Next announcement prediction: We pull all the ex-XJT ERJ-135s out of the desert and re-configure them to be 16 seaters. The "new" jet will offer a pre-departure magic show, all first class lie-flat seats, with 8 closets, self service galley, WiFi, DirecTV, SiriusXM, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Roku and of course, Hulu. Embraer will happily re-certify the jet with no flight attendant thereby saving "substantial sums" by having the F/O assume those duties. UAL stock climbs $18. The moans of Wall Street will be deafening as they all collectively climax at Kirby's genius. There will be a line of shareholders, & analysts lined up on Wacker Drive all waiting for the privilege of servicing him.[/QUOTE]


Literally the most accurate thing on the interweb

In 2001, Bombardier looked at shrinking the CRJ700 and making a replacement for 50 seat aircraft and calling it the CRJ500. They abandoned the idea after thinking that it was going to be too costly to operate compared to the CRJ200 and E145. Looks like the idea was too early for its time.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bombardier-eyes-crj700-39shrink39-134077/

I'd rather those folks flying out of Bentonville ride on a CRJ550 than a G-550....there are other options for a comfy ride.

I'd be surprised if the trip costs of the CRJ550 and CRJ200 are more than marginally different.

At what weight? Max gross? Remember that the CRJ550 won’t weigh the same as the CRJ700. So it won’t burn as much gas.

Flying both regularly I can say a light 700 will be burning about 6-800 more per hour total over a 200. The 200 is typically planned in the lower 30s because getting any higher is a struggle. Ballpark add 300$ an hour more for fuel.

I see speculation every once in awhile about possibly re-engining CRJ-700s to make them more competitive vs. ERJ-175s. However, doing so might make them too heavy for scope in a 70 seat configuration (just like the 175-E2s). It might induce problems with weight and balance too. But in a 50 seat configuration, re-engining with heavier engines that are 20-30% more efficient but still under scope MTOW might actually be feasible. If UAL has some success with the configuration on used aircraft it will be interesting to see what happens down the road.

Is that for similar loads? If you take a 700 with 50 people what does it burn over a full 200?

You can’t typical reengine a aircraft with tail mounted poweplants unless the new engine is very close in weight to the old one. Creates CG issues that are not cost effective to solve.

I think it sounds like a great idea...I have to imagine they ran the revenue vs cost numbers on this before they committed. No other airline is doing this and we have been complaining since I’ve been here (1997) that United never does anything original. We’ll see how it works out but the aircraft orders & new routes have been encouraging so far. I lived through the “shrink to profitability” times and this is very different.

That sounded a tad too positive for APC. We don’t know what to do with posts like this. I’m not comfortable with this.....