This discussion is as dumb as the Ford vs Chevy arguements.

There are a few points to be aware:

1/ The original CRJ entered into service in 1994 and there was nothing else in the 50 seat field for speed and range. The CRJ opened a lot of new routes for AC when 'Open Skies' took effect that year and did it a lot cheaper than the only other jet they had the DC9.

2/ The CRA was an add-on type for AC in 2005 that allowed them to put 75 seats into the same markets as the 50 seater without acquiring a new aircraft type rating. Since the CRJ's had been transfered to Jazz the CRA was capped at 75 seats (instead of the design 90 seats) and sent to Jazz for commonality.

3/ The ERJ-190 was a purchase by Air Canada to get a 95 to 100 seat airplane to replace the DC9 but with a range up to 5 hours. A DC9 size with 2 hours greater range.

4/ The ERJ-175 came into play in 2005 because another carrier had already ordered them but did not want to take delivery. It was a quick way to get more airplanes into the air. It went to mainline because the big brother had to be flown by mainline due to pilot contract clauses.

Regardless of the reasons for acquiring both, when many of us were invited to YUL in 2003 to "test drive" several different aircraft the opinions were near unanimous: the CRJ was almost universally despised and the ERJ was almost universally praised as the "winner by a landslide" of the four planes on display (A318, B717, ERJ, CRJ.)

(Now infrequent FT poster cattle and I got a fair bit of airtime on CTV news that evening, as we waxed poetic about how great the plane was, contrary to our initial expectations. That led to some unexpected complications for cattle, as he had booked the day off "sick." But we sat next to each other in the econo section for so long, both AC and Embrarer people came along to chase us out.)

The CRJ was utterly hated. I remember one FTer claiming he wanted to kick the Bombardier rep "in the balls" everytime he opened his mouth. The rep spent most of his time making excuses for problems, stupid design issues (i.e. overhead air vents), and other issues with the CRJ.

Amusingly enough Airbus, with their 50% heavier than everyone else A318 handed out the smallest model planes, while Bombardier and their "Barbie Plane" handed out the very largest.

(Many of us who rode the B717 were amused by the Airbus rep's repeated claims that the B717 was actually an outdated and woefully underpowered DC-9, as take-off felt more like this.)

All the bombardier bashing aside...

Lets say for the moment that the CRA runs on routes where an E75 just would not make money for AC (due to labour costs, etc).

I wonder why AC subs in a CRA to replace E75/E90 routes on sundays?

2 routes I can think of are YOW-YYZ and YOW-YHZ.

A lot of YOW flights are Ejet based and some becomes Jazz CRA's on the weekend. I wonder if this is due to lower yeild, but AC wanting a similar product, or if Sunday is an EJet maintenance day....

focus here seems to be on PAX comfort.
airlines are just as (likely far more) concerned with operating economics.
PAX comfort and CASM are inversely related.
PAX hate the single-aisle, 50 row 757-300 . . . NW/CO love them
PAX love the roomy, quick to board/de-plane A318 . . . airlines hate them

Re: E vs CRJ. There is little comparison between the two. E > CRJ. However, without knowing the acquisition costs/operating costs for AC, it's hard to make a final judgement.

BBD being MTL-based made a CRJ order from AC a lock. The relatively low CRJ component of AC's order make it plainly obvious the aircraft is not a winner.
If BBD's CSeries does not meet the targets put forth, they will be in big trouble. Only so many Q400s you can sell

Really?

If someone hates the Bombardier product they must hate Quebec?

I cant speak to operating and purchase costs; however i fly almost weekly on routes served by CRA and ER-75 primarily in J. For me the comparison is not even close; the Embraer wins hands down. I really like the 1x2 J product having the solo seat works great for me.

Solo seat is nearly the same on the CRA. Main difference in J is that the E90 now had an oven hence hot meals.

Real difference is arguably in Y.

My take on this: CRA likely cheaper and with better economics. However, when AC bought the E75/E90, they were looking at using them on mainline routes, replacing mainly the 319.

The much more cramped CRA (or CRJ900, I don't think there was a CRJ1000 then?) would not do with customers used to fly these routes on a 319/3120. While the E90 doews very well from a passenger comfort standpoint.

Funny thing is, both use essentially the same relatively low bypass, inefficient GE engine of an old design. Which may end up being the death spell for the EMB. In addition to the field getting crowded (although admittedly with some size increase), with the MRJ, the Sukhoi Superjet and the C-Series (smallest C-series model is only about 25-30% bigger, and airlines have been quietly increasing the "size" of regional jets). The Comac of course is more like the A320/321.

Both the MRJ and the C-series are build around the very promising Pratt geared fan engine. At smaller sizes the MRJ looks very good. The C-series is more like an MD80 replacement. Roughly same cabin configuration.

I'm afraid you don't know much about the airline industry. The CRJ was phenomenally successful in the 90's, opening a new niche that allowed point to point jet service to secondary markets. It brought jet service to areas (particularly the USA) that did not like turboprops. Right plane for a time of cheap oil.

The market's merely moved changed and moved on, as it did from the DC-8, 727 etc. Though CRJ variants continues to sell in small numbers.

As a result of AC bankruptcy in 2003, the original 50 seaters were transferred to Jazz (where they should have been in the 1st place). Ordering the 705 allowed them to keep fleet commonality and replace the thirsty BAE 146. Ordering the same a/c type at the mainline and regional carriers would have been "awkward" to say the least.

The Embraer "jungle jets" have not been without their problems, hence the E-180 nickname. They're also less fuel efficient than the Bombardier counterpart.

As far as I'm concerned, they're one of the safest plane families out there, with zero fatalities to date.

I'd hardly call them "pieces of crap". :rolleyes:

I'm afraid you can't read or add, I repeat it's a dead product now and for past 4 years. It was successful because it was cheap ( Due to Canadian government subsidizing it)

you can try to rewrite history but facts are facts, total sales 600 units, no new orders in 5 years, no product to replace or match others in the market

foot note on why governments should not finance poor products

really :rolleyes: try doing some research, facts get in the way of your post


http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/crj.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CRJ200#CRJ100

FWIW.

Fatal crash rates on most planes as of August 2011

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

so far 170/190 is safer than CRJ

You should check your reading and adding maybe.
The CRJ 100/200 sold well over 1,000 aircraft
the CRJ 700/900 has sold over 600 aircraft
nearly 1,700 total.
The CRJ 700/900 is still a competitive airplane with the EMB series of the same size and the economics of EMB 190 or CRJ 900 are very close.

Not sure if the difference is not less than the noise really.

Or to what extent it does not reflect age differences? Basically, what you have is that older CRJs got sold to outfits in places (Russia, Eastern Europe, or worse, where it's not safe to fly) to third rate operators. Which occasionally crash.

At thi point, I would say that both the E70/90 and the carious CRJs have a pretty good record. Not sure these differences are meaningful.

Not sure if the economics still really favor the CRJ though.

I do believe the CRJ1000 is more fuel-efficient than the E90. But it's a very cramped airplane. Airlines which buy it would only use it on routes where they know theiy'll get away with it.

CRJ story was great when it started. But it sounds like the end is near.

Mind you, not sure if the E90 has much of a future, given that it shares the same, relatiively inefficent engine, with the CRJ, and that its aerodynamic design looks like it's optimized for shorter range.

Wait for the MRJ and the C-series. With the new Pratt geared fan.