RJ's vs Bigger Planes ?

[UpstateCruizer]

I've never flown on one of these and have a few questions :) What are the pro's and cons to considering this option? This is one of our flight options for our return flight and would be just a little over an hour. I've flown on one and ONLY one prop type plane out of Syracuse to Newark years ago. I swore never again as it felt more like an amusement park ride on both the departure flight and the return flight. Are Rj's and prop planes similar in flight experience? Thanks again :)

[greatam]

I've never flown on one of these and have a few questions :) What are the pro's and cons to considering this option? This is one of our flight options for our return flight and would be just a little over an hour. I've flown on one and ONLY one prop type plane out of Syracuse to Newark years ago. I swore never again as it felt more like an amusement park ride on both the departure flight and the return flight. Are Rj's and prop planes similar in flight experience? Thanks again :)

 

RJ's are just baby jets. Not a lot of overhead space (for luggage or your head). Pick an aisle seat for more room.

 

I love to fly and think the RJ's are a hoot. I spent 3 days in March flying RJ's from Dallas Love Field to Austin/San Antonio just to rack up AA miles.

 

Not something I want to fly in for 3000 miles, but that only has to do with comfort and space. Not like a prop at all. They truly are "baby jets". Close to the same take off and landing procedures as a 757, just quicker. You will be fine. Enjoy!!!

[FlyerTalker]

From a safety standpoint, I have no issues with RJ's. They have proven to be reliable aircraft. And, compared with turboprops, they have advantages for the passenger, such as noise and speed.

 

My objections to the RJ's are primarily along the lines of comfort for the passenger. Seats are not as padded/substantial as they are on mainline jets. There is less legroom, and narrow armrests. Due to the curvature of the fuselage, window seat passengers have reduced shoulder room, which often transfers to the aisle seat passenger when the window pax leans into the center of the plane. On CRJ's (100/200 series), the windows are very low, so you have to scrunch down to be able to look out. Overhead bins and underseat areas are small, so you are limited on the carry-ons you can bring into the cabin. There is usually limited space in the galley, so any onboard service will have a more limited selection.

 

Having said this, the RJ's do load and unload faster than larger jets, and they provide jet service that sometimes would be in a turboprop instead.

 

In general, most "road warriors" are not fans of the "jungle jets" (from Embraer in Brazil) or the "flying SkiDoos" (from Bombardier in Canada).

[UpstateCruizer]

Thank you Greatam and Flyertalker for your insight :) You both have such valuable information on flying~!!

[hdawson]

On Emraer, I feel like Gulliver. Never, never again.

[alcpa1]

Most everything has been mentioned except - at many airports you have to exit the airport and either be bussed to the steps of the plane or walk directly to the steps from the terminal. This can be an issue when it's blowing snow and sleet at LaGuardia or hot as blue blazes at Charlotte. I've done both.

Since I am not very tall I think the window seat is just fine. The DH always takes the aisle anyway.

Houston, Cincinnati and Charlotte are just three of the many airports with designated terminals for RJ's. Some require a walk with or without busses and moving sidewalks and others offer trains.

Enjoy your flight!

[wrp96]

It depends on the airport and the airline whether or not you get to use the jetbridge with a RJ or not. The system that makes it possible to use the jetbridge with a Regional Jet was invented by a gate agent here in Little Rock, and here American and Delta use it. But at the gates used by Continental, US Air, and Northwest, they don't use the jetbridge. However, in Minneapolis Northwest does use the jetbridge with its RJs (go figure).

[Corsair41]

My wife & I have flown on RJ's with AA, and aside from the seats being a bit on the narrow side, they are no problem. Not exactly a 747, but not bad nonetheless.

 

Robb

[DanJ]

It also depends on which RJ you are going on. The Embraer 135/145 and the Canadair CRJ-100/200 are pretty cramped. When you get to the larger EMB 170/190 series, these are pretty much on the same comfort level as a mainline aircraft, only with 2x2 seats, instead of 3x3. The larger Canadair 700/900 series also have more head room, since the wingboxes were redesigned, allowing the wings to be lower, and thus the floor to be lower. This really helps alleviate the should crunch that the smaller 100/200 has.

[tantalos60]

I've never flown on one of these and have a few questions :) What are the pro's and cons to considering this option? This is one of our flight options for our return flight and would be just a little over an hour. I've flown on one and ONLY one prop type plane out of Syracuse to Newark years ago. I swore never again as it felt more like an amusement park ride on both the departure flight and the return flight. Are Rj's and prop planes similar in flight experience? Thanks again :)

 

My only experience with turboprops was a flight from CMH to Toronto..wasn't much fun. As far as choice is concerned, well, if I have to book an RJ--I have found this site to be very helpful. At least, you might be able to pick the best seats. http://www.seatguru.com/ I hope it helps. j

[NCTarheelsCruiser]

I've never flown on one of these and have a few questions :) What are the pro's and cons to considering this option? This is one of our flight options for our return flight and would be just a little over an hour. I've flown on one and ONLY one prop type plane out of Syracuse to Newark years ago. I swore never again as it felt more like an amusement park ride on both the departure flight and the return flight. Are Rj's and prop planes similar in flight experience? Thanks again :)

 

As others have mentioned, you should not be hesitant to book on an RJ at all. I had a near death experience on a turboprop and swore I would never fly one again (and I haven't) and I was a little nervous the first time I was going on an RJ, but that was just because I really did not know anything about them before I flew one. I find them to be fine as far as smoothness of takeoff/landing, etc. If you are planning on taking carry on's, definitly make it a small bag as a lot of the carry on's that can fit on the larger planes overhead's will not fit in RJ's overheads. Also, if you are tall (taller than 6 feet) it is a little tough to fit in some versions of RJ's, so if it is a long flight I would recommend a bigger plane if that is a possibility.

[FlyerTalker]

It also depends on which RJ you are going on. The Embraer 135/145 and the Canadair CRJ-100/200 are pretty cramped. When you get to the larger EMB 170/190 series, these are pretty much on the same comfort level as a mainline aircraft, only with 2x2 seats, instead of 3x3. The larger Canadair 700/900 series also have more head room, since the wingboxes were redesigned, allowing the wings to be lower, and thus the floor to be lower. This really helps alleviate the should crunch that the smaller 100/200 has.

 

Really good differentiation Dan. Unfortunately, the SkiDoos and JungleJets are the prevalent types of RJ's out there. The 700/900 does have more headroom and shoulder room, due to the lower floor - but it's still an aircraft I try to avoid. On comfort and convenience grounds - I'm not afraid for my safety.

 

I agree that the EMB170/190 should not be thought of as an RJ, but more like a scaled-down 737. Interior comfort is far above a typical RJ. I will admit, I'd rather be on an RJ than an EMB-120 turboprop, or a Beech 1900, or an ATR-72 or almost every turboprop (I might make an exception for the Dash8 or Dash9).