CRJ900 (CR9) vs Embraer ERJ-175 (E75) for nervous flyer
Mar 1, 2020, 7:38 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 20
CRJ900 (CR9) vs Embraer ERJ-175 (E75) for nervous flyer
Hi, I'm have two options to fly on small (in my mind) planes and I'm looking for advice. I hate turbulence so I try to avoid smaller planes....so which plane would you feel less turbulence in a CR9 or an ERJ-175?
Bonus points, I'm 6'3, 200 and will be flying Economy Plus. The flights land around the same times and are basically the same price.
Thanks in advance!
Bonus points, I'm 6'3, 200 and will be flying Economy Plus. The flights land around the same times and are basically the same price.
Thanks in advance!
Mar 1, 2020, 2:58 pm
#4
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,501
The E175 is probably better for you as a taller individual because it has a higher height and is set up as a mainline jet basically.
That being said, I think the CR9 handles turbulence a bit better than the E175, perhaps the wing is more flexible or the clean design of the wing on the CR9?
That being said, I think the CR9 handles turbulence a bit better than the E175, perhaps the wing is more flexible or the clean design of the wing on the CR9?
Mar 1, 2020, 3:49 pm
#5
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,554
E175 is probably my favorite narrowbody plane, whether in Y or F, in terms of comfort. I like it better than 737's and A320's in any "normal" short-haul configuration found on a U.S. or European airline. The 2x2 config in Y is comfier at the shoulders. The 1x2 config in F is fantastic if you book the "A" seat. E+ will give you tolerable legroom.
As the prior two posters point out, E175 just "feels" mainline. I'm 6'3" as well and like being able to stand up. CR9 still feels like an RJ.
Neither aircraft has any safety issues that I'm aware of. They're proven and common in lots of airline fleets.
As the prior two posters point out, E175 just "feels" mainline. I'm 6'3" as well and like being able to stand up. CR9 still feels like an RJ.
Neither aircraft has any safety issues that I'm aware of. They're proven and common in lots of airline fleets.
Mar 1, 2020, 4:49 pm
#6
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,178
Ride in turbulence is a function of wing loading. Wing loading is total aircraft weight divided by the area of the wing.
Mar 4, 2020, 11:28 pm
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SEA (the REAL Washington); occasionally in the other Washington (DCA area)
Programs: DL PM 1.57MM; AS MVPG 100K
Posts: 21,357
they’re very similar in both wing area and weight
I’ve logged ~75 flights on the CR9 since Sep 2007 and ~50 on the E75 since Sep 2008; I can’t recall that any particular turbulence experience on either type was more or less remarkable
I’ve logged ~75 flights on the CR9 since Sep 2007 and ~50 on the E75 since Sep 2008; I can’t recall that any particular turbulence experience on either type was more or less remarkable
Mar 6, 2020, 12:07 pm
#8
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: DFW
Programs: UA 1K, AA Platinum, Hilton Diamond, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 466
I flew both aircraft. The 175 is much more comfortable from a cabin perspective. It's tall, seats are wide, and as others said, "feels" as big mainline aircraft. There are no bad seats. The CRJ-900 is longer and narrow. You may have to duck your head when you board. That said, turbulence was a little more of a concern on the 175, especially when sitting in the back. Our flight attendant's always asked us to be more strict with the seatbelt sign after I switched the 175. If you can get a seat near the wing or toward the front on either plane, you'll feel less turbulence. Honestly, if you're a nervous flyer, I'd shoot for the 175.
