Philosophical Question:
If you have more than 100 seats and you are branded as Airbus, are you still an RJ?

An RJ that can do transcons?

Maybe you need to first define what an RJ is, there may be criteria specific to the USA and their scope clauses that the rest of the world does not have...so RJ as defined by whom....if that is proper english.....

Was it ever referred as a regional jet? It's bigger than an Embraer 190/195 And it's often debated whether or not they are Regional jets.

What is a regional jet. There is no such defined term.

trpmb6 wrote:

par13del wrote:

Maybe you need to first define what an RJ is, there may be criteria specific to the USA and their scope clauses that the rest of the world does not have...so RJ as defined by whom....if that is proper english.....

This is actually a really great point, and something that us Americans often struggle with. We tend to forget we aren't the only nation in the world - and we also tend to forget the size of our nation compared to others.

Perhaps it would help if we distinguish what the word "region" even means. You could argue that Europe could be classified as a region. But then you also run into some transcontinental lingo if you're looking at a whole continent like Europe. But using the word transcontinental has a different meaning when you are looking at say Europe vs Asia.

Personally I never liked referring to things as regional / transcontinental / etc. Let's stick to NM range numbers. Anything else just muddles the conversation really.

par13del wrote:

Maybe you need to first define what an RJ is, there may be criteria specific to the USA and their scope clauses that the rest of the world does not have...so RJ as defined by whom....if that is proper english.....

This is actually a really great point, and something that us Americans often struggle with. We tend to forget we aren't the only nation in the world - and we also tend to forget the size of our nation compared to others.

Perhaps it would help if we distinguish what the word "region" even means. You could argue that Europe could be classified as a region. But then you also run into some transcontinental lingo if you're looking at a whole continent like Europe. But using the word transcontinental has a different meaning when you are looking at say Europe vs Asia.

Personally I never liked referring to things as regional / transcontinental / etc. Let's stick to NM range numbers. Anything else just muddles the conversation really.

"Regional Jet" only exists in the minds of management when trying to outsource jobs. Its a marketing term to try to trick pilots into thinking these jobs aren't worth negotiating for.

So what you should be asking is "Is the A220 too big to be outsourced?"... same question, more defined meaning. And the answer is: Yes.

Plus, in all practicality, even when it was the C-Series... this thing is bigger than the E190 (which is flown at majors), can do transcons with over 100 pax, and in many ways outclasses the A319. It isn't even in the same ballpark as an "RJ"... which was a term originally contrived to label jets that were use as direct replacements for turboprops.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

An RJ that can do transcons?

Also an RJ that can do short transatlantics too?

The A220-300 is clearly considered to be a mainline aircraft since it is similar in seating capacity to the 737-700, A319, and 737 MAX 7. The A220-100 also has a greater seating capacity than the E-175 and CRJ 900 regional jets, and the A220-100 jets are considered to be small mainline jets like DC-9's and 717's are.

I think the term "Interregional Jet" comes in to play somewhere when I think of the E190/195-Jets, CRJ-900 / CRJ-1000 and A220. SSJ is in the same boat.

They are all mainline and regional jet, and are both not. I hereby pronounce them "Interregional Jet or IRJ"

jetBlue calls it a Regional Jet
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/20 ... 882da94021

jplatts wrote:

The A220-300 is clearly considered to be a mainline aircraft since it is similar in seating capacity to the 737-700, A319, and 737 MAX 7. The A220-100 also has a greater seating capacity than the E-175 and CRJ 900 regional jets, and the A220-100 jets are considered to be small mainline jets like DC-9's and 717's are.

I was going to say it appears more in line as a DC-9/717 sized aircraft, so I dont think of it as a "regional jet".

Dominion301 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

An RJ that can do transcons?

Also an RJ that can do short transatlantics too?

So can an ATR, the A220 is hardly unique in that regard.

A regional Jet is generally anything smaller than the original 737, DC9 with similar or shorter range, as alternatives to turbo props. The Fokker and BAe 146 were early RJs. The sub-category of 50-seat RJ was developed for scope clause reasons in the US and were more popular here, while the bigger RJs were more popular in Europe.

ikramerica wrote:

A regional Jet is generally anything smaller than the original 737, DC9 with similar or shorter range, as alternatives to turbo props. The Fokker and BAe 146 were early RJs. The sub-category of 50-seat RJ was developed for scope clause reasons in the US and were more popular here, while the bigger RJs were more popular in Europe.

So if i understand you:

EU-RJ : F100, BAe 146, CRJ 700/900/1000, E-Jets , A220-series. SSJ100

US-RJ: CRJ100/200 , ERJ (130-145)




I like the term EMBREAR started using:
In 2017, Embraer started calling large, almost narrowbody regional jets "crossover" jets,
http://aviationweek.com/crossover-narrowbody-jets/how-crossover-class-jet-makers-are-making-cabins-seem-bigger

ikramerica wrote:

A regional Jet is generally anything smaller than the original 737, DC9 with similar or shorter range, as alternatives to turbo props. The Fokker and BAe 146 were early RJs. The sub-category of 50-seat RJ was developed for scope clause reasons in the US and were more popular here, while the bigger RJs were more popular in Europe.

But here in Europe we have no real concept of Regional Jet or mainline - terms bandied around on here as though everywhere in the world uses them.

StTim wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

A regional Jet is generally anything smaller than the original 737, DC9 with similar or shorter range, as alternatives to turbo props. The Fokker and BAe 146 were early RJs. The sub-category of 50-seat RJ was developed for scope clause reasons in the US and were more popular here, while the bigger RJs were more popular in Europe.

But here in Europe we have no real concept of Regional Jet or mainline - terms bandied around on here as though everywhere in the world uses them.

Im not sure that is true. I think you would always classify the CityJet and carriers that fly on behalf of the carriers into/out of LCY and Flybe as RJs.

I never saw C-series as a regional jet. Both the CS100 and CS300 are (small) mainline equipment.

Every jet is a regional jet, since they all serve a defined region (bounded by it's endurance).

The A220 is a narrow bodied, medium-range jet airliner and has always been marketed as such.

Anal semantics anyone?

Metjetceo wrote:

jetBlue calls it a Regional Jet
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/20 ... 882da94021

B6 has no scope clause though. But by using USA standards, even the A221 is a mainline jet. The A223 has slightly larger capacity than an A319, and so that's definitely NOT a regional jet.

VSMUT wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

An RJ that can do transcons?

Also an RJ that can do short transatlantics too?

So can an ATR, the A220 is hardly unique in that regard.

Yeah but can a fully loaded ATR fly BOS-DUB nonstop? An A223 can. If you want to get really ridiculous like the ATR example, a C172 can fly transatlantic on ferry flights too.

817Dreamliiner wrote:

Was it ever referred as a regional jet? It's bigger than an Embraer 190/195 And it's often debated whether or not they are Regional jets.

No. Bombardier never called it a regional jet.

Metjetceo wrote:

StTim wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

A regional Jet is generally anything smaller than the original 737, DC9 with similar or shorter range, as alternatives to turbo props. The Fokker and BAe 146 were early RJs. The sub-category of 50-seat RJ was developed for scope clause reasons in the US and were more popular here, while the bigger RJs were more popular in Europe.

But here in Europe we have no real concept of Regional Jet or mainline - terms bandied around on here as though everywhere in the world uses them.

Im not sure that is true. I think you would always classify the CityJet and carriers that fly on behalf of the carriers into/out of LCY and Flybe as RJs.

No - the term just isn't used here. Small Jet maybe but Regional no - they cover the same sort of distance the others do. Embraers from Flybe from Bigmingham to Stuttgart flies further than A319's of BA from LHR to Stuttgart?

To me a regional jet is an aircraft that is optimized to operate to/from regional airports. A regional airport is defined by the length of the runway (more than 840 m / 2800 Ft and less than 1500 m / 5000 Ft). The definition probably varies from country to country.

The A220-300 is of the same length as the A320. These aircraft have identical number of rows given seats at same pitch. The only difference is one seat less abreast in the economy class on the A220-300. Both have domestic first class seats at four abreast.

I think the A220-100 can operate as an regional jet, as it has excellent short runway performance relative to its size.

reidar76 wrote:

To me a regional jet is an aircraft that is optimized to operate to/from regional airports. A regional airport is defined by the length of the runway (more than 840 m / 2800 Ft and less than 1500 m / 5000 Ft). The definition probably varies from country to country.

The A220-300 is of the same length as the A320. These aircraft have identical number of rows given seats at same pitch. The only difference is one seat less abreast in the economy class on the A220-300. Both have domestic first class seats at four abreast.

I think the A220-100 can operate as an regional jet, as it has excellent short runway performance relative to its size.

In Europe there is really no such concept as domestic first class. Or even European First Class. The market is very different.

There are not many flights on "Small Jets" Most are on A319 and above (soon to be A320/738 and above as Easyjet et al move from the A319 to the A320neos).

Like bread boxes planes come in a variety of sizes, and the metrics are variable. Should the new Airbus plane excel in 500 mile hops it will be functioning as a regional - as of course a lot of 320/737s excel. Some of us wonder, we really need a true regional that excels with small passenger loads for those hops - and make money. Rural parts of the US isolation would be alleviated. The 220 even 100 may not be that plane.

RJ is a US specific term invented to clarify labour issues with pilot unions.

Well if we start at the top, there used to be regional carriers, in the USA this would have been airlines offering service within a single state or within and between two or three nearby states. Based on the needs at the times, the a/c deployed would most likely have been turbo-props, the similar happened in a number other countries, here in the Bahamas we still have what can be termed domestic and or regional airlines only.

In the USA, after the failure of the airline within an airline, the alternative chosen was to buy up what was then the regional carriers, have them do flying on mainline routes to provide increased mainline service with less than mainline cost. Regional's saw a chance to have fixed contracts without having to compete for business, in essence a marriage made in heaven. In return for new a/c and fixed profits etc. they got to fly mainline pax on mainline routes expanding their services with minimal cost.

To tack on to the last post, you see subsidiary airlines (code shares) of the big airlines that operate "regional jets" to get pax from smaller cities to the main hubs.

Airbus is WRONG.... it's called a CANABUS so A420 should be the designator.

Different markets, different labour contracts, different answers - as well established above.

QF have even managed to outsource flying with B712s configured as either 12J 98Y or 125Y to an external contractor, and place two A320s at 180Y with a "regional" subsidiary, not to mention the B738s operated in a mainline role by a NZ-based subsidiary.

While you may not use the term regional jet in the EU, the concept is not foreign. Crossair was a regional carrier that used regional aircraft, for example. Others like it.

Just because an airline flies a large plane on a route shorter than they fly a regional jet doesn’t change the categories. CO abused the ERJ-145 on IAH-LAX but it’s still a regional aircraft.

I also like the distinction that they are designed to fly into short runway airports with limited ground services. They usually can be serviced without trucks of any kind including engine repairs, have built in stairs, can land safely nearly fully laden to allow for fuel ferrying, etc.

I've always wondered by BBD kept the CR designation for its frames when the CRJ is universally disliked by pax compared to the CR7 and CR9. BBD should have gone to some other prefix. Airbus' redesignation into the A220 family from CSxxx is really prudent ... "I'm booked on an Airbus, ..." versus "on a regional". I think that the overall pax impression of DL will improve after the last CRJ is retired from the DL fleet.

Metjetceo wrote:

Philosophical Question:
If you have more than 100 seats and you are branded as Airbus, are you still an RJ?

It was before, and now it's not cause a different label? That's not a philosophical question, it makes no sense at all.

Dominion301 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

Also an RJ that can do short transatlantics too?

So can an ATR, the A220 is hardly unique in that regard.

Yeah but can a fully loaded ATR fly BOS-DUB nonstop? An A223 can. If you want to get really ridiculous like the ATR example, a C172 can fly transatlantic on ferry flights too.

A full volume cargo ATR 72-202, almost. Dublin-Halifax would be no problem in still air conditions. I've done similar through Asia.

--

PatrickZ80 wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

"Regional Jet" only exists in the minds of management when trying to outsource jobs. Its a marketing term to try to trick pilots into thinking these jobs aren't worth negotiating for.

So what you should be asking is "Is the A220 too big to be outsourced?"... same question, more defined meaning. And the answer is: Yes.

Plus, in all practicality, even when it was the C-Series... this thing is bigger than the E190 (which is flown at majors), can do transcons with over 100 pax, and in many ways outclasses the A319. It isn't even in the same ballpark as an "RJ"... which was a term originally contrived to label jets that were use as direct replacements for turboprops.

In that case the A340 would be a regional jet too because I remember Lufthansa outsourced an A340 to Lufthansa Cityline. It operated long haul routes, but with a "regional" crew.

As others have pointed out, the term "regional jet" is quite loose. In Asia for example mainline routes are flown on wide bodies and the A320 is considered a regional jet.

^^
Let alone the 747-400D or the SR-version.

Or the A330-Regional.

mikejepp wrote:

"Regional Jet" only exists in the minds of management when trying to outsource jobs. Its a marketing term to try to trick pilots into thinking these jobs aren't worth negotiating for.

So what you should be asking is "Is the A220 too big to be outsourced?"... same question, more defined meaning. And the answer is: Yes.

Plus, in all practicality, even when it was the C-Series... this thing is bigger than the E190 (which is flown at majors), can do transcons with over 100 pax, and in many ways outclasses the A319. It isn't even in the same ballpark as an "RJ"... which was a term originally contrived to label jets that were use as direct replacements for turboprops.

In that case the A340 would be a regional jet too because I remember Lufthansa outsourced an A340 to Lufthansa Cityline. It operated long haul routes, but with a "regional" crew.

As others have pointed out, the term "regional jet" is quite loose. In Asia for example mainline routes are flown on wide bodies and the A320 is considered a regional jet.

Cseries was never a regional jet even when under Bombardier

It was never intended to be a regional jet.

Except by implication of the "C" prefix.

VSMUT wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

So can an ATR, the A220 is hardly unique in that regard.

Yeah but can a fully loaded ATR fly BOS-DUB nonstop? An A223 can. If you want to get really ridiculous like the ATR example, a C172 can fly transatlantic on ferry flights too.

A full volume cargo ATR 72-202, almost. Dublin-Halifax would be no problem in still air conditions. I've done similar through Asia.

Good luck finding still air conditions over the North Atlantic...

WPvsMW wrote:

Except by implication of the "C" prefix.

What? C is for Canada.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

Except by implication of the "C" prefix.

What? C is for Canada.

GF

C is for "Commercial". It was Bombardier's first commercial/mainline jet.

StTim wrote:

What is a regional jet. There is no such defined term.

Canadair (now Bombardier) referred to the CRJ family as "Canadair Regional Jets" so I expect that is when the term "regional jet" entered the air traveler's lexicon.

I think that a regional route is the route that can quite easily be done not by plane (by bus, train or car). Most of the routes that will be flown with 220-300 do not fall into this category. As for 220-100, the question is open.

When Boeing changed the MD95 to the 717 designation, they referred to it as a regional jet.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/1998-01-08-Boeing-Introduces-717-200-Airplane-as-New-Regional-Jet

CRJ = regional jet
ERJ = regional jet
E-Jet E1 = regional jet
E-Jet E2 = regional jet

C Series = Narrowbody
717 = Narrowbody
A318 = Narrowbody

Fuselage width also plays a role in aircraft class.