Talk:Bombardier CRJ700 series/Archive 1

Specs
I added the specs for the aircraft, any comments? Planes&amp;mustangs510 02:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

CRJ700/900/1000
There should be separate articles for the CRJ700, CRJ900 and CRJ1000, as they are separate lines. (unlike the natural evolution of the CRJ100 to CRJ200) 70.55.84.123 (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't think so. The CRJ-700 and CRJ-900 are definitely similar enough to be the same article (same engines, same wing) and are really no different than, say, a Boeing 737-700 and -800, or an A319 and A320, which are simply discussed as variants to a main article. The CRJ-1000 is a bigger change, but BA markets them as a family, and until the CRJ-1000 has sufficient market penetration of its own it might as well stay here i think. MadScot (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The 700 and 900 are also on the same type certificate so essentially the same aircraft, the 1000 is not certified yet if it gets a seperate certificate then it may be worthy of a separate article in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Same/Different TC shouldn't be the defining criteria for standalone articles, otherwise all the Challenger 60x would be on the same article, as well as all the CRJs. CRJ1000 will be on the same TC, but will be a different ID# - CL-600-2Esomething, I believe. MadScot (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have worked on both the CRJ700 and CRJ900. The CRJ900 is extremely similar to the CRJ700.  Differences are an added fuselage plug, 2 extra escape hatches, uprated engines, 2 extra fins on the tail section for lateral stability.  The CRJ700 also has FADECs and the improved environmental pack, I suggest that the first paragraph describing the CRJ900 be moved or copied to the CRJ700 section, as theses upgrades appeared on the CRJ700 first.  The avionics suite is from Rockwell Collins.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.224.240 (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

CRJ1000 crash
Date:  	February 14 2008      Time: 04:15 Location: 	Yerevan, Armenia Operator: 	Belavia AC Type: 	Canadair CRJ100ER Reg: 	EW-101JP     cn: 7316 Aboard: 	21      Fatalities: 0       Ground: 0 Route: 	Yerevan - Minsk Details: 	While attempting to take off the aircraft flipped over and burst into flames. Ten people were taken to the hospital.

saw video footage i guess its the first hull loss of the 1000? no one killed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.49.22 (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * CRJ-1000 isn't certified never mind in airline service yet. Accident was to a CRJ-100, not -1000. MadScot (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

MTOW
What about MTOW and Takeoff Run at MTOW --195.110.6.3 (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How about a source for that detailed data? -Fnlayson (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Manufacturer's website seems to have a detailed breakdown of specifications (including MTOW) for the CRJ700, CRJ705 and CRJ900. The data seems more comprehensive than that already listed in the article. If no-one else fancies updating it with references I am happy to do it. SempreVolando (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't expect the takeoff distances to be provided there and wanted the requester to check, i.e. do share of effort. I was going to help and will. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bombardier does not have a page for the CRJ1000 yet. But it does have a fact sheet for that on its site. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Maximum safe speed?
What is the maximum safe speed of a CRJ700? I see the "basic cruising speed" listed, but is there a maximum safe speed? By "safe," I mean that the plane could be expected to operate at this speed for an extended period of time, safely. I was recently tracking a friend's flight on FlightAware.com; she was aboard a CRJ700, and the top speed during the flight was 625 MPH, which seems quite a bit faster than the 503 MPH basic cruising speed listed in this article. Just wondering if this is normal or if it's some kind of rare occurrence. I know very little about aviation so please forgive me if this is a stupid question. —BMRR (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that Fnlayson updated the table with basic cruise speeds and maximum cruise speeds. The max cruise speed for the CRJ700 is listed as 544 MPH.  Is it unusual, then, that a CRJ700 would have been flying considerably faster than that? I just took another look at the track log for my friend's flight.  The plane spent about 10 minutes in the 560 MPH to 570 MPH range; then it spent a couple of minutes between 600 MPH and 625 MPH, followed by 10 or so minutes in the 560 to 570 range again.  Is this typical?  Again, I apologize if these are stupid questions. —BMRR (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a stupid question, but it's a pity no one answered it properly. Aircraft specifications like cruising speeds, maximum safe speeds, etc., are always airspeeds, since they're determined by the movement of the air over the aircraft. However, if the air is also moving over the ground due to a prevailing wind, the aircraft's speed over the ground can be quite different. The speeds reported by FlightAware are ground speeds, so you have to keep this in mind. My guess would be that your friend's flight caught a strong tailwind (perhaps a jet stream), boosting its ground speed by a lot. That sort of thing is quite common; pilots try to take advantage of tailwinds when they can to save time and fuel. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I fly all 3 variants of the plane. MPH is persay not limiting. All aircraft of this type are Mach limited at altitude. For a given Mach, MPHs of true airspeed TAS will vary based on the temperature variation at altitude. The CRJ700 max speed in Mach is .85 also known as MMO (Max Operating Mach.) The CRJ900 max Mach is .84, the CRJ200 max Mach is .85. Now the CRJ200 is a dog compared to the newer versions so in all practicality .85 is really usually only attainable in a decent. Also there are other limitation often in the real world. Over the USA.....most jets operate in what is call RVSM airspace at cruise altitudes. For instance the CRJ700 can safely fly .85, but has an RVSM limit of .83. Not 100% sure but I geuss this might be an auto/pilot pitot static limitation in the RVSM airspace. 24.210.214.62 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Primary Operators
What defines a primary operator? Currently Bomba lists the following operators: (http://www.crj.bombardier.com/CRJ/en/operators.jsp?langId=en&crjId=900) Air Canada Jazz: 16 Adria: 4 Air Nostrum: 11 Alitalia: 10 Arik Air: 4 Atlas Jet: Does not indicate any CRJ900s on webpage. Delta: 54 Lufthansa: 12 Macedonian: ? Mesa Airlines: 38 Myair: 4 Launch customer for CRJ900 was Mesa Airlines. User:Aneah 13:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The top 4 users of the aircraft are listed as the Primary users in the Infobox. Users and their fleet numbers should be listed in the Operators section with references.  See Boeing 777 and Boeing 717 for examples.  The top 4 from that are listed in the Infobox. I have this data in the Flight International magazine and can do the list is a day or two. -fnlayson (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess since I went to Bombardier site and got the information on the CRJ900 (which is what my company uses), I have found that the Bomba web site was incomplete. Other companies using the 900 (which I was specifically referring to) also include ASA, Mesaba, and Skywest. Of course, this article is not limited to the CRJ900 but also the CRJ700 and CRJ1000.

Is it possible that the article could/should be broken up into three articles? Essentially the CRJ 700, the CRJ 705/900, and the CRJ 1000. Granted the SRM for the CRJ700 and 900 are the same, however, the IPC are different, due to configurations. The three aircraft are similar, but different. User:Aneah 18:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Operators have been updated using fleet data on CRJ700s (all kinds) and CRJ900s combined. A couple users keep removing Skywest for some reason though. -fnlayson (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Article move
I have reverted a move of this article to Bombardier CRJ700/900/1000 as it needs to be discussed particularly as it is a non-standard format. Any comments. MilborneOne (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's definitely non-standard, but there seems to be no easy way to do this either. For the most part, we don't double up the designations in WP:AIR, but their are a few exceptions, such as North American FJ-2/-3 Fury and Bell 204/205. We could split off the CRJ1000, and move the article to Bombardier CRJ700/CRJ900 or similar, or we could move the whole article to something like Bombardier CRJ700 family or Bombardier CRJ (long-body family). Again, there's no easy way to do this, so perhaps we should take it up at WP:AIR/NC, and see if we can brainstorm a consensus on how we can best handle these types of article names. - BilCat (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Bombardier CRJ700 family" seems the best of those to me. The CRJ1000 could be split off anytime with that name, if needed. -fnlayson (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed CRJ700 family seems the most natural of these (and won't require changing if Bombadier introduce further related models).Nigel Ish (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Dont have a problem with family as we have used that before. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, "family" is what we're using in most similar cases, and seems to be accepted without much, if any, opposition. Should we go ahead and move it now, or wait for some more comments? What about the CRJ100/200 article? It's at Bombardier CRJ200 now. - BilCat (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not object to "family"—it is, at least, better than the current name, although I am not sure that anybody calls these three airliners a "family". Ruslik_ Zero 19:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What about "series"? As in "Bombardier CRJ700 series"?  That's how the various MD-8x planes are referred to in the trade press, e.g. the "McDonnell Douglas MD-80 series." I've seen CRJs referred to as the "Bombardier CRJ series" but obviously we don't want to lump the 100 and 200 in with the 700/900/1000, as there are enough differences to keep them separate. –BMRR (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Series' is better than 'family'. Ruslik_ Zero 19:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any more views before the move is made? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably safe to go ahead with the move, eh? –BMRR (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, looks like it. FYI: With the DC-9/-10/MD-80 articles, "series" seems to be a Douglas/McDonnell Douglas term.  But that's not relevant here. -fnlayson (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bombardier does refer to these aircraft as the "CRJ Series" on their web site. –BMRR (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right! Q-Series and CSeries are 2 others used by the company. -fnlayson (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved this article to "Bombardier CRJ700 series". -fnlayson (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

11 April 2011 A380/CRJ700 ground incident: importance?

 * On April 11, 2011, Delta Connection Flight 6293 / Comair Flight 553, a Comair Bombardier CRJ700, was struck by the wing of Air France Flight 007, an Airbus A380, while on a taxiway at JFK airport. No injuries were reported.

Well, I added it since it seems like a significant incident. That was a dramatic collision, as it spun the CRJ 90-degrees from its previous orientation. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The wording in the entry above does not indicate a notable incident. No injuries and nothing about major damage to the CRJ700.  That's based on guidelines at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents.  I have not found any reports/articles stating the extent of the damage to the CRJ700. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not every ground incident that results in a bumpercars crash between airplanes loaded with passengers (as opposed to fender benders, like typical wingtip incidents). That seems to indicate something different. I can always add the info about the plane being spun 90degrees. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm on the fence with this one for a couple reasons. Normally, bumper-planes incidents aren't of particular notability, but this one has a few key differences:
 * It was captured quite dramatically on video
 * It's not every day that a ground collision results in scrambled eggs for the passengers on one of the aircraft
 * It involved an A380, possibly pointing to issues that still need to be addressed regarding airport design requirements to ensure safe handling of such a large aircraft.
 * My conclusion: Let's wait and see what the NTSB has to say about it. If something does come up regarding the size of the A380 being an issue, then a blip in the A380's article would be appropriate. I don't think however that this incident is of any particular notability to the CRJ700.  N419 BH  05:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * People (average folks) seem to be commenting that it shows the strength of the CRJ airframe, on various blogs, though that is clearly not RS.
 * USA Today reports that the Flight Safety Foundation calls it a significant incident
 * Though if the NTSB does weigh in to make a major decision, it's not longer an entry on the list, it'll become a full article. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that. There's all kinds of airline incidents, even accidents, with NTSB reports but not Wikipedia articles. I think for now it's best to wait and see. It's certainly possible the incident will be of note to the A380 but I don't think it's going to warrant a stand-alone article unless something major comes out of it. A three or four sentence bullet in the A380 article will likely be sufficient.  N419 BH  06:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to lean toward the group that believes this should be included as an incident on the article; it's not everyday that such a significant (and violent) collision occurs. The few key differences listed above are great examples why. It should also be added to the A380 article. But again, both should wait until the NTSB release their findings. The Legacy (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I too think it should be added. Many other articles have lists of incidents. There could be such a list here, and this could be the only one. At this point there should be more info from NTSB too.

Seats per row
This and all passenger aircraft articles should state the number of seats across in standard coach configuration. I believe that for this series of aircraft, seating is 4 across, but I don't have a source. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a travel guide and the number of seats is not that important as it can change from airline to airline. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The number of seats across is a basic feature mentioned in many airliner articles. I believe the max number of seat across is generally what determines the fuselage size. Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Seats per row is rather usual in commercial passenger aircraft articles, for example:
 * Boeing 757 The 757 interior allows seat arrangements of up to six per row with a single center aisle.
 * Boeing 737 This fuselage permitted six-abreast seating compared to the rival BAC-111 and DC-9's five-abreast layout.
 * Bombardier Dash 8 (includes photograph of cabin showing four-abreast layout.)
 * McDonnell Douglas DC-9 DC-9 aircraft have five seats across for economy seating.
 * Embraer E-Jet family All E-Jets use four-abreast seating (2+2) ... —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Bathroom(s) in specs
Is this article really only for the information that makers and commercial flyers of airplanes publish? I am told that the # of bathrooms is not generally publicized in the “specs” and so my addition of that info for one plane has been removed. But I have cited a thoughtful commentary on the # of bathrooms (1) for a 90+ -seat craft (and ensuing discomfort on the part of some flyers). Am I being told that using the “specs” template box for # of bathrooms is a misuse of the format? I worked hard to figure how to fit it in; gave my citation; and thought it was a good addition. I’m not saying I’ll research every model of airplane to find # of bathrooms. But it’s a bona fide expansion of what the article says ‘’about’’ the plane, from my viewpoint, and could prompt more attention to the specification (which of course is substantive; just happens not to have been a focus or a “selling point” I guess to date).

I think of seat size and even more, distance between seats, as a much more publicized point of contention between airplane manufacturers and operators, on the one hand, and flying consumers on the other; of course luggage configurations are another; and I was glad to see seating as a discussion topic on this page just now. I’m not crusading, here. I’m just saying that an article about an airplane, it seems to me, ought to be open enough to handle consumer reporting and feedback on valid, substantive subjects as well as industry info.

I will also say I broke another boundary, for myself as editor, in my edit because the source was a posting on Facebook. However, the commenter on Facebook had a substantial “following” (in the tens or hundreds of thousands, I think) and was clearly a “journalist” of a sort. I thought maybe that would be grounds for ejection. I hope before it is brought out as basis for a peremptory eviction, the merits of the case will be considered. (Yes, one must probably be a “member” or whatever of Facebook (as I am; also a shareholder as it happens) to access the source. But plenty of news citations (to the WSJournal for instance; where I'm also a shareholder but not a subscriber) are restricted to paid subscribers, I suspect; Facebook is free of charge to “members”. And yes, the FB posting could be dismissed as “like a blog”; but, again, such an objection seems petty when considered in context. And finally, for the record, all I cited from the FB post was the number of bathrooms, including none of the subjective or customer comment. It seemed solid. Swliv (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not found bathroom info and the like in the specs of the various aviation books I have. I don't think it is a really a spec.  This is like seating arrangement details that are covered in the text instead of the specs table (consider placing this info similarly).  Facebook pages are self-published and do not meet Wikipedia's Reliable Sources policy. If this is somewhat important then it should be available in reliable media articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Response appreciated but obviously no real headway. The "and the like" puzzles me. All I'm talking about is bathrooms. I appreciate the uncertainty about what is and is not a spec. I feel I made a good case that it is a spec(ification) of concern at least to passengers. And it's maybe a bit less flexible in the design than seating arrangements, given plumbing. Importance is in the eyes of the observer, of course. It seemed from the FB post that it was important to travelers using this airplane. As to Facebook, I knew I wasn't helping my case by highlighting the source when it hadn't been challenged before. This is not the place to resolve Reliable sources issues, either, I realize. I'm guessing there was no effort here to assess independently the post. As I said, it seemed solid to me. While not edited in the traditional sense of course the openness of comment makes for a policing of content looser but somewhat as we have here on Wikipedia -- "crowd-sourced credibility" maybe I'd call it. But if you've said your final word, I'm ready to let it stop here for now. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My main issue was forcing a non-spec in the Specs table. Non-spec design info can be covered in the text instead like seating arrangement info. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Number of followers have no weight on the content itself. You could have a pop-star (with many more followers) making a comment that is not their expertise and it will not be reliable at all. It is hard to prove the competence of that person in a specific area. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Response appreciated but obviously no real headway. The pop-star comment seems a little gratuitous -- it's not a pop-star; I know the difference, wouldn't have said "journalist" above if I'd been uncertain. Not that a pop star couldn't have made a valid observation on the subject but this didn't happen to be that. Number of followers was not my sole criterion, I think I made clear, but I do feel it has some weight in this case. And I didn't set out to "prove" competence. It's not a highly technical issue. Reliable observation .... Well, I know the problem. There's more on FB, crowd-sourced credibility and my willingness to let it drop here in my response today above. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bombardier CRJ700 series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110708204519/http://www.crj700.com/CRJ/en/specifications.jsp?langId=en&crjId=700 to http://www.crj700.com/CRJ/en/specifications.jsp?langId=en&crjId=700

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked, failed. Redalert2fan (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bombardier CRJ700 series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713235331/http://www.ltbaonline.com/2011/global/manufacturers/new-firm-order-for-four-crj700-nextgen.html to http://www.ltbaonline.com/2011/global/manufacturers/new-firm-order-for-four-crj700-nextgen.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227061911/http://www.comair.com:80/comair/cdc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=cdc_pg_0021&newsNodeId=%2FComairDotComRepository%2Fcdc%2Fnews%2FCRJ900 to http://www.comair.com/comair/cdc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=cdc_pg_0021&newsNodeId=%2FComairDotComRepository%2Fcdc%2Fnews%2FCRJ900
 * Added tag to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-06/delta-buys-40-regional-jets-from-bombardier-in-rebuff-to-embraer
 * Added tag to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-06/delta-buys-40-regional-jets-from-bombardier-in-rebuff-to-embraer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bombardier CRJ700 series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130207034812/http://www.aeroindianews.com:80/bombardier.htm to http://www.aeroindianews.com/bombardier.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809073110/http://www.bombardier.com/en/aerospace/media-centre/press-releases/details?docID=0901260d8014b2d5 to http://www.bombardier.com/en/aerospace/media-centre/press-releases/details?docID=0901260d8014b2d5
 * Added tag to http://www.bombardier.com/en/media-centre/newsList/details.bombardier-aerospace20131212bombardierandamericanairlinesexecute.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Temperatures and specs
One thing I noticed that was not included in the specs are the planes' temperature operating/flying range.

I live in Phoenix, AZ, and there are days when the temperature exceeds 115° and has reached 122°. Many planes cannot fly in temps above 118° and I do not know what the lower limits may be.

Since this is important to the planes' ability to fly and operate, I think that there should be an "Operational Temperature Range" category as part of the specifications.

And not just for this article, but for ALL aircraft articles.

Opinions? 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Not usual specs but fringe situations in aircraft manuals. Not encyclopedic and extremely difficult to have reliably in ALL articles.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree that this is beyond the scope of wikipedia (not encyclopedic), nor is it easily accessible information as these sorts of limitations are only usually found in the aircraft operating manual. The upper operating temperature is also not a simple figure as it is based on ISA which means it varies for airports at different altitudes above sea level. For the CRJ700, the maximum operating temperature for takeoff and landing is (ISA + 35oC), so it's not a fixed temperature value as it will be +50oC (122oF) at a sea level airport, but lower at higher elevation airports such as Phoenix where it would be +47.8oC (118oF), or Denver where it would be +39.2oC (103oF). Stating a 'simplistic' upper limit would be false. SempreVolando (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Small size of seats and difficulty of using bathroom
I find the seats in the main cabin to be sized for children, and the bathroom difficult to be used by an adult. Can anyone provide a source for my claims so that they could be included in the article? I flew on a CRJ700 today and hope I never have to do so again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Link (talk • contribs) 00:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sometimes those things are airline selections, and not the fault of the manufacturer, with some airlines being notorious for such decisions. If they are manufacturer restrictions, then yes, we'd need reliable sources that say that. - BilCat (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTFORUM. CRJ seats are 17.3" wide, similar to most airliners, and usual pitch is 30-31", longer than the 28" favored by low cost carriers these days. Tight but usable for 95% of the population and a main driver of low seat costs.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)