Boeingluvr
Topic Author
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:16 am

Spoke to someone in AC maintenance who said AC's looking into getting rid of the CRJ-1's and replaing them with Q400's... Anyone with more detail?
 
cayman
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 2:28 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:19 am

Seems very unusual given the different cruising speed and range of a jet vs turboprop a/c...

The CRJ-1s might not be ideal but I'd take a shorter flight on one of them any day over a turboprop even a new one.
 
Boeingluvr
Topic Author
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:21 am

He was saying something about them getting too old. I guess they could substitute a/c for other routes could they not?? As I said just heresay from mtc...
 
ZBBYLW
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:17 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:34 am

I heard that because AC, well QK is only allowed X amount of Jet a/c they are getting rid of the CRJ100s in favour of the CRJ 705. I believe the AC and QK pilot unions have come to an agreement that will allow AC to get more 705s as long as they stay under a certain number of jet a/c. From what I heard they can get as many Turbo-Props they want, mind you with the Q400 at 75 seats (I believe) who knows.
Keep the shinny side up!
 
COERJ145
Posts: 1140
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:22 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:45 am

Quoting CayMan (Reply 1):
Seems very unusual given the different cruising speed and range of a jet vs turboprop a/c...

The Q400 cruises at 370kts, while the CRJ1 cruises at 450ishkts. Also, the Q400 has similar range to the CRJ-100, while carrying more pax(74 vs 50) and burning less fuel.
 
ZBBYLW
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:17 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:55 am

Quoting COERJ145 (Reply 4):
The Q400 cruises at 370kts, while the CRJ1 cruises at 450ishkts. Also, the Q400 has similar range to the CRJ-100, while carrying more pax(74 vs 50) and burning less fuel.

Also for most of the flights the Q400's will replace would be flights like YVR-YLW which is only in and around 30 mins so 30 mins vs ~40 mins would not make such a big difference. The longer flights such as YYC-YZF (~2h) will remain on CRJ's so the extra speed of the CRJ will not have a huge impact I am going to assume. But the extra 24 seats, the better operating costs and all this will really help QK.
Keep the shinny side up!
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:02 am

Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 3):
I heard that because AC, well QK is only allowed X amount of Jet a/c they are getting rid of the CRJ100s in favour of the CRJ 705. I believe the AC and QK pilot unions have come to an agreement that will allow AC to get more 705s as long as they stay under a certain number of jet a/c. From what I heard they can get as many Turbo-Props they want, mind you with the Q400 at 75 seats (I believe) who knows.

Yes, there is a ratio between Jazz and AC jet flying. AC has considered adding up to 7 more 705s, at least that was implied by previous, now archived versions of the fleet plan. And Bombardier is building its NG version of the 900/1000, and presumably AC would be interested in the efficiencies of those NGs in an upgraded 705. That being said, AC owns the CRJ-100s and leases them to Jazz and it is unlikely that there would be takers for them on the open market. So if AC were to buy new aircraft, there would have to be a compelling, and I mean compelling case, based on lower operating costs to replace fully depreciated -100s with new jets or Q400s, especially when there are a lot of newer CRJ200s available fairly cheaply in the desert right now.
 
9252fly
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:14 am

Quoting Sebring (Reply 6):
That being said, AC owns the CRJ-100s and leases them to Jazz and it is unlikely that there would be takers for them on the open market.

I was under the impression that AC leases the aircraft from other owners and sub-leases them to Jazz? This is based on how I interpreted the restructuring of all the aircraft leases during AC CCAA proceedings and what it implied. Jazz is very interested in the DH4,as they have test flown it. The CRJ 100's from what I understand,were not intended to be in the fleet long term. It should be interesting to see how things unfold over the next year of two.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:32 am

Quoting CayMan (Reply 1):
The CRJ-1s might not be ideal but I'd take a shorter flight on one of them any day over a turboprop even a new one.



Quoting CayMan (Reply 1):
Seems very unusual given the different cruising speed and range of a jet vs turboprop a/c...

The CRJ-1s might not be ideal but I'd take a shorter flight on one of them any day over a turboprop even a new one.

Have you flown on a Q400? They are excellent and in my opinion much more comfortable than the CRJ100/200. And as others have mentioned, on AC's current CRJ100 routes, the Q400's high speed (much faster than earlier Dash 8 models) would mean very little difference in elapsed time.
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:00 am

Quoting CayMan (Reply 1):
I'd take a shorter flight on one of them any day over a turboprop even a new one.

To the contrary, I'd much rather fly in a Q400 (not the same beast as the Dash-8 100/300's you're used to flying in) than the CRJ 100/200. Whether the route is short (YLW-YVR) or longer (YVR-YXY), my preference applies.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
ZBBYLW
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:17 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:10 am

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 9):
To the contrary, I'd much rather fly in a Q400 (not the same beast as the Dash-8 100/300's you're used to flying in) than the CRJ 100/200. Whether the route is short (YLW-YVR) or longer (YVR-YXY), my preference applies.

While I would agree with the YLW-YVR sector, I have yet to see a CRJ working YVR-YXY unless I am not noticing these things. I thought it was always the CRA that flies up to YXY in which case the IFE, nicer cabin, better seat location vs the 1/200s in addition to the higher speed, would make me choose the CRA. Although I have yet to fly on a Q400.
Keep the shinny side up!
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:13 am

Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 10):
I have yet to see a CRJ working YVR-YXY unless I am not noticing these things. I thought it was always the CRA that flies up to YXY in which case the IFE, nicer cabin, better seat location vs the 1/200s in addition to the higher speed, would make me choose the CRA.

AC now uses the CRJ-705 (CRA) on the YVR-YXY route but they did previously use the CRJ100/200 (2nd photo below):


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Connor
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Connor

 
Jean Leloup
Posts: 1953
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 10:46 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:44 am

Last August I flew YXY-YVR and, if I recall correctly, at that point the evening rotation was a CRA and the morning (which I took) was a 100 or 200. Would have loved to take the 705, but scheduling didn't work out. At leasts I had a pretty girl to look at, and the scenery on that whole flight can't be beat!

That said, I am sure that consistent 705 service on the route, as well as being an indication of higher yields and loads on the route, also gives AC a decided service advantage over Air North. Does it also make it look less like a market ripe for Westjet? Sorry if this is taking things a little off topic, but I doubt a 'Yukon Aviation Thread' would get too far.  Wink

JL
Next flight.... who knows.
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:15 am

Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 10):
have yet to see a CRJ working YVR-YXY unless I am not noticing these things. I thought it was always the CRA that flies up to YXY



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):
AC now uses the CRJ-705 (CRA) on the YVR-YXY route but they did previously use the CRJ100/200 (2nd photo below):

Although it could change, the last year or two on YVR/YXY it's been the 50-seat CRJ-200 during the relatively quiet winter, then larger 75-seat CRJ-705 during the busy summer season, switching back to the 200 in the fall and back to the 705 in spring and so on.

One thing I was wondering is how much cargo profit Air Canada has been missing out on with these CRJs? For YVR-YXY Jazz's CRJs don't take any cargo, while Air North's 737s are hauling a couple thousand pounds on almost a daily basis...



CanadianNorth
What could possibly go wrong?
 
Jean Leloup
Posts: 1953
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 10:46 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:26 am

Interesting point about the cargo, CanadianNorth.

Before the CRJ's, what did Air Canada use on YVR-YXY? Did they at some point use 732's? DC-9's? Did they formerly move significant cargo with mainline planes?
Next flight.... who knows.
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:40 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):One thing I was wondering is how much cargo profit Air Canada has been missing out on with these CRJs? For YVR-YXY Jazz's CRJs don't take any cargo, while Air North's 737s are hauling a couple thousand pounds on almost a daily basis...
[/quote]

You can't have a fleet that covers every possible situation. AC went into this knowing it wouldn't have cargo space. It presumably modelled the route as all-passenger, and that's that. It may also be missing out on cargo profit on other routes where it is capacity constrained by weight/fuel considerations, but short of getting 200 777-200LRs, there are going to be situations where it can't meet cargo demand.
 
floridaflyboy
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:26 pm

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:39 am

Quoting COERJ145 (Reply 4):
The Q400 cruises at 370kts, while the CRJ1 cruises at 450ishkts. Also, the Q400 has similar range to the CRJ-100, while carrying more pax(74 vs 50) and burning less fuel.

Not to mention that the Q400 is worlds more comfortable than the CRJ1. Some people just hate turbo-props because they're turbo-props.
Good goes around!
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:32 am

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 14):
Before the CRJ's, what did Air Canada use on YVR-YXY? Did they at some point use 732's? DC-9's? Did they formerly move significant cargo with mainline planes?



Prior to CRJs they used 732s inherited from CP which for many years (since the 1940s) was the only carrier on the route. YXY was one of CP's first 732 destinations starting in 1969, replacing DC-6Bs.

Sometime in the 1980s, AC's YVR-based regional carrier Air BC introduced their own YVR-YXY service using BAe 146s, competing with CP 732s, but the Air BC service didn't last very long and they dropped the route after a year or two.
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:48 am

Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 10):
While I would agree with the YLW-YVR sector, I have yet to see a CRJ working YVR-YXY unless I am not noticing these things.

My YXY remark was to indicate the stage length rather than the actual route itself. Although, as pointed out by others, the CRJ did in fact operate on the route from a preiod of time.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 14):
Before the CRJ's, what did Air Canada use on YVR-YXY?

They used 319's for a while immediately prior to theintroduction of the CRJ/CRA. I'm sure they could fill a 319 or a 320 in the summer time on a twice daily basis, but the AC fleet planners have obviously found more logical/profitable routes fro the larger planes.

Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 16):
Not to mention that the Q400 is worlds more comfortable than the CRJ1. Some people just hate turbo-props because they're turbo-props.

Agreed, and that was the intent of my original post. There are turboprops that rattle and those that hum. Despite the external similarity to its smaller siblings, the Q400 definitely fits into the latter category. In many cases, they're far beter than regional jets.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
Boeingluvr
Topic Author
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:51 am

Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 16):
Not to mention that the Q400 is worlds more comfortable than the CRJ1. Some people just hate turbo-props because they're turbo-props.

It's like when you're boarding a plane and you hear people saying "ughh a turbo prop" or "not a propeller plane". I for one love the turbo props especially the Q400. A delight to fly on. It'd be a nice change as well!
 
floridaflyboy
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:26 pm

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:58 am

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 18):
Despite the external similarity to its smaller siblings, the Q400 definitely fits into the latter category. In many cases, they're far beter than regional jets.



Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 19):
I for one love the turbo props especially the Q400. A delight to fly on. It'd be a nice change as well!

Absolutely! I love the Q400. Being from BIL, I remember when QX replaced the CR7 to SEA with the Q400. I actually like the Q400 better than the CR7. But, you still get people whining that they don't want to ride on a turbo-prop. My favorite experience was this older lady who went the whole flight thinking she was on a jet (on the Q400), and then, as we were deplaning in SEA, she looked out the windows and noticed the propellors, and had a fit at the flight attendant because, "They should have told her she was on a propellor plane. If they had told her that, she'd have just gone back to the ticket counter and gotten her money back. She didn't want to risk her LIFE like that." Never once stopped to think about the fact that she hadn't even NOTICED all flight long." I think it was all the F/As could do not to laugh at her.
Good goes around!
 
Boeingluvr
Topic Author
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:46 am

Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 20):
Absolutely! I love the Q400. Being from BIL, I remember when QX replaced the CR7 to SEA with the Q400. I actually like the Q400 better than the CR7. But, you still get people whining that they don't want to ride on a turbo-prop. My favorite experience was this older lady who went the whole flight thinking she was on a jet (on the Q400), and then, as we were deplaning in SEA, she looked out the windows and noticed the propellors, and had a fit at the flight attendant because, "They should have told her she was on a propellor plane. If they had told her that, she'd have just gone back to the ticket counter and gotten her money back. She didn't want to risk her LIFE like that." Never once stopped to think about the fact that she hadn't even NOTICED all flight long." I think it was all the F/As could do not to laugh at her.

Ahh yes, the glory day of dealing with idiots haha! People just don't understand. I know we're pilot enthusiasts, but if people understood flying the would realize it's no different. The engines are exactly the same inside and is a turbine driven propeller haha. I discussed it with a gentleman I was flying on a DH-8 with years ago who claimed they were piston driven and I couldn't help but laugh at him as he insisted I was an idiot for saying they were turbine engines... Some people are completely clueless... There was that ad on Frontier out of DEN as well claiming they were unsafe with the no oxygen mask story... Retarded media!!!
 
AA767LOVER
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:59 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:34 pm

Having the CR7 and maybe adding a CR9 will be great for AC Jazz.
J.I. Tsui, American Advantage Member, United Mileage Plus (Premier)
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:59 pm

Quoting AA767LOVER (Reply 22):
Having the CR7 and maybe adding a CR9 will be great for AC Jazz.

The CR705 is a CR9 configured for 75 seats to conform with AC's scope requirements.
 
jamincan
Posts: 572
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:28 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:08 pm

I wonder how much cargo AC would actually get, even if it provided the capacity. Air North and First Air have comprehensive networks in the north, which I imagine would favour them for shipping cargo into the north as well.
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:39 pm

Quoting Jamincan (Reply 24):
I wonder how much cargo AC would actually get, even if it provided the capacity. Air North and First Air have comprehensive networks in the north, which I imagine would favour them for shipping cargo into the north as well.

It would depend, of course, on the point of origin. Were freight to originate elsewhere on the AC network, as it might for some goods, AC would have a good chance of carrying it all the way. But if it's goods that originate at a city Air North or First Air serves, chances are the established carrier would have the connections with the shippers to get the freight, all other things being equal.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 1944
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: AC To Rid CRJ-100?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:51 pm

Quoting Sebring (Reply 6):
Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 3):
I heard that because AC, well QK is only allowed X amount of Jet a/c they are getting rid of the CRJ100s in favour of the CRJ 705. I believe the AC and QK pilot unions have come to an agreement that will allow AC to get more 705s as long as they stay under a certain number of jet a/c. From what I heard they can get as many Turbo-Props they want, mind you with the Q400 at 75 seats (I believe) who knows.

Yes, there is a ratio between Jazz and AC jet flying. AC has considered adding up to 7 more 705s, at least that was implied by previous, now archived versions of the fleet plan. And Bombardier is building its NG version of the 900/1000, and presumably AC would be interested in the efficiencies of those NGs in an upgraded 705.

In other threads it has been discussed that the CRJ705, E175 and E190 cannot take cargo when fully loaded with baggage, so I think AC should consider the CRJ1000 as its cabin is 2,5-3 metres longer. That means they can keep their current 75-seat config, move the cabin/cargo pit bulkhead forward and have a big cargo pit in the rear with room for cargo. Would be useful on flights to YXY...?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me