Originally Posted by
threeighteen
Okay, but now you need to actually think critically about what you're saying and fully develop that thought...
Under the current scope clause:
If Embraer actually builds a 50 seat turbo prop or 50 seat 175, it would be better to have more of those than more 76 aircraft that have more weight/range.
Here's why:
1. A 50 seat 175 would still have to meet the weight requirement of the scope clause just like the CRJ 550, which would significantly limit its range.
2. A 50 seat turboprop isn't going to have the range for DEN-CHS, DEN-SYR, DEN-DTW, DEN-RIC, DEN-ATL. Nor would anyone book a flight on one when the competition is running A320s and A319s.
1.They aren’t talking about a 175 with 50 seats. They’re talking about *shrinking* the 175, a la the 320 to the 319.
2. Turboprops are more fuel efficient, although they would be limited by speed in that case. They’re already using the bigger RJ’s on those routes, the
vast majority of -200/145 flights are less than two hour flights. SBN-ORD 5x a day, CHO-IAD, CRW-ORD/IAD, etc. People are already buying tickets on clapped out 200’s, a clean sheet turboprop would be far more comfortable and most of the flying public under 40 have no preconceived notion of a turboprop. If it weren’t possible for them to make a turboprop that the public finds safe and comfortable they wouldn’t have sold thousands of kingairs and Pilatuses to the 1%rs of the world. For many of these markets it’s a 50 seat aircraft or withdrawing service.
I hate RJ’s, which is precisely why I won’t count out a replacement for the -200. It doesn’t even have to be w turboprop or a shrunken 170. If there is a market left, and scope left open for it, someone will build a viable replacement. Short term you’re right, which is why I think it makes sense to kill off as many 50 seat jets as possible before something better than the 550 rears it’s ugly head.