine (and last time I checked, erjs have a great record)....they're just not my cup of tea.

One question on this model, on the smaller ERJ's that fuselage curves into the footspace of the window seat. This one is a bit larger, so is that corrected on the 175? The google images I can find seem to look like it's not an issue, but im just curious.

They are very roomy.

Embraer 170/175/190
Cabin width: 9 ft 0 in
Cabin height: 6ft 7in

Boeing 737
Cabin width: 11 ft 7 in
Cabin height: 7 ft 3 in

Embraer ERJ135/145
Cabin width: 7ft 6in
Cabin height: 6 ft 0 in

Bombardier CRJ 700/900
Cabin width: 8 ft 5 in
Cabin height: 6 ft 2 in

The E175 is a very comfortable fit. And the 2-2 seating is much better than 3-3.

It's not just that particular plane, I avoid ANY flight on that size aircraft regardless of the carrier. It's a personal preference but I absolutely HATE jumper jets like that.

The E75 is absolutely NOT a jumper jet. I don't work for Embraer or anything, but I think your mental picture of this plane is a lot different than reality. The E170/190 series were designed for these long, thin routes. They're not jumpers at all. They're exactly for routes like OKC-SEA which probably can't support a 737/320 just yet, but still deserve a flight. And yes OKC gets shafted with smaller planes quite frequently - however I'd much rather have AA fly OKC-LAX 2 x CR7 rather than not fly it at all. And as has been said already, the Ejets can accomodate standard sized rollaboards in their overheads, which makes flying them significantly more palatable. 2-2 in coach isn't bad at all. And the 1-2 config up front is even better.

Hey like I said, it's a mental hang-up for me from past experiences. I get that this isn't as small as most of the ERJs you see, but no matter what the layout looks like, it's still quite a bit smaller than a 737/320. I'm sure it's a perfectly fine airplane, it's just not one I want to get on. No manner of statistics is going to change that for me. It's not because I want to be argumentative or anything, it's just mental for me. Sometimes im surprised I get on a plane at all after that experience.

The E75 is absolutely NOT a jumper jet. I don't work for Embraer or anything, but I think your mental picture of this plane is a lot different than reality. The E170/190 series were designed for these long, thin routes. They're not jumpers at all. They're exactly for routes like OKC-SEA which probably can't support a 737/320 just yet, but still deserve a flight. And yes OKC gets shafted with smaller planes quite frequently - however I'd much rather have AA fly OKC-LAX 2 x CR7 rather than not fly it at all. And as has been said already, the Ejets can accomodate standard sized rollaboards in their overheads, which makes flying them significantly more palatable. 2-2 in coach isn't bad at all. And the 1-2 config up front is even better.

We flew on a embraer 175 yesterday from exuma to Miami. Fairly new jet. Was roomy. Reminded me of just a slightly smaller 737 and would have no issue with a 2 hour flight in one.