
Smaller planes, big questions: Why regional airlines are under the spotlight
Smaller planes, big questions: Why regional airlines are under the spotlight
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Common flight maneuvers that might feel unsettling but are normal
Here are three surprising flight maneuvers that feel dangerous but are completely safe.
Regional airlines are smaller carriers that typically operate shorter flights and connect to a larger airline's hub.
These airlines are subject to the same safety regulations as major carriers, but statistically have a higher incident rate.
Passengers may not always be aware they are booked on a regional airline, as flights are often marketed under the main carrier's brand.
Regional airlines are in the public consciousness lately in a way that usually only avgeeks think about them.
This year, three high-profile aviation safety incidents involved regional jets: a fatal collision between an American Airlines/PSA Airlines jet and an Army Black Hawk helicopter near Washington, D.C.; a Delta Air Lines/Endeavor Air regional jet that flipped over just after touching down at Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International Airport, and another Delta/Endeavor Air regional jet that clipped its wing against the runway at LaGuardia International Airport in New York.
As a result, many travelers are taking a closer look at their airline tickets and wondering what, exactly, these regional carriers are. At the end of the day, they are regulated the same way as the mainline airlines (American, Alaska, Delta and United) that they're affiliated with, but that doesn't mean they're exactly the same.
Here's what you need to know if your next trip involves a regional airline.
What is a regional airline?
Regional airlines are carriers that generally operate smaller planes in smaller markets to feed traffic to an airline's hub. The aircraft themselves are often painted to look like part of the major carrier's fleet, and are branded with names like American Eagle, Delta Connection or United Express. Flights under those brands can be operated by a number of companies, which are usually either wholly-owned by the larger airline or under contract with the carrier.
'In today's environment, it is an airline with generally smaller aircraft up to 76 seats that operates on behalf of a major carrier, or in some cases, several major carriers. And they do so in their livery and with their service standards," Robert W. Mann Jr., a former airline executive officer and current president of R.W. Mann and Co., an independent airline consultancy, told USA TODAY. "From the airline's perspective, they want you to have the same experience on an airplane operated by one of their partners as you do on one of their airplanes.'
These are the major regional partnerships of U.S. airlines:
American Airlines (American Eagle)
Envoy Air (wholly owned by American)
Piedmont Airlines (wholly owned by American)
PSA Airlines (wholly owned by American)
Republic Airways (third-party contractor)
SkyWest Airlines (third-party contractor)
Alaska Airlines
Horizon Air (wholly-owned by Alaska)
SkyWest Airlines (third-party contractor)
Delta Air Lines (Delta Connection)
Endeavor Air (wholly-owned by Delta)
Republic Airways (third-party contractor)
SkyWest Airlines (third-party contractor)
United Airlines (United Express)
CommuteAir (third-party contractor)
GoJet Airlines (third-party contractor)
Mesa Airlines (third-party contractor)
Republic Airways (third-party contractor)
SkyWest Airlines (third-party contractor)
For many travelers, it can be easy to miss whether a flight is operated by the main airline or one of its regional partners. Even for the third-party contractors, the airline that sells the ticket does everything from setting the price to processing the charge and likely, handling your check-in.
"The average passenger does not realize that they are flying on Endeavor or SkyWest or what have you," William J. McGee, senior fellow for aviation and travel at the American Economic Liberties Project and former airline dispatcher, told USA TODAY. "You are booking on (the major carrier's) branded website, your credit card is charged to that major carrier, you tell the taxi driver or the Uber driver that you are going to that carrier's terminal, everything in the airport is branded with that major carrier's branding."
Regional carriers fill what could otherwise be a gap in the aviation network, especially in smaller markets.
Decades ago, under a different regulatory framework in the U.S., independent so-called "commuter" carriers often fed traffic to major airlines from smaller cities. When the airline industry was deregulated in the 1970s and 80s, major airlines shifted their network structure and placed greater value on more direct control over those feeder flights. Many of the commuter carriers folded, but the ones that remained evolved into today's regional airlines, according to Mann.
Staff at regional airlines are often compensated at lower rates than their mainline counterparts, meaning those flights are frequently cheaper to operate for the larger company. While pilot wages at regional airlines have increased in recent years, cabin crew and ground staff wages are still usually significantly lower.
Are regional airlines safe?
The short answer is yes.
According to Mann, regional airlines are under the same regulations as mainline carriers, so there's "a single level of safety" between the two.
"I don't have any concerns about flying a regional airline partner," he said. 'It just happens to be a smaller airplane, and generally flown in a smaller market."
McGee agreed that he doesn't get nervous flying on regional airlines but acknowledged that he does try to keep things in context.
"We all know statistically how safe the system is, but it's incumbent upon us if we want to continue to have a safe system, that we look where there could be problems," he said. "There is a higher accident rate with regionals ... that is a statistical fact that we've had more problems on the regional side."
Is flying safe? Here's what the experts say about the number of accidents.
Still, McGee doesn't want travelers to worry the next time they fly on a regional jet. He believes it is important for the industry to be transparent about the operator, ensuring that travelers are fully informed about the context of regional flying. Especially after close together, high-profile incidents that involved regional jets, McGee said now's a good time to take a closer look at this aspect of the industry.
"Cumulatively, these events indicate that we need to be more watchful than ever as far as standards: as far as aircraft maintenance, as far as piloting standards, all of this," he said. "My two bullets are: there are more problems at the regionals than the mainlines, that's a statistical fact. The other is, we don't want an erosion of standards," so keeping regionals under the same regulations as mainline carriers going forward is an important way to ensure continued safety, according to McGee.
How do I know if my flight is operated by a regional airline?
Airlines and third-party booking platforms are required to disclose what carrier is operating a flight when you book, though it may not always be obvious or easy to spot on the booking page. For the most part, because onboard service standards tend to be similar, for many travelers, it may not matter who the operator is.
"I think a lot of people don't know until they get there, and it's not a 747 they're boarding," Mann said. "The degree of knowledge, especially of infrequent travelers, is limited."
As a consumer advocate, McGee expressed hope that airlines will display their disclosures more prominently and that travelers will become better informed about the distinctions between regional and mainline airlines.
"In 2025, we still have a long way to go for complete transparency on when you are flying on one of the three mainlines and when you are flying on one of their partners," he said.
Zach Wichter is a travel reporter and writes the Cruising Altitude column for USA TODAY. He is based in New York and you can reach him at zwichter@usatoday.com.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


WIRED
21 minutes ago
- WIRED
The EPA Wants to Roll Back Emissions Controls on Power Plants
Jun 11, 2025 4:36 PM "The EPA is trying to get out of the climate change business,' says one expert. Aerial view of the coal powered electricity power station known as Fort Martin outside Morgantown, WV Photograph: Getty Images The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved to roll back emissions standards for power plants, the second-largest source of CO2 emissions in the country, on Wednesday, claiming that the American power sector does not 'contribute significantly' to air pollution. 'The bottom line is that the EPA is trying to get out of the climate change business,' says Ryan Maher, a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. The announcement comes just days after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) quietly released record-breaking new figures showing the highest seasonal concentration of CO2 in recorded history. In a press conference on Tuesday, flanked by legislators from some of the country's top fossil fuel-producing states, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin accused both the Obama and Biden administrations of 'seeking to suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment.' Zeldin singled out data centers as helping to drive unprecedented demand in the US power sector over the next decade. The EPA, he said, is 'taking actions to end the agency's war on so much of our US domestic energy supply.' The proposed EPA rollbacks target a suite of rules on the power plant sector put in place last year by the Biden administration. Those regulations mandated that coal- and gas-fired power plants reduce their emissions by 90 percent by the early 2030s, primarily by using carbon capture and storage technology. Among a swathe of justifications for rolling back regulations, the proposed new EPA rule argues that because US power sector emissions accounted for only 3 percent of global emissions in 2022—down from 5.5 percent in 2005—and because coal use from other countries continues to grow, US electricity generation from fossil fuel 'does not contribute significantly to globally elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.' However, electric power generation was responsible for 25 percent of US emissions in 2022, according to the EPA, making it second only to transportation among the dirtiest sectors of the economy. A NYU analysis published earlier this month found that if the US power sector were its own separate country, it would be the sixth-largest emitter in the world. 'This action would be laughable if the stakes weren't so high,' says Meredith Hankins, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. The EPA is also targeting the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, which mandates that power plants maintain controls to reduce the amount of mercury and other toxic air pollutants emitted from their plants. The Biden administration in 2024 strengthened those standards, which date to 2011. Despite progress in reducing mercury emissions since the MATS rule was initially implemented, coal-fired power plants are still the largest source of mercury emissions in the US. The administration has also made it clear that it intends to try to revive the coal industry, which has been on a steep decline since the rise of cheap natural gas and renewables in the 2010s. In a series of executive orders issued in April intended to boost the industry, President Trump tied the future of AI dominance in the US to extending a lifeline to coal. Zeldin and lawmakers who spoke on Tuesday praised the original MATS rule, portraying the 2024 update as an overreach by the Biden administration that imposed undue costs on the fossil fuel industry. ('We're not eliminating MATS,' Zeldin said. 'We're proposing to revise it.') But the coal industry and red states fought hard against the implementation of the original rule, experts who spoke to WIRED point out. 'They do not want to have increased mercury pollution hung around their neck,' Julie McNamara, an associate director of policy with the Climate & Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says. 'Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that affects the most vulnerable. When coal plants finally installed pollution controls, we had massive mercury pollution reductions and incredible benefits associated with that. I think that's why they want to try and keep the mantle of protecting public health and interest, while trying to make it seem like these were just radical amendments.' The rollbacks are part of a larger attack on the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and part of an administration-wide effort to divorce climate science from policy. Earlier this year, Zeldin said that the agency would look to target the endangerment finding, a key determination made by the EPA in 2009 that defined greenhouse gases as dangerous to public health and welfare. That move—outlined in Project 2025—raised public objections even from fossil fuel industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the Edison Electric Institute, which represents utility companies. Killing the endangerment finding would require clearing a much higher legal bar than rolling back power plant regulations. The proposed rules will be open for public comment, with the agency stating a final rule should be issued by the end of the year; experts who spoke with WIRED say that they expect this latest move to be challenged in court. However, they all emphasized the fact that the proposal is above and beyond even what the first Trump administration attempted to do in eliminating climate regulations in its first term. 'This is a very big deal, that the EPA is attempting to sideline itself,' McNamara says. 'This is saying, 'We do not believe that we should regulate carbon emissions from power plants.' If you can't justify regulating power plants, then you can't justify regulating oil and gas emissions.' Meanwhile, the planet keeps getting hotter. Figures from Mauna Loa Observatory on Hawaii released quietly by NOAA last week show that May had a monthly average of 430.2 parts per million (ppm), the first time in recorded history that seasonal averages of CO2 exceeded 430 ppm, and 3.5 ppm higher than last year's May average. This reading comes on the heels of similarly-sobering figures the agency downplayed in April showing the largest-ever jump in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations between 2023 and 2024. 'Another year, another record,' Ralph Keeling, director of the Scripps CO2 Program, said in a release on the May numbers. 'It's sad.'


CNBC
22 minutes ago
- CNBC
U.S. preparing to partially evacuate Iraq embassy over regional security risks: Reuters sources
The United States is preparing a partial evacuation of its Iraqi embassy and will allow military dependents to leave locations around the Middle East due to heightened security risks in the region, U.S. and Iraqi sources said on Wednesday. The four U.S. and two Iraqi sources did not specify which security risks had prompted the decision and reports of the potential evacuation pushed up oil prices by more than 4%. "The State Department regularly reviews American personnel abroad and this decision was made as a result of a recent review," White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told Reuters when asked about reports of the partial evacuations, without giving further details. A White House official said U.S. President Donald Trump was aware of the move. The partial evacuations come at a moment of heightened tensions in a region already aflame after 18 months of war in Gaza that has raised fears of a wider conflagration pitting the U.S. and Israel against Iran and its allies. Trump has repeatedly threatened to strike Iran if stuttering talks over its nuclear program fail and on Wednesday he said he was growing less confident that Tehran would agree to stop enriching uranium, a key American demand. Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh also said on Wednesday that Iran would retaliate against U.S. bases in the region if the nuclear talks failed and it was subjected to strikes. The United States has a military presence in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from locations across the Middle East, a U.S. official said. Another U.S. official said that was mostly relevant to family members located in Bahrain -- where the bulk of them are based. "The State Department is set to have an ordered departure for (the) U.S. embassy in Baghdad. The intent is to do it through commercial means, but the U.S. military is standing by if help is requested," a third U.S. official said. An Iraqi foreign ministry official said a "partial evacuation" of U.S. embassy staff had been confirmed due to what the official termed "potential security concerns related to possible regional tensions." Another U.S. official said that there was no change in operations at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East and that no evacuation order had been issued for employees or families linked to the U.S. embassy in Qatar, which was operating as usual. Oil futures climbed $3 on reports of the Baghdad evacuation with Brent crude futures at $69.18 a barrel. Earlier on Wednesday Britain's maritime agency warned that increased tensions in the Middle East may lead to an escalation in military activity that could impact shipping in critical waterways. It advised vessels to use caution while travelling through the Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Straits of Hormuz, which all border Iran. Iraq, a rare regional partner of both the United States and its arch regional foe Iran, hosts 2,500 U.S. troops and has Tehran-backed armed factions linked to its security forces. Tensions inside Iraq have heightened since the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023, with Iran-aligned armed groups in the country repeatedly attacking U.S. troops. Top U.S. regional ally Israel has also struck Iran-linked targets across the region, including Iraqi armed groups operating both inside Iraq and in neighboring Syria. Iran's U.N. mission on Wednesday posted on X: "Threats of 'overwhelming force' won't change facts: Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon and U.S. militarism only fuels instability." The statement appeared to be a response to an earlier comment by U.S. Central Command chief U.S. Army General Michael Kurilla that he had provided the president with "a wide range of options" to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.


New York Times
23 minutes ago
- New York Times
U.S. to Withdraw Diplomats from Iraq Amid Iran Tensions
The State Department has decided to reduce its diplomatic presence in Iraq, the department said in a statement on Wednesday, as tensions spike amid signs that nuclear diplomacy between the United States and Iran may be deadlocked. Word of the U.S. decision, along with a warning from the United Kingdom about new threats to Middle East commercial shipping, came hours after President Trump said in a podcast released Wednesday that he has grown 'less confident' about the prospects for a deal with Iran that would limit its ability to develop nuclear weapons. American and Iranian negotiators have been planning to meet later this week for another round of talks, although Mr. Trump told reporters on Monday that Iran had adopted an 'unacceptable' negotiating position. The British warning came from the country's maritime trade agency, which issued a public advisory saying that it had 'been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners.' The advisory urged commercial vessels transiting the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz to use heightened caution. The sense of alarm was heightened by comments from Iran's defense minister, General Aziz Nasirzadeh, who warned on Wednesday that in the event of a conflict following failed nuclear talks, the United States would suffer heavy losses from Iranian attacks on U.S. bases in the Middle East. His comments were reported by Iran's Islamic Republic News Agency. The State Department did not provide details on how many personnel would be removed from Iraq, or why. The Associated Press reported on Wednesday that nonessential U.S. personnel would be withdrawn from Baghdad, and that nonessential personnel and family members of diplomats had been authorized to depart from U.S. embassies in Bahrain and Kuwait.