jmc1975
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2000 10:57 am

CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:36 am

Does anybody have comparative CASM figure between the CRJ-200 and the ERJ-145? Both seat 50 pax, however, does one have the competitive edge over the other? Is one better suited for shorter flights <250 vs. longer flights >500 miles?
.......
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Thu Jun 02, 2005 9:40 am

Well I have no specific information about CASM, but here are claims from the very biased source of Bombardier.

Bombardier claims on the CRJ-200:
The operating economics of the Bombardier CRJ200 are remarkable. It can fly further, faster, more often and more economically than any aircraft in its class. Its fuel burn is 10% less than its nearest competitor. With its long range and high cruise speed, the Bombardier CRJ200, which can seat 50 passengers in a true European high service configuration, allows airlines to serve more cities and open new markets.

What's more, the Bombardier CRJ200 delivers the lowest trip and seat mile cost of any 50-seat jet airline, giving airlines the potential for higher profits flight after flight.

And because the aircraft is designed to share a high degree of commonality with other members of the Bombardier CRJ family, fleet operators can enjoy substantial savings in spares, ground support equipment, maintenance programs and aircrew training costs.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:27 am

And because the aircraft is designed to share a high degree of commonality with other members of the Bombardier CRJ family, fleet operators can enjoy substantial savings in spares, ground support equipment, maintenance programs and aircrew training costs.

Not as much as you would think where it counts... Different engines, different gear...and as far as the maintenance training classes..both the 200 and 700/900 are different and not honored. The 700/900 are the same class.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
kevoc3
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 11:58 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:04 pm

Wrong. The CRJ-200 and the 700 are the same type. All there is us differences training.
 
ckfred
Posts: 4694
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:12 pm

You raise an interesting question. I'm an AMR shareholder, and in reading the 2004 annual report, I noted that mainline's CASM was listed, but not Eagle's.

This leads me to believe that the CASM for the Saabs, ATRs, Embrears, and CRJs is higher than AA's mainline operations, even though Eagle has a much lower pay scale.
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:16 pm

Wrong. The CRJ-200 and the 700 are the same type

You saying that to someone that has been to 'BOTH' 4 week classes..!! Two certificates, two classes, two ratings. Keep in mind, we are talking maintenance training,,!!

The EMB class covers the EMB-135, EMB-140, EMB-145 and EMB-145XR. There is an add on Legacy class that is a differances class...almost all of it fuel system related.

[Edited 2005-06-02 06:21:25]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:24 pm

Quoting Ckfred (Reply 4):
CASM for the Saabs, ATRs, Embrears, and CRJs is higher than AA's mainline operations, even though Eagle has a much lower pay scale.

Smaller planes are always less efficient on a per passenger basis. The economies of scale work in the 747/A380s favor. Yes Eagle does have a lower pay scale and that reduces costs in one dimension, but ERJs are less efficient when compared to MD80s. Express flying usually only works well when demand is low on a specific routes, or when people want lots of frequencies. Flying two or three ERJs is less efficient than one MD80 by far. You will never meet the CASM, also it requires more crew members for three ERJ flights since you have three times the three crew members per plane for the ERJs. Also you have to get ground crew to stay at the airport for three times the time. The one benefit that express flights have is the lower pay and seniority scale. Sometimes this can outweigh the costs of the less efficient planes, but express flying is at a disadvantage to start with. Unless you have a furious cost efficient carrier with little seniority like Mesa or Chautauqua or have a disastrously expensive and archaic mainline setup, then you are most likely not saving money by outsourcing to regional jets, which is probably why AA is not keen to show off the costs of Eagle.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:07 am

RJ Direct Operating Cost Average per block hour:

Do328J $1200

ERJ-135 $980
ERJ-140 $989
ERJ-145 $1150
ERJ-170 $1764

CRJ-200 $1259
CRJ-700 $1478
CRJ-900 $1942
 
commavia
Posts: 9651
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:20 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 7):
ERJ-135 $980
ERJ-140 $989
ERJ-145 $1150
ERJ-170 $1764

CRJ-200 $1259
CRJ-700 $1478
CRJ-900 $1942

From these #s, it looks like Eagle made the right choice with the ERJ-145 for its 50-seat RJs but the CRJ-700 for its 70-seaters. Interesting. Thanks Boeing7E7.
 
SHUPirate1
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:36 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 7):
Do328J $1200

ERJ-135 $980
ERJ-140 $989
ERJ-145 $1150
ERJ-170 $1764

CRJ-200 $1259
CRJ-700 $1478
CRJ-900 $1942

Let me get this straight...the E70 is more expensive to operate than the CR7, but the ER4 is less expensive to operate than the CR2? I would have thought for sure it was the other way around.
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
loggat
Posts: 426
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2000 11:34 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:38 am

If you want to know what the cheap planes to operate and acquire are just look at Trans States Airlines. ERj-145 and Crj-700.
There are 3 types of people in this world, those that can count, and those that can't.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7867
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:44 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 7):
RJ Direct Operating Cost Average per block hour:

Does that also include leasing costs?

Thanks,
PPVRA
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
1MillionFlyer
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:55 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:09 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 11):
Does that also include leasing costs?

NO those are only the costs of directly operating the aricraft. Lease costs are fixed costs and are not included
Golf Foxtrot you are cleared for departure
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:41 am

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 9):
Let me get this straight...the E70 is more expensive to operate than the CR7

Just a guess on my part, but the E170 is bigger and heavier than the CRJ700. It probably is more comfortable, too. But when you're calculating efficiency, bigger and heavier is bound to be more expensive. Don't they use the same engines?
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
jmc1975
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2000 10:57 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 8:57 am

Boeing 7E7,
Thanks for the numbers! Where did you find those? I'm durprised that the CR9 has a higher CASM than the CR7, assuming 86 pax and 70 pax, respectively. I would imagine the E90 has a lower CASM than the E70, right?
.......
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:30 am

Does that also include leasing costs?

It includes national average Hull Cost (Lease or Depreciation or both), Crew Cost, Maintenance Cost, Fuel Cost, Maintenance Labor and Insurance. Indirect costs can range from an additional 30% to 45% depending on the carrier. It's all in the types of benefits to the work groups, airport rentals and landing fees, staff per aircraft etc...
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:50 am

CRJs cost more than comparable ERJs. Interesting. Delta, United, and US are hemorraging red ink, being rather heavily (especially DL) vested in the CRJ's (US is a split) while CO and AA are less in the hole, running an ERJ fleet. Makes a little sense. But if this is the case with expenses... why does ANYONE buy a CRJ-200? They definitely aren't anymore comfortable than an ERJ. I typically fly by myself and LOVE the A-seats in the ERJ all by themselves.. to the extent that I try to fly CO when possible despite having my miles through NWA.



Also, would anyone mind posting stats for other mainline jets... like the 737-500 and so forth, to see how much the RJ's are actually killing the airlines? Likewise... a Q300, and Q400.

Thanks for the Stats Boeing7E7!
 
tinpusher007
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:03 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:16 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 7):
RJ Direct Operating Cost Average per block hour:

Do328J $1200

ERJ-135 $980
ERJ-140 $989
ERJ-145 $1150
ERJ-170 $1764

CRJ-200 $1259
CRJ-700 $1478
CRJ-900 $1942

Just curious...what is your source for these numbers?
"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
 
MQrampBOS
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:39 pm

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:25 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 6):
Also you have to get ground crew to stay at the airport for three times the time.

Not quite. You may only need half the crew for an RJ as opposed to a mainline. All we use on the ground is 3 per plane(one runner and 2 servicing the plane). Anyone who works on, say, a DC9/MD80/717 help me out on this? I've seen some MD80s serviced with as many as 6 at one time.

However, you would probably hold gate personnel 3 times as long.
Don't put me on A7! I got out of the airport, so why send me back?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:49 pm

Quoting Arrow (Reply 13):
Just a guess on my part, but the E170 is bigger and heavier than the CRJ700. It probably is more comfortable, too

The 170 has far more range
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7867
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:07 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):

The 170 has far more range

So it's like the E90 Vs. A318/B736 deal? E90 is better for shorter hops (same for the CRJ7) and the A318/B736 is better for longer routes (same for E70, the only ones that have the range for it anyway).

Each one in it's own class, of course.

Cheers,
PPVRA
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
CVG777
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue May 02, 2000 6:42 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:51 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 7):
ERJ-135 $980
ERJ-140 $989

Am I to understand that it only costs $9 more to operate a 44 seat ER4 than a 37 seat ER3. Also then, why the larger increase betwee the -140 and the -145?

Other than purchasing/acquisition costs for the larger aircraft, wouldn't it make sense for an airline to invest in the 44 seat version and use those aircraft rather than the -135, as the possibility of selling an additional 7 seats would seem to offset the $9 additional dollars it costs to operate the aircraft each hour? Or are the prices of the larger aircraft great enough to where that wouldn't be economically sound?

By airline I am talking about the ones with the larger fleets, such as American Eagle and Continental. It looks like Eagle did a smart thing when investing in the ER4s.

Thanks,

-Mike
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:58 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 20):
E90 is better for shorter hops (same for the CRJ7) and the A318/B736 is better for longer routes

Actually, given the normal flight profile of an A318/736 and adding that to the fact that the E190 has rather good range, particularly in AR trim, it is generally the better choice anyway.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
apodino
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:13 pm

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 16):
They definitely aren't anymore comfortable than an ERJ. I typically fly by myself and LOVE the A-seats in the ERJ all by themselves

I totally disagree. The A seats are awful on the ERJ. For one thing, its right where the fuselage curves under, which elimates room on the left side, and leaves less room to store the personal item underneath in front, not to mention causing circulation problems on the left leg because you have no room on the left side. Plus, because its a bit elevated, that takes away a little more room, and the legs often block the aisle. And one time I flew one on CHQ years ago, was sitting in the A seat, and found it so narrow and uncomfortable (and I am a skinny person), that I ended up moving to a C seat instead.

The CRJ's aren't a lot better, but the seat is a bit more comfortable, and there is more overhead storage room, though obviously the bigger items still have to be gate checked.

Truthfully, I think the 146 family has the most comfortable seats of the Regional Jets (Bae does advertise them as Regional Jets, though in my opinion anything less than a 100 seats is an RJ, the 170 and 190 included). Mesaba will be the only ones left operating this type in the future since we at ZW are in the process of retiring our 146's. Though with OO getting E+ and first class in the CRJ7 series as well as CHQ having them in the 170, those would be right up there.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:17 pm

it would make sense as the wings, engines, gear, toilet, galley, door, tail, etc. are the same on the 135/140. The added fuselage length, seats, pax and bags of two rows can't add much cost. And any efficiencies learned from the original designs have been incorporated into the 140.

The 140 was late to the game. First the 145 in 1996, then the 135 in 1999, then the 140 based on the other two. And not many were ordered, since 145XR makes more sense in the "let's use a cramped plane for 3 hour flights" world of modern US aviation.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
1MillionFlyer
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:55 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:07 am

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 16):
why does ANYONE buy a CRJ-200? They definitely aren't anymore comfortable than an ERJ. I typically fly by myself and LOVE the A-seats in the ERJ all by themselves.. to the extent that I try to fly CO when possible despite having my miles through NWA.

the ERJ is very noisy compared to the CRJ, thankfully I have the Bose ANC headsets or I would be hearing impaired by now.

The ERJ also has issues with the coffee pot leaking. If you sit in row 2 A or the bulhead 2 BC you will be smelling stale coffee
Golf Foxtrot you are cleared for departure
 
legacy135
Posts: 966
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 11:06 pm

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:36 am

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 25):
the ERJ is very noisy compared to the CRJ, thankfully I have the Bose ANC headsets or I would be hearing impaired by now.

The soundproofing on the 135 BJ, the so called Legacy is quite good. It gets more wind noise, most of it from the doorsection than other business jets in upper class, but it is worlds better than the ERJ's. The noiselevel in the cockpit is as well much better than the ERJ's. So they are able to improve but probably it is a weight issue for the regional.

I don't know how the 145XR is noisewise, as it shares a couple of elements of the Legacy. Maybe somebody working for ExpressJet could tell us more.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 24):
The 140 was late to the game.

The 140 was actually developed on demand of American Eagle as they have a certain number restriction for aircrafts with more than 45 seats with their unions. Bombardier made an offer for a CRJ sharing the design of the CRJ200 just having 6 seats less, Embraer shortened the fuselage. As the ERJ 140 got lighter on weight as the CRJ "Low Seating" Embraer got the order as their aircraft is obviously a bit more efficient.
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:39 am

The 140 was late too the game. First the 145 in 1996, then the 135 in 1999, then the 140 based on the other two. And not many were ordered

Not really.....The EMB-140 was designed for a specific customer, to fill a specific need. That need is now going away so the orders are dropping off as airlines are realizing that under the two hour mark, turboprops are still far more efficient...with nearly the same gate to gate time.

[Edited 2005-06-04 18:45:06]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
1MillionFlyer
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:55 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:07 am

is it just me or does the 135 fly like a light piston twin?

the 145 is very solid but the 135 is very squirrly and feels like a Piper Seneca on landing. (I have flown the type)
Golf Foxtrot you are cleared for departure
 
legacy135
Posts: 966
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 11:06 pm

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:21 am

I can only talk for the 145 and the 135BJ, the Legacy. I didn't fly the airline 135.
The Legacy is very solid as well and a joy to land, even with strong crosswinds. Just make sure you won't get to much wind under the wing which is against the wind otherwise it can float, so just don't flare to much on x-wind landings.
What the Legacy has is a tendency to a wing rocking in cruise at high altitudes at high weights. With the Legacy you can go FL390 straight at any weight and it will do it easily as it is powered by the AE3007E giving you a max of 8800lbs of thrust. It will level off and stay at an attitude of somewhat like 4 degrees nose up and go to about Mach 0.785 to 0.79 with max cruise thrust. The same time it starts to rock the wings and it won't stop until you are significantly lighter on weight. Once the nose is down to maybe +2 degrees and you need to reduce to not drive it into overspeed (MMO is 0.80) it will calm down and behave brave.
This doesn't happen at lower weights nor at something like FL330 and below. I learned that by putting the winglets on the aircraft got a tendency for Dutch rolls which could only be eliminated by putting those two big strikes on the tail the Legacy has.
I personally think this behavior is coming from the yaw dampers software as the geometry of the plane is different to the one of the 145. If you disengage the AP in cruise it will stop to rock the wings and is pretty stable until it eventually looses its attitude.
By this time Embraer is investigating on the Legacy's prototype for this issue and I may give you an update once they sort out results.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:27 am

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 27):
Not really.....The EMB-140 was designed for a specific customer, to fill a specific need.

Uhm, the 140 was late to the game, as I said. I am quite familiar with the AA pilot union agreement, but just because AA ordered it as a "one-off" doesn't change the fact that is is newer than the 135. The 140 also had few orders, again because AA didn't order that many and few others were buying RJs with under 50 seats by that time, which is why I said the 145XR was a better option for most. The question was regarding why anyone would order the 135 rather than the 140, and it was basically answered. The 135 came first, then the 140. I would assume that anyone who was in need of a smaller RJ would pursue the 140, a 50 seater would be 145XR now, and larger tweeners would be the CRJ7/900 and ER17/90/5 depending on need.

When you use a phrase like "Not really" it would be nice if it were followed by something actually contradictory...  Wink
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
legacy135
Posts: 966
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 11:06 pm

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:42 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 30):
which is why I said the 145XR was a better option for most

In São Jose dos Campos I got told that the XR was designed for CoEX as they asked for

More range
So they got an extra fuel cell in the fuselage

Higher speed for flaps 45
So they were redesigned and can be set now at 160 KIAS instead 145 KIAS

No speed restriction below 8000 feet
So they got a new PPG windscreen that eliminates the 240 KIAS restriction below 8000 feet

As far as I know the XR was only ordered by CoEX up to now. Probably other operators preferred to keep the fleets standardized and not to mix with previous versions. I can also see that the XR is more expensive and there is not such a demand for range from the regionals in Europe as it is in the US.

There is by the way a rumor to build another BJ version based on the 145 with the wing of the military version as this wing takes more fuel. Together with the improvements of the XR it could be quite a nice machine.
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: CASM: CRJ Vs. ERJ

Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:45 am

OK, let me try and re-phrase. Not many EMB-140's were ordered because it was designed for a specific airline to fill a specific need and from the start it was not destine to be a big seller. Right in the middle of all this, the regional jet market changed, as did the need for a specific 40 seat aircraft. It's the same reason why only one airline flies the EMB-145XR.

Your original statement made it sound like the EMB-140 was not a big seller because it arrived 'late' in the game.... which is not true. It was destine for a very limited market. We also need to remember that the 'Scope Clause' which the EMB-140 was designed for is far more complex then just less then 50 seats. It involves the total number of aircraft, the total number of seats and a whole bunch of other complex figures and math. It's also all tied into when when American Eagle started to get the CRJ-700/900, they had to start turning in EMB-145's...which were only a few years old.

[Edited 2005-06-04 20:01:43]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, cero852, hoons90, joel31098, msycajun, PacificBeach88, qf002, qf789, zombie and 215 guests