Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:19 am

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 98):
So I take it we are talking about E195 replacing B737-500. There is still, however, a capacity gap as the max seating of the B737-500 is Y130, while the E195 holds Y118 in a high-density layout (probably without proper galleys)

I don't think that's the problem, as LH's 735s seat only about 103 or so. The real issue is: While on aircraft with 6-abreast, 33% of the capacity (2 seats) have to be blocked to make it business class, while on aircraft with 4-abreast, it's 50 % of the capacity (still 2 seats). LH says in domestic/European business class, the seat next to you remains empty, right ?

Does anybody know if this rule also applies to A300 flights ?
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
AviationAddict
Posts: 770
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:37 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:23 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 100):

Who cares, this is a thread about the CRJ 1000. Start a new thread about the Embraers if you want to discuss them.
 
A330323X
Posts: 2666
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 4:06 pm

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:25 am

Quoting H53Epilot (Thread starter):
An undisclosed customer has placed a firm order for 15 of the aircraft, with a conditional order for an additional 15. Based on CRJ1000 list price, the contract value for this 15 aircraft firm order is approximately $704 million US, which could increase to $1.5 billion US if the airline's 15 conditional orders are executed.

From what I understand, the unidentified customer for 15+15 is strongly rumored to be Mesa.

I'm surprised this thread has reached this length without anyone else having mentioned that.
I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:58 am

Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 101):
Who cares, this is a thread about the CRJ 1000. Start a new thread about the Embraers if you want to discuss them.

If you don't care, then don't make a fuss over it !  Yeah sure
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
Olympus69
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:21 pm

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:32 am

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 49):
It was stretched once for the CRJ200,

Wrong. The CRJ 100 and 200 are the same length.
 
skibum9
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 1:13 pm

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:33 am

Quoting Olympus69 (Reply 104):
It was stretched once for the CRJ200,

Wrong. The CRJ 100 and 200 are the same length.

Read again. Not once did I say the CRJ 100, nor did I say that there was an additional stretch between the 100 and 200. I know it is the same length. The fact is the 200 is the more popular of the versions, and is the one people think of the most when discussing the plane. As such, I did not mention the 100 as it is the same. So I am correct.
Tailwinds!!!
 
johnnybgoode
Posts: 2144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:25 pm

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 98):
So I take it we are talking about E195 replacing B737-500. There is still, however, a capacity gap as the max seating of the B737-500 is Y130, while the E195 holds Y118 in a high-density layout (probably without proper galleys)



Quoting A342 (Reply 100):
I don't think that's the problem, as LH's 735s seat only about 103 or so. The real issue is: While on aircraft with 6-abreast, 33% of the capacity (2 seats) have to be blocked to make it business class, while on aircraft with 4-abreast, it's 50 % of the capacity (still 2 seats). LH says in domestic/European business class, the seat next to you remains empty, right ?

Does anybody know if this rule also applies to A300 flights ?

correct, it all depends on LH's configuration of both types. given the configuration of other E195 operators this bird seems to match the capacity of LH's 735s rather than that of its ARJs (even if LH deviated from other E195 operators' configs).

I had the same thoughts about the 6-abreast/4-abreast seating concerning the policy of the blocked seats. this is were the ill-fated Do728 (and the larger derivatives) would have been a more suitable replacement.

the rule applies to all flights on all aircraft in the continental network.
If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:00 am

Quoting A330323X (Reply 102):
From what I understand, the unidentified customer for 15+15 is strongly rumored to be Mesa.

I made a thread about it last week: "Could US/Mesa order the CRJ900X?" Last reply was 4 days ago. Most posters said it wouldn't be Mesa... Can A.netters be wrong?  Wink
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
A330323X
Posts: 2666
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 4:06 pm

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:42 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 107):

I made a thread about it last week: "Could US/Mesa order the CRJ900X?" Last reply was 4 days ago. Most posters said it wouldn't be Mesa... Can A.netters be wrong?

I missed that earlier thread.

I will note though that I said above I understand the mystery carrier to be Mesa...but I sure didn't say anything about US being involved.  Wink
I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:28 pm

Quoting A330323X (Reply 108):
I will note though that I said above I understand the mystery carrier to be Mesa...but I sure didn't say anything about US being involved.

Interesting. What would Mesa use them for then? Are they starting their own 100-seat LCC operation or will they fly for go! Hawaii to compete against the B717s?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
CRJ900X
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:47 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:04 am

If the unidentified carrier that ordered the CRJ1000 is indeed Mesa, perhaps they will introduce the Bombardier aircraft to the carrier they are setting up in China.
 
lawgman
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:40 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:27 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 107):
Quoting A330323X (Reply 102):
From what I understand, the unidentified customer for 15+15 is strongly rumored to be Mesa.

I made a thread about it last week: "Could US/Mesa order the CRJ900X?" Last reply was 4 days ago. Most posters said it wouldn't be Mesa... Can A.netters be wrong?

I think Beaudoin indicated in the conference call announcing this thing that he did not expect any US based airlines to order it right away but figured at some point there could be changes to scope clauses that would allow the 1000 to be flown by regional airlines in the US. All this to say that I would be surprised if it was Mesa.
 
Olympus69
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:21 pm

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:23 am

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 49):
It was stretched once for the CRJ200, again for the 700, again for the 705/900, and now for the 1000...that is 5 variants to the platform, including the original Challenger



Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 105):
Read again. Not once did I say the CRJ 100, nor did I say that there was an additional stretch between the 100 and 200. I know it is the same length

OK. It was the "5 variants" that threw me off. I lost count somewhere  Smile
 
Tangowhisky
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:19 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 92):
Quoting CHALLENGER300 (Reply 87):
In fact, Bombardier has hopes on selling 400 airframes!

(lower case mine)

Then they are delusional.

I am still skeptical why Bombardier launched the CRJ 1000. They will spend $300M, and know quite well it will be difficult selling 200 units, let alone 400. If their business case is based on 100 units to pay off the $300M, that means $3M per plane set aside for the development costs. Their margins (even prior to the CRJ1000) must already be quite low as the entire Aerospace Group margins (with Business Aircraft) are in shambles. So, from a shareholder perspective, their future margins are even more questionable. Add to it that it is a "niche" aircraft as Mr. Beaudion has admitted, there is no indication that this plane will help in any way what so ever the prospects of Aerospace from the margin standpoint.

It is deja-vu all over again. In 1999, after having similar difficulties to the C Series, they canceled the 90 seat BRJ-X, and launched the 86 seat CRJ-900. They then revealed a reborn BRJ-X called the C Series but a starting point of 110 seats. They now seemed to ice the C Series and launched a CRJ1000 at around 100 seats (hence inched closer to the C Series 110 seat C110). It seems to be more about staying alive, over staying profitable. At the same time, who knows about kind of deals they are getting from Export Development Canada in selling CRJ 900s and 1000s with all kinds of guarantees and walkaways by airlines at taxpayers' increasing liabilitty exposure. Don't believe me? Look at the majority of customers these planes go to - they are start-ups or very young airlines such as My Air and Air One who are deemed as high risk by credit rating agencies and therfore unattractive to commercial lenders without EDC support.
Only the paranoid survive
 
bucky707
Posts: 955
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 2:01 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:48 am

Quoting Lawgman (Reply 111):
figured at some point there could be changes to scope clauses that would allow the 1000 to be flown by regional airlines in the US.

Unless there is another round of Bankruptcy, I think the pilot groups at the major airlines are done giving any concessions. And with Jetblue and USAirways already flying the E-190, I don't think there will be any pilot unions willing to give up 100 seat flying.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

www.flightglobal.com mentions that AtlasJet is a potential customer for the 15+15 order... do they have the money for that?

Quoting Lawgman (Reply 111):
at some point there could be changes to scope clauses that would allow the 1000 to be flown by regional airlines in the US.

Why can't airline managers just pay pilots a few extra dollars for flying 77-100-seat aircraft? Surely the extra pay will be offset by the lower operating costs a larger aircraft has and the increased revenue? Why does it have to be so complicated?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
johnnybgoode
Posts: 2144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:45 pm

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 115):
Why can't airline managers just pay pilots a few extra dollars for flying 77-100-seat aircraft? Surely the extra pay will be offset by the lower operating costs a larger aircraft has and the increased revenue? Why does it have to be so complicated?

first of all, it's that complicated because of the unions which sometimes can be a PITA (pain in the a**).

i don't think the main problem would be an unwillingness by airline management to give regional airline pilots some extra money or higher wages for piloting 70+ seat aircraft (although this would further complicate things as many pilots operate aircraft with a seating range of 45 to 84, Lufthansa CityLine comes to mind, and of course the numbers must be right). it's rather that the pilots of network carriers mainline fleet are usually against having larger regional jets operated by regional affiliates. their argument often is that this takes away their jobs, that they should also fly the small jets and that the smaller regional airline would slowly eat into the mainline fleet (in terms of aircraft size) so that this further 'threatens' the jobs of the mainline pilots.

rgds
If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:43 pm

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 113):
It seems to be more about staying alive, over staying profitable.

This is exactly my take on it. Its a matter of keeping the CRJ line open, over anything else including profitability. Even the recent bout of CRJ900 sales has done little to help the dwindling backlog. Given the costs of laying off people in Canada, selling planes at a loss is probably cheaper than closing down the line - at least in the short to medium term.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7382
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:40 pm

Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 75):
Also, does anyone here think that maybe the CRJ1000 will just be a temporary solution until the C-Series is introduced? Maybe Bombardier plans to sell say 100 or so units and then call it a day when the larger and more comfortable C-series is launched.



Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 113):
They now seemed to ice the C Series and launched a CRJ1000 at around 100 seats (hence inched closer to the C Series 110 seat C110).

Flightglobal reports that according to Bombardier, the CRJ1000 launch would not impact plans for the C-Series.

Quote:
"Go-ahead for 100-seat regional jet will have no bearing on plans for 110 to 130-seat CSeries, says Bombardier"


That's saying something without saying anything much for the C-Series.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
CRJpurser
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:33 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:27 pm

Quoting Bucky707 (Reply 114):
Unless there is another round of Bankruptcy, I think the pilot groups at the major airlines are done giving any concessions.

At Air Canada/ AC Jazz that will be 2009 (when all 9 unions must re-negociate their CA) The pension problems at the Mainline will give ACE a huge bargaining advantage when it comes to scope.

I could see Jazz operating the CRJ-1000 in a 10J/72Y configuration (adding a lot of needed cargo space). In fact they could get rid of the 705s for some....905s  eyebrow  .
 
cftoa
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:00 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:24 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 118):
"Go-ahead for 100-seat regional jet will have no bearing on plans for 110 to 130-seat CSeries, says Bombardier"

That's saying something without saying anything much for the C-Series.

Very interesting. I doubt that the CRJ-1000 will sell very well. That being said, hopefully they do not delay/cancel the C Series program, as that is their key to get ahead of the RJ market at the time being.

Quoting CRJpurser (Reply 119):
I could see Jazz operating the CRJ-1000 in a 10J/72Y configuration (adding a lot of needed cargo space). In fact they could get rid of the 705s for some....905s

That would make alot more sense than the 705, seeing as they are having cargo space problems on may of their routes


Cheers.
 
Tangowhisky
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:07 am

Quoting CFTOA (Reply 120):
I doubt that the CRJ-1000 will sell very well

The CRJ1000 wil cost Bombardier about $300M US. They may never see that money back, at best break-even. So what it does is keep engineers and CRJ production moving until they can solve the mystery in launching an all new platform. This $300M, even if it becomes a loss of say $100M, it is better than paying huge layoff and sevarance costs (probably greater than $200M) and losing the commercial jet production for ever. It was a decision based on "either way, they would be facing losses on the CRJ programs".

Quoting CFTOA (Reply 120):
I could see Jazz operating the CRJ-1000 in a 10J/72Y configuration (adding a lot of needed cargo space). In fact they could get rid of the 705s for some....905s

That would make alot more sense than the 705, seeing as they are having cargo space problems on may of their routes

Isn't the CRJ705 a 75 seat version a 86 seat CRJ 900 meaning that the cargo psace is deigned for 11 more pax? I find it strange that even with 75 pax, the cargo space is still cramped.  confused 
Only the paranoid survive
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:42 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 121):
The CRJ1000 will cost Bombardier about $300M US. They may never see that money back, at best break-even.

From BBDs press release, the revenue figure for 38 x CR10 (+ 4 x CR9 already delivered to MyAir) is US$1,932 billion. If all options are exercised the total revenue is US$3,125 billion. Shouldn't that be enough to cover the $300 million plus other production costs plus a little extra for the piggy bank?

Flightglobal.com writes that the CRJ1000 is more expensive than the E190. The CRJ1000 has a price of $41 million in 2007 dollars while the E190 has a price of $34,5 million in 2006 dollars.

Sources: www.bombardier.com and www.flightglobal.com

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 121):
Isn't the CRJ705 a 75 seat version a 86 seat CRJ 900 meaning that the cargo psace is deigned for 11 more pax? I find it strange that even with 75 pax, the cargo space is still cramped.

If you check out the seatmap on AC Jazz' website, you'll see that the pax cabin eats up a big chunk of the rear cargo hold (due to the enlarged seat pitch and extra galley structure). Add to that the generous baggage allowances in North America and you quickly run out of space. LH also has a small-ish rear cargo hold in their 84-seaters but have stricter baggage allowances, so they have room for all the baggage from what I have heard.
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
Tangowhisky
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:50 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 122):
From BBDs press release, the revenue figure for 38 x CR10 (+ 4 x CR9 already delivered to MyAir) is US$1,932 billion. If all options are exercised the total revenue is US$3,125 billion. Shouldn't that be enough to cover the $300 million plus other production costs plus a little extra for the piggy bank?

Perhaps you should review basic business fundamentals. First look at Bombardier Aerospace's margins to get a glimpse on how little money they are making on their sales. Second, did you ever wonder how much does two engines + electric systems + APU + gear + brakes + hydraulics + air systems + interiors+ avionics + fue systems + assembly.......+ ....+..... cost? Believe me what they are stating in their press release is no where close to what the end negotiated price is. The press release is at list price value. Take a look at their margins and take into account the fact that Business Aircraft is adding to their consolidated margins means are not making much money - if any on RJs. This means they are barely paying for the bill of material, let alone the development cost payback.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 122):
If you check out the seatmap on AC Jazz' website, you'll see that the pax cabin eats up a big chunk of the rear cargo hold (due to the enlarged seat pitch and extra galley structure). Add to that the generous baggage allowances in North America and you quickly run out of space. LH also has a small-ish rear cargo hold in their 84-seaters but have stricter baggage allowances, so they have room for all the baggage from what I have heard.

This makes the E175/190 even more attractive: more range, and more cargo hold, with wider seats, nice seat pitch, and generous overhead bins.
Only the paranoid survive
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:08 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 123):
This makes the E175/190 even more attractive: more range, and more cargo hold, with wider seats, nice seat pitch, and generous overhead bins.

Don't forget cheaper, if you go by list prices  wink 

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 122):
Flightglobal.com writes that the CRJ1000 is more expensive than the E190. The CRJ1000 has a price of $41 million in 2007 dollars while the E190 has a price of $34,5 million in 2006 dollars.
 
CRJpurser
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:33 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:03 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 123):
This makes the E175/190 even more attractive: more range, and more cargo hold, with wider seats, nice seat pitch, and generous overhead bins.

The CRJ705 has a greater range than the E175 (as well as one more J and one more Y seat). The E175 leaves bags behind as well. The seat pitch is actually better on the CRJ705, and I would not classify the bins on the E175/190 as "generous". My crew bags fits in the overhead of a 705, just as easily as it does the E175/190. We actually have more stowage in the 705, due to a larger J class wardrobe.

I am a big fan of both the CRJs and the E-Jets, and I think the 1000 is a great addition. Hopefully one day we will see it in Air Canada Jazz colours!
 
Tangowhisky
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:55 am

Quoting CRJpurser (Reply 125):
The CRJ705 has a greater range than the E175 (as well as one more J and one more Y seat). The E175 leaves bags behind as well.

The CRJ705 is actually an 86 seat jet, with 11 seats missing = 220 lbs x 11 = 2420 lbs of extra fuel for the extra range that you talk about. It is hardly a configuration at the optimal efficiency of the plane in terms of economics. Hell, if Embraer were to take out 20 seats from the E-190, it would be a great 80 seater with more leg room, more cargo / pax, more interior volume / pax, and space to add all kinds of wardrobes. And who knows, range of 3000 nm. The CRJ 705s must have been sold at sweet heart deals to Air Canada (yes I understand Jazz scope limits) to operate such a large aircraft with 12.8% (75/86 seats) of its revenue potential removed for every flight for its revenue generating life.
Only the paranoid survive
 
CRJpurser
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:33 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:19 pm

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 126):
The CRJ705 is actually an 86 seat jet, with 11 seats missing

Just as the E190 is a 106 seat jet which we operate with 93 seats, and the E175 is an 86 seat jet which we operate with 73 seats...all three have the same handicap (except the E-Jets are missing 13 seats and the 705 is missing 11).

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 126):
It is hardly a configuration at the optimal efficiency of the plane in terms of economics.

Does this not apply to all three?
 
Tangowhisky
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:17 pm

Quoting CRJpurser (Reply 127):
Just as the E190 is a 106 seat jet which we operate with 93 seats, and the E175 is an 86 seat jet which we operate with 73 seats...all three have the same handicap (except the E-Jets are missing 13 seats and the 705 is missing 11).

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers from. Don't go by the information page on the in-flight magazine they are very often out of context for fair comparisons. In a single class configuration (i.e. highest density), the E-175 has 78 Y class seats at 32" pitch and no J/F class seats. It is possible to add more seats, but forward wardrobes and galley would need to be removed, but doubt you can get a total of 8 more even at 31" pitch (I could be wrong, perhaps someone from Embraer can verify). At this design payload of 78 pax, 220 lbs/pax, the E-175 can deliver at least 1800nm still air range.

The E190AR is a baseline 98 seater at 32 inch pitch delivering 2300 nm range (no F/J class seats only 98 Y seats). Again, significant alteration would be required to get it to 106 seats.

The CRJ900LR has a range of 1976 nm at max capacity of 86 pax at 31 inch pitch (no J and F seats). Take out 11 seats, and you now have a CRJ705 capable of having a lot more range and more space / pax. Note that the CRJ900/705 are nearly 4.7 meters longer than the E175 - a lot can be done in terms of cabin flexibility and baggage space given such a length difference and removal of such significant number of seats.

Jazz is removing 5 seats from the baseline E175 and E190 each respectively - but 11 seats from the CRJ900 to a CRJ 705, therefore hardly the same comparison as the E-Jets would not stand to gain the same proportion in range or additional baggage space as removing 11 seats from the CRJ-900.
Only the paranoid survive
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:58 pm

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 128):
Quoting CRJpurser (Reply 127):
Just as the E190 is a 106 seat jet which we operate with 93 seats, and the E175 is an 86 seat jet which we operate with 73 seats...all three have the same handicap (except the E-Jets are missing 13 seats and the 705 is missing 11).

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers from.

He is right when using 31 inch pitch as a standard seat spacing comparison for both aircraft families. Embraer has actively promoted E-jet cabins with 31-inch seat pitch for years on their website (embraer.com). I printed out capacity comparisons in 2004 which showed the E175 with 78Y @ 32" and 86Y @ 31". The E190 had 98Y @ 32" and 106Y @ 31". Now more mix-n-match configs are showed too.

Comparing the E-jets vs the CRJ will always be "tricky" as the manufacturers have chosen to use different seat pitches when offering their "baseline cabin configs" (32" for E-jets and 31" for CRJ).

[Edited 2007-03-02 13:40:10]
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
CRJpurser
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:33 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:44 pm

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 128):
I am not sure where you are getting your numbers from.

http://www.embraercommercialjets.com
 
Flying-Tiger
Posts: 4104
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 1999 5:35 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:27 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 123):
This makes the E175/190 even more attractive: more range, and more cargo hold, with wider seats, nice seat pitch, and generous overhead bins.

Well, there has to be a big BUT, otherwise Bombardier wouldn´t have been able to sign three customers for the CRJ1000 and several new customers for the CRJ900 in the past 12 months. The Embraer 170 series is (have flown it) an attractive bird, but it is quite heavy from my understanding. Pax comfort is very nice for the passenger, but as an airline you are basicaly only flying a lot of empty air around i.e. you are dragging bigger holes into the air than necessary.

Have in the past two years used the Embraer 170/175 and the CRJs and Embraer ERJ-145 quite a bit in Europe, and cargo & luggage have never been heavily loaded from my observation. The manufacturers might promote the cargo revenue potential, but in many cases you won´t really fly much cargo in Europe but rather have it trucked at a fraction of the airfreight cost. Only few items are in such time-critical demand that you will have them loaded on a CRJ/Embraer - and if this is the case you will manage it somehow into the hold.

Means: if you are just flying pax around on comparably short segments (up to 2-3 hours or so) there is little incentive for the airline(s) to chose the most comfy bird but rather the most economical one. Not nice from a pax perspective, but when you are flying your main criteria is not to feel absolutely comfy over the clouds, but to safely and cheaply travel from point A to point B. And here the CRJ1000 seems to be a viable solution for at least three airlines.
Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A343/346, A359, A380,AT4,AT7,B712, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9,B742/4,B752/3, B762/763,B772/77W,CR2/7/9/K,ER3/4,E70/75/90/95, F50/70/100,M11,L15,SF3,S20, AR8/1, 142/143,... 330.860 miles and counting.
 
Tangowhisky
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: CRJ 1000 Launch?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:03 am

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 131):
Well, there has to be a big BUT, otherwise Bombardier wouldn´t have been able to sign three customers for the CRJ1000 and several new customers for the CRJ900 in the past 12 months

As it stands

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 131):
Embraer 170 series is (have flown it) an attractive bird, but it is quite heavy from my understanding



Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 131):
Means: if you are just flying pax around on comparably short segments (up to 2-3 hours or so) there is little incentive for the airline(s) to chose the most comfy bird but rather the most economical one

You can hypothize all you want but look at reality. Last year BBD got combined CRJ700/900 orders for 77 aircraft. Embraer got E170/E190 family got 184 orders. BBD's backlog stood at 73 aircraft, Embraer's backlog stood over 400 aircraft (excluding the late year ERJ-145 Chineses orders). Are you saying majority of these airlines who are ordering E-Jets have made the wrong choice and pushing wasted air? Let me explain to you a bit more.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 131):
but as an airline you are basicaly only flying a lot of empty air around i.e. you are dragging bigger holes into the air than necessary.

If your theory is true than it would have backfired on Airbus A320 as it is a 7" wider fuselage (and heavier) than the 737 Classic or NGs. Instead, even Boeing made the 737NG heavier over the Classics by increasing the wings span of the ~145 seat 737-400 from 94' 9" to the ~145 seat 737-700 at 112' '7" in order to gain 1500 addition nautical miles of range. The point is that, even a 737 or A320 on majority of flights fly less than 2-3 hours, BUT airlines are willing to pay for the extra weight penalty for the remining 10% of flights that are crucial in their OVERALL network needs where this greater range is required. The same goes with the E-Jets. Bombardier is advertising that the CRJ1000 will be lighter than the E190, but look closer and you will see that it will have a 1600nm range while the E190 will have over 2000 nm range. Will airlines need 2000 nm range for majority of flights? No. But they need it to meet their overall network needs. This is the same reason the Classics were a poor seller even though they had the range for most flights to the A320, but it did not meet ALL the needs of the airlines - just most needs.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 131):
Have in the past two years used the Embraer 170/175 and the CRJs and Embraer ERJ-145 quite a bit in Europe, and cargo & luggage have never been heavily loaded from my observation. The manufacturers might promote the cargo revenue potential, but in many cases you won´t really fly much cargo in Europe but rather have it trucked at a fraction of the airfreight cost.

I never meant about revenue from cargo. I was referring to adequate cargo hold to take baggage. My experience flying with regional carriers is that they are struggling especially here in North America to fit in checked baggage especially when the carry-on's don't fit in the overheads.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 129):
Comparing the E-jets vs the CRJ will always be "tricky" as the manufacturers have chosen to use different seat pitches when offering their "baseline cabin configs" (32" for E-jets and 31" for CRJ).

Yes it is tricky as an 86 seat E-175 at 31" pitch and a 86 seat CRJ900 at 31" pitch
Only the paranoid survive

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos