Why not? And the answer has to do with what works now, not what made sense 6 months ago

 

Ok because if that were the case, they wouldn't have flown any 50 seaters when they only had 4% traffic in April. And they wouldn't have leaned in at all in the following months.

Another reason: when you are trying to increase the number of banks at a hub, a good way to start a new bank is by starting with low capacity aircraft then upgauging. Not just adding a new 6am flight on a 737 just because.

Another reason: if you're competing with another carrier with better frequency, you'd rather smaller planes so they fill up and you can have more frequency yourself to compete.

Another reason: small markets not served by ULCC carriers are stupid profitable. Giving those up completely indefinitely doesn't make sense. And serving them with a 550? Maybe but it's not as efficient.

Look I'm not saying ZW will for sure live, and I'm not saying there won't be lots of cuts and broken hearts. But there is absolutely plenty of reason to think that 50 seat a/c make sense going forward.

 

There is going to still be 50 seat aircraft. Difference is they are going to be 50 seat aircraft that United can sell a first class seat on and pocket a couple thousand more dollars on each flight, the 550. In terms of operating costs there really isn’t that much of a difference between the 200 and the 550, and when you turn that metric to profit margins, espically with the first class tickets, it swings in the 550’s favor.

 

The galaxy brain perspective a few months ago was that the 550 was not a solid play precisely because it relied so much on filling premium seats to make it profitable. You mean to tell me that in fact it was prescient of them to create an aircraft that will withstand a cataclysmic economic downturn? That it’s the premium seats that will make it work now?

 

Another reason: scope. 70-seaters were already maxed out before the pandemic, and will have to be cut back once the scope look-back includes nothing but post-Covid breakout months. The 550 makes a of sense in some markets, and no sense at all in others. I doubt UA gets rid of 50-seaters anytime soon. Who will be flying them remains to be seen.

 

50 seaters will be around. Just more in a prorate agreement, less in a CPA contract..

 

I agree, except that SkyWest will be operating the true 50 seaters , like the 200 in certain markets .
Everything else will probably be 550s / 700s with Mesa . 175s with Mesa, SkyWest and RAH .
Might be time to put in an application at Mesa and Skywest .
Dam I cant believe I just said that .

 

You know what I like doing on Friday nights? Sitting down with some bourbon and looking at the AW forums between 2000 and 2010 and seeing all the doomers saying that AWA will be done for in less than a year. It's like watching a prime time sitcom, but actually funny.

"Oh, but THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT"

That's what they said the last 50 times they said the airline was done for this time... Nope, I'm not buying it until they actually close up shop.

 

Exactly. I'm LOLing at the sudden perceived wisdom of the 550s. 😂 Like in an era where every penny needs to be squeezed, it's the low density, low range 50-seat-700 that will save UAX. The economics were weak then, and they are even worse now without lots of premium customers. There is definitely a niche it fills but the successor to the CRJ2 and 145? Please.

As long as there is a market from small towns to hubs, some 50 seaters will remain.

 

Sorry bud, but that’s a 200% increase. You know 2 times. If it was a 50% increase it would be 4 going to 6. You know.. 2 is 50% of 4?

but I like growth![/QUOTE]





















Don't quit your day job professor...