Why are the windows on this thing practically on the floor and

>>1047997
They changed out the seats from the original ones the plane was designed for meaning they became smaller and more compact leading to a weird situation with the windows.

>>1047999
>>1047997
Aint air travel great? It was better pre-1980 before the fares dropped so low its like taking Greyhound buslines.

>>1048021
I fly Detroit to Dallas twice a month and spend about $350 doing so, it is amazingly cheap and I don't mind one bit. I am tall enough I get the emergency row seating though.

>>1047997
A Canadian Quebec shitheap of a company called Bombardier (literally means bombers)

Ironically, while the CRJ series are some of the shittiest airplanes for passengers in existence, their new CS series of narrow bodies (CS100 and CS300) are much better than the competing A320/A319 and 737 in every way (even the Neo and MAX versions. It forces companies to have five abreast seating instead of cramming six seats, and the cabin is quieter, lavatories bigger and so on.

They have the advantage of designing a plane from the ground up in the past few years, while Boing Boing and Airbust use 30, 40+ year old designs as their basis, only giving incremental improvements over the decades.

>>1047997
which airport is this? That architecture is cool as fug

>>1048049
I think Minneapolis

>>1048049
>>1048142
It's Phoenix Sky Harbor.

>>1048040
>"It forces companies to have five abreast seating instead of cramming six seats..."

Yeah, but airplanes are bought by the airlines, not the passengers. Limiting the ability to cram in seats is probably not going to be a popular selling point with them.

>>1047997
Fuselage was designed when this was meant to be a shorty bizjet. RJ project was started in the '90s when oil was dirt-cheap and Welp

>>1048162
This. What >>1048040 is saying is, quite literally "It doesn't provide as much seating and flexibility as the A319/A320 or 737", which is a good indicator that no one in their right mind would buy it: and if we just pop off and look at the orders for it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bombardier_CSeries_orders

...that proves to be true.

>>1047997
>Why are the windows on this thing practically on the floor and half behind my seat?
Cause over time they want to stick more and more seats. Soon everyone will get 1/8th of a window and your ass will be entering the spleen of the passenger behind you during take off.

>>1048040
>(CS100 and CS300) are much better than the competing A320/A319 and 737 in every way
>CS carries fewer passengers
>Lower MTOW
>Lower range

Huh.

That said:
>Delta Airlines has ordered 75 with options for 50 more.
Maybe Delta will finally retire all their MD-80s and MD-90s, thank fuck.

>>1048162
>>1048249
I should have been more clear. what you two don't realize is that the CS300 isn't directly competing with the A320 or 737, it's more competing with the A319 in terms of passenger capacity, and yet it beats both the A319 and A320 neo handily when it comes to passenger-miles/gallon.

I suggest this read as well:
https://airinsight.com/2016/02/23/why-are-airbus-and-boeing-afraid-of-bombardier/

>>1048249
Only reason more haven't been bought is because everytime bombardier is close to making a deal on the CSeries, the two sleazy duopolies basically sell their aircraft at a loss to avoid having an extra airline buying a much better aircraft.

http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-took-some-extraordinary-measures-to-crush-its-canadian-opposition-2016-3

Selling brand new 737=700 for $23 million a piece. Compare to list price of $80.6 mill.

Of course I'm not daft enough to think that any airline buys at list price, but discounts like this are almost unheard of. So what this tells us is that your pessimistic view of the CSeries is simply wrong. Boeing and Airbus are scared shitless that some of their customers could switch to the CSeries, so they're selling them at insane money-losing prices in last-minute deals that bombardier can't possibly match because they don't have the economies of scale of the duopoly.

Talking about the CSeries, Moody's (one of the most influential credit rating agencies, in case you didnt know) Senior VP even stated
“It will take a good bit more time to fully develop, but the beginning of the end of the long-running Boeing/Airbus duopoly is upon us and the competitive dynamic is ratcheting up another notch”

Source: http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/bombardier-incs-delta-sale-signals-beginning-of-the-end-of-boeing-airbus-duopoly-moodys

>>1048272
Stated previously, but the CS300 (CSeries larger variant) doesn't directly compete with the 737 MAX or A320 Neo. It competes more with the A319, of which the Neo version seems to be stalled or scrapped.

So let's compare:

Airbus A319: 156 max passengers (dense 1-class config), 124 typical (8F + 116Y)
CS300: 160 max passengers (1-class config), 130 typical (12F+ 118Y)

Unlike what you were insinuating, cabin Width of the CS300 is 3.28meters VS 3.70 of the A319. Of course it's going to be limited to 5-abreast. Bombardier didn't just stupidly choose the option to force airlines to give 5 instead of 6 abreast, it's a necessity with this airframe.

>Lower MTOW
Fair enough
>Lower Range
Fair enough, but how many narrow bodies do you see making huge trips?

The CS100 on the other hand is smaller and doesn't compete with either of Airbus or Boeing's narrowbodies directly. It's short runway length requirements are interesting.

Anyways, the fact that Delta ordered a bunch is impressive in it's own right, because now that a megahuge American carrier orders them, ot finally lends credence to its advantages over competing aircraft.

>>1048292
> Only reason more haven't been bought is because everytime bombardier is close to making a deal on the CSeries, the two sleazy duopolies basically sell their aircraft at a loss to avoid having an extra airline buying a much better aircraft.
No, it's because the A319 and 737-700 represent a pretty small market and that as high a segment as the CS300 can compete in.

>>1048292
We are fucking DECADES from Bombardier even possibly compete above the low end of the A320 and 737 market.

>>1048302
There are still a thousand of eaxh of them being produced. Market demand have moved toward the end of more capacity within 737/320's line but it is hard to determine whether the shift is motivated by the capability of both planes or by the actual market demand on plane size

>>1048303
Explain yourself

Sure, as far as production, there is no way they will compete with boeing or airbus anytime soon. I believe the max they'll be able to make is around 10 a month. For manufacturing capacity there is a clear advantage for boeingbus, but if bombardier can manage to get even a 5% share of the narrowbody 100+ seaters (e.g; 55% Airbus 40% Boeing, 5% Bombardier,) that would be a huge deal and it would make boeingbus shit their pants.

This is what I meant with Bombardier competing. I'm not naive enough to think that they would gain similar marketshare any time soon.

>>1048566
That has less to do with Bombardier's moves and more to do with whether or not Airbus and Boeing willingly abandon the A319 and 737-7 segment respectively. The simple fact that airlines operating those lower end narrow-bodies aren't clamoring for direct replacements or the CS300 is not a great sign for any party. I have no doubt that the CS series will carve out it's niche, but it will never sell like the A319 and 737-700 did. And a CS500 would still be slightly lower capacity in a typical configuration than an A320neo or a 737-8.

>>1048360
About 1440 A319s were ever made and there are effectively no outstanding orders for it. The A319neo only has 55 orders.

Less than 1200 737-700s have ever been built and there are only a handful of outstanding orders. The 737 MAX 7 only has 60 orders.

>>1048292
I think your air insight link is a little too optimistic.
3+3 seats is an inherently efficient configuration as it allows seats to fill a higher proportion of the total width. Bombardier still has an advantage in the lower capacity range because longer is more efficient than shorter, but Airbus and Boeing retain an overall advantage. And Bombardier took much longer than expected to get the C Series into production.

>>1048566
If it ain't Boeing I ain't going

>>1048613
yeah, what I mean is 319neo and 737-7 probably can't attract order not because of the lack of desire for a plane of this capacity, but instead the operational cost difference between them and 320neo/737-8 probably are small enough that nost would want the larger variant instead just like the 40-seats prop market. If the cost per seat of CSeries are sufficiently lower than them then it should be able to attract operators that did not consider 737-7/320neo

File: shocked.gif (828KB, 500x224px) Image search: [Google]

828KB, 500x224px

>>1047997
>mfw I work at that airport.

>>1049382

What do you do there?

>go to work
>direct planes and shit
>come home
>go on 4chan and talk about directing planes and shit

>>1049384
Nah, nothing that fun. In fact this is the first time I've been on /n/ in ages.

I work as a contractor there renovating the shops and restaurants, but that means I do a lot of driving around on the tarmac to bring supplies in. Get to walk around the planes and stuff.

Sky Harbor doesn't get many exciting types in. Mostly dominated by 737's and A319's. 757's and A321's are frequent, and then there's the occasional 767.

I did get to see a Fed Ex DC-10 today and almost lost my shit, though.

File: DC10.jpg (268KB, 1599x1066px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1599x1066px

>>1049394
Here's a photo of a FedEx DC10

Nice. I saw some jobs running trains the other day but I am so torn as to whether I should bother applying, it is an interesting job but the company is reviewed pretty badly so I'm not sure I will. I'm also in university which won't help.

That's a shame, I am up in Hamilton, Ontario so I see a ton of cargo planes flying in landing at Munro Airport but not anything more than that. I have seen a B-25 in person though.

File: 20170120_150539.jpg (2MB, 4160x2340px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4160x2340px

>>1049412
I could never work on the tarmac. Im way too OCD about my oxygen and jet fumes, tug fumes and the fact that everyone is a smoker would likely lead to death by asphyxiation.

Trains could be cool but Id get bored and go crazy. Not to mention potentially losing some fingers.

Heres a pic I took of a Stratotanker

>>1049166
If it's Boeing, I ain't going

sounds a lot smoother on the tongue, I reckon.

File: 20170220_071821.jpg (2MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5312x2988px

About to fly on one of these tiny babs and was wondering if anyone else hated them as much as I do, hop on /n/ and whaddya know...

>>1050304
Am legitimately interested to know if the lowered floor on the -700 fixes the window/shoulder room problem

>>1050304
the awesome gate 35x bus ride

>>1050337
Man fuck that, packing me into one of these babby planes and can't even bring a sky bridge. The plane still had US Airways livery, too. Is American Eagle just ultra shit or what? At least the flight was smooth.

>>1050333
I can't speak for the 700s but the 900s are a lot better in that regard

>>1050360
>packing me into one of these babby planes and can't even bring a sky bridge

There's always a jetway for the 200s when I've flown on them, never had to go up stairs or anything.

>Is American Eagle just ultra shit or what?

Delta Connection and United Express both have the same planes on some of their routes so it's not exclusive to American

>>1050374
I've flown crjs on delta connection/ united express and the planes just seem better maintained. There was always a jet bridge too. This was my first time with American Eagle though and the plane was really dingy inside.

>>1050376
I've only flown Delta's CRJs and the 200 was falling apart at the seams and didn't look like it had been touched in decades. The 900s I fly on tend to be recently refurbished and look great inside and are comfier.

>>1050430
Eh, maybe it's a 200 thing then. I flew a 200 today.