OK. Actually, what I really had in mind was the comparison between the E90 and the CRA, not the CRJ.

OTOH, with respect to fuel burn, i'll stick to my guns. The E90 really looks like it's optimized for low ceiling and short range. With the CRA looking much better for long flights, both timewise and fuelwise.

The current AC E75 and E90s are not equiped with ovens so you will never get a hot meal on those planes. I was not even able to get hot soup on the E75 or E90 with BOB when I travel in the back and I was told they do not have hot water so they do not get stocked for the soup..

But it ain't bad. And if you compare it to U.S. domestic F, I'd say AC domestic J fairs very well.

Really? And is that what the discussion is about?

First, fact remains that flight time is at least 6 minutes lower on that route. That AC elects to hide that in the time padding added in the schedule to deal with airports, having to wait for a gate crew etc., does not make that fact go away.

But that is by no means the whole story. Indeed, that ignores the fact that with its lower ceiling, and with its fuel efficiency deteriorating fast at higher speed, when trying to optimize a flight plan for fuel burn,there will be much less flexibility, and often the optimization will suggest a speed lower than the value used above. Plus, the lower ceiling will sometimes not allow reaching a less bumpy flight level.

Comparing the E90 with the CRA, it seems to me that the E90 wins easy on cabin comfort, but, for a big chunk of the AC network, the CRA wins for economics and operational suitability. Except for the relatively short eastern routes, for which the E90 is well-suited operationally.

And if you guys insist in continuing to disagree, please at least try bringing some technical argument to the discussion.

This is your speculation. 3:45 on all flights (3:39 for the red eye because less activities at the airport at that time). WS has almost identical block time too. Get some actual flying time facts for E90 vs. 320 and see if it's always 6 mins slower. (it's not)

I would agree if you on the US comparison. An average J AC domestic would not be outshined by a poor UA F domestic.

The six minutes are just the distance divided by the speed. According to the numbers that *you provided,* for *your example.* I did not make it up.

May I suggest that if you have data for actual flying time, to provide them? (Rather than telling me to look for information that you presumably have access to and I don't.)

Of course it won't *always* be slower. But on average it should.

Surely, that the E90, being designed for optimal performance over relatively short legs, has a relatively small wing, hence low ceiling and poor high speed performance, must have at least some impact?

Not sure why the enormous and passionate debate over a 6 minute flying time difference is that important other than being right. Who cares? The average flyer probably doesn't. They want a comfortable flying experience.

I will sacrifice 6 minutes of my life for that.

If I can get an additional 6 minutes on an SQ F seat, I'll be more than pleased.

Might be more than six though. But true, I don't see why the issue should be emotional. Put in context, yes.

For me the E-75 wasn't even so much about the seat when I was in J (not been in Y on one yet) but rather the lovely window placement. I could look out the window without looking through my armpit (CRJ). I like looking out the window so alot so for me a big comfy seat is irrelevant if I'm twisted like a pretzel.

Not flown on a CR7 yet but I thought I read that the floor is lower than in the CRJ making both the window placement and the head room against the curvature of the fuselage better. Is this true?

I am a big guy, but find the J seats in the E-90 and E-75 just fine. Also given the deplorable state of AC's J-class hot food offerings these days, the cold plates (especially the fruit and cheese one) are much to be preferred, imho.

Yes it is.

The CRA is not bad in J.

..and any given flight can be less...

Look, if you remember a discussion we had with some folks from Westjet, maybe a year or two ago, we did go into quite a bit of technical detail on the E90, and as I recall, the clear conclusion was that it was not particularly well suited for thin long routes.

At a Mach number of 0.82, it is surely not very efficient. So I would expect that it would often take longer than on a 320, and by more than six minutes, if only to save fuel. Of course on a good day, with the jetstream helping, it will occasionally be less. But that's not the point. We should see statistics, really.