Does anyone operate the Saab with 34 seats actually available to pax? Just curious because I used to commute on one and the most I ever saw get on was 32.

Don't forget that most passengers only take a commuter aircraft to get to a major airport where they get on a larger and more efficient aircraft that takes them to their real destination. So even if the mainline carrier loses some money on the short commuter flight, they make up that money in the more expensive tickets on the larger aircraft those commuter passengers go onto after. Instead of looking at the efficiency of the commuter aircraft, look at the efficiency of the total trip each passenger books.

Those 135s are already paid for/being paid for, so if there is enough demand you are better off putting those aircraft to work to feed larger international flights even if you are losing some money on the first leg.

Also, some markets are so competitive that carriers are willing to lose money on flights just to deter competing carriers from entering a particular market.

We have a few with 34, and a few with 33. Depending on bags and fuel I've seen all 34 filled up numerous times. Rarer in the summertime for obvious reasons but it can be done when the planets align and the right goat is sacrificed prior to boarding.

Its really a problem getting 34 onboard when you are flying to UNV and the foreign exchange students are coming back with all their heavy bags. We leave with 34 passengers all the time when bags and excess fuel aren't weighing you down.

Thanks for the reply. I spent a year commuting offline on Mesaba, where I was told they had no control over their weight and balance. I rode (or tried to ride) the same flight every week and often ran into a weight restriction. That restriction turned my commute into a three or four leg day. It was glorious.

DHC-8-100 is a 37-seater in an academic sense only......when I flew the thing you were usually restricted to 33-35. I think the SF340 may take a hit as well.

You're exactly right, Cruz. Fuel burn is definitely less than the jet.

However, for a small, limited size operation, XJT already has the ERJ series on property. As far as they are concerned, it's just an E145 with slightly lower direct costs. I just would guess the cost to bring in a turboprop operated in such small numbers (assuming the 5 airplanes are the scope of what UAL wants to do) would offset any fuel savings you might get. Also, the lease market for 37/50 seat RJ's isn't amazing now......if I were a lessor I would be willing to make some deals just to place these aircraft in service with fuel at its present level.

Guys...keep in mind also that UCAL used to run the 135 on long legs too. No doubt a turboprop is more efficient on short hops, but you wont see a Saab running from IAH-CRW either. It may make sense on the very thin routes. Who knows.

The zero fuel weight on the B model is 26,500. The Swedes didn't make it for fat Americans, so with the standard pax weights you'd have to be light on bags to get on 34 people.

I feel your pain, nothing worse than a commute that involves a weight restricted airplane and renders the jumpseat useless.

UAL has to pay the leases on these parked aircraft anyways. They would still pay the same lease even if they brought other aircraft to do this flying.

Neither did the Canadians. We're often max landing weight limited on the Q200...the Q300 on the flip side is an absolute beast. Never had an issue (knock on wood).