Originally Posted by
Excargodog
Except what they are “OK” with doesn’t change the geometry a bit - not if they truly want a smaller carbon footprint. Current regional flying just won’t provide that result. Lower frequency would, small turboprops would, electric eight or twelve pax short range aircraft would. But flying someone 100-200 miles south or north so they can land, taxi in at a crowded hub, unload, then reload, taxi out at a crowded hub, to then travel 1500 miles East or West is going to be pretty counterproductive if you are trying to save on carbon footprint.
They'll have to get at the carbon some other way, SAF or possibly even battery power for some short-range EAS type ops.
Reduced frequency only works up to a point: six flights/day vs. three is a competitive advantage, but the pax would tolerate 3/day of that was the only option. But three flights/week is a non-starter in the US, we're too busy. In the developing world it's OK to have 1-3 flights/week, slower pace of life, a couple extra down days to groom your camel and chew khat is no big thing.