Before I get to get where they go I want to touch on a myth in regard to the high fuel burn of the CRJ per seat, as per a study by PlaneStats let’s look at Gallons per Seat Hour of various Regional Airliners and put that myth behind us. Please note, the more seats an aircraft has the better the number generally will be, and that plus/minus all the regional aircraft have the same speed per hour.

Gallons per Seat Hour Table

EJet-175 with 80 seats = 5.5 -12.7%
EJet-190 with 100 seats = 5.7 -9.5 %
CRJ-700 with 66 seats = 6.1 -3.1%
CRJ-900 with 78 seats = 6.2 -1.6%
CRJ-200 with 50 seats = 6.3 BASE
EJet-170 with 72 seats = 6.8 +7.9%
ERJ-145 with 50 seats = 7.0 +11.1%
ERJ-140 with 44 seats = 8.5 +34.9%
ERJ-135 with 37 seats = 10.1 +60.3%
Interesting to see the 72 seat EJet-170 burning 7.9% more fuel per seat hour than the CRJ and there is a case for the ERJ-140/135 to be taken out asap, but the stories about the 50 seaters burning a disproportionate amount of fuel per seat is just false, thank you.

Regional jets and turboprops have always operated in higher yield markets than narrowbodies of legacy airlines, to offset the higher CASM (cost per available seat mile) of having fewer seats over which to spread the operating and overhead costs.

As an example where a legacy airline has a Yield of $0.1273 and a passenger load factor of 83.7% for a PRASM (passenger unit revenue per available seat mile) of around $0.1066 and a CASM (cost per available seat mile) of $0.1040 for a 2.5% margin from passenger services, a regional airlines numbers would be a lot different.

A sample regional may have a Yield of $0.2800, a passenger load factor of 75% for a PRASM of $0.2100 and CASM of $0.1950 for a margin of 7.1%. Note the higher yield and higher CASM, as these smaller aircraft must have higher unit yields to cover the higher unit costs of operating smaller equipment. Therefore, ideal for new markets where demand is not yet known or where demand is known and does not justify a larger aircraft.