Crj 550
02-07-2019 | 05:32 AM
#81
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,457
Likes: 6
From: Airbus 320 Right Seat
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
Literally the most accurate thing on the interweb
02-07-2019 | 05:41 AM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,049
Likes: 0
From: I pilot
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/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bombardier-eyes-crj700-39shrink39-134077/
02-07-2019 | 08:01 AM
#83
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 440
Likes: 14
From: 30 West
I'd be surprised if the trip costs of the CRJ550 and CRJ200 are more than marginally different.
02-07-2019 | 11:13 AM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
The 700 burns about 40% more in both climb and cruise. On taxi, the real world burn is only 10-20% higher since the 200 has to taxi with apu up. With its better climb, and slightly faster cruise speed, the trip fuel is 35-40% higher in a 700.
Lemme do some math seventy, divide by 50.... something like 1.4 yeah. I can’t speak to casm, but with respect to fasm (or gasm if you will), the 50 seater 200, and the 700 with 70 seats are nearly the same.
With 50 seats in it, the 700 should have approximately the fuel efficiency of a convair 880.
Lemme do some math seventy, divide by 50.... something like 1.4 yeah. I can’t speak to casm, but with respect to fasm (or gasm if you will), the 50 seater 200, and the 700 with 70 seats are nearly the same.
With 50 seats in it, the 700 should have approximately the fuel efficiency of a convair 880.
02-07-2019 | 11:50 AM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,429
Likes: 14
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.
02-07-2019 | 12:08 PM
#86
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 976
Likes: 75
From: NOYB
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.
02-07-2019 | 01:21 PM
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Is that for similar loads? If you take a 700 with 50 people what does it burn over a full 200?
02-07-2019 | 01:54 PM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,869
Likes: 188
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.
02-07-2019 | 02:17 PM
#89
On Reserve
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: 756 FO
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.
02-07-2019 | 02:37 PM
#90
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
