I don't like to be mean, but the CRJ-200 SUCKS & I'll be happy when they're all gone. It's a horrible product through no fault of the pilots, but I just think they were a HUGE mistake.

[quote=acl65pilot;659083]EV is about the same. Going from about 1000 departures a day to about 500 this fall.[/quote

I seem to have misplaced my trusty airline progam - who is EV? :confused:

Scoop

[quote=Scoop;659119]ASA I believe

correct EV is ASA.

At the time, the CRJ was decent as a turboprop replacement which is what it was intended to be. Routes less than 500 miles which is why it is so underpowered. There was not a perceived need to get the plane above FL280-310. Look at the early CMR routes with it: CVG-DAY/LEX/SDF/IND/CLE. Back in the early and mid 90s with the spat of turboprop accidents the CRJ was a good replacement. But agreed, they are getting really tired now as some of them reach 16 years of age. A corporate aircraft was never meant to fly 2500 hours a year doing hundreds if not thousands of cycles a year.

You bring up some good points.

Yep, the CRJ200 is just a stretched CL604. Almost the exact same flight deck with one or two panels moved. The airframe really starts to show the abuse at about seven years and it just goes down hill from there. Em are MTC pigs.

There is a new CL604, the CL605. I read an article on it and guess what, they said it climbs poorly at high altitudes and although its obviously better than the CRJ-200 (what did you guys call it? The climb restricted jet?) but evidently not by much. You'd think they'd fix that issue by now, especially on the $28M corporate version. I will say, FWIW the CL300 is an awesome plane and while I'm sure the CL605 goes further the truth is you should just be content and pay its bills on your black amex card and use the miles on Delta for those long range trips.

But I wouldn't mind stealing the avionics out of the CRJ200 and it is quiet on the inside until the gear unlocks unlock. At 6'5", its rather miserable to ride on and the windows can be removed, tired of seeing the taxiway anyway.

Hence my question about Piedmont. The CRJs are obviously better out of places like LGA but wouldn't it be better to use the Dash 8s for fuel efficiency on low altitude runs throughout the northeast where lower keeps you out of a lot of delays? Maybe we should've kept the ATRs and moved them. IMHO, if I was an all jet regional I would be looking at adding the Dash 8-400 and possibly those soon to be ATR-600s turboprops real soon. Sure, jets are "better" and passengers prefer them but passengers also prefer to not sweat in the back of the planes and when we hit $100BB we didn't accomodate that anymore for fuel savings so pull out the props... slinging metal is cool.

CONNECTION

touche :cool:


.....