They are called "90's" because they are certified to 90 seats even though they are usually configured with less.

Smart pilots have scope clauses which are based on certified seats and MGTOW, not just installed seats.

A 90-seater configured with 76 seats and a first class cabin generates more revenue than one with 90 coach seats (in the proper market).

.....and a DC9 configured with a first class generates more revenue than any arr jay.......

Series 30: Fuselage of the Series 30 DC-9, actually second developed, is nearly 15 feet longer than the Series 10, at 119.3 feet (36.3 m), providing seats for up to 115 passengers and cargo space to 895 cubic feet (25.3 m3). Series 30 wingspan was increased to 93.3 feet (28.4 m), and a high-lift wing system of leading edge slats gives the Series 30 excellent short-field performance. The first of the type began airline service in February 1967.
Most of the Series 30s are powered by either JT8D-7 or JT8D-9 engines. Others are equipped with JT8D-11 or the JT8D-15, with 15,500 pounds of thrust. The Series 30 is the most widely used member of the DC-9 family, accounting for approximately 60 percent of the entire fleet.
Series 40: To again meet airline demands for a DC-9 with more capacity, the Series 40 was developed with a fuselage length of 125.6 feet (38.3 m). Seating is available for up to 125 passengers, 10 more than the popular Series 30s. Below-floor cargo space totals 1,019 cubic feet (28.8 m3). The Series 40 uses the same wing as the Series 30. Series 40 engines are JT8D-9s, JT8D-11s or JT8D-15s. The model entered service in March 1968.
Series 50: The fifth and largest DC-9 version is extended to 133.6 feet (40.7 m) long, permitting installation of five more rows of seats than the Series 30. Maximum passenger capacity is up to 139, with cargo capacity increased similarly. Wingspan is the same as for the Series 30. Engines are either JT8D-15s or JT8D-17s, which are rated at 16,000 pounds. Airline operations with the Series 50 began in August 1975.

1 step at a time...and this was your first step. You will get there.

Thanks Contrail, a lot of people dont seem to understand that more RJ's is bad for our career progress.

Think it would be better for Delta to merge all regionals and staple them to the bottom to end scope and the whipsaw for good.

Why not call them what they are? (100,200, 200ER,700,701,702,702ER,900,1000)
We don't call a 737 a "137" because it has 137 seats.
The only place I seem to hear "90" or "70" or "50" is with Delta regionals. For some reason Comair's safety information cards say "CRJ50" ...etc. There's are the only ones I have noticed that say that. If we are going to call an aircraft something other than the manufacturer's name, why not:
Dinosaur 9 (DC-9)
Crap Box (MD-88)
Lawn Dart (ERJ145 in Delta colors)
Slob (Saab)
etc...etc...:D

In an ideal world, yes, but remember that many of the DCI no WO regionals fly for other carriers. That makes it very sticky to even think about that. Now the WO, that would be great. Long way to go.

FlyCRJ you are correct. The reason DAL has 20 year FO's is because of the RJ boom. It is also the reason that ASA has 8 year FO's. We stagnated the industry. Get rid of the RJ or change the who flies them, and you restore the progression in this career.

Also a big revenue weakness with RJ's is cargo capacity...they were not designed with any above the pax bags. Mainline airplanes can typically take pax, bags, plus significant cargo.

I say have the FAA come up with a modification to have Cargo door to be installed on any RJ and sell them all to places like Mountain Air Cargo or for that matter UPS or FedEx....

Again... old news. I think it's obvious where the 50 seat reductions will come from: In the short term: ASA getting rid of 20 out of the DL system, Freedom/ Chautauqua contracts coming up sooner than later and the regularly scheduled 200 returns from Comair.

DL can also get rid of a lot of DCI capacity by returning the saabs, due to their lease clauses and the fact they're operated by a wholly owned (which is exactly why they're doing it.) The first 23 saabs are the equivalent of roughly 16, 50 seaters. The entire saab fleet is roughly the equivalent of 33, 50 seaters. That's significant capacity not bound by a contractors long term agreement or long term lease agreements. They've been actively backfilling the saabs with 200s and thereby reducing frequency and will likely continue to do so.

I find it interesting, but not surprising in DLs disorganization with DCI, that they continue to throw flying towards Pinnacle. In April alone, Mesaba has had to cover nearly 50 flights for Pinnacle. Not to mention the ones we cover for Compass. This is on top of our already allocated flying, plus the up/down gauging within our own fleet. I guess we at XJ know why we haven't gutted our staffing like they could have. It's just so typically DL to gut Pinnacle flying in MSP, reduce XJ 200 block hours and then backfill it with Skywest. Money talks I suppose.