Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What's Your Opinon On The Regional Jet Craze?  
User currently offlineN408BN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2991 times:

I'm doing a paper on Regional Jets and would like to know what everyone out there thinks of this current regional jet mania that has occured since 1993? What do you feel are the positives and negatives?

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2955 times:


Access to smaller airports and thinner routes made easy for airlines and passengers with the plus of jet travel.

Added frquency on routes gives travellers more choice.

Flexibility to operations managers to downsize one more step when medium size jets are underbooked.


Slow in climb and block airspace at medium jet altitudes.

Added number of flights are not sustainable in the long term either environmentally or in terms of ATC and gate congestion.

To many airlines will be tempted to add frequency by using them on sectors that are too long for pax comfort.

I know these cancel each other out but they are the factors the industry is/will have to face.

Already the major airline agencies and ATC authorities are concerned with the trend.

Best of luck with the paper

User currently offlineVH-OJO From Slovakia, joined Jan 2000, 238 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2948 times:

Incidently, just today I visited the Greenville, SC, Airport (GSP) and was amazed to see nothing but regional jets. There were two CRJs of United Express, one of DL Connection, three ERJs (NW Airlink, AA Eagle and CO Express), plus a Dash-8 and Do-328 of US Airways Express. This was the first time ever, I could only see all regionals, although I do realize GSP is a small airport.

As you mention, there really is a regional jet mania going on right now. I never realized all these carriers even had RJs in their respective fleets. Five years ago they were all turbo props.

User currently offlineNY-JFK-LGA From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 374 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2919 times:

I'm so into the RJ craze! I prefer the CRJ over the ERJ, but the ERJs are still cool. The RJs are all just too cool!

Bring back McDonnell Douglas & T W A!!
User currently offlineN202PA From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2917 times:

Add to the negative list that they are essentially flying buses. I've been on 8 RJ flights in the last six months, and they are no better than Greyhound--in fact, Greyhound at least gives you a restroom that's actually usable. The restroom on the CRJ is so cramped, it's literally impossible to stand up and use it.

One of the major downsides to the CRJ is that it seems to have been made for people who are shorter than 5'3". The windows are *way* too low (forcing normal-sized peole like me to crouch over to look out), the restroom's too small, the seats are short and too thin, and you have to watch your head for the bins if you're standing up. The CRJ's a beautiful plane outside, but inside, it's less than comfortable; a 737 or a DC-9 would be much more comfortable.

User currently offlineBH346 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3265 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2913 times:

Smaller plane, more frequency fits in to be flexible.
Hey, its better than a DC-9-15
I find the Avro RJ85 comfy
Avro RJ85 is my fav

Smaller legroom
Sometimes used on medium-range flights. (Too uncomfortable for a long flight)


Northwest Airlines - Some People Just Know How to Fly
User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4661 posts, RR: 31
Reply 6, posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2894 times:

Mostly good, with some bad. Anytime an RJ replaces a turboprop, that's a good thing for the passenger. The turboprop is a substandard product. Passengers have told airlines such resoundingly both in surveys, and with their dollars. Comair and Continental Express are cleaning up with regional jets, as is Atlantic Coast.

However, RJ's are sometimes used to replace full-sized narrowbodies, which may be undesirable to the markets affected. For instance, Delta pulled 722s this summer from Grand Rapids and Dayton and replaced them with RJ's. The 722s, according to Delta's press releases, went to "more lucrative transcontinental routes." GRR and DAY got more frequency with Comair and ASA RJs, so if frequency is your criterion they didn't do badly.

Full-size narrowbodies generally are more comfortable than any regional aircraft, including the RJ's which at least offer jet speed and quiet to their passengers. But I'll take an RJ over ANY turboprop, any day, where available.

Jim K.
Washington, DC

Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineIndianGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2883 times:

As a passenger what would you prefer for a 2 hr hop to a hub: a single widebody A300 service once a day, or 5-6 70 seat RJ flights spread out across the day.

I would definitely prefer the latter option. It gives pax more freedom to arrange their schedules.

Then again, the RJ revolution means services that were too long for a turboprop service, but too thin to warrant even a 320 run, can now be served with the RJ's.

Hence i think the ultimate beneficiary has been the customer.

User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7907 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

I am going to build off of PhilB's good arguement

Opens up new markets that were previously unserved
A better equipment choice on longer segments vs. turboprops
for the most part a superior product to turboprops

they are part of the problem of overcrowded airports (look at LGA's fight over new RJ flights)
for the most part their performance sucks when compared to full-sized jets
they often replace full-sized jet service
for the most part airlines can't/won't offer the same level of service on longer 90 min + flights
The lavs in the CRJ are TIGHT... and this is coming from someone who is 5'9" 140lbs.

Some try to sell the RJ as the end all be all in transportation... however me thinks efforts at high speed rail may be a more efficient means of transporting people.

Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineCaribb From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 1649 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2878 times:

Overall positive in my opinion.

Airlines have more flexibility by adding these jets. Air Canada for example can fly into smaller markets than it would have been able to with an A319 or DC-9.. thereby giving some cities in the US their first direct international jet service.. Comair's entire success has been based on the introduction of the CRJ. Brazil has developed a much stronger aviation industry because of the EMB-145.. they are also quicker and quieter than conventional turbo props.. I think if they were all taken off the market tomorrw a lot of people would miss them. The world has benefited from their introduction.

User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4661 posts, RR: 31
Reply 10, posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2873 times:

Hear hear DesertJets. In the Metroliner corridor, high speed rail would be a huge help, and the market to fund it is probably there. Amtrak says their Acela (whenever it finally starts) will do Washington Union Station--New York Central Station in 3 hours, down from about four on existing trains. They claim 5.5 hours DC-Boston, I think.

Three hours would just about cover driving-or-Metro to DCA, boarding, waiting to take off, flight, landing at LGA, disembarking and fighting crowds to cab stand, and getting to Midtown Manhattan. But air is still the clear winner on DCA-BOS.

The airlines could easily offer code sharing if they wished, and even coordinate schedules. I think ContinentalEWR suggested this for Metroliner Corridor pax getting to EWR for Co's international fights.

IF the market is there, and they can get the track upgraded, in the Northeast at least high-speed rail could be a big help in reducing airport congestion.


Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineAirmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 391 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2856 times:

i love those RJs, wish PIA would introduce them in its fleet especially the 328jet 

.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineLowfareair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2853 times:

I believe the Acela train won't get off the ground for a while. The start date has already bennn repeatedly pushed back, and the current one is sometime in Dec. IMO; that will not be the final one.

User currently offlineAmtrakGuy From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2842 times:

The Acela Express will be officially be available on Dec 11. But, it will be once a day each way. However, the next train set will be available in Jan and then more after that..we're expecting to replace all the Metroliner with Acela Express by next summer...better timing and choices.

Yeah, it been one year delayed. We're all are looking forward to see this go off in December. Amtrak is claiming that this will be a "model" for the rest of the country...who kows.


User currently offlineGreggj From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (15 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2830 times:

The CRJ700's have the floor lowered and the cabin widened slightly. Additionaly, the windows have been rasised about five inches so they are 'where they should be'.

My experience with the CRJ200 was that is was nice...but a big cramped....the windows, oddly enough, had a lot to do with it since I was bending my neck to see out...

I think we'll see much more favorable reports from the CRJ700 and 900.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is Your Oppinion On The B747SP? posted Thu Dec 7 2000 17:47:24 by Thom@s
What Is Your Opinion On The New Elal Logo? posted Wed Jul 7 1999 19:52:54 by Orenjada
What Livery Will Be On The B-747-LCF posted Thu Sep 7 2006 04:01:23 by KC135TopBoom
United Introduces You To The Regional Jet: Evolved posted Tue May 16 2006 22:17:51 by FlyCMH
What Plane Is It On The Beach In Lost? posted Thu Aug 11 2005 00:18:20 by Cloudyapple
Cast Your Vote On The Wright Amendment posted Wed Jul 6 2005 01:56:23 by Barney Captain
What Are These Stars On The A380 Engine? posted Sun Jan 9 2005 03:26:57 by A380900
Your Views On The A380 Economics. posted Tue Jun 15 2004 15:08:03 by BoeingBus
Your Experiences On The Boeing 736 posted Sat May 15 2004 15:34:46 by Steph001
Your Thoughts On The EMB-170 posted Wed May 5 2004 22:48:47 by 744lover