backfire
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:01 am

Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:18 pm

ATI reporting that CRJ200 production to be stopped in January, due to poor market demand.
 
Boeing757/767
Posts: 2179
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 11:05 pm

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:46 pm

Yup, and here is the release from Bombardier:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/051028/285245.html?.v=1
Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
 
Greasemonkey
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:18 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:01 pm

About time. We operate both -200 and -700 and regret ever buying the -200 after seeing the profits produced by the -700. Shorter field operation, more pax, more powerful and efficient engines, etc. Plus on a sidenote, the -200 never did perform very well for us, it was always a biz jet that just got too big, and never quite meant for the abuse airlines put it through.

-GM  Smile
It's usually a good idea to know what all the buttons do...before you push them.
 
bjg231
Posts: 157
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 2:30 pm

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:05 pm

Good riddance. From a passenger's perspective, the CRJ-200 is probably the most uncomfortable plane in the sky.
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
 
HAJFlyer
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:34 pm

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:15 pm

Well, it seems that the sales boom for 50-passenger jets is definitely over as more and more carriers prefer the 70+ seaters.

LX is in the process of retiring all its 50-seaters (Saab 2000 and ERJ145) and by early next year the smallest plane in its regional operation will be the RJ85.
 
Okie
Posts: 3555
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:19 pm

Quoting Bjg231 (Reply 3):
Good riddance. From a passenger's perspective, the CRJ-200 is probably the most uncomfortable plane in the sky.

Agreed, but soon there will be about a 50 year supply mothballed 50 seaters in the desert so I do not see them disappearing for a long time. When it comes time for that heavy check, instead just go get one out of the desert.

Good to see from the article that the "415 Water Bomber" is gearing back up.
I am just not sure if the economics of a seasonal use new aircraft are there. Still a lot of old (cheap) airframes out there competing for the same application.

Okie
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sat Oct 29, 2005 2:27 am

Quoting HAJFlyer (Reply 4):
and by early next year the smallest plane in its regional operation will be the RJ85.

Seeing as the ERJ's CASM is better than the CRJ's... and those 4-engined Avros are maintenance hogs... is it really cheaper to run a 4-engine Avro than a relatively newer ERJ?? Especially on the thin routes, and considering the ERJ can go higher and faster.

Quoting Okie (Reply 5):
Agreed, but soon there will be about a 50 year supply mothballed 50 seaters in the desert so I do not see them disappearing for a long time. When it comes time for that heavy check

I expect to see some ERJ/CRJ conversions back to biz jets... and just maybe a *few* freighters... kinda like the roles some of these Learjet freighters run now and so forth.


As for the CRJ-200's being gone. Good riddance. I never did like them, uncomfortable, impossible to look out the windows, and they just never feel "right" in flight, between the take off rolls, the slow climbs, low cruises, and everything else. Give me an ERJ anyday on a route like that (and living in ABE most routes are like that) and a classic example of why I chose CO for my main airline.

[Edited 2005-10-28 19:30:11]
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sat Oct 29, 2005 2:30 am

Quoting Bjg231 (Reply 3):
Good riddance. From a passenger's perspective, the CRJ-200 is probably the most uncomfortable plane in the sky.

"Probably"? How about "definitely"?

And you realize what a terrible airplane it is after riding in the competition's ERJ145.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:18 pm

Wave goodbye to the C-Series... this is another nail in the coffin of the Commercial Aircraft Division.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:25 pm

Quoting Bjg231 (Reply 3):
Good riddance. From a passenger's perspective, the CRJ-200 is probably the most uncomfortable plane in the sky.

Yeah, I second this. I just feels bloody crammed. I'd still fly on them, but I try to avoid them when/if I can.

Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
cslusarc
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sat Oct 29, 2005 3:11 pm

Today YTO's Globe and Mail posted this article.

Highlights:
-CRJ200 production haults in mid January 2006
-Bombardier has 18 CRJ2000s due for delivery in 2006.
-Major layoffs in Montreal and Belfast.
-12 projected CRJ200 deliveries in 2007.

I hope the this closure of the CRJ200 production line is permanent. Really, does Bombardier want to build airframes that won't be delivered to customers like DL or NW? I'm expecting DL and NW to also terminate some of their leases on their 40/44/50-seat CRJ100s/200s/400s/440s. Plus I expect DH to dump its remaining 50-seat CRJs extremely soon. I'm expecting that by St-Patrick's Day we will see close to 100 40/44/50-seat CRJs parked in the desert.
--cslusarc from YWG
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11865
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sat Oct 29, 2005 4:29 pm

Quoting Cslusarc (Reply 10):
I hope the this closure of the CRJ200 production line is permanent. Really, does Bombardier want to build airframes that won't be delivered to customers like DL or NW? I'm expecting DL and NW to also terminate some of their leases on their 40/44/50-seat CRJ100s/200s/400s/440s. Plus I expect DH to dump its remaining 50-seat CRJs extremely soon. I'm expecting that by St-Patrick's Day we will see close to 100 40/44/50-seat CRJs parked in the desert.

100% agree with you. I would add that I expect to see close to 200 CRJ's parked in the desert by this time next year. There is a niche for 50 seaters, but not a 2,000 airframe niche...

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
BA
Posts: 10134
Joined: Fri May 19, 2000 11:06 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sat Oct 29, 2005 4:35 pm

I've flown on the CRJ200 only once and that was 3 years ago from Denver (DEN) to Santa Barbara (SBA) on United Express (operated byAir Wisconsin). It was a CRJ200ER and I didn't like much at all. It was a full flight and we used up nearly the entire 12,000 feet of the runway! I was shocked. I had heard that CRJ requires a relatively long take-off roll since it lacks slats, but my gosh, we used almost as much runway as we did when I flew on an LH A340 to FRA.

I've never flown on the CRJ700/900, but they do look quite slick. I'd love to try them one day, especially since their windows are mounted higher! My gosh it was such a pain on the CRJ200, and I'm not particularly tall...

The slats on the CRJ700/900 is also a clear plus.

Either way, my favorite regional jet is the Avro RJ and probably will always be my favorite regional jet.  Smile

Regards
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sat Oct 29, 2005 8:36 pm

Mike Boyd has been sour on RJ's all year on his "Aviation Hot Flash" page:

http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm

Like him or not, he has made a good argument. There is probably more pain to come....
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
ORDagent
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:24 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:47 am

I DESPISE the crj200! I fly ORD-ORF regularly and go to AA ERJs when price is similar because the ERJs are downright luxurious in comparison! The tiny low windows always give me a sore neck! Next week I fly the CRJ200 to ORF and retrurn on the EJ170... Should make for an interesting comparison....like night and day!
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 971
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:17 am

I've flown the CRJ200's many times. Didn't really mind them at all.
learning never stops.
 
Web
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:31 am

I don't find CRJ-200s to be so bad, but I agree, they don't hold a candle to the ERJs. And there is a market for 50-seat jets, but no airline taps that market (long (>400 miles), thin routes), and the only plane anyone would want to fly on that type of route is the ERJ. So idealy, in the forseeable future, ERJs have a bit of a monopoly; no one likes the competiton, and they have longer range.
 
NLINK
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:20 pm

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:37 am

CRJ is much more comfortable than the ERJ. I hate how tiny the cabin is in the ERJ, to narrow, looks to much like a turboprop inside.
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 971
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:31 am

I've flown the ERJ-135 as well. Didn't mind it anymore or less than the CRJ200.
learning never stops.
 
9252fly
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:30 pm

Love or hate them,they have changed how we see aviation today. I think the production line for the CRJ 100/200 50 seat series has served it's purpose with a run of about 1000 units,that's quite successful? The industry is always in a constant state of evolution,whether it be aircraft,services,routes or fares. Times change and we can be thankful for the CRJ,in that it gave many of us the chance to fly fast and avoid many of the connections that were the norm not so long ago. So it's an end of an era and a beginning of another(E70-95)and I'm excited about the things to come. I wouldn't be so cocky to assume that so many of these CRJ aircraft will be parked in the desert,but rather,they will find new homes and their future owners will find missions for them that can still be profitable.
 
EnviroTO
Posts: 723
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 12:11 pm

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:39 pm

I didn't find the CRJs any less comfortable than the smaller ERJs other than the windows on the 100s and 200s which you need to be the Hunchback of Notre Dame to look through. I suppose comfort also has to do with the seats the airlines choose to fit them with and the seat pitch they choose. The larger ERJs are definitely more spacious. I really hope to see the C-Series program launched.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:54 pm

Quoting Web (Reply 15):
And there is a market for 50-seat jets, but no airline taps that market (long (>400 miles), thin routes), and the only plane anyone would want to fly on that type of route is the ERJ.

COex flies them routinely on those kind of routes, to the dismay of those of us who prefer a larger jet for 2+ hour flights...

Quoting NLINK (Reply 17):
CRJ is much more comfortable than the ERJ.

CRJ is not all the same. The 700/900 has a lower floor and higher windows to provide a larger cabin and better views, etc.

CRJ200 is cramped for anyone tall.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
NLINK
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:20 pm

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:30 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):

CRJ is not all the same

I am 6'2 and have no problem on the CRJ-200. I have to duck a bit, but the cabin height is still bigger in the CRJ-200 than the ERJ145 series. I really hate how narrow the 145 series is.

For the CRJ-700/900 vs ERJ-170 series, I think the ERJ-170 series is much more comfortable.
 
alasdaironeil
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 7:29 pm

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:10 pm

Am i the only one who thought that the Crj200 is a nice aircraft???

I've only flown it once, so its difficult to make a general impression, but my flight was very comfortable and stable. But, i'm 5'8, maybe i'm short enough.

Also think they look very nice.

Never tried an Erj, but i always thought that Crj looks better.
失去在翻譯 - Lost in Translation
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11865
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:04 pm

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 19):
Love or hate them,they have changed how we see aviation today. I think the production line for the CRJ 100/200 50 seat series has served it's purpose with a run of about 1000 units,that's quite successful?

Good point. The benchmark for a "runaway success" airframe is 1000 units. The CR2 passed that point and has thus earned the accolades.  praise 

The CRJ (and later the ERJ) changed the market dramatically.  praise 

That said, expect hundreds to become beer cans soon.  spit 

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
Web
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:49 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):
COex flies them routinely on those kind of routes, to the dismay of those of us who prefer a larger jet for 2+ hour flights...

I know, I have flown such a route with them (DEN-CLE), what I meant was that not many airlines fly those kind of routes, not no airlines.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:37 am

Quoting Web (Reply 25):
I know, I have flown such a route with them (DEN-CLE), what I meant was that not many airlines fly those kind of routes, not no airlines

well, with that correction, you are right. And it's not to say CO doesn't have a mess of too short flights, but that was their idea to go to an all ERJ fleet versus keeping propjets in COEx, and though it seems to be working, I would imagine that Q400s might end up in CO's future at some point along with ERJ175s.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:26 am

Quoting BA (Reply 12):
It was a CRJ200ER and I didn't like much at all. It was a full flight and we used up nearly the entire 12,000 feet of the runway!

Flex Takeoff. Why run it full steam ahead and bring up maintenance on the engines quicker and only use half the runway? Save the engines, use more runways.
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Produ

Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:47 am

Quoting Alasdaironeil (Reply 23):
Am i the only one who thought that the Crj200 is a nice aircraft???

No -- I have no problem with it and I've flown on several, sitting in aisle and window. I think it is an excellent airplane and I've always had comfortable rides (I'm 5-11). I agree the window placement is bad -- but 95% of the flying public couldn't care less about that. Criticizing a CRJ because it's small is like criticizing a 747 because it's big.

The CRJ was designed for short hops - under 2 hours - to open up jet travel to places that would never see a mainline aircraft. On that score, it (and the ERJ) is wildly successful.

For a whole bunch of reasons that no one could have predicted, airlines have been using them for 3-4.5 hour hops -- and that's too long for the comfort level they were designed to deliver. But that's not the airplane's fault. Bombardier (and Embraer) gave the RJs longer legs because that's what their customers wanted at the time. If you want to crap on the CRJ (or the ERJ) for 4.5 hour legs, you're attacking the wrong player.

As far as performance is concerned -- they use as much runway as they can to save wear and tear on the engines. If the pilot firewalls it, it will get off the ground in a hurry and climb fairly quickly to about 10,000 feet -- and the engines will be in the shop much sooner than they need to be. Again, 95% of the flying public (no, 99%) is blissfully unaware of this, and if you tried to explain it to them they'd think you were nuts.

The CRJ is a pioneering aircraft despite its shortcomings, and 1000 frames sold is evidence of that.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
mikefly562
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 10:02 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:20 pm

Thank God the CRJ-200 will cease production. The CRJ-700 is much better and more comfortable. I personally have found the CRJ-200 to be by far the worst aircraft I have ever flown in. When I travel, I alway do my best to avoid that aircraft. I fly small single engine piston powered Cessnas that offer greater comfort than the CRJ-200.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:19 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):
CRJ is not all the same. The 700/900 has a lower floor and higher windows to provide a larger cabin and better views, etc.



Quoting Mikefly562 (Reply 29):
The CRJ-700 is much better and more comfortable.

Not so... unless you call having a mere 1-inch of additional aisle height "much better and more comfortable." And who spends their flight standing in the aisle anyway?!

It is hilarious how some people have gone on about the "superior" comfort of the 700 vs. the 200.

The truth of the matter is that an aisle seat in a 200 is not one iota different than an aisle seat in the 700. Not one!

And, in fact, the 700 window seat has less footroom than a 200. And regarding the higher window placement, as has already been pointed out by others... "95% of the flying public couldn't care less about that."

Bottom line... if you are going to bash the 200 because of its "poor" comfort level, then you have to bash the 700 as well.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
BCAInfoSys
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:09 pm

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Produ

Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:39 pm

Quoting Mikefly562 (Reply 29):
Thank God the CRJ-200 will cease production. The CRJ-700 is much better and more comfortable. I personally have found the CRJ-200 to be by far the worst aircraft I have ever flown in.

I've flown the CRJ-700 with QX (Horizon), and the CRJ-200 more times then I can count with OO (Skywest). And while I agree, the CRJ-200 sucks somethin' fierce, the honor of the worst aircraft ever still belongs to Embraer. That would be the EMB-120. I can't tell you how horrendous that plane is. Especially on flights like IDA-SLC. Only a/c I've ever lost my lunch in.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Aaron Mandolesi


My Caption: What a piece of crap!


I'll take the CRJ-200 anyday over that. But if I have my choice for regional aircraft, I'll stick to the Q200/Q400s anyday. Horizon was earned my money if I have a reasonable choice. Though I'll go out of my way to fly the Q's rather then the CRJ-700. It was better then the -200, but not by much. Especially not compared to the Q400.
Militant Agnostic - I don't know and you don't either.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:19 pm

Yeah the CRJ-700 is barely noticably different. The main difference in it is just the takeoff performance, but Joe Q. Public doesn't notice stuff like that, and leading edge devices, and that it can cruise higher than the CRJ-200. (Yes, I know the CRJ-200 can go to FL410 on paper, but it can never actually get there or typically above like FL320 in real world revenue flight applications, while the CR7 can get up to FL 370-390 regularly). I'd still take the ERJ-145 (especially the 145-XR) over the CRJ-700 any day.
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4051
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:28 pm

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 32):
Yes, I know the CRJ-200 can go to FL410 on paper

Well, you know what happened last time someone tried...  tombstone 
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3739
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:36 pm

I flew on the CRJ last year SLC-PDX, and wasn't expecting it to be a good flight because of the poor reviews of the CRJ I've read on this site.

But honestly I found it just as comfortable as any other airliner I've been on. The small overhead bins were a pain, but overall, I was very comfortable in the CRJ. The low windows weren't so bad and legroom wasn't a problem as I was seated in an exit row.

Then I flew the CRJ again in August last year, SLC-SFO and SFO-SLC. Same result. Found the plane rather comfortable and surprisngly uncramped...and I didn't have the exit row on those two flights.


So in my 3 CRJ flights not one has been bad. So I'm kinda sad to see the plane go. But I've never flown on an ERJ so maybe once I do my opinion will change. For now I like the CRJ. It looks better than the ERJ from the outside too imo, though that doesn't make much of a difference.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:44 pm

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 33):
Well, you know what happened last time someone tried...

Yes, unfortunately, that's why I worded it the way I did.
 
caribb
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 1999 6:33 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:17 pm

I like both the ERJ and CRJ. Yeah the ERJ's are narrow and the CRJ windows are low but overall they are very similar and the ride is quite comfortable and faster than turboprops. The -700/900 series does seem nicer only because of the window placement. I think this is a bigger issue among average CRJ fliers than we want to admit. A lot of people I know who aren't into aviation have remarked negatively on the -200s low window placement. It comes up in pre and post flight discussion often actually. Perhaps it's more realistic to say 50% of people don't care but then are there any real statistics for this kind of thing? I'd be curious to know what the real rate is when people are asked outright.

It will be sad to see Bombardier stop production though. I would have hoped for a new and improved replacement series for the 50 seater instead but it looks like they are just going to let end. Sad actually.
 
atct
Posts: 2472
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:42 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:32 am

Yea I nonreved on CRJ's all the time. A coach seat is a coach seat. I personally love the aircraft. Great from a ramp rats point of view, and flying on em arent that bad. No worse than any other regional. Only regional airliner ive thought was NICE is the Dornier 328 series. Fast (as the way of turboprops goes) and quiet.


ATCT
Trikes are for kids!
 
frugalqxnwa
Posts: 550
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 3:18 am

RE: Bombardier To Temporarily Suspend CRJ200 Production

Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:12 pm

Both types of Bombardier aircraft I have flown (CRJ100/200 and Q400) were uncomfortable (but then again I am a little chubby). If I have a choice between the two aircraft I'll take the Q400, but only because I can look out the windows without contorting myself into strange positions.

Never flown the ERJ or CRJ700/900 (was scheduled on a 700 once, only to be changed to a 200 last minuite ATL-OMA) so I can't speak for them, but the most comfortable RJ I have flown was the ARJ85.

Death and good riddance to the CRJ100/200!!!!