then they will make stops with 100 seaters. i could see MQT-TVC-ORD with e195 or MLU-GTR-ATL with a 717 if mainline decides to up gauge aircraft or if there are no new 50 seat AC when the 145/200 time out.

If those people wanted to go on their trips, they would still do it. It's not like they are going to say "it's another 30 minutes or hour away, so I won't take this 16 hour trip now."

The only reason some cities have service at all is because the airlines don't want one of the others to have the convenience of the only closer airport. For many of those RJs are just more flights per day vs a larger aircraft that could serve them instead. It's a convenience, not a necessity.

A recent rest of this theory has been run using the 787 and A380. Convenience won. Outside of a centrally planned economy, you aren't going to get a "logical" air transport network.

And I would also dispute the "well it's only another 30 minutes"

Yes GSP-CLT and AVL-CLT is silly. But I live somewhere that has daily RJ service to 4 hubs all of which are 6 hour drives away. They are the closest international gateways. Lots of americans live within a 2 hour drive of a major airport. The percentage that live within a 2 hour drive of LHR direct (let alone CDG or NRT) is much lower.

And there are people for whom another hour makes a difference ... the high value business travelers who prop up the whole enterprise.

You have low cost carriers filling 150-200 seat airplanes out of the same markets where Ual, Aal, and Dal run 50 seaters. Airlines now make more money off of ancillary expenses like extra legroom, seat selection, credit card signups, buy on board, etc that makes high volume sales more profitable then charging more for only 50 seats. They also see more volume for connecting passengers and much easier recovery when the plane breaks or weather hits. If you have 300 Airbus you can find a spare or shuffle another flight to cover the open segment and have crews all over the country to pick up the pieces after weather.

50 seaters hold onto market share, for example LGA has hourly departure restrictions that limit aircraft to 55 seats or less. The question of a 50 seater is not always about the TRASM.

A new clean sheet 50 seater? Single-piloted? GTF? That's hilarious. This story is 100% for the UALPA's consumption and has zero chance of actually happening. First the CRJ550 and now this fairy tale.

Don't be fooled. Just say no.

Your example proves my point. If you have RJ service to that many airports your airport could support a mainline aircraft. There also aren't very many of those airports without multiple flights a day that could be consolidated.

Totally agree. There are even credible rumors now that one route at my airport is being up-gauged from RJ to a 737.

But "could be consolidated" and "market supports consolidation" are different things. An airline running 6X day two class RJ will take market share from a competitor running 2X day 737. (Same as 2/day 787 beats 1/day A380)

Notice that I said “regional airports”. The airlines you mentioned are LCC’s and ULCC’s and not majors and don’t really serve the regional airports.

I’d like to see the percentage of passengers on the legacy airlines that utilize regional airports to travel. I imagine it’s pretty significant.

See, that demonstrates that there isn't a NEED for the RJs, even if there is a desire for frequency it doesn't really have as much of an impact if there aren't really any RJs out there. There isn't really a good example of the RJs taking market share from the 737s either.

Nevermind that you used two class RJs as your example when the discussion is about whether there is a need for single class 50 seaters. When it comes to those, it's already known that there are passengers who book away from the 50 seat RJs.

The 787 vs 380 comparison isn't really a good one though as the A380 apparently has the highest cost per seat mile of any mainline aircraft currently in service.

And again, this discussion is about whether there is really a need for them in the entire industry, not speculation on how much benefit there is to the higher frequency, although I maintain that there are diminishing returns with that as well. There are many cases where a better product that isn't as often might provide a higher yield and market share. Of course, with American's current drive towards making the experience on mainline as uncomfortable as possible, it might actually be a better experience on the RJs at this point.