SkyWest prides itself on being one of the more expensive operators.

Clarifying. If A220s (flown by the majors) take over some 76 seat flying and 76 seat flying takes over some of the 50 seat flying, then some 50 seat get parked.

The ratio of 76 seat planes to all the planes at the majors would not increase. True, the ratio of 76 seat to 50 seat would increase. But if no more 76 seat planes are being flown, that would not violate many scope sections.

Where it would, I could see negotiations like this:

Today -
100 76 seat planes fly (RJ)
100 50 seat planes fly (RJ)

In the future -
50 A220-100 fly (major)
100 76 seat planes fly (RJ)
50 50 seat planes fly (RJ)
Same number of planes, same number of pilots
More lift (20% more seats for organic growth, those routes or other routes)
More pilots at the majors
Fewer pilots at the regionals
No more 76 seaters
Fewer 50 seaters

How would that sound?

Totally agree with you. I hate the limited West coast base options. Outside of Skywest (where the bases run fairly senior from what I’ve seen) and Compass (good luck to the recruiters working there...) the pickings seem slim unless you’re more “adventurous” for Mesa.

Sigh...

West Coast will go jr at OO. BOI and SLC are already NH bases on the ERJ. Just image what moving 30 aircraft for LAX/SEA/SLC. And getting 13 new ones will do.. Im sure a east coast guy would pick ERJ ORD over SEA/LAX... guess will find out the next 11 months s how it shakes out.

I hope you’re right my friend.

West coast will go junior for FOs. Captain side still remains pretty senior and will likely continue to be.

Define senior?? Back in the day that would mean 12+ years.. now that term seems like 5+..???.. (for OO)

BOI CA ERJ is under 5 years..
SLC ERJ is under 6. Thats crazy compared to the 10+ it use to be..
Same ERJ LAX/SFO under 6. And this is before all this West Coast announcement ...

50 seaters are generally unrestricted. I don’t see regional flying slowing unless the economy contracts.

Guess I have a broader perspective. Shortage of pilots. Higher PAX loads from some out airports. More seats with the same number of planes.

Remember when 37-40 seat planes were all the rage? Not many of them flying today.

Not to debate the issue, we will check in on this in a few years and see who is right.

I think it comes down to scope vs. pilots available. If there are enough pilots to fly the 50 seaters there are plenty of passengers to fill them and because there are basically no scope limitations the mainlines would love to see them flying. They are profitable.

However if the regional partners can’t staff the planes scope clauses will force more of the flying in-house just as you have suggested. This will probably be much less profitable for main line and they will fight it as hard as they can, but market forces may dictate exactly what you have predicted.