Originally Posted by
DeadHead
I've never liked that term, Bottom Feeder, when talking about a regional airline.
I'm just curious as to how one differentiates regional airlines as bottom feeders when compared to other regional airlines?
If all regional airlines run feed into hub airports, aren't all regional airlines bottom feeders to some extent?
Nevertheless, I don't like the term, and I find using it disrespectful towards other pilots.
Some of us embrace the honored term "Bottom Feeder". We, like the mighty and noble Catfish, thrive on the scraps others overlook. We tolerate poorly oxygenated water, and, just like the "walking catfish" (an invasive species), can move from one stagnate pond to the next.
Actually, there is a difference between the "Connection" type regionals and the "Express" regionals. Connections, formerly called trunk carriers feed into the mainline, while Expresses displace mainline aircraft.
Personally, I don't have an issue with Connectors. United, for example, already has six types of aircraft with a total of 14 versions. Is it really cost effective for them to add a couple more types (typically turbo props) when those aircraft augment, rather than replace, mainline aircraft?