CRJ vs E-Jets

English Boards Community Support
1

I have been, virtually for 3 days now, pondering whether to get CRJs or E-Jets for some thin but very perspective routes.

If I was to go by real-world article, reviews, and even economies of those planes in question, there is no doubt I would go for E-Jets.

I would need a 100-seater and 70-seater, so to speak. They would be configured in very premium config and subsequent higher prices, to offset the "long thin routes" factor.

In AS tool any way I look on it, using ATE, and even doing extensive spreadsheet calculations, CRJ comes ahead of E-Jets here.

CRK (CRJ1000) has much better per-seat economics than either E190 or E195. Depending on a flight, the difference is 1000 or more AS$ per flight between CRK and E195 (I left E190 mainly out of comparison as the per-trip cost between E190 and E195 is negligible, roughly 200-300 AS$).

While CRK has less seats, AND better economics, E195 has more seats and comes on top in overall revenue. Now if a route can get filled with one E195 there would be no question to go for E195. But maybe there will be multiple frequencies... maybe 3 en CRK can get filled up but 3 on E195 will not get filled up, but doing only 2 on E195 would leave demand unsatisfied.

Then there is a 70-seater issue. CRJ700 comes ahead of E175 by a mile in economics, while holding exactly the same number of seats in my desired config. But there's a catch ... ATE always gives more per-week flights to CRJ700 than to E175, because CRJ700 is faster. This affects maintenance, lease, and staff calculation (more flights means less cost per flight)... I guess ATE uses near-100% maintenance ratio for evaluation, and sometimes maintenance ratio is between 120-200% when some longer flights are included. So if I recalculate CRJ700 ATE values using E175 quantity of flights instead of CRJ700 quantity of flights, the economics of CRJ700 and E75 are "roughly" the same (the difference of 200-300 AS$per flight is still in favor of CRJ700).

So for 70-seater, it's a tie between CRJ700 and E175 and I would basically be indifferent between the two types, economically speaking.

That brings the ball back to the 100-seater ... CRK or E195 ... I am completely undecided. E195 might be too big for some routes, but if I just compare CRK and E190, then CRK comes ahead no questions asked. But CRK and E195 is different, as I said while economics per-seat for E195 is a bit worse, it can make more profit than CRK if filled.

So guys, what is your in-game experience with CRJs and E-Jets? Which one would you go for?

CRK/CR7 or E195/E175 combination?

2

I've flown CR7s and E95s on Aspern, and there really is no competition. E95 definitely beats a CR7.

Regularly, my E95s have between 100 and 104 seats, with good ratings. My CR7s would fit maybe 68-72 max. Yes, of course it's like that. The CR7 is smaller.

However, when I started on Aspern, I did a basic comparison. Cost of down payment divided by maximum number of seats available. I knew it wasn't going to be an exact number, since the cabin configuration hadn't come out and costs could have been adjusted, but in any case.. this is how the numbers turned out (lower number being better):

Sukhoi Superjet - 13.6

Q400a - 14.1

Embraer 195 - 14.5

737-800 BGW - 15.1

737-600 BGW - 15.3

CRJ 700 - 16.0

318-100 Light - 16.1

By a purely cost-to-seat ratio (base prices and base seating), the E95 beat most everything, and that's when I was using the old figure of 122 seats for the E95 instead of the 124 now possible. When it came up against the Superjet, the wait was going to be a killer. The Dash8 was going to be too small too slow.

The one worry I had was with the range. The E95 has a much shorter range compared to most any other jet, even regionals. However, with my planned hub, I knew I could get to either coast and still get about 86% weight. With 124 seats, that's about 106 seats. Using LP and RS seats, as stated before, I have E95s with 100-104 seats (though some with 112) that can fly from my hub to either coast.

Everyone's preferences are different, but the E95 was the perfect choice for me.

3

Hi,

I use the EMBs, but I think it doesn't matter so much in the end...I put some Pros for both types to help you decide - if you only need the aircraft to fly short legs the CRJ might be better, on longer flights the EMB has an advantage.

Pros for EMB:

-longer useful range

-more economic on longer flights

-interchangeable with A320/737 series (same turnaround time)

-turnaround time the same for all types(EMB170-195)

-slightly better popularity with passengers except for the CRJ700

Pros for the CRJ:

-better on shorter flights

-there is a very small variant (CRJ200) availible to fly routes without much demand

-most variants have a shorter turn-around time than the EMBs

4

The E95 has a much shorter range compared to most any other jet, even regionals.

Hm? That is strange, actually I decided for the EMB because of its higher useful range than the CRJ...f.e. on MEX-LAX the CRJ1000 already has to leave some passengers behind while the EMB can still fly it with a full payload...

EDIT: In my configuration with 104 seats the EMB195 can fly anything up to ~3000km without restrictions...thats more than most other regiojets can do (AN148 excepted)-for longer routes I use the LR

5

......

So guys, what is your in-game experience with CRJs and E-Jets? Which one would you go for?

 

CRK/CR7 or E195/E175 combination?

add to compare 2 more aircraft

A318-100 light

and

B737-600

6

Concerning 736 and A318...they are both not as efficient as the EMB and the CRJ (on a cost per seat basis). Therefore they only make sense if you want to avoid regiojets in general to save one maintenance category (which you might use later on to have two maintenance categories for long range aircraft). Anyway, they are the smallest member of their maintenance category and are already bigger than the EMB195. I think such a strategy can only work in a large market with much demand, f.e. USA or perhaps China. And even then you have to evaluate if the saved maintence costs outweight the additional costs/passenger. Assuming an average sector lenght of 2000km and leisure plus seats the EMB is still 9AS$ per passenger better than the A318 even if you consider the additional maintenance costs. So I think its only worth it, if you only want to use few A318 compared to the total fleet size.

7
I would need a 100-seater and 70-seater, so to speak. They would be configured in very premium config and subsequent higher prices, to offset the "long thin routes" factor.

Considering your requirements, have you ever thought of the An-148/158? I know the headline of this thread is E-Jet vs. CRJ, but the Antonov is really an ideal choice for the "long thin routes". They are roughly as efficient as CRJ (if not more so) and have a great range (even transatlantic flights are possible). The only drawback is the long production time.

8

In my old airline at Fornebu I used some AN148 and I agree with khan2 that they are very good aircrafts. One disadvantage is that they are only availible in two sizes, while you can order the EMBs and CRJs in four different sizes. But I agree that you can use them for niche markets which are not possible to be operated economical with any other aircraft(f.e. I used them on fornebu to connect Portugal to very small airports in mid-Africa which were out of reach for the other regiojets and too small for 737s/A320s).

9

Caithes... I was not comparing E195 to CRJ700 ... I was comparing E195 to CRJ1000NG, and E175 to CRJ700. There is no questions asked that E195 and CRJ700 are two classes of aircraft. In 100 seater category there are E195/E190 on one side and CRJ1000 (CRJK) on the other, and as mentioned the Antonov 158 as well, and in 70 seater category E175 on one side and CRJ700 on the other.

I am looking on ATE in older server, where CRJK comes ahead financially compared to E195 (maybe on Aspern with different landing fees the numbers some out differently). But that is on per-seat base. On per-trip base, if both are full, E195 comes out ahead.

And 736/318 are just too expensive per trip on thin routes, while they can still make decent profit, it is much less than E195 or CRJK. With my desired set type for that route, that is (RSH/RLH).

10

Production rate also matters in case you want to deploy a large number:

- CRK: 1/12 h;

- E195: 1/15 h;

- A148: your grow a full beard in the time one is being produced.

11

Pros for EMB:

-interchangeable with A320/737 series (same turnaround time)

In many cases E195 does NOT have same turnaround times as 320/737. In conclusion neither do other EMBs (since they are all smaller).

I will just give you some examples from "home": DLC, TAO, HAK, KWL, KWE, HRB, NKG, HGH, WNZ, CGO. In all these cases the E195 has 30 minutes and the 32x/73y have each 40 minutes.

To generalize (E195 vs. 32x/73y):

- for most relatively small and medium airports both turn in 30 minutes;

- for few relatively large airports (e.g. XIY, CTU, SZX) they both turn in 45 minutes;

- for most relatively large airports both turn in 60 minutes;

- for an important number of relatively large (6/7 bar) airports E195 turns in 30 and 32x/73y turn in 40 minutes;

- for neither types are there turning times lower than 30 or greater than 60 minutes.

Pros for the CRJ:

-most variants have a shorter turn-around time than the EMBs

Since the OP was comparing E195 and CRK, they do in fact have the same turnaround in all cases.

12

In many cases E195 does NOT have same turnaround times as 320/737

Okay, you are correct for the category "medium sized airport" (I think I have only one or two in my network, so I didn't notice the difference), but I think for the other categories its the same...

13

Have flown both. I'm switching my CRJs for EMBs on Gatow and chose the EMBs over the CRJs on Aspern, though I'm replacing those as well for A320s

14

Caithes... I was not comparing E195 to CRJ700 ... I was comparing E195 to CRJ1000NG, and E175 to CRJ700...

I understand that, but with the general cost per seat analysis I did before the start of Aspern, the CRJ 1000 NGs were all worse than the ones I mentioned (I think it came in at 16.0 or 17.0). It is easily worse than the 737-800 in this (very limited) comparison.

15

I understand that, but with the general cost per seat analysis I did before the start of Aspern, the CRJ 1000 NGs were all worse than the ones I mentioned (I think it came in at 16.0 or 17.0). It is easily worse than the 737-800 in this (very limited) comparison.

OK, I admit I have not checked the cost-per seat, but anyway one would need to create his desired configs to check real cost per seat. Recliner seats fit better into some planes than others, etc.

Also I was comparing cost per seat flown, on various routes, which includes acquisition cost (capital payment) but that is only partial...because fuel and maintenance will make a lot more difference than capital cost. When I sum up everything, CRJK comes on top of everything, in <1800 km routes. The equilibrium point (per seat basis) between CRJK and E195 is roughly between 1700-1900 km depending on landing fees. But roughly anything over 1800 km is better served in E195.

16

OK, I admit I have not checked the cost-per seat, but anyway one would need to create his desired configs to check real cost per seat. Recliner seats fit better into some planes than others, etc.

Also I was comparing cost per seat flown, on various routes, which includes acquisition cost (capital payment) but that is only partial...because fuel and maintenance will make a lot more difference than capital cost. When I sum up everything, CRJK comes on top of everything, in <1800 km routes. The equilibrium point (per seat basis) between CRJK and E195 is roughly between 1700-1900 km depending on landing fees. But roughly anything over 1800 km is better served in E195.

There's all kinds of ways to look at it. I'm currently dropping all my CRJs for Embraers because I want a class of long distance flyers rather than two regional jet types. I don't like having over three maintenance categories. Little pet peeve of mine, I guess.

I'm also not really concerned about finding the absolute-best-profit-ratio-shazam-winning-combination anyway. I've come to like the look and style of the E95s, having become familiar with them after Aspern started, and I've always been a 737 fan, even back when the 100s and 200s were around. So I've used my bias to stick with the E95s and 737 family. Now just have to decide on a long-haul carrier... either the 739 or the 787, I think.