The name "jungle jet" and "tundra jet" only refer to their final assembly points. Of course they're ultra-modern, as all new jets are. In fact, US and other first world components make up the majority of their parts.

What exactly is wrong with RJs? Let me list some of them for you:

1. The cross-section, while very efficient (smaller diameter equals less air resistance while flying), is also somewhat small and confined when flying one for three-plus hours (FWA-DFW, for instance, is almost always in excess of three hours when boarding, taxi, wait for the gate at DFW is factored in). The B seat in the exit row makes it a little more tolerable, since there's no such thing as MRTC (31 inch seat pitch is the rule).

2. Did I mention too small? For those on the tall side of 6 feet, there just isn't much room to walk (actually hunch over) down the aisle. The bins (on ERJs, only one one side of the aisle) are generally too small to hold more than a briefcase or a laptop. The bins are bigger on ATRs, for chrissakes.

3. Cost. They cost almost as much as a B-717 but don't have the space (for passengers or overhead stowage). All they offer AA is lower pilot costs.

If the airlines only wanted little RJs, used on thinner routes (or short little commutes), I wouldn't complain. But ordering 70 to 90 seat RJs is over the top. Using RJs for a new Northeast Shuttle is also a little over the top. Using RJs on stage lengths of 1000-1200 miles is also over the top. What's next? DFW-LAX, say 28 times a day, on a 44 seat RJ?

You have commented previously that you only generally fly DFW-LAX, so it's safe to say that you have not experienced the pleasure of spending an entire morning or afternoon on a skinny little RJ. Take one for a spin (stage length in excess of 800 miles) and then report back. I think you might agree with some of the typical criticisms.

[This message has been edited by FWAAA (edited 10-23-2002).]