Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
CRJ900X
Topic Author
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:47 am

Issues With Garuda's CRJ1000's?

Sat Jul 13, 2013 6:50 pm

In the attached article, management from Bombardier met with Garuda to discuss some issues with the CRJ1000. Does anyone know what some of the issues are with the aircraft?

Link: http://www.gmf-aeroasia.co.id/Static...tegoryID=1&pageheaderid=258&lang=1

It does state in the article that the airline will exercise options on the additional 18 CRJ1000's to bring the total to 36 airframes, so it appears that the airline is not completely dissatisfied with the aircraft.

Hopefully the CRJ family will secure further orders in the Asia-Pacific region!
 
Sean-SAN-
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 4:02 pm

RE: Issues With Garuda's CRJ1000's?

Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:19 pm

I'm also curious how the CR1000 flying is going.. And if they are planning to hiring local pilots or continue to contract America RJ pilots to fly those routes.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: Issues With Garuda's CRJ1000's?

Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:16 am

Can hot and humid climate cause extra wear and tear on aircraft doing 6-12 cycles a day? I assume the aircraft fly lots of short flights all day every day between the islands and very few longer legs to cool off...
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Issues With Garuda's CRJ1000's?

Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:06 pm

Hmm... what problems?
Engine fail on the inaugural flight... that really set a bad tone throughout Garuda for the CRJ.
Baggage space and handling is an issue (handlers here aren't used to it and find 737s and 320s easier).
The aircraft are not able to be used to open routes to airports previously unserved by Garuda, which was the major premise of the purchase. It has issues in handling the weather here somehow (and we're not that hot), but the field performance I am told is worse than a 737. I guess the lack of alternates for any given routes (ie: long alternates) makes this aircraft rather tricky.

So Garuda has opted to take over Citilink's ATR orders instead (which is another set of problems) to fulfill these roles.

None of the ab initios I talked to want to go for the CRJ, and prefer the ATR instead whenever that arrives.

I'm also curious, if it is that problematic, what is the extent of the problem?
I suspect it's mainly spares support that prompted the GMF article. They're pretty tight lipped about it too.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10709
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Issues With Garuda's CRJ1000's?

Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:12 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 3):
It has issues in handling the weather here somehow (and we're not that hot), but the field performance I am told is worse than a 737.

Field performance is indeed not great, but that surely can't have been a surprise to Garuda?


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Issues With Garuda's CRJ1000's?

Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:25 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 4):
Field performance is indeed not great, but that surely can't have been a surprise to Garuda?

I agree, it shouldn't have. All these "issues" should have been known. Perhaps someone just believed the marketing numbers and never investigated prior to the order?   
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10709
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Issues With Garuda's CRJ1000's?

Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:52 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 5):
All these "issues" should have been known. Perhaps someone just believed the marketing numbers and never investigated prior to the order?

Perhaps. In which case they deserve all the problems they get!


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: Issues With Garuda's CRJ1000's?

Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:27 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 3):
So Garuda has opted to take over Citilink's ATR orders instead (which is another set of problems) to fulfill these roles

So if the ATR takes over these short routes, will the CRK be moved to other routes then or are there not any other routes suitable for them? Is it realistic that they will take a whole 36 aircraft eventually?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
TC957
Posts: 3782
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:48 pm

Flicking thru the headlines on the Flight Global website, it seems Garuda are unhappy with the performance of their CRJ1000 fleet.
What's cropped with them that wasn't known when they ordered them ?
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2517
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:36 pm

4 years to realize a performance shortfall... im not really buying it
 
chrcaremanav
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:45 pm

Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:53 am

Hi! How are You? I agree with infiniti329 here, Garuda should of thought things over before. Maybe it is a negotiating ploy or maneuver to pressure Bombardier, I do not know what though. This is a strange kind of news. All of a sudden They do not like them, there something cooking somewhere. We will know soon what was behind that kind of comments. Take care all of You and have a nice day.
 
dc10lover
Posts: 1594
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:11 pm

Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:37 am

I checked and can't find any news about this.
Why endure the nightmare and congestion of LAX when BUR, LGB, ONT & SNA is so much easier to fly in and out of. Same with OAK & SJC when it comes to SFO.
 
TC957
Posts: 3782
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:13 am

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/garuda-unsatisfied-with-crj1000-performance-421805/
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:05 am

Quoting TC957 (Thread starter):
it seems Garuda are unhappy with the performance of their CRJ1000 fleet.

LOL! About bloody time! It was the wrong aircraft... if they wanted to stick with the CRJ they should have picked the -900.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 1):
4 years to realize a performance shortfall... im not really buying it

The current management has only been for a year and a half... the previous management and it's baggage was in full force... it took time for Garuda to be able to say this... *hint hint*

Quoting chrcaremanav (Reply 2):
Garuda should of thought things over before

The previous management seems to have a track record of "not doing it's homework" before deciding... like deciding to announce the 777-300ER nonstop to Europe service, despite warnings of not being able to do so due to the pavement strengths, they decided to announce it after being assured by "someone" that "it's a non issue"... We knew what happened afterwards... and it'll still take sometime until the current 25R/07L and the future 3rd runway can take the full weight of a 777-300ER at MTOW.

Quoting chrcaremanav (Reply 2):
All of a sudden They do not like them, there something cooking somewhere.

It was the wrong aircraft... plain and simple. the 900 would have had more operational flexibility, but I guess someone in Garuda didn't want to listen thanks to a multi-tiered deal that probably ended up giving someone a nice commission.

The process back then was all for the E190 (and not even 195)... everyone (including some Bombardier) was surprised that it ended up with the CRJ1000.

When put against the SSJ and E195, the CRJ1000's passenger appeal wasn't so good...

Even Garuda's own crew on the 737 take great lengths to not be reassigned onto the CRJ (they'd pick the ATR over the CVRJ1000) somehow. No A/T no VNAV, can't do MZFW from some of the key routes for the type, etc...

IMHO it's not that the CRJ1000 is a bad aircraft, I think Garuda is just realizing that it may not have been the right choice for the required mission profiles (and that someone inside) duped them into it... in a similar fashion to the 777-300ER nonstop to Europe debacle)...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
TomFoolery
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 9:10 am

Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:33 am

I am curious how the CRJ1000 and the E190 compare, with regard to performance, fuel burn, etc.

It is interesting how the airline president is contrasting them to both, turboprops, and the narrowbodies (I guess he means non-RJs). I don't know how many regional jets can favorably compare. An RJ offers a modest speed and comfort advantage (flies above the weather and chop, quieter cabin), compared to many turbo props. Using a 737 (crew of 3-4) to carry 80-100 passengers is not really the best use of resources.

I have flown with HOP in France, and was not impressed with the aircraft (from a passenger standpoint). It did the job, and got me to my destination. Being a 45 minute flight, it was certainly manageable. I could not imagine a 2+ hour ride on one, however. That being said, I am curious if Garuda are the only carriers unhappy with the model, or if they are among others who are unhappy with it. Strange, since they originally ordered 6 or so, then went with an additional 12 aircraft. They were either satisfied at one point, or desperate.

Tom
Paper makes an airplane fly
 
aircanadaa330
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:28 am

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:16 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 5):
LOL! About bloody time! It was the wrong aircraft... if they wanted to stick with the CRJ they should have picked the -900.

Why the 900?

Quoting chrcaremanav (Reply 2):
Maybe it is a negotiating ploy or maneuver to pressure Bombardier, I do not know what though.

thats what I was thinking, however Garuda hasn't shown interest in any BBD aircraft have they?
Cheers;
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:06 pm

Quoting aircanadaa330 (Reply 7):
Why the 900?

It could fly to more of the places they wanted to fly to... the 1000, not as flexible.
So the places the 1000 fly to, can all be flown by the 737s... and the competition, is flying 737s and 320s... or simply, stick to ATRs. But then, for flexibility, why not the 700...   
As of low density routes, well, most of them face either the ATR with regulatory minimum fares, or mainline jets with lower per seat costs... This leaves the destinations that are ideal for the CRJs are smaller ones, but the runways are 1650 - 1850m long... give a wet day and the 1000s can't fly without making losses due to the required payload cuts, and the 900s less so... Once you go to the 2000m and over, the mainliners from the competition can pounce at any time.
The other thing is that the length, of the aircraft require the airport to have ARFF category 7 instead of 6 for the 900 and smaller.
This makes suitable alternates for the CRJ1000 quite far apart... requiring higher fuel reserves, eating into it's capabilities.

Quoting aircanadaa330 (Reply 7):
thats what I was thinking, however Garuda hasn't shown interest in any BBD aircraft have they?

Maybe they wanted to trade in the CRJ1000s for the C-Series!   
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
777way
Posts: 6457
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:38 am

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:12 pm

Either I'm psychic or I read about GA CRJ issue some years back, its not new.
 
aircanadaa330
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:28 am

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:42 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 8):

makes sense, I never understood why BBD built the 1000.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 8):
Maybe they wanted to trade in the CRJ1000s for the C-Series!

that would be a sweet looking jet. I love Garuda's colours. I also don't think it would take BBD much convincing to sell some C-Series.
Cheers;
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15087
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:05 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 8):

We should have a way of pinning posts to the front page for eternity. This one so clearly explains why bigger isn't always better and how a manufacturer can marginalized their own product by not properly understanding how it can be utilized in the real world.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:25 pm

All those issues are not performance problems of the plane, as things like runway length etc. were known before hand.
 
A320FlyGuy
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 8:31 pm

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 6:41 pm

Sounds like Garuda fell for the snazzy BBD marketing video(s):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBwoXBvYiu8

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZSumqkmPH0
(after watching this video, there must be something in the water in Mirabel to make people think that the CRJ1000 is as wonderful as the BBD employees seem to claim that it is...)
My other car is an A320-200
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 6:56 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 12):
All those issues are not performance problems of the plane, as things like runway length etc. were known before hand.

He was not talking about performance issues, but how the CRJ1000 is not fitting the profile needed. As he did not buy those frames, I see no problems with him voicing that opinion and making perhaps changes to the fleet.

We have again a typical case of the titel of the thread not communicating what the CEO of Garuda said.

I would rather say: "Garuda says that the CRJ1000 is the wrong frame for them."

[Edited 2016-02-26 11:28:42]
 
bhill
Posts: 1797
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:18 pm

I gotta try this one with my car dealership.....right

So a management cockup from 4 years ago is the manufacturers fault?? Sometimes you need to walk away from business before walking INTO bankruptcy by giving away the store...
Carpe Pices
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2960
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:50 pm

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...hief-executive-arif-wibowo-421646/

The previous link is for dahsboard subscribers only. This one should be accessible to anyone that has a flightglobal account.

"Wibowo is also unsatisfied with the performance of the airline's 18 Bombardier CRJ1000s, citing their inability to compete, in terms of seats, with narrowbodies, and the fact that they lose out to turboprops in runway agility. Asked if there are plans to remove the type, Wibowo would only say it was part of his plan to "overcome obstacles on the CRJs"."

Sounds to me they should have done their homework before buying the airplane. Is he really bitching about the CRJ's runway performance and comparing it to a turboprop?

Wibowo is also unsatisfied with the performance of the airline's 18 Bombardier CRJ1000s, citing their inability to compete, in terms of seats, with narrowbodies, and the fact that they lose out to turboprops in runway agility. Asked if there are plans to remove the type, Wibowo would only say it was part of his plan to "overcome obstacles on the CRJs".

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 5):
Even Garuda's own crew on the 737 take great lengths to not be reassigned onto the CRJ (they'd pick the ATR over the CVRJ1000) somehow. No A/T no VNAV

You mean they dont want to fly the CRJ1000 because they will actually have to fly the plane......  

[Edited 2016-02-26 12:00:53]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:15 pm

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 16):

As so often we hear the journalist talking and interprating what Wibowo said. He did not buy those frames. He is not satisfied with them, their are not doing what he needs them to do. He is not saying that the frames do not do what Bombardier promised.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:35 am

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
This one so clearly explains why bigger isn't always better and how a manufacturer can marginalized their own product by not properly understanding how it can be utilized in the real world.

This is another case of Garuda's own internal people "not doing their friggin' homework", added with a couple of "external (domestic) pressures" to buy the aircraft.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 14):
I would rather say: "Garuda says that the CRJ1000 is the wrong frame for them."

I had a discussion with Arif Wibowo just before he went to become CEO of Garuda, he was CEO of Citilink at the time. We did touch on the subject of Garuda's CRJ1000... at the time he already figured out that Citilink's A320s could fly those routes and eat away at Garuda at some of the routes.

For him to take 1 year and a half to finally be able to say it publicly, should give you an idea on the "external (domestic) pressures to buy the aircraft" I was talking about.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
rukundo
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:10 am

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Sat Feb 27, 2016 9:21 am

In 2012, i worked for Estiona Air at Paris Cdg as ramp agent. This year, they said, that they were not happy with CRJ-900. They leased ERJ-170s from Finnair, few months after
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:13 am

Quoting aircanadaa330 (Reply 10):
makes sense, I never understood why BBD built the 1000.

'cos they were lead by incompetent buffons.

If they really wanted to do something more with the CRJ wing + rear engines - they should have built a variant of the 2+3 fuse and put it on both CRJ and global wingsets. Then market that for short hops and for mid-range VVIP.

That fuse could then have largely carried over to CSeries [well, it should have been designed for CSeries then ported back].
 
queb
Posts: 1024
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

RE: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:23 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 20):
global wingsets

Global wings can't be put on a regional jet, this wing has been designed to fly far, high and fast, not really what a regional jet is suppose to do.

In addition, the Global wing can hold 2.5x more fuel than crj's wings.
 
johnwest
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:32 am

Re: Garuda Unhappy With CRJ1000 Performance

Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:07 pm

AGREE with amiga500 . They should have bought the larger cs100.
 
johnwest
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:32 am

Re: RE: Issues With Garuda's CRJ1000's?

Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:18 pm

mandala499 wrote:
Hmm... what problems?
Engine fail on the inaugural flight... that really set a bad tone throughout Garuda for the CRJ.
Baggage space and handling is an issue (handlers here aren't used to it and find 737s and 320s easier).
The aircraft are not able to be used to open routes to airports previously unserved by Garuda, which was the major premise of the purchase. It has issues in handling the weather here somehow (and we're not that hot), but the field performance I am told is worse than a 737. I guess the lack of alternates for any given routes (ie: long alternates) makes this aircraft rather tricky.

So Garuda has opted to take over Citilink's ATR orders instead (which is another set of problems) to fulfill these roles.

None of the ab initios I talked to want to go for the CRJ, and prefer the ATR instead whenever that arrives.

I'm also curious, if it is that problematic, what is the extent of the problem?
I suspect it's mainly spares support that prompted the GMF article. They're pretty tight lipped about it too.

They should have bought the cs100. Solves all the problems. This is just a good example of bad choice.
 
ZKNCI
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:38 pm

Re: RE: Issues With Garuda's CRJ1000's?

Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:27 am

johnwest wrote:
They should have bought the cs100. Solves all the problems. This is just a good example of bad choice.


This thread is three years old; timing may be a factor.
Garuda seems to make a point of their fleet revitalisation, and were able to get the CRJ-1000 within months of ordering (June 2012 order, October 2012 delivery; very rapid availability). The CSeries was still a year away from first flight when the CRJs started arriving and they would still be waiting for deliveries.
Price probably plays a part too; the CRJ-1000 has a much lower list price (US$49mil vs US$71.8mil in 2015 per wiki). Cheap and immediate probably sounded like a great deal.

The CSeries is looking very promising in service, and may yet have a place in their fleet, as they do seem to still want something above the ATR but below the 737 for the shorter hops, but it would be a few years off.
 
johnwest
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:32 am

Re: RE: Issues With Garuda's CRJ1000's?

Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:38 am

ZKNCI wrote:
johnwest wrote:
They should have bought the cs100. Solves all the problems. This is just a good example of bad choice.


This thread is three years old; timing may be a factor.
Garuda seems to make a point of their fleet revitalisation, and were able to get the CRJ-1000 within months of ordering (June 2012 order, October 2012 delivery; very rapid availability). The CSeries was still a year away from first flight when the CRJs started arriving and they would still be waiting for deliveries.
Price probably plays a part too; the CRJ-1000 has a much lower list price (US$49mil vs US$71.8mil in 2015 per wiki). Cheap and immediate probably sounded like a great deal.

The CSeries is looking very promising in service, and may yet have a place in their fleet, as they do seem to still want something above the ATR but below the 737 for the shorter hops, but it would be a few years off.

Buy second hand or wetlease crj's. While waiting for the New cs series. make a deal with bombardier on a temporary option while waiting for the cseries. Also embraer would have been a much better aircraft option for Garuda with much more comfort and performance then the crj.

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