Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Michael Boyd vs. 50 seat RJs

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Oh I know and I survived but after that flight I switched over to F9 and their mainline option. I'm willing to pay the extra couple of bucks out of my pocket for that.
You have now provided your own solution, bravo, vote with your dollars, its the only thing that corporate America recognizes.
 
I think most would agree the CRJ is much more comfortable than the jet Brasilia. Less noisy, smoother pressurization, and definitely more roomy feel. Worst thing about the CRJ 200 is the window level.
Generally much superior comfort than the ERJ 135/145 has been most passenger feedback.

I don't know, I'd take a window/isle seat in the single seat row of a ERJ over a seat on a CRJ every time...
 
I was on an an EV flight from DEN-TYS on an E135
Man, Denver to Knoxville on a 135? Wow, isn't that really stretching that airplane? I remember doing DAL-IAH on a 135 and hating it the entire way. Personally, I'll take a CRJ any day, even a 50 seater, over a 135/145.
 
I wonder if ten years down the road, there's gonna be a huge glut of 70-76 seaters that need to be rapidly dumped in the desert. It kind of seems that airlines are about to simply repeat the same mistake with bigger RJs.

And thirty years down the road they will be dumping 300-seaters.
 
Boyd said:
...after these machines take up their rightful positions in the desert...
It's hard to read a supposedly objective analysis that has such subjective opinion throughout. A lot of what he says is correct, but he has such an obvious underlying animosity towards 50 seaters that it makes accepting his "rational analysis" difficult.
 
I wonder if ten years down the road, there's gonna be a huge glut of 70-76 seaters that need to be rapidly dumped in the desert. It kind of seems that airlines are about to simply repeat the same mistake with bigger RJs.

No, I don't so. Remember, the 50 seat RJ was a new type of airliner and never before was a jet produced with such low seating capacity. In fact the first models by Embraer and Canadair were based on older biz jets. The newer crop or RJ's such as the e-170, 175, 190, 195 and the models coming on line from Canadair, Mitsubishi, and a few others are designed as RJ's except for the larger CRJ-700, 900, and 1000.
Fuel burn on the larger models is such that they have better economics and are better able to weather the spikes in jet fuel, at least so far.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top