The 73W (The widget-configured 737-700) has more than enough performance to do ASE. In fact, it regularly flies out bags the CRJ-700s leave behind in EYW. It's an airfield wingspan limitation that keeps it out of ASE. It has been a regular in CRW in the past, so that is no issue either. There are only 10, so they're a bit of a unicorn.

I'll defer to your knowledge of the 737 then, but for most airplanes, it's the inability to fly the missed approach single engine (one engine inop) over the inability to depart and fail one at V1. Most planes simply can't make the turn out while climbing out down an engine. On take off, that tight turn isn't needed although the 146 could do it and thus could land and depart both 15 and 33 unlike other jets. We also had an unpublished LOC approach shared with Air Wisconsin that had lower mins because we were the only ones that could meet the required missed approach climb gradient with one engine failed.

I know it because a 737 performance program told me it when i ran it for feasability. 65 was a good day, 40 with an alternate. Wasnt running numbers for a 700.

Unless you have flown ASE your opinions mean nothing.

That wasn't an opinion piece.

SkyWest also flies the LOC-DME. On the Avro, did you guys have a balked/extraction procedure? The Avro and Q400 seemed like ideal planes for flying into ASE but I never flew them. Could the Avro also circle to land on 33? We didn’t do it on the 700. One guy told me he tried it in the sim and the EGPWS was just giving alerts the whole time. The single engine balked in the CRJ700 was probably the most intense on terrain clearance.

Netjets now has an RNP that gets them super low, but I haven’t seen the approach itself, but the climb gradients must be pretty good.

I bet that SkyWest uses the publicly published LOC approach. We had a different approach with lower mins. Yes we could circle for landing on 33 or depart 15. As for RNP, the Avro was not capable of flying any type of GPS approaches, at least not with the FMS we had in them back then. Low ref speeds and 4 engines made all that possible. We had ref speeds in the 115-120 range typically.

I’ve heard the Airbus E-Fan X has been spotted doing practice approaches

There's more to it than the 8,000 elevation or mountains after an engine failure. Look at Bogota, it's 500 ft higher in elevation with hotter average temp. facing a 12,000 ft mountain on an SE missed. There's no issue with 737 or an Airbus flying there everyday.

Lol. Explain that to the performance computer, you sound like a GD salesteam from an old company clapping their hands saying "make it happen" followed by a "we gotta make it happen!*

Have dx run a couple solutions off CRW for different runways. I couldnt make it work without serious weight penalties on the classic, but im sure once you remind the computer this airplane flies into bigger and better airports itll really push those numbers harder. Next gens are great but they dont launch vertical.