Battle of short range planes (Boeing)

[survivingearth]

Which would you prefer to fly one?

[TheGrandK-Man]

Originally Posted by survivingearth

Which would you prefer to fly one?

If the push-back to landing is under two hours, maybe.

[PacoMartin]

The CRJ1000 doesn't seem to be selling very well with only 3 primary operators in Spain, France, and Indonesia (plus a single plane in Nigeria).

orders/deliveries
35 22 Air Nostrum - Valencia, Spain
14 14 BRIT AIR - Since 31 March 2013, all Brit Air flights are operated under HOP! name, Air France's new regional brand name.
12 12 Nordic Aviation Capital (to be operated by Garuda)
6 6 Garuda Indonesia
3 1 Arik Air (2 cancellations) a Nigerian airline

I am a little more curious about Sukhoi Superjet 100 with 378 orders and 116 deliveries

[PacoMartin]

The CS100 is not really in the same class as the other three planes

Maximum Take off Weight
CRJ1000: 91,800 lbs
SSJ100: 101,150 - 109,020 lbs
E195: 115,280 lbs
CS100: 134,000 lb


Boeing 717-200: 110,000 - 121,000 lbs
Boeing 737 Max 7: 177,000 lbs

[Douglas Dakota]

I flew on all of them, CRJ900/1000 definately has the smallest aisle diameter and is therefore the least comfortable one of the four. Embraerjet is quite fine from a passenger perspective, SSJ and CS are fine as well. Overall I am tending towards Embraer. Much more comfortable than 6-abreast Boeing 737 and Airbus A320, so no problem with longer flights on the E-jet.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Douglas Dakota

I flew on all of them, CRJ900/1000 definately has the smallest aisle diameter and is therefore the least comfortable one of the four. Embraerjet is quite fine from a passenger perspective, SSJ and CS are fine as well. Overall I am tending towards Embraer. Much more comfortable than 6-abreast Boeing 737 and Airbus A320, so no problem with longer flights on the E-jet.

agree I find the E195 at least as comfortable as those maybe even moreso with the two by two seats and seemingly more room than a 737 or 320 based on my experience


for the 195 I think its the preferred of the bunch that I have flown on


the crjs seem much smaller to me

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by Douglas Dakota

I flew on all of them, ...

I thought that only 8 CS100's with 125 seats have been delivered to Swiss Global Air Lines. Some CS300's have also been delivered to Air Baltic.

I thought that was a little crowded configuration, as Delta plans for only 110 seats.

[Northnomad]

Well I hate the CRJ being a tall person and you would never catch me on anything made in Russia, so that leaves the CS100 or the Emb-195. Personally the CS100 looks to be a very nippy efficient and high performing airplane. I see it performs even better than the Emb-195, so it gets my vote.

[Retroit]

Depends how much you’ll pay me.

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by Northnomad

I see it performs even better than the Emb-195, so it gets my vote.

The E170, E175, E190, and E195 are all the same width, about 9 feet with 4 across seating and fairly narrow 17" width seats. The CS100 has five across seating with wider 18.5 " seats.

So with the same number of seats, the fuel economy of an Emb-195 has to be better than the CS100. The smaller cross section wipes out everything else. But the seat width of the CS100 is much more comfortable, which more than makes up for 20% of the seats being middle seats. And the CS100 has much more range and can fly a steeper descent.

So when you say it "performs better", I think that is subjective depending on your goals. The CS100 is much better at longer ranges, and is ideal for routes to London City airport.

Orders for both planes are similar
E195 168 orders
CS100 123 orders

But with regards to the original question, I would rather fly in a plane with a bigger seat.