What do you guys think is the most hated airliner in general? One that's collectively hated by everyone, like pax, pilots, FAs, mechanics, and other people.

No, I'm not talking about airliners that you alone just hate for whatever reason. A lot of people dislike the A380 because of its looks, however, there are a lot of people who do like its looks and many pax and crew enjoy how comfortable and modern it generally is. And while pax (and probably baggage loaders) dislike the 757 because its long and thin, I think its safe to say that a lot of pilots and crew members love the Ferrari of the skies because of its performance. So, both of those even out in my opinion.

I'd think a dubious honor goes to the CRJ200... Pax obviously hate it, I haven't really seen any crew positively describe it, and it generally gives you the vibe of a long, arduous and uncomfortable flight..


Any others? Were there any airliners in the past that were hated but now retired?

When it comes to pax everyone hates a crj that’s for sure.

Ask anyone whose just flown a crj how the flight was - “it sucked”

People who complain about the CRJ200 seem to forget about the EMB120 that they replaced. I’ll always remember watching the ice build up on the engine air intake and the sound of the ice chunks flying off the props hitting the fuselage.

CRJ of any length, without a doubt.

Back in the day, the Jetstream 31 was just awful.

737-500

Cramped, slow, unstable, really terrible ride in turbulence

Max Q wrote:

737-500

Cramped, slow, unstable, really terrible ride in turbulence

Hw come people don't really hate the 737-600 for that reason? I always seem to get the 735 and 736 confused, since their seating capacities are about the same.

Boeing757100 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

737-500

Cramped, slow, unstable, really terrible ride in turbulence

Hw come people don't really hate the 737-600 for that reason? I always seem to get the 735 and 736 confused, since their seating capacities are about the same.

Because like 4 were made. (Yes that’s an exaggeration). The type is so inconsequential it doesn’t even register. Also I don’t think the 500 was universally hated either.

737-500? I think most average passenger wouldn't pay attention to the subtype. They see a 737 with 3-3 seat layout inside and I don't think too many would notice much difference between a -500 or a -300 or -400, maybe not even a -800. So I can't believe the -500 is averagely more hated than any other 737.

Many people (including me) dislike the Crash-8. Cramped, noisy, boarding from the rear door and that time when it had many gear collapse incidents didn't help improving its reputation either.

I know rampers love the CRJ-200 in the winter time. The apu exhaust is convenient to stand under.

I loved the CRJ200, don't understand whats not to like.

As far as regular passengers (non aviation enthusiast) are concerned, the only planes they hate has nothing to do with the aircraft type itself but the level of mind numbing in-flight entertainment offered. Heaven forbid they manage an hour or two not glued to their phones.

ACDC8 wrote:

I loved the CRJ200, don't understand whats not to like.

As far as regular passengers (non aviation enthusiast) are concerned, the only planes they hate has nothing to do with the aircraft type itself but the level of mind numbing in-flight entertainment offered. Heaven forbid they manage an hour or two not glued to their phones.

Lots of things. I heard that pax complain that the cabin is very very cramped, the overhead bins are very small and low (moderately tall guys I have heard had to duck a little) and the windows are at chin level. Even on the ERJ-145, at least the windows are at a better level. All of these aspects come from the design of the CRJ-200 itself, I don't see how IFE plays here.

Also, I have heard that maintenance issues are common and that the CRJ lacks leading edge devices (slats) so the approach speeds are higher and the landings harder. Though these two things are more circumstantial and depend more on external factors than directly the fault of aircraft design.

Boeing757100 wrote:

I don't see how IFE plays here

Because for the average non-av flyer, thats the limit of what they care about.

As far as cramped, I've been in A330s and L1011s that are way more cramped. Low windows, B757 is just as bad for that. Overhead luggage space - its a regional aircraft, no better or no worse than 90% of other regional aircraft out there. Low head room - I'm 6'3", you're in a flying tube, head room is an by-product on all small aircraft.

Comparing the flying experience in a small regional aircraft and expecting it to be just as spacious or comfortable as a wide body or even a larger narrow body is silly. It was a successful aircraft that was that did its job well and made lots of money for airlines.

They are rare birds these days, at least ones still flying passengers, but the SA227 Metroliner was pretty bad. For passengers it was incredibly cramped, very noisy, rough-riding in the lightest of turbulence and it had no lav (not even the notorious "blue juice" variety). For pilots it turns out that many operators decided to pinch pennies and forgo optional "luxuries" such as autopilots making it a high-cockpit workload beast. Also, the stubby wings made for high approach speeds, while the tall, spindly landing gear made crosswind landings an adventure. It is a plane that earned its notorious nicknames, "San Antonio Sewer Pipe" (they were assembled in San Antonio) and "The Lawn Dart".

ACDC8 wrote:

I loved the CRJ200, don't understand whats not to like.

As far as regular passengers (non aviation enthusiast) are concerned, the only planes they hate has nothing to do with the aircraft type itself but the level of mind numbing in-flight entertainment offered. Heaven forbid they manage an hour or two not glued to their phones.

The windows are too low.

ACDC8 wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

I don't see how IFE plays here

Because for the average non-av flyer, thats the limit of what they care about.

As far as cramped, I've been in A330s and L1011s that are way more cramped. Low windows, B757 is just as bad for that. Overhead luggage space - its a regional aircraft, no better or no worse than 90% of other regional aircraft out there. Low head room - I'm 6'3", you're in a flying tube, head room is an by-product on all small aircraft.

Comparing the flying experience in a small regional aircraft and expecting it to be just as spacious or comfortable as a wide body or even a larger narrow body is silly. It was a successful aircraft that was that did its job well and made lots of money for airlines.

Good points and all, however, about your claim on IFE, I'd imagine pax these days only care about onboard wifi so they can use WhatsApp, anc could care less about IFE, no?

Kno wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

I loved the CRJ200, don't understand whats not to like.

As far as regular passengers (non aviation enthusiast) are concerned, the only planes they hate has nothing to do with the aircraft type itself but the level of mind numbing in-flight entertainment offered. Heaven forbid they manage an hour or two not glued to their phones.

The windows are too low.

My wife used to take a commuter flight which was either CRJ200 or SF340. She used to ask me to make sure she was on the CRJ200. It always depends on what the comparison is.

The DC10 was one that had a bad name in Australia, and the 727 was retired well after it should have been, but I can't think of any real "universally hated" airliners.

Boeing757100 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

737-500

Cramped, slow, unstable, really terrible ride in turbulence

Hw come people don't really hate the 737-600 for that reason? I always seem to get the 735 and 736 confused, since their seating capacities are about the same.

Maybe because there were only small number of -600 have been built.

Kent350787 wrote:

My wife used to take a commuter flight which was either CRJ200 or SF340. She used to ask me to make sure she was on the CRJ200. It always depends on what the comparison is.

The CRJ200 has a real lavatory. The EMB120/SF340 had lavatories, but were tiny and awkward.

The low windows on the CRJ200 are the things I dislike most about the aircraft. I always booked an aisle seat to look out the window.

FA here. I absolutely love and hate the A350. Poorly designed forward galley, where the galley space was taken out to enlarge the flight deck resulting in almost zero counter space or anywhere to stand without falling over your colleagues.

I love the rest of the airplane, but the design of the forward galley is truly a travesty from Airbus.

And before anyone jumps in and says it’s an airline design - I hear the same complaints from colleagues at other airlines (both EU & Asian) as it’s a standard fit galley from Airbus.

The ERJs. Horrible things.

The Guppy?!

Boeing757100 wrote:

Good points and all, however, about your claim on IFE, I'd imagine pax these days only care about onboard wifi so they can use WhatsApp, anc could care less about IFE, no?

Passengers will equate the existence of IFE on planes as how modern the plane is, it also carries useful information like the moving map. I do see even when flying on domestic US flights many people using the IFE on 2 hour hops (South Florida to NYC you can just about make in a movie).

As a point of comparison, Delta's A319 and A320s are Ancient, (Avg. A320 age is 26.5, A319 is 20) but most pax see the wonderfully re-done interiors and think they're brand new (honestly I think they're better in some ways than Delta's A321s, they feel nicer) versus an AA 737-800 which looks like a raggedy budget carrier with the lack of real IFE.

The Shorts 340 was miles more passenger friendly than the Twin Otter

I did not care fore the “Twotter” but it did have its place in the industry at one time.

Nightmareliner wrote:

FA here. I absolutely love and hate the A350. Poorly designed forward galley, where the galley space was taken out to enlarge the flight deck resulting in almost zero counter space or anywhere to stand without falling over your colleagues.

I love the rest of the airplane, but the design of the forward galley is truly a travesty from Airbus.

And before anyone jumps in and says it’s an airline design - I hear the same complaints from colleagues at other airlines (both EU & Asian) as it’s a standard fit galley from Airbus.

Pilot here. I’m sorry about that forward galley, but for us the cockpit is awesome compared to the A330/340.

Any airliner with windows so low they are difficult to see out of

My worst lists

Historical:
Jetstream 31 - three across seating, really? Noisy, cramped
Fairchild SA227 Metroliner - noisy, rough ride, extremely uncomfortable
DO 228 - noisy, unpressurized, uncomfortable

Current:
CRJ-200 - hands down.

CRJ-200 hands down.

Windows too low.
Poor temperature control; either too hot or too cold.
UA operated then on DEN to EUG. A very long flight.

T54A wrote:

Nightmareliner wrote:

FA here. I absolutely love and hate the A350. Poorly designed forward galley, where the galley space was taken out to enlarge the flight deck resulting in almost zero counter space or anywhere to stand without falling over your colleagues.

I love the rest of the airplane, but the design of the forward galley is truly a travesty from Airbus.

And before anyone jumps in and says it’s an airline design - I hear the same complaints from colleagues at other airlines (both EU & Asian) as it’s a standard fit galley from Airbus.

Pilot here. I’m sorry about that forward galley, but for us the cockpit is awesome compared to the A330/340.

Haha that’s the exact reason I always hide up front when everything else is going to pot - it’s the only place on the aircraft to get some space

Interesting topic and not at all surprised to see the CRJ200 crop up frequently.

I spent a couple years as a regional FA after college for XJ. While I can understand why passengers weren't huge fans of the CRJ200, it was an incredibly easy and well thought out airplane as a FA. I'd take the CRJ200 over the CRJ900 as a crewmember any day of the week. That said, NW did have a non-standard galley on their 200s, which may have played into that.

In the end, my absolute favorite there was the Saab 340. It was a bucket of bolts, but it was a tough bucket of bolts.

If I had to pick my least favorite, I'd say the ERJ-145. I have long legs and I always feel like I can't situate them properly because of the curve of the fuselage. Not a problem in an aisle seat on the two-person side, but as a non-rev, you don't always get the luxury of choosing.

United 1K here.

Any CRJ200. 5 of my last 6 flights have gone tech and were either cancelled or delayed more than 6 hours due to a part needed to be flown in along with a mechanic. I'm now booking mainline flights and having to drive 2-4 hours to my destination just so I can assure arriving in time.

The sooner those trash heaps retire to the desert the better.

I’d say the CRJ-200. Not just the windows, lack of headroom, and overhead bins so small as to be useless. My big reason is that when I was still flying frequently, they were the only plane that went tech virtually all the time. If I saw CRJ on the hard standing, I knew there was a better than even chance we would not be leaving on time.

The EMB-120 Brasilia. Used to fly them all the time from ATL to GSO, especially off peak hours. Ugh.

The SW Metroliner. AKA the San Antonio sewer pipe. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody speak positively about that hateful aluminum tube.

CairnterriAIR wrote:

The SW Metroliner. AKA the San Antonio sewer pipe. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody speak positively about that hateful aluminum tube.

The only good seat in that airplane was the middle seat in the last row. At least you can sit upright and you have legroom.

From a ground handling point of view the worst is the Jetstream 31/32. Access to the baggage compartment was from inside the passenger cabin. Also the baggage compartment was small. You had to wait for all the passengers to deplane, then go inside to open the baggage door to unload the bags down the passenger steps. Then you had to reverse the process to load the plane before passengers were allowed to board. There was no such thing as a quick turn on a Junkstream.

CairnterriAIR wrote:

The SW Metroliner. AKA the San Antonio sewer pipe. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody speak positively about that hateful aluminum tube.

I'll have to go with this one as well. From what I've heard, it was sluggish on the controls, cramped and noisy, and supposedly unreliable.

I flew on the Metroliner many times. Bounced in a cloud in turbulence. Landings seemed so fast due to those tiny wings. Never liked them other than as a unique experience.