> Not really. Only slows down the enroute folks Wish that were true. I've actually found it more of a problem on departure from the larger/busier airports. Typically both aircraft must use the same departure fix. The sluggish performance of the RJ on the fixed departure route traps the overtaking aircraft behind it. Enroute you usually have some options like a change of altitude, vectoring or a new routing. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan9" <exatc@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "The Airline List" <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "boblochry" <boblochry@xxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:02 PM Subject: Re: RJ's and ATC > Not really. Only slows down the enroute folks > Al > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "boblochry" <boblochry@xxxxxxx> > To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 12:01 PM > Subject: Re: RJ's and ATC > > > > > I understand that many RJ's do not climb well above FL200 > > > > Generally true. > > > > > Has this raised any problems about en route traffic control? > > > > Yes, but ATC can usually adapt. > > > > > They must take longer to reach assigned altitudes > > > > True, it can slow things down at major airports > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Gerard M Foley" <gfoley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:27 AM > > Subject: RJ's and ATC > > > > > > > I understand that many RJ's do not climb well above FL200, and that > their > > > maximum altitude it considerably less than their bigger cousins. Has > this > > > raised any problems about en route traffic control? They must take > longer > > > to reach assigned altitudes, and the altitudes available must be less > than > > > with big jets? > > > > > > Gerry > > > > >