Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
When Will CRJ-200's Be Phased Out?  
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Posted (7 years 6 months 1 week ago) and read 6455 times:

As we all know, the CRJ-200 will NEVER win an award for passenger comfort, but necessary evils of life - without it many cities would not have any jet service, and maybe wouldn't have air service at all!!

However, many new RJ's are being introduced with much higher levels of comfort - the -700 and -900 models are significantly improved over the original model, and Embraer's new line of RJ's seems to have covered a lot of bases - all the way from the -135 to the -195:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alex McKnight
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Roura - Iberian Spotters



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Snorre - VAP
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Radek Oneksiak



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Kroychik
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Pawel Cieplak



My question is this: given the advances in technology and improvements to the original design, how long until we see airlines phasing the -200's out of their fleet? And is anything really an economical alternative to this design? Meaning, will we see some RJ destinations phased out as newer planes are "too much aircraft" for a particular route?

As I recall, there was a thread about some -200's being scrapped already due to overcapacity, but I am more interested in a move towards a complete withdrawal of the type.

Thanks in advance for your replies!!  cloudnine 


Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7780 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6438 times:

Well to some degree the 50 seaters are being phased out. Especially as the majors attempt to right size their regionals as well as their mainline operations. On one end we are seeing more and more 70+ seaters (CR7, CR9, E-Jets) entering the market. This is allowing airlines to upgauge markets at a fairly low cost and open new city pairs. Plus United w/ its ExPlus product is able to offer a premium cabin and Y+ in markets where they are not able to offer mainline service.

On the other end we are beginning to see some of the majors reintroduce turboprops. Look at CO in Newark. Some markets, especially those city pairs < 500 miles apart a turboprop often makes more sense economically vs a 50 seat regional jet. And there are fewer restrictions, in terms of scope clauses and such, on the use of larger turboprops like the Q400 and ATR-72.

Given the age of the oldest CRJs with the abundance of frames available on the used market I would suspect that we may well see high time examples and planes due up for heavy MX begin to be scraped in significant numbers sooner rather than later.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 926 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6305 times:

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter):
However, many new RJ's are being introduced with much higher levels of comfort - the -700 and -900 models are significantly improved over the original model

The bigger RJ are better in all ways, but there is one big problem. The big RJs are limited to scopes whereas most major US carriers can have as many 50 seat and less RJs as they wish. Therefore as long as there are limits to the number of 70 plus RJs majors can have with their regional affiliates, they will use the 50 seat RJs on routes where they make sense (I agree less than in the 90's with low fuel and high yields).



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6243 times:

I'd say at least 10 years until they start leaving fleets for good. That said, they (and the ERJ145 family) will be progressively marginalized, in relative terms, as the expansion of the industry during the next ten years will not include 50 seaters in significant numbers.

User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6238 times:

The part I don't get about replacing 50 seaters with 70 to 90 seaters... is there are two markets 50 seaters are on. Markets that used to be props before RJs came around, and markets that used to be 737s and DC-9s. Sure, it makes sense to make a route that used to be a 737 route be a CRJ-700 route up from a -200. But, when the route was formerly flown with a Saab 340, Dash 8, EMB-120, etc and is now flown with a CRJ-200.... why does it make sense to put a -700 on it?

I fly lots of routes like this. I'll do routes that are consistently full, and routes where we rarely carry more than 20-25 people. You can't fly ever -200 route with a -700. In fact, lots of these routes really should be still flown by 30 seat turboprops, but airlines are addicted to RJs.


User currently offlineAvConsultant From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6197 times:

The first CRJ's will start being phased out next year. BBD never extended the maintenance plan, for 121, beyond 15 years.

Look at the recent DL agreement with Mesa; although they referenced ERJ-135, the regional flying will start increasing closer to the 70 seat. As TangoWhiskey mentioned, in the 90's operating the CRJ's was efficient. Today we have a much different environment where you're inhibited if you cap your revenue at 50 or less seats.

IFLY had a 150% break-even on the CRJ in lowest cost pricing. Basic economics would tell one, the aircraft falls into an 80% break-even for other operations. High capacity RJ's should reduce the break-even points depending on mortgage rates and labor agreements. Do not base OH as the norm.


User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6135 times:

Here's the reason I asked: America West/USAirways Express has steadily upgraded BFL-PHX from a DH8 to a CRJ-200 to now a CRJ-700/900. United will be flying EM2's intra-California until those planes have vibrated themselves to death (possibly in the era of Captain Kirk and the starship Enterprise), and if COExpress really does return, the EMB-145 is proving to be quite useful on that route.

But Delta is flying only a CRJ-200 to SLC, and if and when UAExpress ever decides to return DEN-BFL (and let's not even count how many candles I have lit in hope for that one!!  pray  ), it would also most likely be on a CRJ-200. If these planes are being retired, what would replace them? Or would the routes prove more economical to axe if there's not a 50 seater available?



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1384 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6092 times:

I hope real soon. I have a flight on one from DEN to SLC on UAX (Skywest) next week.

Last time leaving SLC on the CRJ they had to off load 5 people due to snow.


User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6050 times:

Well RJs are here to stay, even a CRJ2 is better than any T-Prop, but the 50 seaters are probably going to be phased out soon. The CRJ2 could probably be very useful for cargo airlines and in fact a Swedish cargo airline has ordered the first CRJ2 cargo conversion. We'll see.

User currently offlineGQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6044 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 8):
even a CRJ2 is better than any T-Prop

Better then a Dash 8 400? I highly doubt that.


User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6029 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6014 times:

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 9):
Better then a Dash 8 400? I highly doubt that.

Unless the Dash-8-400 can do LAX-MCI (as a range example) non-stop with a full load in the same amount of time as the CRJ-200, then yes, it is.

Quoting ADent (Reply 7):
Last time leaving SLC on the CRJ they had to off load 5 people due to snow.

Snow isn't the issue. Keeping the flight legal is.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineGQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6008 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 10):
Unless the Dash-8-400 can do LAX-MCI (as a range example) non-stop with a full load in the same amount of time as the CRJ-200, then yes, it is.

Aye, but would you want to fly that distance in an aircraft that small on purpose? Or would you be like me and try to find mainline a/c?


User currently offlineFloridaflyboy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5991 times:

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 1):
Well to some degree the 50 seaters are being phased out.

Exactly. From a CASM standpoint, a 70 or 90 seat jet makes much more sense. In some markets, also, there are currently very high frequency 50-seat jets that can be replaced with lower-frequency larger jets for even more cost-savings. For example, quite a few Montana cities receive high-frequencies of 50-seat jets that could be replaced with just a few CR7 or CR9 aircraft.



Good goes around!
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6029 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5985 times:

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 11):
Aye, but would you want to fly that distance in an aircraft that small on purpose? Or would you be like me and try to find mainline a/c?

If it gets me to where I want to be, when I want to be there, then yes.

Except for first class, coach seats on a mainline aircraft are no more comfortable than the CRJ-200 in my opinion. I know that people have a problem with the low window profile, but I just bring a few good books to read, since even looking out the window gets boring, and the neighbor(s) are also boring, or annoying.

As a side note, I've done 4 hour legs on a 172 with no bathroom, no entertainment, no legroom, and with myself being the only one on board to get my snacks and drinks, so, in my opinion, those 4 hours in a CRJ-200 are a blessing.

[Edited 2007-03-16 00:35:46]


Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5964 times:

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter):
As we all know, the CRJ-200 will NEVER win an award for passenger comfort,

I have to disagree with you; I've flown the CRJ with Air Nostrum dozens of times and it's far superior to the Embraer 135/140/145 series as far as I'm concerned. The cabin is wider and is much less cramped, plus it has much more luggage capacity with the two sets of overheads compared to the Embraer's one. I know it all comes down to personal preference, but the CRJ family is a fine set of aircraft which I enjoy flying.


Dan Smile



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineTristarfreak From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5923 times:

its a tossup to me for DL they just started a few new routes designed for the CRJ2 and correct me if i am wrong but DL dose not operate any CRJ7s as for UA i think they will be dumping their CRJ2s pretty soon considering that they are taking deliveries of the CRJ7 and CRJ9 as well as the EMB170/190 and are just running out of uses for the CRJ2 as for US i think they will be replacing some of the Dash 8-100s with some CRJ2s that they would be otherwise be dumping in the desert because like UA they are taking deliveries of the CRJ7/9 and the EMB 170/190 as for the other airlines I do not know more then likely the CRJ2s will start becoming rare within 5 years or so though

User currently offlineTristarfreak From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5910 times:

Quoting Tristarfreak (Reply 15):
DL dose not operate any CRJ7s

just remembered that they do under SkyWest Airlines sorry for the mistake but I still don't see DL retiring the CRJ2 anytime soon


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5896 times:

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter):
how long until we see airlines phasing the -200's out of their fleet?

In my opinion, having been forced to fly on one of these contraptions for several years here, "NOT SOON ENOUGH". I would much rather fly on a turboprop. The 700 series has problems and offers no real benefit. The EMB 175 however, is a real winner.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineFloridaflyboy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5896 times:

Quoting Tristarfreak (Reply 16):

Actually, DL flies the CR7 under SkyWest, Comair, and ASA



Good goes around!
User currently offlineTristarfreak From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5887 times:

Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 18):
ly, DL flies the CR7 under SkyWest, Comair, and ASA

thanks for the correction


User currently offlineS5FA170 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 534 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5886 times:

Delta Connection carriers ASA and Comair also operate the CRJ-700 for Delta. (Well, Comair did. Did Delta take some or all of the -700s away? I thought it was just a couple).


Prepare doors for departure and cross-check.
User currently offlineFloridaflyboy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5879 times:

Quoting Tristarfreak (Reply 19):
thanks for the correction

No prob. The way the legacies play musical chairs with the commuters, it's hard to remember who's operating what.



Good goes around!
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6029 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5842 times:

Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 18):
Actually, DL flies the CR7 under SkyWest, Comair, and ASA



Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 18):
thanks for the correction

You've got that backwards. Those carriers for for Delta under the Delta Express banner.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineAvConsultant From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5656 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 22):
Those carriers for for Delta under the Delta Express banner.

There is no Delta Express. It's Delta Connection. Don't ever bring up Delta Express on the reservations or MEdallion line, they're very quick to correct you.


User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6029 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5653 times:

Quoting AvConsultant (Reply 23):
There is no Delta Express. It's Delta Connection.

My bad. I confuse them sometimes, but my point still stands. :P



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
25 Tangowhisky : Agreed. But there is a very big BUT. Anything bigger than a 50 seat jet goes into scope limits territory. US carriers can have only so many 70 seat p
26 Saab2000 : They will slowly go away as both manufacturers stop delivering them. They are unpopular, inefficient airplanes and sooner or later they will not be we
27 Tangowhisky : The CRJ came from a Challenger corporate jet, and the ERJ145 fuse was based on the Brasilia EMB-120. Both companies bet on something while trying to
28 PanAm747 : Okay, let's talk about operating economics. In comparing all these RJ's, how fuel efficient are they? As Detroit taught us in the 1970's, just because
29 Tangowhisky : If you breakdown fuel burn per seat, labor costs per seat, maintenance costs per seat, a bigger plane will always have the advantage. From the CASM yo
30 FlyDreamliner : Enjoy flying the CRJ? That can't be right. I will concede, the CRJ might be as bearable/more bearable than the ERJ135/140/145, but that isn't saying
31 Post contains images Saab2000 : Tangowhisky is right that they would be best suited for longer, thinner routes. But they are not always used for that. I fly the CRJ on the east coast
32 Tangowhisky : Back in the later half of the 90's to about 2000 majors did stupid things. First they overbought too many small RJs and today they have massive indige
33 Saab2000 : Scopes are already over 50. Most are 70-76 seats.
34 Tangowhisky : Scopes for 50 seats and 70 seats + are different. Airlines still are limited to the number of 70 seats that can be operated by their regional aprtner
35 ERAUgrad02 : BBD should build a 50 seat RJ based on the -700/-900 platform so the windows will be higher and use the more effecient engines as well from the -700.
36 Mrocktor : Not really. It made sense - then. Scope meant they couldnt buy anything from 50 to 150 seats, the demand was there (pre 9/11). They got what they cou
37 Tangowhisky : You touched on two important points: relaxation of scopes and pre 9/11. Relaxation of scopes was a catalyst for buying more RJs but did not justify i
38 Floridaflyboy : I realize that DL doesn't actually operate the aircraft. My point was correct. The DL CR7's are operated for Delta under SkyWest, Comair, and ASA.
39 Planemaker : It wasn't stupid and they didn't "overbuy too many small RJs." No they don't. No they didn't. No it didn't. No it is not. No they do not.
40 Goldenshield : You seem to be confusing the meanings of the prepositions "under" and "by." Under = 5. beneath the heading or within the category of. By = 3. on, as
41 Comet2404 : Also use the wings from -700 so that it has better short field performance. For example DL HAS TO USE THE crj-700 to fly atl- key west because the 20
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...
When Will The 747 Be Out Of Passenger Service? posted Sat Dec 2 2006 02:17:47 by Scalebuilder
Airborne/ABX Scheme Will Be Phased Out posted Thu Mar 4 2004 05:20:19 by Skymileman
When Will Don Muang Be Closed? posted Sun Aug 13 2006 00:07:14 by Airimages
When Will BA 747s Be Replaced? posted Sat Jun 3 2006 15:16:58 by BA787
Heathrow "should Be Phased Out" posted Mon May 29 2006 10:03:57 by Superhub
UA 744s - When Will The Second Be Repainted? posted Wed Dec 7 2005 15:09:38 by NA
When Will The A380 Be In Australia? posted Sat Nov 12 2005 05:44:04 by Aviation
Are The NH 744's Eventuallygoing To Be Phased Out? posted Tue Sep 20 2005 09:32:06 by Ktachiya
When Will The Summer Flights Come Out? posted Mon Sep 12 2005 17:12:09 by Dsa
When Will The B737NG Be Replaced? posted Wed Mar 30 2005 16:23:18 by Zvezda