To the Bar-88-ACL discussion, do the 76 staters exist because they can't buy bigger ones for DCI or because they're the best righ sized platforms available?

I like ACLs idea to sunset contracts over fighting to win a plane that the company doesn't want in reality. It'd be like fighting to get 50 seaters, nobody wants to do that, why? Because we see them as going away anyways. The 76 seaters are just bigger versions, so they'll be here longer so we discuss them but are they really Charlie Sheen winners? Or are they here because they fit our scope clause?

Kind of like the ERJ-140. What is that? It's a 50 seater adjusted to APAs scope clause, nobody else wanted them. The rest wanted 50 seaters because 51 requires a second FA. Just like Beech 1900s and J32s seat 19, 20 requires a FA. Or 37 seat E120s and Dash 8s, I believe at the time those were all Part 135 airplanes and that was the max size you could have a Part 135 scheduled air carrier because 38 required Part 121 ops. I may be wrong but I believe that's why.

So take away Section 1, make DCI illegal, all flying in-house, what would we really have on the small end? and if 76 seaters aren't them, do we fight for them or like in the case of the 50 seaters we wait and see if external factors take care of the mental glitch that brought them here.

Check, move over, I'm coming to your bunker. We can play angry birds if you want?