Quoting Skyweasy82 (Reply 48): Sorry for my gramer! I'm just a mechanic.

Don't sell yourself short, your job is just as important as anyones.

Quoting NW1852 (Reply 50): Don't sell yourself short, your job is just as important as anyones.

Thank you if you are a pilot you have my respect. Pilots and F/A's and managment don't really respect the MTC team!

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 38): You and MD-90 need to look up some incident reports on the early DC-9's before they added slats. It will educate you greatly on the advantages of them.

While the incidents you quoted may have happened, part 121 regulations have matured quite a bit since the 1960's, and based on the current rules, the only effect of having or not having slats is how much weight an aircraft may safely depart with. Also, even without slats, the CRJ-200, in many cases, can, and will, depart safely with a higher percentage of weight than the CRJ-700/900 all things equal.

Quoting TUSaadvantage (Reply 49): I pity anyone who has to sit on a CRJ for that 4 hr flight.

TUS-ATL is our (OO) first redeye scheduled flight. Pretty cool to me. Oh and it's only 3.5 hours. Try the SLC-YYZ flight. That's 4.25 hours westbound. And before June the SLC-PIT was a CR9. About the same time as SLC-YYZ.

Quoting Skyweasy82 (Reply 9): I agree the -200 sucks but in my mind is feels the same as a 757 or 777 unless you want to look out the window which i love to do, but the A/c is a good solid plane.

Fooled em again.

I love the CRJ. I just can't love them on longer flights of more than 2 hours. I guess it is the comfort of the seats that become a bit nagging.

Quoting Skyweasy82 (Reply 47): Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 45): Actually, Delta Connection (SkyWest) truly does fly the ATL-TUS route with the CR9 Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Sunday. Thank you.. we swap our CRJ-900's for first class mods once a week in TUS until they are all done. Plane comes in from ATL we take it to bombardier in TUS and swap it out with a plane that just ccame out with the mod.

Are you getting 70-seater CR9 and turning them into 76-seaters?

Quoting DeltAirlines (Reply 42): -Very narrow seats. Seems like a sardine can, especially when compared to a 737 seat. -No extra room in the exit row (-100/200 varients;

I think the seats are the same as on the B737, that is 17 inches wide. I flew on a LH CRJ200 last year in exit row and I had lots of legroom. Seat was quite comfy too. I was also quite comfortable on the Austrian/Tyrolean CRJ200. In two weeks I will fly the LH CRJ900, really looking forward to that  

Do US carriers buy the cheapest and crappiest seats and cabin furnishings since so many American A.netters complain all the time? Very few European A.netters complain that much... do Euro carriers buy better seats?

Quoting Doug_Or (Reply 32): Not sure what winter has to do with it?

Aircraft with no leading edge devices are much more susceptible to wing ice take off accidents -even frost is bad news.

Two Challenger accidents
Several DC-9 accidents
Fokker F28 accident

Quote: Studies performed by Fokker after the La Guardia accident revealed that one to two cubic millimeters of ice per square centimeter of surface area can cause lift losses of 22 percent to 33 percent, in ground effect and in free air, respectively. This amount of contamination is virutally invisible from the cockpit, and probably invisible from the cabin, except under perfect viewing conditions."

Quoting Widget1580 (Reply 15): work for Comair in SBN

Say HI to Tim for me,and Janice..

Quoting WestIndian425 (Reply 6): Performance wise, the CRJ-700/900 series are good aircraft. It's the predecessors (-100/200 models) that are terrible aircraft, especially when compared to Embraer's 135/145 aircraft.

From a ramper standpoint, I'd take a CRJ over an ERJ ANY day of the week. I've worked both aircraft with two different airlines and there is no comparison between the two planes. From a loading standpoint, ERJ bins suck, plain and simple. As for payload, my experience has been that CRJs win in this category as well. When I worked for MQ, we could never take anything over 50-55 bags, and that was on a 25 minute flight to ORD. With CRJs, I've loaded 90 bags with 49 passengers and 9000 lbs of fuel. You know more than me since you're a F/O, but all my experience with the two aircraft leads me to believe that as far as payload is concerned, the CRJ is a better aircraft. I know they are dogs at higher altitudes and don't climb worth a crap, but when it comes to payload, I know which airplane I'd take.

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 16): The CRJ-200 sucks for riding on, small, cramped, windows that are basically worthless, can't even stand up in them. The CR7 is much better and NW/XJ's CRJ-9's are just fine

  

I refuse to fly on CRJ 200's and will drive if I have to to avoid flying on one.
I have heard the same comments from many people.

Just to add my own    ...

As with the fellow in Reply 3, I'm not small. 6' 7" (just over 2m) tall and 300# (136 kg). Put bluntly, RJs are NOT built in my size-class; and for that reason, if no other, I do not care to see them on the routes I have to fly.

My first experience of one was an ERJ-145 from Louis Armstrong in New Orleans to IAH (CO Express). As I went to board the aircraft, I stood straight up before entering; and my chin cleared the top of the aircraft's fuselage. That did not inspire me. The flight itself ... was not bad. Not sure who said it, but I most certainly agree: for durations of an hour or so or less, RJs are okay. Not fantastic - nothing that cramped, for me definitely, could be - but well-tolerable.

More, howver, is not. And that's what I got onboard a CRJ-700 from FLL to CMH via Comair. Even with a (slightly) bigger aircraft, that is simply too long for someone my size to be cooped up in something that's not mainline. And I can't say I appreciate the airlines for forcing that issue. On top of that, the flight was running packed, and so the atmosphere was not the best; and combine that with the fact I was in the very last row - and for about the last 1/2 hour of the flight, I was getting some very ... unhealthy odors emanating from the lav. I'm sorry, that's simply not an experience I care for in the least.

Now, perhaps the newest RJs - like the big ERJ-170 or -190 - can change my mind. It'll have its chance in a month, when a return leg of my FLL - IND trip via Delta is handled by one. IND to CVG is short enough, and should be okay.

But we'll see.

Quoting Widget1580 (Reply 8): Try working a CRJ flight to ATL on a hot summer day in the midwest. Becuase of weight restricions, our oversold flights have been limited to 29 people max with 20 bags.

This is very much exaggerated. I have always been able to carry a full load of people in and out of SBN. If there are any weight restrictions, you may have a max of 47 or so, not 29. A max of 29 is something you would see out of EYW in the middle of August.

Quoting Widget1580 (Reply 8): Try working a CRJ flight to ATL on a hot summer day in the midwest. Becuase of weight restricions, our oversold flights have been limited to 29 people max with 20 bags.

The biggest weight restriction I've seen so far this summer on one of our CRJs is 46 passengers and 59 bags. That was on a 90 degree day with thunderstorms on the way to ATL. The fuel load was 10,300 lbs, which explains the weight restriction. Again, from a ramper standpoint I'll take a CRJ over an ERJ any given day. I also like the CAT II capability of the CRJ, and I hope I'll be flying one of them someday.  

Quoting Acey559 (Reply 59): I know they are dogs at higher altitudes and don't climb worth a crap

In addition to the lack of leading edge flaps, low-set windows, and a cramped feel, this is another demerit of the CRJ; there's a reason its sometimes referred to as the "Climb Restricted Jet" rather than Canadair Regional Jet. They're often unable to climb above 30,000 ft. (which can take 30 minutes on a hot day) if they're loaded and on a longer flight (2 hours). They climb OK initially but start to trail off once they get past about 20,000 ft.

Quoting Acey559 (Reply 63): I also like the CAT II capability of the CRJ, and I hope I'll be flying one of them someday

That is not a CRJ vs. ERJ item... at the airline I fly for (all we have is ERJs) and every single one of the aircraft and the air crews are CAT II certified...


As far as weight restrictions... I've worked ramp for airlines that have had both ERJ's (Eagle) and CRJ's (Pinnacle)... and now I'm an F/O on the ERJ series... I've gotta say, hands down pick any day of the week is the ERJ for me. I completely agree about the cargo bin differences from CRJ to ERJ... always personally felt the CRJ was easier to "stack" in... However, I feel the flight deck, passenger cabin, and aircraft performance all go to the ERJ. As a crewmember I also love the 145's having a closet as you enter allowing all of the crew to keep our bags on the plane... allows us to change aircraft faster at the hubs... I also like the ERJ's galley and lav setup... feels much more "mainline" if you ask me. On the flight deck, I have to say that the ERJ is a sweet bird. The setup is very user friendly. Automation is great on the ERJ (gotta love FADECs). Honeywell.... well... the software version we have in ours kinda sucks and can't intercept courses very well... which lands it the nickname "Honeywell Shuffle"... Other than that, the ERJ can outclimb and in most cases I would venture to say out fly the CRJ series anyday..... There have been several times we have had to be vectored off the arrivals and such because a CRJ ahead couldn't meet restrictions etc... same for departures... vector for climb is VERY common behind a CRJ... in the ERJ we often can maintain at least 1200 fpm all the way up to our max of FL370 even fully loaded... something you wont see a CRJ-100/200 do.

To some of the rampers on here that deal with ERJ's... a lot of the "restrictions" are artificial restrictions due to the company operating the ERJ's not investing the money in them to get certain upgrades to the aircraft which allow them to carry much more weight... also the ER's can't carry near as much as the LR's.. and if you want a true thoroughbred the ERJ-145XR is by far the BEST 50 seat RJ there is... I will personally back that statement up 100%.

Also, the CRJ has no seats that really are comfortable. The bulkhead legroom is just as tight as the rest of the plane, and the exit row has less cushioning. At least on the ERJ, the exit row 12 is really comfortable.
-A

Quoting NWA ARJ (Reply 25): Also as a ramper, I hate the APU's on the 200's. They are so damn loud.

You found a CRJ-200 with a working APU?   

Quoting ThePinnacleKid (Reply 65): That is not a CRJ vs. ERJ item... at the airline I fly for (all we have is ERJs) and every single one of the aircraft and the air crews are CAT II certified...

Didn't realize this, thanks for the info. Insofar as everything else you said, thanks for giving me a better prospective on the matter. I really only know one aspect of the aircraft (for now, anyway) and it's nice to be given an explanation by someone who has not only worked around the aircraft on the ramp, but now flies them as well. I personally still like the CRJ, but I now realize that the ERJ is quite a capable aircraft. Maybe MQ just doesn't have all the options on them like others do?

Quoting ThePinnacleKid (Reply 65): in the ERJ we often can maintain at least 1200 fpm all the way up to our max of FL370 even fully loaded

The ERJ seems like it definitely outperforms the CRJ hands down; I've heard that the CRJ can only maintain about 500 fpm. at higher altitudes. That does puzzle me somewhat as the CRJ's CF34's have 9220 lb. thrust compared to the AE3007's which have almost 2000 lb. less. I guess the CF34's simply peter out at high altitudes as it seems like the CRJ has a slightly better thrust ratio.
I know we've all basically been bashing the CRJ on this thread, another thing I don't like about it is the lavatory; the ERJ's is bigger than many mainline jet lavatories. One thing I do like about it that its fairly quiet inside and out (those engines are very quiet on the outside and have a nice whine on departure).

Quoting 747fan (Reply 64): They're often unable to climb above 30,000 ft. (which can take 30 minutes on a hot day) if they're loaded and on a longer flight (2 hours). They climb OK initially but start to trail off once they get past about 20,000 ft.

This is only true if they are equipped with 3A1 engines. 3B1s, and the derivative 3B1HH are much better performing engines, and is fully capable of departing with high ISA deviations and reaching FL350 on a hot day. Of course, I don't know a single operator based in the eastern half of the country that operates aircrafts with these two engines.

Quoting 747fan (Reply 69): The ERJ seems like it definitely outperforms the CRJ hands down; I've heard that the CRJ can only maintain about 500 fpm. at higher altitudes. That does puzzle me somewhat as the CRJ's CF34's have 9220 lb. thrust compared to the AE3007's which have almost 2000 lb. less. I guess the CF34's simply peter out at high altitudes as it seems like the CRJ has a slightly better thrust ratio.

It also gets down to weights of the aircraft and aerodynamic efficiencies of the designs...

BOW (basic operating weight): listed in weight order, info off manufacturers websites

ERJ-145LR: 26,707 lbs
ERJ-145XR: 27,758 lbs
CRJ-200: 30,900 lbs

MGTOW (max gross t/o weight): listed in weight order, info off manufacturers websites

ERJ-145LR: 48,501 lbs
CRJ-200ER: 51,000 lbs
CRJ-200LR: 53,000 lbs
ERJ-145XR: 53,131 lbs

Quoting Acey559 (Reply 68): I personally still like the CRJ, but I now realize that the ERJ is quite a capable aircraft

You have no idea!!! I LOVE this plane! The ERJ is awesome at being able to go fast AND slow.. something the CRJ isn't... The ERJ with its flap arrangement can get REALLY slow on approach (in a 135 i've seen our target speed be 117 kts) and fly very very stable... The other day I flew EWR-MCI in the 145XR... we estimated that we landed and rolled out and exited in roughly 1800 ft of runway (from touchdown to stop) and we didn't use thrust reverse and we didn't get on the brakes as much as we could if we needed to and our approach speed was 133 kts if I remember correctly (we landed on 19L and could have exited at the last REVERSE high speed E5.. instead we rolled down/taxied to K to exit)... The ERJ-145 series is an AMAZING aircraft if you truly fly it to potential and spring for the upgraded stuff... Sure it has its own shortcomings... it certainly is a LOUD flight deck... a TON of wind noise... expect to wear the headset the entire time up there... Seriously man... from a pilot perspective, give me the ERJ any day of the week and twice on Sundays...

CRJ-100/200s are underpowered above FL250 and don't forget that they are almost impossible to hand fly for any length of time ie: their controls are very mushy. So you've basically got a push button airplane.


And like others have said, if you're over 5' tall you can't see out the windows unless you want to kink your neck and be very uncomfortable.

I have a 2 hour flight coming up on a ASA CRJ from SCE to ATL on the 23rd. Not really looking forward to it, but it beats going through PHL and never seeing my bags again.

I will be doing the Embraer 120 this day too. How do people like those?

Not to fond of CRJ's but I will suck it up. I'm short so doesn't matter. I still prefer the Embraer to fly on.

I worked the ramp at PIT for USexp and I'd rather load the CRJ than an ERJ.

I prefer turbo props over these regional jets.

I like CRJs. I have flown on them plenty of times.

PIA777

Fly on a CRJ, then try a ride on an ERJ-170.

In my opinion, there is just no comparison between the two.

I don't know what performance is like, but in terms of passenger comfort, the ERJ is streets ahead.

varig_dc10.

Quoting D328 (Reply 73): I will be doing the Embraer 120 this day too. How do people like those?

I really like the E-120. It's quite comfortable for a turbo-prop of its size. I prefer it over the Saab 340.

Quoting Varig_dc10 (Reply 75): I don't know what performance is like

Well I flew a CRJ-200 from DC to BNA and we had a full passenger load, and it felt like a rocket going up. But as far as comfort goes, the smaller CRJ's are just too small. they ought to be 3 abreast (except they would never make money in that lay out)

Quoting Doug_Or (Reply 32): What is that and where did it come from? I have te Whelsh -200, but didn't knwo there was anything else available?

We are not allowed to discuss models here, sooo; For The Serious Modeller! (by SWISSER Jul 12 2007 in Aviation Hobby)

Quoting NW747-400 (Reply 62): This is very much exaggerated. I have always been able to carry a full load of people in and out of SBN. If there are any weight restrictions, you may have a max of 47 or so, not 29. A max of 29 is something you would see out of EYW in the middle of August.

This is very much NOT an exaggeration at all. 9R/27L is closed to be resurfaced and18/36 is the only one available. It will be like this for us for the next six weeks, CRJs seriously go with that bad of a weight restriction.

Quoting Mycrj17 (Reply 58): Say HI to Tim for me,and Janice..

Okay!!


-Travis

I used to complain about them all the time too until my last trip. I flew LGA-ATL on DL in a 757, and when I got on the CRJ to head back to DSM, I felt like I had a wider seat and a good 2 more inches of legroom than on the 757. I don't even think it was the 3 hours of sleep talking either.

Quoting DSMflyer (Reply 80): I flew LGA-ATL on DL in a 757, and when I got on the CRJ to head back to DSM,

Why didn't you get a routing via CVG, that right there would have saved you 3hrs!

Quoting SkyexRamper (Reply 81): Why didn't you get a routing via CVG, that right there would have saved you 3hrs!

I booked late and that's all they had. I had the CVG routing on the outbound, until they oversold it and bumped me for a voucher...well I volunteered because American Eagle had a non-stop leaving about that time and they got me on it, so it worked out in the end. Ended up missing CVG entirely.

Quoting ADent (Reply 57): Aircraft with no leading edge devices are much more susceptible to wing ice take off accidents -even frost is bad news. Two Challenger accidents Several DC-9 accidents Fokker F28 accident

The DC9 has slats, captain. The only reason the F28 and CL-600 don't is because they didn't need them.

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 14): Mainline Jets: These routes, formerly flown by F-100s, DC-9s, 737s, 727s, etc and were outsourced in the "RJ Revolution"... most likely the CRJ led to added frequencies but at the cost of passenger comfort and service, I'd definitely complain

...not to mention the almost daily gridlock that now afflicts airports like ORD and LGA during much of the day every day (and that's under ideal weather conditions, which becomes worse yet when anyone so much as sneezes or a raindrop falls) "thanks" to the U.S. legacies' senseless practice of replacing 1 mainline type with 2-3 RJs, on numerous routes where adequate frequencies could be maintained with mainline types of 100-150 pax seating capacity.

With the U.S. legacies taking the "RJ Revolution" beyond irresponsible excess, it doesn't take much such behavior to turn already-congested airports into RJ morasses, with regular gridlock guaranteed, along with all of the unseemly fallout that results.

Quoting Widget1580 (Reply 8): Try working a CRJ flight to ATL on a hot summer day in the midwest. Becuase of weight restrictions, our oversold flights have been limited to 29 people max with 20 bags.

Just another symptom of the U.S. legacies' mad dash race to the bottom with regard to customer service and reliability.

Quoting We're Nuts (Reply 83): The DC9 has slats, captain.

I don't know of any left in service, but the very early DC-9s most definitely did not have slats.

Quoting We're Nuts (Reply 83): The DC9 has slats, captain.

The DC-9-10 series did not have slats of any sort. I am not sure about the 20 series (not many of those produced), and then the 30, 40, and 50 all have slats.

Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 86): The DC-9-10 series did not have slats of any sort. I am not sure about the 20 series (not many of those produced),

The 10 DC-9-21s built (all delivered to SAS) had the same wings as the -30 series and therefore had leading edge slats.

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 87): The 10 DC-9-21s built (all delivered to SAS) had the same wings as the -30 series and therefore had leading edge slats.

Awesome, thanks for the info. Always good to know more about my favorite series.

Quoting PIA777 (Reply 74): I like CRJs. I have flown on them plenty of times.

Me too. I flew on a CRJ for the first time last month, and I thought it was comfortable.    I felt it was more comfortable than some bigger aircraft I've flown on, namely CO's crappy old B733s. I look forward to my next CRJ flight on Monday.  

Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 86): Quoting We're Nuts (Reply 83): The DC9 has slats, captain. The DC-9-10 series did not have slats of any sort.

In addition to lacking slats, wingspan of the DC-9-10 is 4 ft. less than the -20/30/40/50 models.

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 14): Mainline Jets: These routes, formerly flown by F-100s, DC-9s, 737s, 727s, etc and were outsourced in the "RJ Revolution"... most likely the CRJ led to added frequencies but at the cost of passenger comfort and service, I'd definitely complain

And the RJ flights are the first to be pre-emptively cancelled whenever there is any weather... more due to ATC flow controls than aircraft or crew capability.

Quoting Vega (Reply 22): They clog up the Northeast Corridor and it's major airports.

Which is why the RJ flights get cancelled at the drop of a hat whenever ATC issues arise.

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 84): Just another symptom of the U.S. legacies' mad dash race to the bottom with regard to customer service and reliability.

The fact that the CRJ struggles to climb is not a result of anything any airline did to modify it. The early CRJ's truly come up short at times, so you must then be claiming that the purchasing of any CRJ by a United States airline was with the intention of decreasing customer service.

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 91): Which is why the RJ flights get cancelled at the drop of a hat whenever ATC issues arise.

Yeah, and it's the airlines themselves that do the cancelling of the flights as a result of ATC issues. Thus, a statement like that would imply that RJ flights get cancelled because the people doing the cancelling simply don't like the jet itself, which obviously isn't the case. I'm sure it costs less, for example, for DL to cancel a bunch of Comair flights than their mainline jets into JFK because the airplane is smaller, there are less people to rebook, and generally less hassle than cancelling an overseas flight.

If by chance, for example due to weather or something DL had to choose between a 738 to SLC to and a 763 to LGW to cancel, it would probably be the 738 because it would be less hassle. Would we then say that 737's are clogging up the Northeast?

Quoting Pdxcof9 (Reply 53): TUS-ATL is our (OO) first redeye scheduled flight. Pretty cool to me. Oh and it's only 3.5 hours. Try the SLC-YYZ flight. That's 4.25 hours westbound. And before June the SLC-PIT was a CR9. About the same time as SLC-YYZ.

Actually, YYZ-SLC is rarely over 4 hours, most often about 3:45 unless the jetstream is particularly nasty and unavoidable. Having said that, QK's IAH-YYC beats all three you mentioned in distance, at 1518 nm, and is over 4 hours in duration about half of the time.

Quoting Varig_dc10 (Reply 75): Fly on a CRJ, then try a ride on an ERJ-170. In my opinion, there is just no comparison between the two. I don't know what performance is like, but in terms of passenger comfort, the ERJ is streets ahead.

One must clarify, though. the ERJ-170/175/190/195 and the CR7/CR9 are very comparable and the difference is negligible. The Embraers I just mentioned are obviously miles ahead of the CRJ-1/200.

Quoting ADent (Reply 28): Just the one FA

Surely that can't be held against the airplane. The same could be said for the members of the Embraer ERJ 145 family.

Quoting CRJ900X (Reply 30): The CRJ200's has begun to find a home in new markets like Africa

God bless them and hope a CRJ100 doesn't get over there. I'd hate to see one of those try to climb in the African heat.

Quoting Skyweasy82 (Reply 9): the -200 sucks but in my mind is feels the same as a 757 or 777

Except for the fact that standing up in those Boeings won't result in a skull fracture.

[Edited 2007-07-14 06:17:06]

Gas Guzzler, small capacity, short range, relativetly slow compared to other jets, expensive to operate, apperance, back engines

Quoting Skyweasy82 (Thread starter): I always see people bash CRJ's. I want to know why, because they are not different from any other aircraft!

They are similar to an A340-300 in some ways. I.E. need to use the curvature of the Earth to get airborne   

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 93): Gas Guzzler, small capacity, short range, relativetly slow compared to other jets, expensive to operate, apperance, back engines

Gas guzzler? On a pax/pound basis, I'd say no.

Short range? I don't see a 3 hour flight as "short range." Maybe, if say, you compared it against a 747 or 777, yes, but that's what those aircraft were designed for.

Relatively slow? Hardly. It's actually designed to cruise faster than most mainline aircraft, and is actually held back becuase of those mainline aircraft.

Expensive to operate? Nowhere near as expensive as when they put mainline aircraft on routes that can't support them.

Appearance? I looks fine to me.

Back engines? So, now, not only do you diss the CRJ, but also the DC-9, 727, VC-10, and many other great designs.

Quoting Acey (Reply 92): Having said that, QK's IAH-YYC beats all three you mentioned in distance, at 1518 nm, and is over 4 hours in duration about half of the time.

Incorrect.

IAH-YYZ is roughly 1150 NM as the crow flies. SFO-SAT is roughly 1250 NM as the crow flies. SLC-YYZ/PIT is roughly 1450 miles as the crow flies.

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 93): Gas Guzzler, small capacity, short range, relativetly slow compared to other jets, expensive to operate, apperance, back engines

** Gas Guzzler....

ERJ-145 in cruise we burn roughly 1300 lbs a side at 370... granted totally depends on weight and atmosphere at time.... but we don't burn as much fuel as people think.... ERJ's and CRJ's are actually very efficient aircraft when used for correct purposes... will an ERJ be more efficient than a SF340 going Dallas to Abilene... probably not... but over a larger distance the ERJ will be the more efficient one.. etc...

** Small Capacity....

That would be the point of the design... <50 seats.... looks like the design team achieved their objective.... hmmm... I'm confused on what to say to that one

** Short Range....

Having personally flown the ERJ from IAH-YYZ, IAH-VSA, IAH-NAS, IAH-PHX, IAH-JAX.... I would say it has the legs to go where it needs to go.. hardly a short range jet... I guess unless compared to a 757...

** Relatively Slow Compared to Other Jets....

SOMEWHAT true.. but not really... our Mmo on the 145 is M0.78, and on the 145XR is M0.80 that's not that slow and there are a LOT of other aircraft up there flying around us that aren't RJ's doing the same as we do... part of that fuel conservation effort... why go M0.84 if M0.78 will be more efficient and take 15 min more????

** Expensive to Operate....

They're not as expensive as most people think they are... They require less ground staff, the fuel burn is pretty decent as discussed earlier, crew costs are generally cheaper thanks to regionals paying less...


** Appearance....

They look fine to me... Granted I think the ERJ personally looks nicer than the CRJ... but that's a matter of preference... the ERJ looks like a sleek, small, MD-80... a true airliner.... the CRJ looks like a biz jet (go figure... thanks Challenger) that has been put in a copy machine and enlarged... A little low riding and stubby to my tastes...

** Back Engines....

That is a pretty random comment... Looks like ya just put down all DC-9 variants, Trident, 727, nearly all business jets, CRJ's, and ERJ's....

Man, frankly I like having the engines at the back... generally lends itself to a quiter cabin for more people... just don't be the one on the -9 to be next to the engines and you'll be fine.... more importantly.. CRJ couldn't have had underwing engines unless you had the aircraft sit MUCH higher off the ground, redesigned it completely, and plan on adding escape slides off the doors....

OK Lets see

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 95): Gas guzzler? On a pax/pound basis, I'd say no.

Check Lufthansa site, around 10 liters per 100km/passengers for crj-200 and around 5 for 737. The 757 and A330 are even less. The A330 is even less than 3 liters I think. You can admit you are wrong.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 95): IAH-YYZ is roughly 1150 NM as the crow flies

Quoting ThePinnacleKid (Reply 96): Having personally flown the ERJ from IAH-YYZ, IAH-VSA, IAH-NAS, IAH-PHX, IAH-JAX.... I would say it has the legs to go where it needs to go.. hardly a short range jet... I guess unless compared to a 757...

Or as the 737 or A320.

Quoting ThePinnacleKid (Reply 96): They're not as expensive as most people think they are... They require less ground staff, the fuel burn is pretty decent as discussed earlier, crew costs are generally cheaper thanks to regionals paying less..

Not really profitable. No low cost carriers use them period

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 97): Check Lufthansa site, around 10 liters per 100km/passengers for crj-200 and around 5 for 737.

I don't speak metric.

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 97): You can admit you are wrong.

I never said I was right. It's merely an opinion. But, in your case, with "The A330 is even less than 3 liters I think," you can admit that you are wrong, too, since you are equating personal opinion as fact and not opinion

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 91): And the RJ flights are the first to be pre-emptively cancelled whenever there is any weather... more due to ATC flow controls than aircraft or crew capability.

This is true, but its the regionals themselves who decide to cancel these flights. Truth be told, the mainline carriers that the regionals operate for don't really have much input into this at all. They can give the regionals suggestions and stuff, but ultimately its the regionals who decide what to cancel. At least this is true at my company.

And typically if there is bad delays, at my carrier anyways we will try to cancel most of the roundtrips that do not involve outstation crew changes, but we still try to run the outstation crew changes as best we can. The goal for us when the bleep hits the fan is not to salvage that days operation, but to make sure that we are in position to start the next day with as little impact as possible.