As of November 2006 Bombardier has cancelled 1 x CRJ200 and 29 x CRJ700 that US Airways had on order. Did Bombardier just refund deposits and that's it, or did US Airways "lose" deposited money due to expiration dates or something like that? Now US will have a small fleet of just 8 x CRJ700...
Also, Mesa has changed their last 5 remaining CRJ900 orders to 5 x CRJ700, probably for UAX Plus.
557 options and conditional orders remain for CRJs. Let's hope many of them become orders soon...
Airliner World mag writes that Tatarstan Airlines are in final negotiations for 6 x CRJ900 and JAT is set to fly 2 x CRJ700 soon. Great
USPIT10L From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 3267 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8491 times:
Quoting CRJ900 (Thread starter): Now US will have a small fleet of just 8 x CRJ700...
I believe that's the OLD US Airways. The new US Airways has way more than 8 CRJ700s. They're flying all over the west for US West from PHX and LAS.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7677 posts, RR: 18 Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8425 times:
Never could quite understand having both the E-170 and the CR7 in the same fleet. Especially w/ the E-170 being the superior aircraft from the pax perspective.
Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 1): They're flying all over the west for US West from PHX and LAS.
US West, aka America West Express is all CRJ-200 and CRJ-900. No CR7s.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
USPIT10L From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 3267 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8412 times:
Quoting DesertJets (Reply 2): US West, aka America West Express is all CRJ-200 and CRJ-900. No CR7s.
Yeah, I seem to recall noticing CR7s going up and down the east coast with US East, from CLT and PHL, some DCA too. I could've sworn they had more than 8 CR7s.
Cltguy From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 596 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8348 times:
According to the fact sheet on their website US has:
EmSeeEye From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 507 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8176 times:
Quoting DesertJets (Reply 2): Never could quite understand having both the E-170 and the CR7 in the same fleet. Especially w/ the E-170 being the superior aircraft from the pax perspective.
Oh please... I've ridden in both and I found no difference. The CRJ100-200 is a different story though.
Supa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8156 times:
While the CR7 may not be the most modern airliner, I do not get why US wouldn't take half and cancel half.
The CR7 is a perfect aircraft for many markets. It is so much better economically than the CR2. For narrow, 800 mile markets, out of turboprop range, the CR7 is just the ticket (and lighter than the E170).
Also since it has wing slats, the CR7 does not suffer the CR2's operational weakness. Also, it is gorgeous looking.
Usairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3114 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8024 times:
The US East CR7's are solely based at CLT if i am not mistaken, maybe a few at DCA, but none in PHL(or at least very few a day). It has always been that CLT saw most of the CR7's while PHL saw most of the E170's.
A330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 47 Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7852 times:
Quoting CRJ900 (Thread starter): www.Bombardier.com has released news and numbers for Q3.
As of November 2006 Bombardier has cancelled 1 x CRJ200 and 29 x CRJ700 that US Airways had on order. Did Bombardier just refund deposits and that's it, or did US Airways "lose" deposited money due to expiration dates or something like that? Now US will have a small fleet of just 8 x CRJ700...
This is not necessarily anything new; it's been known for over a year that US wasn't going to take any of those birds.
It is rather surprising that Bombardier has taken them off the order books, though. US is in talks (has been for months) with Bombardier about converting the orders into orders for a combination of CRJ-900s and Q200/300/400s. The order is still from before US's second bankruptcy, and US and Bombardier keep filing for extensions with the bankruptcy court for US to assume or reject or amend the contract. US hasn't rejected the contract as of yet, which is why I'm a bit puzzled at Bombardier's removing the orders. Perhaps something will be announced soon.
Also, as said by others, US has 14x CRJ-701, all operated by US Airways Group's wholly-owned subsidiary PSA Airlines.
I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
Silentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1665 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7808 times:
Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 5): Oh please... I've ridden in both and I found no difference. The CRJ100-200 is a different story though.
You must be of a fairly slight stature, the CR7 is much less comfortable to anyone with broad shoulders than is the E170.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7677 posts, RR: 18 Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7755 times:
Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 5): Oh please... I've ridden in both and I found no difference. The CRJ100-200 is a different story though.
No need for the snippy tone. But the E-170 cabin is wider and taller. Not to mention the overhead bins can fit a standard sized carry-on rollaboard suitcase. Its enough of a difference to make me, as a paying customer, to prefer an E-Jet to a CR7/9.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
CRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2081 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7726 times:
Quoting A330323X (Reply 8): It is rather surprising that Bombardier has taken them off the order books, though. US is in talks (has been for months) with Bombardier about converting the orders into orders for a combination of CRJ-900s and Q200/300/400s.
To be operated by PSA? I thought the PSA pilot union said no to the CRJ900. Exciting times ahead, then...
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7726 times:
Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 5):
Oh please... I've ridden in both and I found no difference.
They're VERY different, and the onboard stowage is the number 1 difference.
I can also stand up in the lav and in the aisle, not something I can do on a CRJ.
Doug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3167 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7681 times:
Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 11): To be operated by PSA? I thought the PSA pilot union said no to the CRJ900. Exciting times ahead, then...
The pilot union said yes the 900 and no to a nominal pay cut. The rumor was that one of 3 things would happen-
Order converted to Q400s to be flown by Piedmont (who flies US's current DH8 fleet), or whoever would fly them cheapest and 80+ seat flying taken over by Republic with EMB175s
900s flown by lowest bidder contract carrier most likely Air Whiskey or Mesa (problem being that ZW pilots wanted 146 rates, and Mesa is Mesa)
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7673 times:
Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 5): Quoting DesertJets (Reply 2):
Never could quite understand having both the E-170 and the CR7 in the same fleet. Especially w/ the E-170 being the superior aircraft from the pax perspective.
Oh please... I've ridden in both and I found no difference.
I certainly have - I'll take the E-170 over a CRJ any time, any place.
SWAOPSusafATC From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5396 times:
Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 5): Oh please... I've ridden in both and I found no difference
I disagree. I have flown both and fin a much bigger difference. The E-170 "feels" like a mainline aircraft. The CRJ-700 is a nice plane but I hate the crick in the neck I get from trying to look out the window. On the pilot side I would have a hard time choosing between them. They are pretty evenly matched.
ILOVEA340 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2100 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5068 times:
Can we please attribute the aircraft to the correct airlines. US Airways does not "have" any CRJ-900's. Those belong to Mesa. PSA operates other crj varients and so on... to just call them US Airways is incorrect. Please get it right.
CRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2081 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4328 times:
ILOVEA340: US Airways is listed as the buyer on Bombardier's website, that is why my title mentions US.
Regarding Mesa's CRJ900, when will they take the last two aircraft on order? Apparently they took their 38th -900 in summer 2005. Will the 39th and 40th aircraft ever enter the Mesa fleet?
Quoting Doug_Or (Reply 13): 900s flown by lowest bidder contract carrier most likely Air Whiskey or Mesa (problem being that ZW pilots wanted 146 rates, and Mesa is Mesa)
"Mesa is Mesa"... can you please elaborate on that?
EmSeeEye From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 507 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3565 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 12):
They're VERY different, and the onboard stowage is the number 1 difference.
I can also stand up in the lav and in the aisle, not something I can do on a CRJ.
Really? I'm 6'3" and have no problem with the 700/900. Are you comparing a CRJ 700/900? There is a difference with the 100/200 vs 700/900.
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 14):
I certainly have - I'll take the E-170 over a CRJ any time, any place.
Thats the difference between you and me I guess. I really dont care if I get either one.
Quoting Silentbob (Reply 9):
You must be of a fairly slight stature, the CR7 is much less comfortable to anyone with broad shoulders than is the E170.
I'm a big boy. No problems here. I really think too many people have the 700/900 mixed up with the 100/200.
If anyone in this world has a reason to complain I do. However I really dont mind the CRJ or the EMB. Heck I will cram myself in a CRJ200 as long as its not any longer than 200-300 miles!
Malaysia From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 3191 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3524 times:
A330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 47 Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2959 times:
Well, I said I was surprised the Bombardier jumped the gun, since US hadn't rejected the contract:
Quoting A330323X (Reply 8):
This is not necessarily anything new; it's been known for over a year that US wasn't going to take any of those birds.
It is rather surprising that Bombardier has taken them off the order books, though. US is in talks (has been for months) with Bombardier about converting the orders into orders for a combination of CRJ-900s and Q200/300/400s. The order is still from before US's second bankruptcy, and US and Bombardier keep filing for extensions with the bankruptcy court for US to assume or reject or amend the contract. US hasn't rejected the contract as of yet, which is why I'm a bit puzzled at Bombardier's removing the orders. Perhaps something will be announced soon.
And, sure enough, US still hasn't rejected the contract.
See this bankruptcy court filing, the Eleventh Stipulation and Order Regarding Certain Agreements With Bombardier, Inc. and Its Affiliated Entities on The Post-Effective Date Determination Schedule.
Excerpt:
Quote: WHEREAS, on November 3, 2006, the Court entered a Tenth Supplemental Stipulation and Order Regarding Certain Agreements with Bombardier, Inc. and Its Affiliated Entities on the Post-Effective Date Determination Schedule (Docket No. 4300), which extended the deadline for the Reorganized Debtors to assume or reject the Agreements to December 4, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Reorganized Debtors and Bombardier are continuing their discussions regarding the Agreements and consensual modifications with respect thereto and assumption thereof as modified.
NOW, THEREFORE, AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the Reorganized Debtors and Bombardier, as follows:
1. The deadline for the Reorganized Debtors to assume or reject the Agreements is extended through and including December 14, 2006, and may be further extended by agreement of the parties.
I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
AvConsultant From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1360 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2848 times:
Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 5): Oh please... I've ridden in both and I found no difference. The CRJ100-200 is a different story though.
The CRJ's are for petite people.
Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 19): Really? I'm 6'3" and have no problem with the 700/900.
EmSeeEye From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 507 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2801 times:
Between the 100-200 and the 700-900... absolutely. Forget the 100-200, my argument is with the 700-900. There is a big difference and I'm not a small guy.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5544 posts, RR: 34 Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2664 times:
Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 5): Oh please... I've ridden in both and I found no difference. The CRJ100-200 is a different story though.
Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 19): I really think too many people have the 700/900 mixed up with the 100/200.
Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 23): Between the 100-200 and the 700-900... absolutely. Forget the 100-200, my argument is with the 700-900. There is a big difference and I'm not a small guy.
Based on facts, there is actually little interior improvement (and no "big difference") of the 700/900 over the 200... especially compared to the difference between the 700/900 and the E-jets... you just have to compare the actual dimensions between all three aircraft to realize it.
Quoting A330323X (Reply 8): It is rather surprising that Bombardier has taken them off the order books, though. US is in talks (has been for months) with Bombardier about converting the orders into orders for a combination of CRJ-900s and Q200/300/400s. The order is still from before US's second bankruptcy, and US and Bombardier keep filing for extensions with the bankruptcy court for US to assume or reject or amend the contract. US hasn't rejected the contract as of yet, which is why I'm a bit puzzled at Bombardier's removing the orders. Perhaps something will be announced soon.
Quoting A330323X (Reply 21): Well, I said I was surprised the Bombardier jumped the gun, since US hadn't rejected the contract:
It was reported in the aviation press last Friday. I posted the info on another thread... The longstanding backorder of 29 701s have been officially changed to "soft options" but the US Airways spokesperson said that "we don't have to do anything with them".
Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 16): The E-170 burns a good deal more fuel than a CR7 since it is a heavier beast in every way (including yes, the best comfort of any narrowbody).
Not exactly. Comparing the E170 to the CR7 is a little bit like your earlier comparison of the CR7 to the CR2... yes, the CR2 is lighter but it also carries fewer pax. Likewise, the CR7 is lighter than the E170 but the CR7 also carries fewer pax.
Regarding fuel comsuption, BBD claims that the CR7 burns 10% less fuel while EMB claims that the difference is only 4%. However, the E170 can carry up to 10 more pax. So while the CR7 has lower trip costs the E170 has lower CASM... and greater revenue potential as well.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
25 A330323X: Well, it's official. US filed with the bankruptcy court a motion to amend and assume the Bombardier agreement and attached a letter of agreement betwe
26 CRJ900: From Q3 news release: Dated November 10, 2006: So, will Bombardier subtract the now cancelled 184 options from the 557 options for their Q4 statement?
27 Supa7E7: Too bad... PSA's days are numbered US must have seen PSA ALPA as a serious issue. Or, maybe PSA is just expensive compared to the alternatives. Or, se
28 A330323X: The chance US will order any CRJ-200s or CRJ-700s is zero. If US decides it wants some CRJ-900s after all, they'll order some, regardless of the situ
29 CF188A: Finally, someone who posts with realism not an ego problem I saw a US CR7 on my last trip to DCA....
30 Doug_Or: If it is indeed any of these, it would be the last. I doubt PSA is more expensive- their pay rates aren't too great and their pilot group isn't very
31 A330323X: If Parker decides he wants CRJ-900s, and PSA doesn't play by his rules, he *will* place the birds elsewhere. It doesn't matter if PSA is cheaper or n
32 Silentbob: It doesn't bode well for Piedmont either as the options can't be converted into new Dashes.
33 Doug_Or: Agreed, my point was just that PSA's days are not numbered. The 200/700 flying isn't going anywhere (unless 200 flying is replaced by more 700 flying
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2081 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 3267 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5544 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
