Right, but the 320's and -800's are already on existing routes that they are right sized for. So when we remove 120-ish(?) 88's in the 150 seat range, can they really only be replaced by 180+ seaters? That's what I was getting at.

Then consider the significant squeeze on the bottom end (so called DC-9 sized "RJ's") and it could bait most static textbook marketing teams into a self induced "liquidity trap" with capacity/CASM/seats available that makes it harder to grow markets and easier to downsize or abandon markets.

If the accelerated 88 retirement plan is really going to happen, replacing 149 seaters with mostly 180+ seaters (and some 100 seaters, but that's probably to pick up the RJ slack anyway) seems like a less than optimal solution. Speaking of the -800's, why are we not getting more of them? That adds 10 seats instead of 30 and is cheaper? CASM isn't king for everything, especially when that CASM is only theoretical because you can't fill them up. SWA is getting them at good enough of a price obviously, and penny pincher Ryan Air loves them. So why can we only make the stretchiest version of a narrow body work when everyone else does just fine with them?