Originally Posted by
Wheel Landing
I appreciate the responses. It is just a little sickening to think that there is more scope relief (of any kind) on the horizon. I understand that there are issues to be solved with some of the wide body code shares that are taking place. However, please just make sure that we are not gaining 10 wide body lines at the cost of adding 30 76 seat RJs. That is exatly how the first 76 seat 175s and CRJ 900s first appeared if I remember correctly. Wasn't it 3 76 seaters allowed on property for every 1 757 aquired? Please don't let that happen again.
No, it wasn't 3 76 seaters for 1 757. There is a formula to determine the allowable number of 76 seaters. It is based off the number of airplanes in the mainline fleet. We are under that trigger by at least 20 planes. Even if we hit that trigger, it only allows 70 seaters to be exchanged for 76 seaters at a 3:1 ratio. However, 51-76 seat jets are capped at 255 airframes. That may seem bad, but UAL has no limit to their 70 seaters, and Us Air isn't much better.
Bottom line is we have a lot to deal with. Wide Body aircraft create more jobs then Narrow Body aircraft. That doesn't mean I'm advocating for more 76 seaters. It just means the situation is not as simple as just demanding we fly 76 seaters. The E190 is not popular in the USA. JB has the most, and RAH & Us Air have a handful. It's performance has been less then desirable.