Schwanker

LCC has a nice presence at DCA. I would think there is lots of value there. I'm guessing AMR will have to forfeit most their slots to pass govt muster.

Falcon7

You might have some valid points to make, but using terms like "jumbo RJs" makes you less than credible because of your use of over the top rhetoric. Kind of like those guys who relied on terms like "super premium".

Stick to the facts, stay away from the rhetoric.

IMO, there is a big difference between an E175 and a E145 or CRJ200/700, there is nothing "jumbo" about a CRJ700.

groundstop

I think the USAir/AA is basically like a musical chairs game. The last two are getting together, and they don't have much of a choice. I think it could be worse, but I don't think the networks blend together as well as DAL/NW and UAL/CAL. But lets see what kind of merger they can pull off. DAL/NW set the bar pretty high. UAL/CAL hasn't been able to reach it.

80ktsClamp

I didn't say they won't be powerful at all. I said I'm not sure how well it's actually going to combine. The strong points network wise are very heavily weighed toward AA. You're putting words in my mouth.

US has around 18 or 19 active destinations in Europe (including TLV)... AA has 11. That's really not that big of a difference. US doesn't go to Asia or India. They only have one route to South America. I was saying that US doesn't contribute much... PHL is very proximate to NYC. CLT is a good hub for US but may be mitigated in the merger. DCA is their greatest contribution, but AA already has a reasonable presence there.

What I'm saying is this: if our merger was 1+1= ~1.6, theirs will be more like 1+1=1.3

80ktsClamp

Wow really? Rhetoric? It's a joke.

I use the term "jumbo RJ" to differentiate the much heavier weight large Embraers and CRJ900 without typing it out. I guess if you want to make it rhetoric you can, but it is more out of laziness and not wanting to type out all the different types.

The CRJ700 is in between and does not fall in that category.

80ktsClamp

Agreed. AA has quite a bit there, too. It will be interesting what the DOJ says.

forgot to bid

A couple of reasons to use it.

The dictionary defines jumbo as a very large specimen of its kind. The E175 and CR9 are very large specimens of their kind- regional jets. So since the E175 is a E170 with an extension and the CR9 an extension of the CR7 with the same type ratings, I'd lump them all together.

Now I don't really consider anything but a 747 to be a jumbo jet. With our seating it's just 39.8% bigger than our 777 but it earns the jumbo name. The CR7 is 40.0% larger than the 50 seaters and the CR9 is 52% larger, so they're even larger relatively speaking. For perspective, the MD90is only 33% larger than the DC95.

The main reason to use it is simplicity. When you're talking 50 seaters and 51+ seaters/70-76 seaters it gets rather wordy. So using Jumbo RJ vs RJ is simpler to understand.

It also aggravates people who don't want to talk about increasing the size of the jumbo RJ fleet. So yes, it does have that aspect to it.

So, I still like using the term.

FTB
Jumbo DC9-10 Pilot

FIIGMO

Funny FOX news has the very same short term memory.....

I think we can all learn a lot from the past.....

GunshipGuy

Too bad the gubment can't stomach a 47% spending cut. Some folks I know managed afterward.

Carl Spackler

Actually, some regional guys have already forgotten the lesson. Many junior former regional pilots (some on this very thread) voted YES to give away more of our scope. One former RJ pilot said just the other day that outsourced RJ's were good for him and his career at Delta.

Carl