Originally Posted by
threeighteen
Yeah but when you start shrinking big planes to smaller, they don't get lighter by the same percentage of seats you took out. It would be extremely difficult to create a 50 seat E175 that would fit under the 65,000lb MTOW limit in the UPA and still have range comparable to a CRJ700 or E175.
Wow I had no idea...
So instead of recapturing the less than two hour flights with A319s, you want to lose MORE of those longer routes to bigger RJs...? because that's the argument you're making here.
1. Who's gonna fly that clean sheet 50 seat turboprop? Can't even find people to fly the 50 seat jets. Can barely find mechanics to keep them running these days either.
2. Who says that SBN-ORD 5x a day on a CRJ2 can't be replaced by SBN-ORD 2x a day on an A319? Or they could do what they do in DEN and just switch it to a bus. Either of those would free up a lot of space in ORD and save a lot of money on fuel/labor.
The issue here is that you don't want to lose MORE routes to RJs like the 175 with longer (3-4) range... but for some reason you're arguing that it's actually a good idea to let them have more 175s to do this.
No need to get so hostile amigo, I’m just pointing out a different perspective on it. Maybe there will be no 50 seat jets in 20 years and the residents of Lincoln, NE or South Bend, IN will be satisfied with once or twice a day 319 service, you’ll be totally right and it would’ve been stupid to worry about them. Maybe someone else starts running 6x a day service on a whisper quiet fuel efficient turboprop with legroom and all of a sudden 200 fifty seat aircraft are now being flown by express pilots because scope didn’t get tightened. I personally think any reduction in total frames is a good outcome. You don’t, for solid reasons. Hope you all get a great contract either way.
cheers