Hedley

Not necessarily. Years ago the small town where my parents lived was served by 3 flights a day with Beech 1900’s. Those people now drive 2 hours to cities served by larger aircraft because the market could not support the larger 50 seat jets. The airlines will go where the money is with the equipment that is available. If smaller markets can’t support 70/76 seat jets, they will be phased out as the 50 seat jets are eventually retired and the remaining assets will serve viable markets.

GA2Jets

Counter point: the number of 50 seaters today speaks to the market that exists right now. There are some airports that have phased out service, but there are tons of small cities that United makes a profit off of. UA makes a lot of money off small markets, and while some might go, no way they're giving up on them all. So they either they have to upgauge and reduce frequency, or find another small aircraft solution.

captive apple

Agreed. There are examples where communities getting their first jet service has boosted the market out of the EAS program.

TransWorld

Semi-Counter-Counterpoint. I regularly fly into PSC Pasco, Wa as a PAX a couple of times a year. They used to fly the 37 seat turboprop 8 times a day. A few years ago Horizon supersized them. Started flying the 76 seat turboprop 6 times a day. PAX loads have increased significantly. The PSC airport has grown significantly in ridership over the last decade. If you build it, they will come?

sincity

Counter-counter-counter point.

I wouldn't use the Pasco market as a comparison figure. The population growth in that area has been unbelievable. It's definitely not the Pasco it was 12 years ago by any stretch.

Hedley

I think that the vast majority of lift currently being done by 50 seaters will be replaced with reduced frequency on the 175’s. A handful of really small markets could be dropped as well. My commute for example had 6-9 E175’s depending on the day before the pandemic that could be served with fewer flights on 737/320’s. That would free up big rj’s to cover much of what the 50 seat fleet does now. Some of what that fleet does is serve extremely small markets like BFE Kansas, however a bunch of what they do is add frequency. I’m still betting that in 5 years UAX will consist of about 70 or so 550’s to cover the really small markets and the existing 175’s. I don’t see Kirby freeing up additional 175’s by buying a new SNB, and I don’t see there being enough global demand to spawn a new 50 seat aircraft in time to save aging 145’s and 200’s. That basically leaves competing against a better product with old 50 seaters, or bigger planes and reduced frequency. Kirby knows that he isn’t getting scope concessions, he just doesn't like his available options.

flightlessbirds

No...the 550 was never/will never be for really small markets.

TransWorld

That is true.

climb150

This is where the "bigger planes fewer times a day" argument fails. People want frequency, not capacity. If you don't depart when the pax wants to, they will find an airline that does. So unless you are the only option, you lose customers.

Hedley

What people want is hourly service, a row to themselves, first class accommodations, and fire sale prices, however they get what the market will support. It’s not just United’s 50 seaters that are aging out. Delta is retiring all of theirs, American and United are both reducing the size of the fleet, and no other competitor uses them. Saying that there will always be a 50 seat fleet is like people saying that there would always be small turboprops 20 years ago. The landscape is changing. 50 seat aircraft aren’t being produced anymore, they have had countless cycles, they are not efficient, they are unpopular with customers, and manufacturers are not likely to have enough potential orders to develop a comfortable and modern replacement. Some markets may actually grow when improved service is introduced, and some really small markets may go away.