Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1652 times:
I saw an advertisement showcasing some of the best or widely used regional aircraft including commuters and such which also included a picture of a Boeing 717. Why?
Furthermore, when is a plane considered regional? (Note: I may have asked that question before a while back...don't remember though)
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4111 posts, RR: 39 Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1634 times:
Difficult to say. I would actually classify the B717-200 as "RA" = Regional Airliner. Aimed at regional routes but above Regional Jet standart. Into this group the EMB-170/175/190/195 and the FA7 and FA9 belong, too.
Ironchain15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1629 times:
I do not know exactly, but I think that describes the 100-seat market. I have heard the older DC-9 Series 10 be called a regional jet before, even though I honestly do not think it is.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1593 times:
If a rule is made without regards to a particular size just operation, then they must apply to all aircraft!
So if a very large aircraft (your choice) happens to be "flying on regional routes, who can be handled at small airports etc.....", is it still a regional airliner?
I see a double standard.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Turbolet From Cape Verde, joined Nov 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1571 times:
One could make an argument both ways.
I myself don't think the 717 is a regional jet. At its maximum passenger occupancy, it can take over 100 ppl, that's my first reason. Secondly, it can fly quite a distance. I would put it in the same category as A319/320, MD-80 and 737-300/400/500
-turbolet
Jhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6195 posts, RR: 13 Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1549 times:
ATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1361 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1486 times:
Same thing applies for the RJ100-Bae 146-300 it can hold well over 100 passengers in a 1 class 6 abreast config. but is it RJ yes because of the type of routes they normally fly. The 717 and RJ100 are because of range, the fulfill a Niche along with the Fokker 100.
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11135 posts, RR: 61 Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1478 times:
This is a difficult question. Whenever I am asked this question, I immediately think of the DC-9 series (which includes the MD-80 and MD-90) since the 717 is truly a DC-9 series aircraft.
It's design is based entirely on the DC-9 series and was infact considered a shortened MD-90 by McDonnell Douglas before they were bought by Boeing.
Lets not forget that when McDonnell Douglas was still around, it was called the MD-95.
Saying that the 717 is a regional jet is like saying the entire DC-9 series are regional jets. That's how I see it. Some may disagree.
These days, the term "regional jet" is really irrelevant. Regional jets like the CRJ are flying routes that 737s used to operate on and even longer ones. Therefore they aren't so "regional" anymore. They're being used on routes that a regular airliner would fly on.
The 717 really was an aircraft designed to fly routes a 737 would to some extend. The 737 has more range, however there are so many routes 737s fly that a 717 could fly. This is what I believe the 717 was designed for.
While originally true regional jets like the CRJ, Avro RJ100, ERJ-135/140/145 series aircraft were designed to fly routes that turboprops currently fly and slightly longer routes.
However we all know that's changed. We're seeing CRJs cross 2/3 of the United States now.
Simply put, no the 717 is not a regional jet. Just like it's old brother the DC-9-10. I have never ever heard the DC-9-10 being called a regional jet and it isn't classified as one either.
Regards
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1364 times:
That's right i don't think the 717 is a regional jet either. Remember this plane is really an MD-95 and Boeing just renamed it the 717. True none of the DC-9's are classified as regional jets so why the 717?
Travatl From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2172 posts, RR: 11 Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1266 times:
Just a reminder, the 717-200 is MUCH larger than the DC9-10 was.
Bucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1177 times:
I think the real question is, are the Bombardier and Embrear aircraft "regional jets"? The only difference between a regional jet and a non regional jet is the label. The so called RJs are being used on long routes that certainly are not regional. On the other hand, some airlines use 757s for flights under 45 minutes, which is certainly regional.
Bwc1976 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 194 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1082 times:
Isn't there also usually a difference in how large a bag you're allowed to carry-on? I'd be curious to know exactly which planes have room for the normal sized bag (same as you'd have on an MD-80, 737, and larger planes) and which don't have as much capacity and make you drop it off by the side of the plane.
Pothiabs From United States of America, joined May 2001, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1038 times:
The definition of "regional" is never made, but airline management, as well as manufacturers like to use the word "regional", because it gives them an argument to impose lower wages for flight crews.
Regional route :
* Below a certain traffic threshold ? ( Paris-Papeete could become a regional route, although 16 hours flying distance apart )
* Below a certain distance ( miles or minutes ? ) (A Lufthansa A340 flying between FRA and MUC on a Monday morning would be a regional aircraft ?)
Regional airport :
* having less than a certain amount of passengers per year ?
* Having a runway that is less than X meters long ?
The discussion is extensive, but I would prefer to call the Embraer, Canadair and B717 alikes "small jets".
Many "small jets" are not able to fly into airports with relatively short runways, and are often used to increase frequencies on destinations that are already served in Narrow Body equipment, only to attract more high-yield pax.
Small jets , big money-makers !
("Regional" is just for those who buy it, for example pilots)
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4111 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Nov 2001, 2017 posts, 
From Cape Verde, joined Nov 2007, 0 posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
