Bombardier CRJ700 vs Embraer 170STD

[Meicci]

I was looking for a replacement for my slooow ATR's.. I came up with those two planes, which are almost identical, technically.

But, the order backlog for the CRJ is around 20, and Embraer's same is over 700? I mean, what's the point with that?

As I said earlier, those two planes are almost identical. Both have default seating configuration of 68 passengers, runway requirement of around 1500 meters, 2 pilots + 2 cabin crew, same turn-around time, AND the CRJ burns 200 kg less fuel. Only thing where CRJ loses, is the cruise speed, which is 0.74 compared to Embraer's 0.80..

I have heard that CRJ's are very bad decision, but I can't just see why..

[JumboShrimp]

The same production line is used for Embraer 195.  If you look at the order list, that's what majority of players are buying.

[schro]

as a flier, i much prefer the jungle jets over the canuck beer cans....

[Zombie Slayer]

May I suggest the AN-148? .77 cruise, 70 pax (85 max), 2120 nm range, and no back log. I run mine with an 80Y config and get 1990nm range out of them. Each is making btween 180k and 250k/week.

Don

[Maarten Otto]

as a flier, i much prefer the jungle jets over the canuck beer cans....

+1   

[ucfknightryan]

I agree with JumboShrimp, the EJets are more popular because of the E195.  If you're going for something the size of the E170, and don't need the option of something bigger, the CRJ700 actually looks a bit better, due to the lower fuel use. 

[raptorva]

I believe I remember reading somewhere though from a post by Sigma I believe that read that the CRJ-700 is actually worse than the -200 when it comes to operating costs per number of seats and range.