https://www.ifn.news/posts/the-history-of-the-canadair-regional-jet/

1945 CRJs over a 30 yr run. I actually felt like the frame had another round left (as has been discussed and expected here) if Bombardier hadn’t collapsed. Although a replacement is available in the E175, and it is clearly better for pax, it’s not better across the board. And now, without a competitor, there’s no reason for it to get better.

eeightning wrote:

https://www.ifn.news/posts/the-history-of-the-canadair-regional-jet/
1945 CRJs over a 30 yr run. I actually felt like the frame had another round left (as has been discussed and expected here) if Bombardier hadn’t collapsed. Although a replacement is available in the E175, and it is clearly better for pax, it’s not better across the board. And now, without a competitor, there’s no reason for it to get better.

Perhaps you can elucidate us because the E175-E1 "it’s not better across the board" ...

Any photos of it yet?

What is the total tally across all CRJ variants?

EMBSPBR wrote:

eeightning wrote:

https://www.ifn.news/posts/the-history-of-the-canadair-regional-jet/
1945 CRJs over a 30 yr run. I actually felt like the frame had another round left (as has been discussed and expected here) if Bombardier hadn’t collapsed. Although a replacement is available in the E175, and it is clearly better for pax, it’s not better across the board. And now, without a competitor, there’s no reason for it to get better.

Perhaps you can elucidate us because the E175-E1 "it’s not better across the board" ...

Higher fuel burn, from everything I've heard. Costly engine maintenance too, but that was told to me by a CRJ pilot who was a bit too over-enthusiastic about his own aircraft IMO.

But why even compare it with the E175? The direct competitor should be the E190.

VSMUT wrote:

But why even compare it with the E175? The direct competitor should be the E190.

The direct competitor to the CRJ900 is the E175. The CRJ1000 tried to compete with the E190. CRJ700 matches with E170.

Thank god. While initially it was a great idea for allowing long thin routes to be operated into hubs in the end it killed more service than it created in my opinion. So many small communities got service cuts because the plane was to expensive to operate on so short local service routes where a turboprop could have done the job economically. It is absolutely the worst for passenger comfort in it class and has been used to restrict service rather than enhance it.

VSMUT wrote:

Costly engine maintenance too,

It is basiclly the same engine.

VSMUT wrote:

What is the total tally across all CRJ variants?

Apples to apples as per wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CRJ700_series

CRJ 700 - 330 - engine CF34-835B1 - 13.970 lbf
CRJ 705 - 16 - engine CF34-835B1 - 13.970 lbf
CRJ 900 - 487 - engine CF34-8C5 - 14.510 lbf
===========
Total - 833 units

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family

E170 - 191 - engine CF34-8E - 14.200 lbf
E175 - 798 - engine CF34-8E - 14.200 lbf
========
Total - 989 units

VSMUT wrote:

Higher fuel burn, from everything I've heard. Costly engine maintenance too.

Basically the same engines. Maybe we can agree on fuel burn, but maybe not in costly engine maintenance.

VSMUT wrote:

But why even compare it with the E175? The direct competitor should be the E190.

The E190 is a different bird in range and capacity compared to the CRJ700/705/900 and in US specifically can´t be operated under "scope clause".
The closest to it is the CRJ1000 but it is a different history ...

NCAD95 wrote:

Thank god. While initially it was a great idea for allowing long thin routes to be operated into hubs in the end it killed more service than it created in my opinion. So many small communities got service cuts because the plane was to expensive to operate on so short local service routes where a turboprop could have done the job economically.

That's an interesting view - but it doesn't hold up to various elements of evidence.

U.S. carriers could be operating props today but overwhelmingly do not: AS' Horizon is the only affiliate of the six largest marketing carriers using props, and that represents a fleet of 32 out of about 5,000 mainline and regional aircraft across those carriers. If they thought props were profit-maximizing - that switching to props would decrease yields less that the decrease in costs - carriers would certainly use the lower-cost option.

U.S. carriers could have operated mainline instead of higher CASM CRx/E145/E175 aircraft but chose lower trip costs and higher frequency. Look at the domestic destinations served count of AA/DL/UA vs. WN. WN isn't even close. If the industry didn't have regional jets we would have far fewer non-stop airport pairs, and some cities would have no service at all.

I'm not a fan of using RJs on routes of 1200-1500 sm, but if it avoids a connection I'll do it. DL got smart about ten years ago and announced it was taking single-class RJs off domestic routes greater than 750 miles. That's gives you the option of Y+ or F if you want to pay for them.

I won't mourn the end of CRJs and E145s but I do wonder how systemwide destination counts will decline as those frames age out of the fleets.

VSMUT wrote:

Any photos of it yet?

What is the total tally across all CRJ variants?

.

The Wikipedia figures quoted in another answer are wrong. I do production lists and the correct figures are, including the smaller CRJ100/200:
1104 CRJ 100/200/C850
347 CRJ 700
499 CRJ 900 (including the 705)
65 CRJ 1000 (including the proto which was a conversion from a CRJ900).
Total 2015. 911 of the larger ones (700/900/1000) as the 100/200 was more an Emb-145 competitor
Pity they didn't make one more CRJ900 to touch the 500 mark.

Embraer:
1240 x 145 / 135/140
864 combined 170 and 175 (production continuing beyond this). I don't know the exact split up between the two but the number 989 as quoted is clearly wrong, doesn't match the MSN's.
773 x 190/195 (E1)
50 x 175/190/195 (E2) and production continuing.

MEA-707 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

The Wikipedia figures quoted in another answer are wrong.
Embraer:
864 combined 170 and 175 (production continuing beyond this). I don't know the exact split up between the two but the number 989 as quoted is clearly wrong, doesn't match the MSN's.

Since the production for E170/175-E1 is still running, numbers are correct.

Source:
https://daflwcl3bnxyt.cloudfront.net/m/ ... 20-ENG.pdf

E170 - 191 delivered (no further orders or options)
E175 - 666 delivered plus 132 firm backlog = 857 (plus 291options).

At the end, for both models, if no options get firmed, production totalize 989.

As I said before, I just compared "apples to apples" ...

MIflyer12 wrote:

NCAD95 wrote:

Thank god. While initially it was a great idea for allowing long thin routes to be operated into hubs in the end it killed more service than it created in my opinion. So many small communities got service cuts because the plane was to expensive to operate on so short local service routes where a turboprop could have done the job economically.

That's an interesting view - but it doesn't hold up to various elements of evidence.

U.S. carriers could be operating props today but overwhelmingly do not: AS' Horizon is the only affiliate of the six largest marketing carriers using props, and that represents a fleet of 32 out of about 5,000 mainline and regional aircraft across those carriers. If they thought props were profit-maximizing - that switching to props would decrease yields lesone for one. So where there was say 5 mainline flights there are now maybe 4 RJs and 1 mainline.s that the decrease in costs - carriers would certainly use the lower-cost option.

U.S. carriers could have operated mainline instead of higher CASM CRx/E145/E175 aircraft but chose lower trip costs and higher frequency. Look at the domestic destinations served count of AA/DL/UA vs. WN. WN isn't even close. If the industry didn't have regional jets we would have far fewer non-stop airport pairs, and some cities would have no service at all.

I'm not a fan of using RJs on routes of 1200-1500 sm, but if it avoids a connection I'll do it. DL got smart about ten years ago and announced it was taking single-class RJs off domestic routes greater than 750 miles. That's gives you the option of Y+ or F if you want to pay for them.

I won't mourn the end of CRJs and E145s but I do wonder how systemwide destination counts will decline as those frames age out of the fleets.

But in some cases frequency was not the case. At certain hubs mainline was replaced with RJ capacity where there was once 4 or 5 mainline flights there is now more RJ flights than mainline so it was used more as a capacity control tool rather than upping the frequency in my opinion. Many small communities have lost service with the advent of the CRJ. Also keep in mind in Canada the Q400 is the plane of choice not the CRJ for regional traffic. The airlines understand a CRJ can do TVC-DEN as well as TVC-ORD that's not the case with the Q400 because of the limitations of that aircraft. The Metroliner and the Saab 340 were excellent planes for short regional flights of 1 hour or less and kept a lot more cities on line with their economics. A CRJ can not operate PLN-ORD alongside PLN-DTW where a smaller capacity aircraft could coexist in the same market giving customers more options. Keep in mind most smaller communities now only have one option where before in most cases they had at least 3. So in the morning 3 19 seaters could go out to three different hubs where now there is only enough market for one CRJ.

I think many communities losing service is tied more to 9/11 and the greater required security theater making short hops less attractive versus driving than the advent of regional jets. There were also fewer LCCs and it was harder to price shop. Plenty of people are now willing to shop around and drive to the nearest major airport to hop on a cheap [U]LCC to get to their destination versus paying the exorbitant price (which existed back then just as much as now) to use their local airport.

Perhaps you can elucidate us because the E175-E1 "it’s not better across the board"

No question, scope restricted 76 E175 is one of the most comfortable coach seats in any airplane. It depends on the actual seat of course, but most people prefer it to a packed 737 or 320. For myself, riding in a full airplane the 2x2 900 with plenty of legroom (thank you scope) is preferable to the 73/320.

Of the 4 airplanes mentioned above, the 900 is by far the quietest both inside and out. (assuming you can avoid the last 3-4 rows.

The 900 completely outperforms the 175 by any metric. It’s not just 5% more fuel efficient. It’s 4% faster on 1% lower fuel flow, climbs better at a higher speed. I expect both planes are well refined aerodynamically, with the right wing for the job. The 900 should suffer a structural weight penalty due to it’s length and engines mounted far from CG. More than offset by shorter landing gear and no slides needed. I believe it is 1000ish lbs lighter bow. And of course the 900’s tube is narrower.

From the pilot’s perspective, among pilots who have flown both, the preference is about two thirds for the 175. Although cheaply executed, the 175 has all the big airplane toys that the 900 lacks vnav, autothrottle, autobrakes, lpv approach capability. Most of these differences are of small significance from pilot’s perspective. If an airline has both, the senior plane will be the one that flies the best paying schedule.

I could go one, but I’m sitting in row 4 of a mesa 900 and the door is about to close. Tomorrow I’ll finish trip in a 175.

E175 vs 900 comes down to execution, too. A well-taken-care-of CRJ-900 crushes a gnarly E170/175, in my opinion. Republic’s jets are disgusting inside: yellowing bins, gunk on the walls, scratched windows, panels coming off. The seats are old and short with no headrest for taller people. I was in row 14 the other week and it has *no* legroom. Anything over a 30 minute flight would have been intolerable. The next flight was on a well-maintained 900 and it was much more enjoyable...

N766UA wrote:

E175 vs 900 comes down to execution, too. A well-taken-care-of CRJ-900 crushes a gnarly E170/175, in my opinion. Republic’s jets are disgusting inside: yellowing bins, gunk on the walls, scratched windows, panels coming off. The seats are old and short with no headrest for taller people. I was in row 14 the other week and it has *no* legroom. Anything over a 30 minute flight would have been intolerable. The next flight was on a well-maintained 900 and it was much more enjoyable...

You can blame the airline, not the airplane itself ...

Short and sweet - finally it’s over. From a taller pax point of view, I’d avoid that CRJ at all costs. From the low ceilings, cramped seats, overuse on longer segments, to the the feeling it was almost about to drag on the runway being so low to the ground. Even a slow E-120 decades ago was better.

eeightning wrote:

https://www.ifn.news/posts/the-history-of-the-canadair-regional-jet/

1945 CRJs over a 30 yr run. I actually felt like the frame had another round left (as has been discussed and expected here) if Bombardier hadn’t collapsed. Although a replacement is available in the E175, and it is clearly better for pax, it’s not better across the board. And now, without a competitor, there’s no reason for it to get better.

The ONLY thing the CRJ7/9/1000 has on the EJets is the fact that its slightly faster.

The EJet is better in practically every other regard.

Take it from someone who's worked on both.

Here is a picture, taken from the excellent news site 'Les Ailes du Québec', in French so off limit for many here.

https://www.lesailesduquebec.com/

Basically the same engines. Maybe we can agree on fuel burn, but maybe not in costly engine maintenance.

The CF-34 derate allowed by the lighter and more aerodynamic CRJ airframe makes a significant difference in engine component life hence in the propulsion maintenance bill.

The space and the big airliner feeling the Embraer provides come at a cost.

When the first CRJ came about, I never could have imagined we would see this day. I'm beyond shocked they didn't venture into a new design to compete with Embraer through the last several years. Seems to me they had the money to afford it. Now it appears the end is near.

F9Animal wrote:

When the first CRJ came about, I never could have imagined we would see this day. I'm beyond shocked they didn't venture into a new design to compete with Embraer through the last several years. Seems to me they had the money to afford it. Now it appears the end is near.

They did the c series. One better than embraer.

and now they’re folding.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

I am going to miss the CRJ series. For better or worse they have been an inordinate amount of my flying over the past 2 decades.
I know we still have another almost 2 decades on the more recent CR9s, but hard to believe their production run is through.

Again, for better and worse, they have been the backbone of the US legacy carriers hub and spoke networks for 2 decades. It will be interesting to see how their eventual retirements change the landscape of the industry.

I can understand the CR2 haters, at least when they were being used on 1000 mile 2-3 routes at the peak of the RJ-craze.
I don't quite understand the CR9 hate since all things being equal its a good product and no real difference from a passenger perspective versus an E75 in most cases.

As a passenger on the E175 I feel like I’m on a nice big jet. You know it’s not, but it acts like one. Pulls up to the jetway like one. Looks like one.

The CRJ900 just felt like a regional jet extended. Same feel. Looks good and big on the outside and then you get in it and frankly it felt CRJ-200 like. And that thing was worse that some props.

Babyshark wrote:

As a passenger on the E175 I feel like I’m on a nice big jet. You know it’s not, but it acts like one. Pulls up to the jetway like one. Looks like one.

The CRJ900 just felt like a regional jet extended. Same feel. Looks good and big on the outside and then you get in it and frankly it felt CRJ-200 like. And that thing was worse that some props.

And the E-jets fit full-size rollaboards -- no gate checking bags most of the time

sincx wrote:

Babyshark wrote:

As a passenger on the E175 I feel like I’m on a nice big jet. You know it’s not, but it acts like one. Pulls up to the jetway like one. Looks like one.

The CRJ900 just felt like a regional jet extended. Same feel. Looks good and big on the outside and then you get in it and frankly it felt CRJ-200 like. And that thing was worse that some props.

And the E-jets fit full-size rollaboards -- no gate checking bags most of the time

This. Forget full-size rollaboard, my computer bag wouldn't fit in a CRJ overhead (I used to travel with 2 17" laptops). I hated that aircraft with all my being.

Like YYZ T2, I'd actually travel to see the thing burn...

eeightning wrote:

Perhaps you can elucidate us because the E175-E1 "it’s not better across the board"

No question, scope restricted 76 E175 is one of the most comfortable coach seats in any airplane. It depends on the actual seat of course, but most people prefer it to a packed 737 or 320. For myself, riding in a full airplane the 2x2 900 with plenty of legroom (thank you scope) is preferable to the 73/320.

Of the 4 airplanes mentioned above, the 900 is by far the quietest both inside and out. (assuming you can avoid the last 3-4 rows.

The 900 completely outperforms the 175 by any metric. It’s not just 5% more fuel efficient. It’s 4% faster on 1% lower fuel flow, climbs better at a higher speed. I expect both planes are well refined aerodynamically, with the right wing for the job. The 900 should suffer a structural weight penalty due to it’s length and engines mounted far from CG. More than offset by shorter landing gear and no slides needed. I believe it is 1000ish lbs lighter bow. And of course the 900’s tube is narrower.

From the pilot’s perspective, among pilots who have flown both, the preference is about two thirds for the 175. Although cheaply executed, the 175 has all the big airplane toys that the 900 lacks vnav, autothrottle, autobrakes, lpv approach capability. Most of these differences are of small significance from pilot’s perspective. If an airline has both, the senior plane will be the one that flies the best paying schedule.

I could go one, but I’m sitting in row 4 of a mesa 900 and the door is about to close. Tomorrow I’ll finish trip in a 175.

Never flown the 175 but a small correction. The NextGen 900s have VNAV and use it. They are also able to fly an LPV (most carriers haven’t added LPV approaches to them in their op specs but the airplane can do it...) but it will show on the MFD for applicable approaches. I find the 900 a joy to fly and the atmosphere cabins comfortable. Not knocking the 175 either, very comfortable ride.

To respond to other comments of CRJs causing losses of service, I think that’s a very wrong thought. The US market doesn’t want a turboprop. Passengers hated them and they still have Roselawn and Buffalo in their mind (regardless if it being a turboprop contributed). What has really driven those markets to extinction is upgauging of regional aircraft size, increasing costs to serve small airports and people’s willingness to drive hours to find the cheapest flight. Adjusted for inflation we are living in the time of cheapest airfares, it’s costly to operate a small outstation with less than 50 passengers only a few times a day... turboprops are cheaper but the market has spoken and US passengers don’t want one.

SkyLife wrote:

eeightning wrote:

Perhaps you can elucidate us because the E175-E1 "it’s not better across the board"

No question, scope restricted 76 E175 is one of the most comfortable coach seats in any airplane. It depends on the actual seat of course, but most people prefer it to a packed 737 or 320. For myself, riding in a full airplane the 2x2 900 with plenty of legroom (thank you scope) is preferable to the 73/320.

Of the 4 airplanes mentioned above, the 900 is by far the quietest both inside and out. (assuming you can avoid the last 3-4 rows.

The 900 completely outperforms the 175 by any metric. It’s not just 5% more fuel efficient. It’s 4% faster on 1% lower fuel flow, climbs better at a higher speed. I expect both planes are well refined aerodynamically, with the right wing for the job. The 900 should suffer a structural weight penalty due to it’s length and engines mounted far from CG. More than offset by shorter landing gear and no slides needed. I believe it is 1000ish lbs lighter bow. And of course the 900’s tube is narrower.

From the pilot’s perspective, among pilots who have flown both, the preference is about two thirds for the 175. Although cheaply executed, the 175 has all the big airplane toys that the 900 lacks vnav, autothrottle, autobrakes, lpv approach capability. Most of these differences are of small significance from pilot’s perspective. If an airline has both, the senior plane will be the one that flies the best paying schedule.

I could go one, but I’m sitting in row 4 of a mesa 900 and the door is about to close. Tomorrow I’ll finish trip in a 175.

Never flown the 175 but a small correction. The NextGen 900s have VNAV and use it. They are also able to fly an LPV (most carriers haven’t added LPV approaches to them in their op specs but the airplane can do it...) but it will show on the MFD for applicable approaches. I find the 900 a joy to fly and the atmosphere cabins comfortable. Not knocking the 175 either, very comfortable ride.

To respond to other comments of CRJs causing losses of service, I think that’s a very wrong thought. The US market doesn’t want a turboprop. Passengers hated them and they still have Roselawn and Buffalo in their mind (regardless if it being a turboprop contributed). What has really driven those markets to extinction is upgauging of regional aircraft size, increasing costs to serve small airports and people’s willingness to drive hours to find the cheapest flight. Adjusted for inflation we are living in the time of cheapest airfares, it’s costly to operate a small outstation with less than 50 passengers only a few times a day... turboprops are cheaper but the market has spoken and US passengers don’t want one.

NextGen 900's have the option for VNAV, not all have it. As far as I know, the only carrier in the US with a significant number of 900's with VNAV is PSA. Skywest doesn't have it (to my knowledge) and Endeavor has a couple planes they inherited from ASA with it.

Okay guys, this thread was intended as a tribute to the last CRJ9, not a comparison between the CRJ/EMB. Please stick to the topic.

✈️ atcsundevil

I finally got to fly the CRJ9 in August of 2019 from Dallas to San Luis Potosí and I have to say I enjoyed the aircraft, possibly because since then I have been on it only 4 times (3 American and 1 Delta) and my flights on Ttails have not been that numerous. It does feel like on approaches and departures the CRJ is smoother then underwing engines. I still hope that one day I’ll get to the 700 and maybe the last few other Ttails.

From my perspective with experience flying the 200/700/900s, the CRJ series was a fun airplane to fly. The 900 is a beast of a RJ with a clean wing. It’s fast, great climber, and has no problem operating at a higher Altitude. From what I know, the 900 has a better fuel burn, faster, better climber and can cruise higher vs the E175-1. The only thing the 175 has is the cabin (this is objective as I found the cabins of the 900s not too bad at all), autothrottles, and in the US offers better passenger connectivity as they tend to operate out gates that are usually shared with mainline operations in hubs.

Having flown all 5 aircraft ERJ145/135/140 CRJ200/700/900 and the E175. The CRJ ops’s has been so complicated do to AD’s and other things over the years like flap speeds, wing anti ice, deice eng runups, 99% more FFOD checks over the ERJ (first flight of the day) ect.. the ERJ175 engines same as 900 burn more on taxi. Higher idle speed.. (not sure why) but the 175 is way more capable. RNP/LPV.. the 900 needs a serious upgrade in that department...Cost .. All depends on how your airline handles MX. Ive heard the 175’s will outlast the CRJ’s by 10 years longevity wise.. i feel way more comfortable landing on a short runway in the ERJ vs CRJ... It’s all perspective i guess.. both good aircraft.

Are DL planning to keep the newer CR9s in service for 15-20 years? How long must Mitsubishi offer parts support for the CRJs after production ends?

I am sad to read that the last CRJ900 has rolled off the production line, it is my favourite aircraft and I honour it by having it as my username here on A.net. Had several nice flights on them with Lufthansa Cityline and Air Canada Jazz.

amcnd wrote:

Having flown all 5 aircraft ERJ145/135/140 CRJ200/700/900 and the E175. The CRJ ops’s has been so complicated do to AD’s and other things over the years like flap speeds, wing anti ice, deice eng runups, 99% more FFOD checks over the ERJ (first flight of the day) ect.. the ERJ175 engines same as 900 burn more on taxi. Higher idle speed.. (not sure why) but the 175 is way more capable. RNP/LPV.. the 900 needs a serious upgrade in that department...Cost .. All depends on how your airline handles MX. Ive heard the 175’s will outlast the CRJ’s by 10 years longevity wise.. i feel way more comfortable landing on a short runway in the ERJ vs CRJ... It’s all perspective i guess.. both good aircraft.

The 900s are also capable machines with the exception of RNP and auto throttles. The 900s can do LPV approaches at least in next gen models and had VNAV if your company elected for that option, my previous company did. All the winter ops, flap ADs, anti-ice use, and PITA ops is mainly CRJ-200 specific and that was due to lack of FADEC and leading edge flaps. CRJ-700/900 ops were pretty straight forward and didn’t require any engine run ups. You just had a 2 minute warm up period where 70% N1 couldn’t be exceeded and you have to cycled the thrust Reversers (only if it was really cold and the airplane sat overnight, -30 degrees C was the temp if I can recall).

Yeah I forgot the mention, the E175s are no slouches in terms of field performance what’s-so-ever. I saw the YX guys operate them off of Runway 15 in DCA with no problems.

Am I right in understanding that this is not just the last CRJ900, but the last CRJ altogether?

A shame they couldn’t quite pass the 2000 mark with the family altogether, or the 1000 mark with the 700/900/1000. I’ve only had a few flights on the type, but enjoyed them, perhaps because they are something you don’t see in my neck of the woods.

I wonder what might have been had Bombardier’s money not dried up?

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

Am I right in understanding that this is not just the last CRJ900, but the last CRJ altogether?

A shame they couldn’t quite pass the 2000 mark with the family altogether, or the 1000 mark with the 700/900/1000. I’ve only had a few flights on the type, but enjoyed them, perhaps because they are something you don’t see in my neck of the woods.

I wonder what might have been had Bombardier’s money not dried up?

V/F

These are the last CRJs off the line period.

VirginFlyer wrote:

Am I right in understanding that this is not just the last CRJ900, but the last CRJ altogether?

Last CRJ in total unless Mitsubishi decides to reopen the line which is somewhere between not happening and definitely not happening.

alasizon wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

Am I right in understanding that this is not just the last CRJ900, but the last CRJ altogether?

Last CRJ in total unless Mitsubishi decides to reopen the line which is somewhere between not happening and definitely not happening.

I wonder how long before there is a "Riadanac" proposal for a next-generation CRJ...

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

alasizon wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

Am I right in understanding that this is not just the last CRJ900, but the last CRJ altogether?

Last CRJ in total unless Mitsubishi decides to reopen the line which is somewhere between not happening and definitely not happening.

I wonder how long before there is a "Riadanac" proposal for a next-generation CRJ...

V/F

It was already muted. I think it was around 2018 when Bombardier studied a CRJ with GTFs, but concluded it would add to much weight to offset the fuel savings.

I was definitely NOT a fan of the 100/200 but found the 700/900 to be fairly comfortable, so I will miss those but not the 100/200s.

SaschaYHZ wrote:

I was definitely NOT a fan of the 100/200 but found the 700/900 to be fairly comfortable, so I will miss those but not the 100/200s.

What makes the 100/200 uncomfortable but not the 700/900/1000? Aren't they the same fuselage diameter?

VSMUT wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Last CRJ in total unless Mitsubishi decides to reopen the line which is somewhere between not happening and definitely not happening.

I wonder how long before there is a "Riadanac" proposal for a next-generation CRJ...

V/F

It was already muted. I think it was around 2018 when Bombardier studied a CRJ with GTFs, but concluded it would add to much weight to offset the fuel savings.

You've missed the sarcasm: VirginFlyer was making a reference to all the rebirth projects that get plenty of press attention but no traction (Fokker/Rekkof, Do328).

For those of you that are serious CRJ fans you can get a 200 out of the desert "cheap".

WayexTDI wrote:

SaschaYHZ wrote:

I was definitely NOT a fan of the 100/200 but found the 700/900 to be fairly comfortable, so I will miss those but not the 100/200s.

What makes the 100/200 uncomfortable but not the 700/900/1000? Aren't they the same fuselage diameter?

They are, but I believe they built the cabin differently on the 700/900/1000 so that the air ducts don't intrude on leg room

austinrc wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

SaschaYHZ wrote:

I was definitely NOT a fan of the 100/200 but found the 700/900 to be fairly comfortable, so I will miss those but not the 100/200s.

What makes the 100/200 uncomfortable but not the 700/900/1000? Aren't they the same fuselage diameter?

They are, but I believe they built the cabin differently on the 700/900/1000 so that the air ducts don't intrude on leg room

Yes, the CRJ700/900/1000 has a slightly lower floor and higher window line to make it more comfortable. The CRJ100/200 cabin was directly from the business jet where seats are generally closer to the floor and of course where there are not overhead bins.

While I hate the CRJ200 and avoid it all cost the CRJ700/900 isn’t really that bad especially on shorter flights.

WayexTDI wrote:

SaschaYHZ wrote:

I was definitely NOT a fan of the 100/200 but found the 700/900 to be fairly comfortable, so I will miss those but not the 100/200s.

What makes the 100/200 uncomfortable but not the 700/900/1000? Aren't they the same fuselage diameter?

The floor in the 700 and onward is lower, which means the widest point of the fuselage is at a more comfortable height, there's a little more headroom, and the windows aren't abnormally low when sitting. It seems like a small thing, but it makes a lot of difference in my opinion. I hate CR2s with a fiery passion, but I don't mind the CR7.

WayexTDI wrote:

SaschaYHZ wrote:

I was definitely NOT a fan of the 100/200 but found the 700/900 to be fairly comfortable, so I will miss those but not the 100/200s.

What makes the 100/200 uncomfortable but not the 700/900/1000? Aren't they the same fuselage diameter?

Bombardier lowered the floor on the 700/900s which allowed for bigger overhead space, plus the a/c packs are stronger which provides adequate conditioned air on the ground vs the 200. I feel like the CRJ-200 terrible reputation has affected the 700/900 reputation to some degree.

WayexTDI wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

I wonder how long before there is a "Riadanac" proposal for a next-generation CRJ...

V/F

It was already muted. I think it was around 2018 when Bombardier studied a CRJ with GTFs, but concluded it would add to much weight to offset the fuel savings.

You've missed the sarcasm: VirginFlyer was making a reference to all the rebirth projects that get plenty of press attention but no traction (Fokker/Rekkof, Do328).

I didn't, I merely pointed it out.

Polot wrote:

austinrc wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

What makes the 100/200 uncomfortable but not the 700/900/1000? Aren't they the same fuselage diameter?

They are, but I believe they built the cabin differently on the 700/900/1000 so that the air ducts don't intrude on leg room

Yes, the CRJ700/900/1000 has a slightly lower floor and higher window line to make it more comfortable. The CRJ100/200 cabin was directly from the business jet where seats are generally closer to the floor and of course where there are not overhead bins.

While I hate the CRJ200 and avoid it all cost the CRJ700/900 isn’t really that bad especially on shorter flights.

The 700/900, like the Globals, have a lowered floor, only an inch or so. The windows were placed higher on fuselage. Executives aren’t magically shorter and sit lower. The fashion in the ‘60s was that passengers would be looking down at the ground, do windows lower. The Sabreliner has triangle windows, to block the high sun and give a wider view of the ground, which also meant a darker cabin. The later Challenger 605 and 350 also got taller, higher placed windows. The G7500 has enormous windows

It should be noted, that later models, 700, 900 and 1000 have 100% safety record.

milhaus wrote:

It should be noted, that later models, 700, 900 and 1000 have 100% safety record.

Probably aided by the fact that they have very little presence in the more exotic parts of the world, safety wise.