Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CRJ-705 Question  
User currently offlineCrownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1954 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2596 times:

Am I confused, or is Bombardier confused? Can someone please explain why Bombardier came up with the CRJ-705 moniker? Is it not a CRJ-900 with some minor performance enhancements (i.e. modified winglets & range)? Why not a CRJ-905? I find this confusing since the CRJ-701 is a shorter aircraft, where the CRJ-705 shares the fuselage length and wing of the CRJ-900. There must be some logical explanation. Come on you Canadians...Please help me out!

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4638 posts, RR: 36
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2578 times:

The 705 is basically a 900 with J class seats so total seating is 75. 10 J seats and 65 Y seats.

Kris
YYC



Word
User currently offlineIlikeyyc From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1373 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

Its not the first time they have done something like this. Think of the CRJ-440: Its a CRJ-200, except it is certified for only 44 seats, not 50.

CRJ 100/200/700/701/705/900 are nothing but marketing designations. They are certified under a different designation. For example, the CRJ 200 is certified under the designation CL 600-2B19. The CRJ700/701 is certified under the designation of CL600-2C10 and the 705/900 is CL600-2D24.

Here is where my opinion starts. Marketing probably decided on the 701/705 instead of "CRJ 900 Plus" because of this scenario:

Regional Airline Minion: Hey, did you hear Bombardier is now making the CRJ 900 Plus?
Regional Airline Manager: CRJ 900 Plus? The 900 already has too many seats to fit in out scope clause- not interested.

But if they related the new airplane it to a smaller airplane (i.e. the 700), they might generate more interest from regional customers. That's about the best explanation I can think of. I hope it made some sense.

[Edited 2006-05-21 15:39:12]


Fighting Absurdity with Absurdity!
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

I think he wants to know why it has the 705 designation instead of say the 975 or 775. I agree it is a bit misleading and admittedly I was also confused about it in the beginning.

User currently offlineMD90fan From Bahamas, joined Jul 2005, 2931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2429 times:

Quoting Crownvic (Thread starter):

Like in reply number 2, it is basically a CRJ-900 fusalage with 65 Y, 10 J. It also has redesigned winglets for better performance.

Regards,
MD90fan  airplane   wave 



http://www.devanwells.blogspot.com/
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2408 times:

Again, the confusing part is that they gave the 705 a different model designation. It's a 900 series CRJ given a 700 series number which, of course, is a totally different bird. It would be like labelling an E190 an E170 just because it is only configured for 70 passengers. I don't just understand the logic of it.

User currently offlineMD90fan From Bahamas, joined Jul 2005, 2931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 5):
Again, the confusing part is that they gave the 705 a different model designation. It's a 900 series CRJ given a 700 series number which, of course, is a totally different bird. It would be like labelling an E190 an E170 just because it is only configured for 70 passengers. I don't just understand the logic of it.

Maybe so it can get around scopes/clauses(up to 75 seats), maybe have better economics(maybe CASM/RASM) or rake in more money(J Class)? Those are my guesses  Smile



http://www.devanwells.blogspot.com/
User currently offlineIlikeyyc From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1373 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2380 times:

Again, 701 and 705 are marketing terms. Just as he 100 and the 200 are the same airplane, but the 200 just has better engines. I wish I had a definite answer, but my best guess is that it has something to do with marketing. Maybe they called it the 705 because it seats 5 more people than the original 700?


Fighting Absurdity with Absurdity!
User currently offlineOlympus69 From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2309 times:

I think it would have been less confusing if they had kept the first digit for the basic model and used the last 2 digits for the number of seats, Then the 440 would become the 144 or 244 and the 705 would be the 975.
On a related subject, I think that DeHavilland/Bombardier made a mistake by calling the Q400 a Dash 8. It is so different from the 100-300 series that they should have called it a Dash 9. People tend to lump them all together and if they don't like the older ones they think the 400 will be similar. OTOH, the average passenger doesn't know what he/she is flying in anyway, so I suppose it doesn't matter  Smile


User currently offlineCanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3395 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2283 times:

CRJ700 was designed as a 70ish seater.

CRJ900 was designed as a 90ish seater.

CRJ705 is basically a CRJ900, with a passenger capacity near that of a CRJ700.

The reason behind this is some regional airlines are limited to aircraft under a certain passenger capacity, for an example lets call it 75*. Now, if you want to have a business class cabin in your regional jet, and you bought the biggest airplane you were allowed to buy (lets say that aircraft had a maximum capacity of 70* seats), really you'd only have room for something like 60* seats; but thats as big as you can go because you are limited by aircraft capacity. However, if you could get the next size up you can get right up to your 75* seat limit, offer a business class cabin and lots of legroom in economy, and still be under your limit. So what do you do? You get Bombardier to sell you a CRJ900 with the capacity limited to that of the 700, so you can get the extra space without the extra capacity.

*= These are not the real numbers, I just randomly made them up as I went along to use as examples.



CanadianNorth



What could possibly go wrong?
User currently offlineCrownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1954 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2104 times:

Boeing Nut...Thank you for understanding my point. I also thank you all for responding, but I still think the logic is misleading. I fully understand scope clauses, but now I will throw you a "curve ball". Seating configurations are rarely for "life". What happens if Air Canada changes marketing strategy and says that "J" Class economics is just not working in these aircraft and we are converting them to all economy. Better yet, AC decides to sell the planes to an all coach carrier. Bottom line is, you will wind up with 90 seats back in these birds that are designated '705' series aircraft. Marketing name or not, I just don't get the reasoning. Furthermore, why wouldn't you want to promote an enhanced version of the '900'. Very bizarre way to market your flagship aircraft. In my opinion, they have de-emphasized it's abilities over the it's inferior '900' sibling. Remember, that is just my opinion.

User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2234 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2012 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ilikeyyc (Reply 2):
But if they related the new airplane it to a smaller airplane (i.e. the 700), they might generate more interest from regional customers.

I too think that is the main reason, it corresponds more with pilot scope-clauses making it more acceptable to fly (although US Airlines pilots refused to fly the CRJ705). As the CRJ900 is a simple stretch of the CRJ700 (although with a few modifications hidden here and there) a -705 might be regarded as just a CRJ700 stretch...?

Quoting Crownvic (Reply 10):
Furthermore, why wouldn't you want to promote an enhanced version of the '900'.

They do. It's called the CRJ900LR (Longer Range) Otherwise, EPP (Enhanced Performance Package) is an option they use in marketing as well. Check out www.crj900.com



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AC Jazz CRJ 705 J-class Service Question posted Wed Sep 21 2005 22:15:09 by AC340
Difference Between CRJ-705 And CRJ-900 posted Wed Nov 8 2006 20:25:25 by Haggis79
Jazz CRJ-705 At YQL? posted Fri Oct 20 2006 00:09:44 by CYQL
Air Canada E175 VS Jazz CRJ-705 posted Sun Jul 9 2006 01:44:37 by Salomon
AC Jazz CRJ-705 PTV's, Seat Assignments posted Sun May 14 2006 21:34:26 by CNZ3
CRJ-705 And CRJ-900 New Airlines? posted Sat Dec 10 2005 01:41:16 by MD90fan
AC CRJ-705 Stick Shaker Events posted Mon Jul 11 2005 20:01:11 by YVR99
Jazz CRJ-705 At YYZ posted Sat Jun 25 2005 18:35:50 by Olympus69
First Air Canada Jazz CRJ-705 Pic! posted Thu May 12 2005 22:44:09 by B742
AC Jazz CRJ-705 posted Sat May 7 2005 19:02:59 by Matt