Crownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1728 posts, RR: 6 Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2245 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!
Ilikeyyc From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1373 posts, RR: 21 Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2147 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.
Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2057 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.
MD90fan From Bahamas, joined Jul 2005, 2931 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2042 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
Ilikeyyc From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1373 posts, RR: 21 Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2029 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?
Olympus69 From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1958 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
CanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3377 posts, RR: 9 Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1932 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.
Crownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1728 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1753 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.
CRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2133 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1661 times:
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