Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.....
flyingclrs727 wrote:An RJ that can do transcons?
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.
Dominion301 wrote:flyingclrs727 wrote:An RJ that can do transcons?
Also an RJ that can do short transatlantics too?
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.
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.
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.
Metjetceo wrote:jetBlue calls it a Regional Jet
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/20 ... 882da94021
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.
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.
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.
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.
Metjetceo wrote:Philosophical Question:
If you have more than 100 seats and you are branded as Airbus, are you still an RJ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
WPvsMW wrote:Except by implication of the "C" prefix.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:WPvsMW wrote:Except by implication of the "C" prefix.
What? C is for Canada.
GF
StTim wrote:What is a regional jet. There is no such defined term.