Why E75 and CRA for AC?
Feb 5, 2012, 12:44 am
#31
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Programs: AC E50K (*G), Westjet Gold
Posts: 788
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.
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.
Feb 5, 2012, 3:06 am
#32
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: YLW
Programs: AC- SE100 1MM, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum, National Executive, Nexus/GE
Posts: 4,338
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.)
(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.)
I am not getting involved in this thread except to say (this is how it starts?) I remember you on TV now. My dad was retired by then, but AC did chat with him for his opinion and I remember one day on a flight with him when Boeing had the Air Tran B717 parked outside the hanger in YUL for testing, so that was you! My dad was not a pilot but his certificate allowed his position to be the only one other than a pilot to fire up the engines to full power and he had his liscence on...well all of them, loved the L1011 as that was the plane he use to say bought the second house, as a matter of fact I had an AC L1011 outline as part of his grave marker.
As a pax, I hate the CRJ 100/200 and I avoid it and did not enjoy the fact AC only used CRJ out of YXE to anywhere West and E75/90 east when I lived in YXE and was always traveling to YVR. I like the CRA as it has J and IFE, BUT as a shareholder for the maker of the CRJ, its a great cost effective and friendly plane for regional routes.
I do recal the politics Canada VS Brazil .......... Airbus pushing hard their baby Airbus and boeing their pimped up DC-9.......oh the memories..
Feb 5, 2012, 7:46 am
#33
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YYZ/DLC
Programs: AP, HHonours Diamond
Posts: 3,722
really 
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
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
You can't blame the plane for human error now can you?
Feb 5, 2012, 9:12 am
#34
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: YQR
Programs: NEXUS; alas, no status anymore.
Posts: 1,181
I sat next to a Skywest CRJ pilot on an ORD-YQR flight last May and picked his brain about aviation. He said that the CRJ-200 was a pretty unspectacular aircraft for the passengers but he and most of his colleagues found it really easy to fly. That's something that's pretty transparent to the passengers, but pretty important.
Personally, I don't like them, but they are a lot faster than walking. I'm on them both directions of a YQR-ORD-MCO flight in a couple of weeks, but since it saves me about 1.5 hours each way versus transiting in YYZ, on them we go.
The reality is that most of the time, passengers care about cost and schedule above all other considerations, especially on these shorter routes.
Feb 5, 2012, 12:23 pm
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,829
On shorter routes, turboprops are much more cost-effective. Hence the revival of the Dash-8 and (surprising this year) even more the ATR.
Feb 5, 2012, 12:33 pm
#37
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YEG
Posts: 3,717
Schedule as an example on a Saturday is
CRA
DH4
DH4
BEH
Feb 5, 2012, 1:11 pm
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,829
Feb 5, 2012, 1:16 pm
#39
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YEG
Posts: 3,717
Feb 5, 2012, 1:47 pm
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,829
Feb 5, 2012, 1:56 pm
#41
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Programs: AE
Posts: 10,566
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
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
Come back when you've got a little more than two months of posting under your belt.
Feb 5, 2012, 2:10 pm
#42
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: YQR
Programs: NEXUS; alas, no status anymore.
Posts: 1,181
I know it would be a little less of a difference with the Q400, but the older two versions of the Dash-8 that QK flies take about 30 minutes longer on YQR-YYC.
Personally I don't mind turboprops, and look forward to trying the Q400 in particular, but frankly, if I'm not getting CRA or one of the mainline craft, I'm getting a chair in the sky and I'm bringing my own amenities, so it's not a big deal.
Feb 5, 2012, 2:16 pm
#43
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 5,813
The 74-seat DH4 would likely have similar operating costs over 330nm as the 50 seat CRJ. Plus the duration would not be too different. The extra 24 seats are gravy to cover the acquisition
Feb 5, 2012, 2:52 pm
#44
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: YYC - not the centre of the universe
Programs: AC*S100K 1MM, LH FTL, Hyatt Globalist, Accor Plat
Posts: 4,769
Cheers from 30K feet! (JFK-PHX on US)
Feb 5, 2012, 3:21 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,678
I recall chatting with a senior BBD rep shortly after the CRJ700/900 were introduced. At the time, Bombardier was asking for a premium for their aircraft compared to Embraer. I asked him how he thought they could ever hope to compete with a plane that appeared to offer an inferior passenger experience being sold at a higher price.
He pointed out the CRJ weighed 10,000 pounds less than the ERJ and thus had much better operating economics (along with higher speed).
Interesting that despite high fuel prices, BBD lost out.
He pointed out the CRJ weighed 10,000 pounds less than the ERJ and thus had much better operating economics (along with higher speed).
Interesting that despite high fuel prices, BBD lost out.