Talk:Regional airliner

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

List Removal?

Hey all - I've been putting some time into this article. It's been tagged as needing cleanup for a long while & I've just now started on the ugly stuff. My idea, I think, is axing the list of regional airliners. We have Category:Lists_of_aircraft to play with & as of today, there isn't specifically a list of regional airliners. I'd like to propose that the list we already have here be moved to a new list within the aircraft list cat...E dog95 18:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Feederliner" gets only 120 Google hits while "regional jet" gets 60,000. However many of the planes in this category even many still flying are props or turboprops. Is there any other better name? Rmhermen 14:07, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)

This is a valid concern. The term is primarily an older one, and mostly used in the UK. However I think the issue with Google is temporal more than anything else, while these aircraft have been around for 50 years (or more), the regional jet is a new design that has been around for about a decade -- as has the web, and the web tends to focus on the latest-and-greatest. User:Maury Markowitz

If the article itself says "regional jet" is the common name, then it should be moved there... and this also needs to be finally integrated with the separate article Regional jets (plural). Jpatokal 03:03, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I saw this added to the latest version of the page...

The fact that regional aircraft are less expensive than traditional jets is a common misconception. [snip] The idea that regional jets provide point-to-point service and bypass the hub-and-spoke system is also a misconception.

I believe both of these points are "generally wrong". For one thing the RJ IS definitelly a LOT cheaper to _operate_ (the distinction is not clear in the above -- is the author talking about fly-away cost, or operational cost?), it breaks even with as few as 15 passengers of 50. Secondly the point-to-point service comment talks only about the US, but in fact the RJ's are being used all over the world, and are replacing both larger and smaller aircraft in many roles. The reason they haven't been so successful in this in the US is the major hub building program which has delivered monstorous like Denver. THESE are cheaper, per passenger, to operated, thereby upsetting the equasions.

Maury 14:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you have citations or data sources for operating costs? — 16 Nov 2004

Whoa, this should NOT be called Regional Jet!!

I just noticed this now, I haven't visited here in a while. Although an RJ is a feederliner, a feederliner is NOT an RJ. However feederliner now redirects here.

This is very bad. Feederliner may be a bad term, but it's certainly a lot better than RJ for a topic that includes more non-jets than jets!

Maury 21:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its like a tissue and a kleenex, a square and a rectangle..... NW

List Cleanup

The article contains a list of regional airliners, with non-turbojet/turbofan entries (such as EMB-120, Dash 8, etc). Any objections to pruning this list to just turbofan/turbojet aircraft? -- Hawaiian717 19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - there is no article on regional airliners that are not jet-powered. This article should move to regional airliner, with redirects as appropriate. The concept of a regional turboprop and a regional jet are almost identical aside from powerplant and some details of performance (and, maybe, customer desirability). ericg ✈ 00:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. The change looks good to me. -- Hawaiian717 23:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ERJ production halted?

The article claims that Embraer has ceased production of the ERJ, while Bombardier has ended production of its CRJ-200 series. Since such cessations of production are pretty big news, I thought that they needed sources. I found one for the suspension (not neccesarily complete end) of CRJ-200 production but I am unable to find a source for the end of ERJ. I have {{fact}} tagged it for now and intend to remove it unless sources come. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taken out now. I seem to find information on the net that ERJ's are still produced in Harbin, China. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like fairly recent evidence of continued ERJ production. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall description of a regional aircraft.

I am new to this so forgive my not linking my sources etc.

I have sort of an issue with the your size description of regional aicraft. The Beech 1900C and D are both considered regional aircraft even they only carry 19 passengers. Check Skyway Airlines and Colgan Air who fly them for US airways and Delta shuttle. Also check www.flightsafety.com training progams. 66.109.83.6 08:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Ed 66.109.83.6 08:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see you had them in your list. The issue still remains that they are still 19 passenger. 66.109.83.6 10:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Ed 66.109.83.6 10:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The airlines call them 'regional aircraft', but under the Federal Aviation Regulations because they carry 19 passengers or less they are operated under Part 135 (Commuter and On-Demand Operations) rather than Part 121 (Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Requirements). Aircraft carrying 19 passengers or less don't require a flight attendant, and as I understand it are often termed feederliners rather than airliners. They're also certified under a different part and don't have to comply with the same regulations. ericg ✈ 17:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Boats

Were flying boats really responsible for extending the range of airlines? If this is correct, the idea should be expanded. E dog95 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-atlantic service was started in planes using flying boats. That's why there's a Maritime Air Terminal in NYC La Guardia. They would have tender ships in mid-Atlantic to refuel them. The fact that you didn't need prepared runways for flying boats meant that you could fly to any seacoast. 70.55.84.123 (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Canadair Regional Jet (CRJ) ?

CRJs are regional jets but they are not on the list. Why? --Tekin 07:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1st successful regional jet? Disputed

I am disputing the section which states the first widely successful regional jet design was the Canadair CRJ. The Yakovlev Yak-40 is widely regarded as being the first true regional jet (even then it can be disputed that the VFW-614 was the first), and saw a production run of over 1,000 units, and saw widespread use throughout the world (including in West Germany and Italy during the 1970s/1980s). Any mention of the '1st successful' RJ surely needs to take this into account, and additionally expert opinions that the Yak-40 was 20 years ahead of its time. --Russavia 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye :) - I certainly confirm this. I was completely unaware of the achievements of this aircraft. I see an bit of text here that makes the significance of this plane clear without doubt. I do see the light now and I'm more than willing to write the section. Maybe though, you might be better suited to do this work? E dog95 06:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Features" section needs a cleanup

I'm not commenting on the accuracy items in the section, but it clearly reads as information and as commentary, as opposed to an objective article section. Some citations would be good as well to back up some of the statements. Greg Salter (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional jet demerged?

In the past day or so, an anonymous user has extensively edited the Regional jet article, which used to be just a redirect here. There's a ton of info in there, but it's poorly referenced, terribly formatted and largely overlaps with this. What to do? Jpatokal (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I saw the new work by the anonymous editor. I did look at the version just prior to that editor getting started & saw that redirect too. I contacted that user earlier this evening on his talk page with a tidbit about the manual of style and one of his edits to this article. I saw that the work on Regional jet was messy, but didn't consider working on it. I'm off in a new area of Wikipedia now, but still keep an eye on these types of articles. For now, I think we can communicate what's best for Wikipedia to our new editor and point him / her in the direction of some tools to get acquainted with our methods. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 06:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant aricles

It might be worth includng a note about this contraversy : [1] [2] JeffBurdges (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics

Regional airliners and Short haul airliners are two different terms which relate to significantly different eras in airline history. These two terms are not the same.

NO TO MERGER of short haul airliners into regional airliners..... they are not the same! (;

63.215.26.148 (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]