RedBaron007

After looking at the range profiles and passenger capacity of the new ERJ-190s, it appears to me they're anything but a regional jet. They actually have better range than a DC-9, and have comparable number of seats (10-20 seats less than smaller model DC-9s). It seems like the term RJ appeals to airlines (and CEOs), but pilots realize the limitations of these aircraft - baggage room and cargo weight being one of the primary ones (not to mention the lack of profitability they tend to produce in reality). It seems to me that movement toward the ERJ-190 is the right one because it is bigger and can carry more, and is not really and RJ, despite its marketing. The CRJ-900 still appears to have a way to go to match up. I don't intend this post to cause a stir about the regionals - I agree with you guys that say more of the larger Embraers need to be moved to the mainlines. I'm just curious about what you guys think about the new ERJ-190/195 (and 170/175 if you're so inclined), and if it will be a positive for the industry. Thanks.

saab2000

There is no such thing as a 'regional' jet. They have been used to replace 'mainline' flying and the word 'regional' has only been used in order to allow payscales to be much lower.

Define "Regional"?

BTW, some of the flying we do now on the CRJ is maybe "regional", from a major hub to a tiny airport that never had mainline service. For this they are OK. But for all other flights, like from IAD-ATL, PHL-MSP, CLT-MKE, etc. they are not accaptable.

RJS are hurting the industry and our career chances.

I don't blame the pilots (because I am one of them), but the industry uses them in a poor and exploitive way. Passengers hate them.

The EMB-190/195 is under no circumstances a "Regional" jet and should be flown by mainline carriers and pilots. Same for the 170/175.

Flyby1206

The E190 is a mainline aircraft produced by a predominantly regional jet manufacturer. If Boeing made a 50 seat jet would it be a mainline a/c? In my opinion anything over 70 seats should be flown at a mainline carrier.

Eric Stratton

they actually have more seats than the DC9-10 that NWA flew, and an EMB-145XR has a greater range than the 9.

RedBaron007

Agreed. It just seems stupid to keep calling it a regional jet. But then again I hear that all the time from the media, and we all know how much they know about aviation - nil.

Short Bus Drive

These days "RJ" is NOT a "Regional" Jet, but a "Replacement" Jet

shackone

RJs are not the problem...they are the outcome.

Are you ready to say that hybrid cars are hurting the auto industry...or that alternative fuels are hurting the oil industry? These things are outcomes too...unavoidable outcomes to circumstances that are changing the world we live in.

The simple fact of the matter is that companies cannot continue to fly 737s on short legs...at least not until a 737-size jet can be made that is as efficient as a RJ. Too expensive to the bottom line.

And, like it or not, the bottom line is what this is all about.

Folks...we just have to get away from the idea that companies are in business to give us a cushy job! I wish it were so...but it isn't. Maybe 20 years ago or so it seemed that way...but even then as former Braniff, Eastern, etc pilots will attest to, it wasn't really the case.

Aircraft like the 170/190 series have changed the rules...and I don't see the rules going back to the old way anytime soon. Now we can either accept that as a fact of life and get about making that work out as best we can...or not. I see it as either getting on that train...or staying behind in the station.

Not the answer any of us want to hear...but it's the answer that's written on that proverbial wall.

ERJ135

We share JBU's terminal in BOS, I see the 190's all the time. Seem like a nice airplane, rode on one once too; very comfortable. It seems like it would be a good replacement jet (RJ) for AA's aging MD80's. Maybe something a little bigger like the E195.

saab2000

I agree with some of what you say and disagree with the rest.

I agree that we are not here to have cushy jobs. The company exists for its owners. But employees and customers are never far from the equation.

With that said, I don't believe that flying RJs around is in fact the most efficient way of doing business. They are for certain markets.

But at which point do we say that an RJ is no longer an RJ?

If the airlines could they would probably simply sell seats and contract ALL the flying out. "Regional" has become the word for all airplanes contracted out. What if United said, "Our 747s are too expensive to operate. We are going to look for a supplier and simply sell the seats as 'United International'", but to the lowest bidder?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the airplane when it comes to the EMB jets. The passengers like them. I like them. The pilots evidently like them.

The problem is with how different airplanes are being used to lower the bar when it comes to the profession. It used to be 50-seat jets. Now 70-seat jets are the norm. Where is the line drawn?

I understand your point about making money. But I also understand that pilots need to earn a living and the larger and larger so-called "Regional" jets are being used to drive down pilot salaries. I do not feel this is appropriate.

The problem is not with the jets, it is with how they are being used and marketed.

freezingflyboy

When people say "oh, you fly the regional jets..." I always ask them to define our region. Here at XJT we fly from LAX to St. Johns, New Foundland and Toronto to Guatemala (or we used to, now just southern Mexico). So whats our region? Maybe Mexico? We do fly to more places in Mexico than Mexicana and Aeromexico combined. There are a lot of places where ExpressJet is the only US airline serving that city. Maybe North America? Not because we are regional pilots who think we have outgrown the term "regional" but because CAL can't or won't fill a 737 on those routes for whatever reason. Just my $.02...