Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CRJ1000 Beating Expectations  
User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 383 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 14423 times:

Apparently it has 4% lower fuel burn than advertised and 6% more range, according to FlightGlobal.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-fuel-burn-beats-expectations.html

Based on this information, will we see more orders for this plane? What about orders by US legacy carriers? This information could result in additional orders in the near future, possibly in Paris, for the -1000 IMO.

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 14406 times:

That is interesting and will most probably improve the sales of teh CRJ1000.
It makes the ERJ190/195 the highest fuel burner of the newer 100 seat-jets.

The CRJ1000 should burn around 10 percent less.
The Superjet is burning 8 percent less.

Nevertheless, i would prefer an E-Jet over the CRJ1000 any time...


User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 14296 times:

You know, i'm now thinking the CR1X may garner more orders in the coming months. Especially from large CRJ7/9 operators around the world. Now it makes total sense whereas everyone was saying the stretch isn't enough. We now have cockpit commonality, MTC differences at a minimum (shares a lot of the same parts of the NextGen CR9) and now fuel #s looking rather good.

Everyone called this one a dodo but I think BBD was smart on this one. It will serve as a hold over for many current customers until the CSeris comes online.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlinetraveler_7 From Estonia, joined May 2000, 540 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 14182 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 1):
Nevertheless, i would prefer an E-Jet over the CRJ1000 any time...

E-Jets feels more comfortable, purely from the passenger's point of view and (again my subjective opinion) overhead lockers are slightly larger on E-Jets.

Interesting to hear from the engineers how those machines compare from the maintenance and reliability points of view.

Regards,

Sven


User currently offlineoflanigan From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 13741 times:

What would a two class layout look like on a CRJ1000?

User currently offlinedbo861 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 860 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 13637 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 1):
That is interesting and will most probably improve the sales of teh CRJ1000.
It makes the ERJ190/195 the highest fuel burner of the newer 100 seat-jets.

The CRJ1000 should burn around 10 percent less.
The Superjet is burning 8 percent less.

I'm curious how the CS100 will compare.


User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2152 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13162 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting traveler_7 (Reply 3):
(again my subjective opinion) overhead lockers are slightly larger on E-Jets.

Embraer says their overhead bins can take roller-bags that measure 24x16x10 inches, BBD also say the NextGen overhead bin can take 24x16x10 inches roller-bags... so unless they are lying, bin capacity is now the same on E-jets and CRJ NGs. On both types, the roller-bags must lie sideways (while on B737 and A320 the bags go wheels out).

Sources: bombardier.com and embraer.com



Quoting oflanigan (Reply 4):
What would a two class layout look like on a CRJ1000?

Go to flightglobal.com, section CUTAWAYS and look at the cutaway of the CRJ1000, there is a seat map showing a two-class 93-seat layout.

Good to read that the CRJ1000 exceeds expectations. Let's hope airlines read this as well and place an order  



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2497 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12898 times:

Always good to hear an aircraft beating its performance targets at EIS rather than the usual overweights, engine sfc misses that we've been accustomed to. This will make current CRJ operators take a second closer look at the a/c. The main obstacle for the CRK however still remains scope clauses...

User currently offlinemhkansan From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 618 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12576 times:

I had the privilege of seeing this thing do a few touch and goes at ICT a few weeks ago. It was the test bird that was just a converted CR9. That is a looong CRJ, and I think its remarkable how large it feels. It is so big that, like the CR9, it feels like an earlier DC-9 or 1-11 at mainline size.

I wonder if we'll see an order from a US regional at some point in the future, or if those carriers will continue to opt for E-Jets. I would think that being a used design with existing and probably cheaper manufacturing means, the CRK would be the lowest-cash price option for a 100 seat regional. Is that true?


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12441 times:

Congratulations to Bombardier. It was nice that with all the delays in the program, it ended with a nice bonus 
Quoting davs5032 (Thread starter):
Apparently it has 4% lower fuel burn than advertised and 6% more range, according to FlightGlobal.

The original range target was 1691Nm or 3131 km for the CRJ-1000ER. 6% more range should translate into 1792Nm range or 3318km. That is very close to 100Nm more range. I am sure this will make the business case a bit stronger. I wonder if a dual class version like the CRJ-705 could work as a regional?

Quoting 328JET (Reply 1):
It makes the ERJ190/195 the highest fuel burner of the newer 100 seat-jets.

It can fly 600Nm longer, and have a quicker turn around time. For airlines that do not utilize the range, and can live with 5 minutes longer turn around times, then the CRJ-1000 is a very competitive plane.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlinedanwoodman00 From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11931 times:

I've flown both a CRJ700 and an E-195 recently, and found the E195 to be dramatically more comfortable. I think part of that was due to seat pitch -- I'm 6'8", and the 30" seat pitch of the UA/OO CRJ was a bit like being strapped on top of a bamboo shoot, whereas the B6 Ejet had, I think 32" or even 33". But it also felt like the Ejet was easier across the shoulder width, too.

I'm glad for any airframe that can exceed perf expectations -- you have to cheer for the engineers building a better product. But the CRJ's are still on my "not favorite" list just because they're so darned tight. C'est la vie.


User currently offlinerobso2 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2010, 217 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11348 times:

Well done Bombardier - I love their planes and think the CRJ1000 is a looker  


733/4/5/6/7/8/9, 319/20/21, 752, 744, 772, 332/3, 343/6, E70/90, AT43, AR85/1, D38, D10, M82
User currently offlinebkircher From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11040 times:

Do you have a link to the CRJ1000 cutaway?

User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9569 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/CRJ1000/Cutaway/

User currently offlinedanwoodman00 From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9569 times:

link to a cutaway on flight global: http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?ItemID=38761

User currently onlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6577 posts, RR: 32
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9368 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 2):
i'm now thinking the CR1X may garner more orders in the coming months. Especially from large CRJ7/9 operators around the world.

It's not likely to see many orders in the U.S., as pilot unions aren't willing to let these aircraft be outsourced to regional carriers, while network carriers seem generally uninterested in operating 100-seat jets at mainline wage rates.


User currently offlinealangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8198 times:

Will the GE NG34 be aimed at this aircraft, or the smaller models? If the NG34 can come up with a 15% reduction in fuel burn that will keep these aircraft competitive, and tail mounted engines will have less installation issues.

User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7816 times:

The ng34 engine has already been selected for the next generation bombardier global 7000. But it is named tech-x for that plane. Both that engine and the larger Windows would be very welcomed


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2965 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7471 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 1):
Nevertheless, i would prefer an E-Jet over the CRJ1000 any time...

Have you flown in both to be able to get a direct comparison? Would it be unwise to assume that the CRJ1000 would be exactly like a longer CRJ900?



Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlinesaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1609 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7246 times:

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 18):
Have you flown in both to be able to get a direct comparison? Would it be unwise to assume that the CRJ1000 would be exactly like a longer CRJ900?

I doubt it is much different than a longer CRJ-900. After all, the fuselage and cabin height cannot be altered any more than they are. The CRJs all have a 6" width deficit on the EMB jets and this translates to much greater passenger comfort.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5266 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7062 times:

I'm guessing the ideal stage length of a CRJ1000 is shorter than an EJet. I would think that they would be complementary aircraft in a broad route network where the CRJ enjoys a tripcost and perhaps CASM advantage over an Ejet on shorter routes.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 903 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6884 times:

Quoting davs5032 (Thread starter):
Apparently it has 4% lower fuel burn than advertised and 6% more range, according to FlightGlobal.

Not to rain on their parade but these are large delta's from their expectations. The CRJ1000 is the third stretch from the CRJ 100/200 and by now they should be within 1-2% of their estimates It is hardly a paper airplane compared to the CSeries.

So what does all this mean for CSeries performance expectations? I hope they are being conservative and not too optimistic so that they don't come below targets.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 603 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6555 times:

"The ng34 engine has already been selected for the next generation bombardier global 7000. But it is named tech-x for that plane. Both that engine and the larger Windows would be very welcomed"

The official name of this engine is now (since last week) the GE Passport :

http://www.geaviation.com/bga/engines/passport.html

[Edited 2011-05-21 21:25:18]

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6490 times:

I think especially with the delays the CRJ1000 had before EIS, having your specs come in so much better than the promised minimum, is a good thing.

I am always pleased when good news comes from an aircraft program...exceeding specs is a rare thing of late.



What the...?
User currently offlinemultimark From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6406 times:

Quoting traveler_7 (Reply 3):
E-Jets feels more comfortable, purely from the passenger's point of view and (again my subjective opinion) overhead lockers are slightly larger on E-Jets.

Interesting to hear from the engineers how those machines compare from the maintenance and reliability points of view.

Regards,

From what I hear, AC still has issues with cold weather operation of the E-Jets. Add to that the cracks turning up in some of the E-190's.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-cracks-brazil-regulator-says.html


25 Post contains images OyKIE : Thanks for the info. I wonder about the two different names A bit of topic, but I have not heard about issues with cold weather in Finland - that is
26 ABQ747 : From that article: Huh?
27 Post contains images CRJ900 : How about US Airways? I believe AWA's agreement with Mesa allowed regional jets with up to 90 seats, does this agreement still exist? Mesa may not be
28 328JET : I have flown in the CRJ900NG and have to say, that this cabin length is the maximum a CRJ should have... The ERJ190 plays in a different class when i
29 Post contains images eraugrad02 : All because of how long a plane is? Really? I've flown both and I'm no less comfortable in either. I'm 6'1 170 so maybe that';s why. In america no re
30 m11stephen : Would DL potentially be interested in the CRJ1000 as a replacement for their DC-9s? I'm 6'4" and love the E Jet family. I can walk, hell I could prob
31 Post contains images OyKIE : According to an article I read the CRJ1000 uses up to 20% less fuel than the F100 they are replacing. The number is probably way better for the CRJ10
32 davs5032 : You never know. A 2-class CRJ1000 would seat around 90...not that much more than their -900's.
33 r2rho : I believe LH - an important CRJ operator and would be likely candidate for the CRK - has a similar problem with scope clause, and the CRK would have
34 OyKIE : Why can CityLine fly the E195?
35 r2rho : I don't really know the details, but AFAIK LH scope clause is 95 seats. The E195's indeed fall out of that scope clause and, though more or less tole
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...
First CRJ1000 Delivery Dec 14... posted Tue Dec 7 2010 22:40:56 by JoeCanuck
US Unfairly Taking Beating - Re: Disabled Traveler posted Fri Oct 15 2010 12:05:44 by EA CO AS
CRJ1000 At KIWA/AZA posted Mon Sep 20 2010 14:19:39 by 93Sierra
CRJ1000 Delayed posted Thu Dec 3 2009 08:38:20 by CRJ900X
US-Brazil 2010 Expectations With 14 Frequencies posted Sat Nov 21 2009 15:10:37 by LipeGIG
Copa Reports 3Q Profit; Beats Expectations posted Fri Nov 13 2009 08:55:08 by OP3000
GP7200- Expectations For 1500 Engines posted Thu Jun 18 2009 15:46:13 by Lumberton
Air Nostrum To Get 35 CRJ1000 NextGen posted Sun Jun 14 2009 08:42:21 by Vfw614
MyAir And The CRJ1000 posted Wed Apr 15 2009 03:20:15 by CRJ900
CRJ1000 At Kgfk posted Sun Feb 8 2009 06:43:15 by NWA783