'Cause I know everyone on FT just loves the CRJ, I thought I'd share some info that Mesaba has released.

Certification for CRJ entry into the Mesaba fleet remains on schedule. Work groups are training at this time and the introduction of the a/c into service is on track for mid October. The first a/c N601XJ is in TUS for paint right now and is expected to be delivered to Mesaba in early September. It will look exactly like the Pinnacle CRJs, but will have tail numbers ending in XJ as well as the obvious, "Operated by Mesaba Airlines" on the left side aft. Flight numbers appear to be in the 33xx series. The first 15 a/c will be 50 seat planes and the full ot will be delivered by the end of the first quarter 2006.

First revenue flights will be MSP-ABR on October 13-15 3 x daily. Then from Oct 16-29 one turn in the middle of the day to ABR. Then starting October 30 with two planes in the fleet there will be flights to DFW, LIT, MLI, CWA, BIS and ALO. It is anticipated that in November frequencies to ATW and DSM will occur. Remember DSM and CWA were designated as mx facilities. Mesaba currently has night mx in CWA and DSM, in addition to CVG, MSP and DTW as well as contract mx overnight in OMA.

Before anyone gets all balled up because they can't see it in the system, it is likely that midnight Sunday this will all be loaded into the system. Right now you can see the ABR flights in the downloadable desktop timetable.


AZJ

Yuck.

Recycle them into beer cans.

Guess the airlines and Bombardier couldn't give a f@#k what pax think about these medieval contortionist torture devices. After being stuck in one for a 3.5-hr flight AUS-MEM including a wx diversion to Jackson, MS, I will never fly one as long as I have any choice in the matter. I realise we have it "too good" with the ARJ but the CRJ is a piece of crap, end of story.

Tolerable on a 20 minute flt between MSP and RST

Also means we skip out on the B terminal!

Best when we do the route in the DC9!

Question: These new CRJ's - are the windows in the proper location?

On the 'older CRJ's' (50 seaters) which Comair operates, Air Wisconsin/UA Express and the few Pinnacle ones I've been on, the windows are poorly located and one has to look down from their seat, even at 5'10 to see out.

I know this has been fixed in the CRJ 70 seater and one can just turn their head and look out the window with no worries. I understand the makers of the CRJ realized this was a problem and I have heard it's been "fixed" in the newer CRJ's; I don't know if newer CRJ's means newer models, or all CRJ's period.

Aside from the lack of FC, this is the one thing I hate about this aircraft. I think it would be much more bearable if the interior cabin resembled a normal aircraft -- not some deal where you have to look down and break your neck if you want to try and look at the window.

While the CRJ 70 seaters are just as uncomfortable, they seem like a better aircraft from the interior. The same goes with the ERJ-135/ERJ-140/ERJ-145. The CRJ's with the low windows are awkward plus uncomfortable in the cabin.

Anyone know what the word is with the new Pinnacle CRJs? Proper window placement, or will it be awkward like the others? Personally, I can't believe carriers have purchased these CRJ's with the "poor" window placement. I believe the low window position gives the perception of less room. Even if you are cramped in, perception of more room makes a difference, IMHO.

Would appreciate any heads up!

SDF_Traveler

The fix for the CRJ700 was to lower the floor a few inches to "raise" the window. It is a fairly significant structural change that has not been offered on the smaller CRJ as far as I know.

Perspective is everything...

I often fly to/from BJI. During this summer's �peak� season there were a few CRJ flights. Every other flight at BJI is a Saab.

Saab: Cramped, noisy 50 min flight.

CRJ: Cramped, relatively quiet 25 min flight.

I'm happy to get the CRJ anytime when the other choice is a Saab!

I ended up doing a double wx diversion on a CRJ once; first to LSE (LaCrosse, WI) and then into FAR (Fargo, ND). That sucked big time and I spent the night in an older Marriott property near MSP once we did get in.

As we were en-route to MSP, a line of T-Storms was over the area so we diverted to LSE to ride the storms out. Once it looked like MSP was clearing (and we had storms headed to LSE which would of grounded us there), we took off for MSP with a flight path which took us back south and around the storms. Between air traffic and a second round of t-storms in the MSP area, we diverted to FAR (Fargo). The temperature was 20 degrees cooler in FAR than LSE as we were now behind the front. After a second wait on the ground we took off and made it into MSP. Lots of other diverted planes on the ground with us at both LSE and FAR. This was the afternoon departure from SDF to MSP - the evening SDF-MSP DC-9 flight arrived about the same time. I vow to never spend this much time on a CRJ again!

Friend's don't let friend's fly CRJs!

SDF_Traveler

IMO the real problem with XJ getting CRJs is that we now have to pay much closer attention when booking flights.

Under the current arrangement with 9E as the exclusive CRJ operator, we know that if a flight says "operated by Mesaba Jet Airlink" it's an ARJ, and we can rejoice. Now we'll have to double-check to see if those flights are ARJs or CRJs... Yuck.

The other thing Mesaba likes to do...DOWNGRADE ARJs to Saabs. Looks like they more (better) options now.

My rear is still sore from my CRJ trip last night. A block time of 1:54 departing at 7:15pm in MSP main "Rush hour" - turned just over three hours in that seat. Luckily I had the exit row (CRJ is the ONLY plane that the exit row really doesn't give you any extra room) all to my own.

Is Mesaba going to work on their own CRJ's or sub it out? Does Mesaba already maintain CRJ's for others?

Just what CVG needs is more CRJ's coming here. As it is, you can't spit on the tarmac without hitting one. Mesaba has already taken a beating here by the pin-heads running the current CRJ's.

As AZJ, said they are now loaded in the system:

To distigush between operators & Aircraft types, its interesting what the code is on the online reservations system

Saab flights: "operated by MESABA AVIATION/NW AIRLINK"
Mesaba CRJ flights: "operated by MESABA AVIATION/NW AIRLINK"
Pinnacle CRJ flights: "operated by PINNACLE AIRLINES JET SERV/NW AIRLINK"
Mesaba Avro flights: "operated by MESABA AVIATION JET SERV/NW AIRLINK"

Thus, its easy to tell just by looking the difference between the Mesaba Avro flights, but the Saabs & CRJ's are given the same title. However, Mesaba's CRJ's are given the aircraft code "CXJ" on the online booking. The key is 33xx are the CRJ (CXJ) flights, while 34xx-36xx are the Avro's.

First Mesaba CRJ revenue flight: Thursday October 13th:

Schedule 10/13-10/15:
NW 3321 MSP-ABR 11:15am-12:45pm
NW 3322 ABR-MSP 01:05pm-02:35pm
NW 3323 MSP-ABR 03:15pm-04:45pm
NW 3324 ABR-MSP 05:05pm-06:35pm
NW 3325 MSP-ABR 07:00pm-08:30pm
NW 3326 ABR-MSP 08:50pm-10:20pm

Beyond that, nothing else is loaded yet.

(Note these 3 CRJ flights are in addition to 4 daily Saab flights from MSP)

W@nderer,
The reason for the unannounced downgrade from Avro to Saab on some flights is due to aircraft substitutions. In an Avro breaks down and there is not another Avro available, Mesaba will sub in a Saab. If an Avro breaks down on a flight scheduled to go MSP-ASE, XJ will pull an Avro off a flight like MSP-CID and sub in a Saab since the Saab can't make it to ASE, but can on the short hop to CID. That way, most, if not everyone can still get to their destination. This is because Mesaba can only equipment sub with Mesaba aircraft. When there are enough CRJ's, this will likely happen too, as equipment swaps as necessary.

I can only imagine the weight restriction's XJ will make from the CRJ's from tankering fuel like they are noturious for.

If they operate them anything like the SF3 they will be a horrid operater of the CRJ

Friends don't let friends fly CRJs. I love the Pinnacle ad that claims new service from LNK to MEM with "50 roomy leather seats." Must have been written by a very short individual.