OKC Flight Schedules

[damonsmuz]

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

[catch22]

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.

[venture]

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.

[bradh]

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

[venture]

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

Good thing this is SkyWest for Alaska.

[catch22]

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.

[bradh]

Good thing this is SkyWest for Alaska.

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

[bradh]

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

[LakeEffect]

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...

[bradh]

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!

[no1cub17]

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.

[bombermwc]

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.

[catch22]

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.

[no1cub17]

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.

[bombermwc]

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.

[Jeepnokc]

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.