It can be reduced by replacing that flying with mainline lift. There are some small markets that can’t support 70+ seat aircraft, however the only option that we really have now is nearing the end of the road due to age, inefficiency, and customer complaints. If a comfortable, efficient, affordable, and scope compliant 50 seat aircraft is developed, the airlines may very well take that path. There is an argument for small aircraft to extremely small markets, but there is no need to send 8 rj’s a day to medium to large cities. Not only is that a poor product, it significantly adds to hub congestion. Those markets can support larger aircraft. Our competition is proving that. It appears that the airlines have made their decisions. Delta bought the A220 and announced that 50 seaters will be gone by 2023. United went with a big 321/737 order and will all but eliminate single class 50 seaters a little slower than Delta. The people who make those decisions have evidently determined that their chosen path will generate more revenue than going in a different direction. We can praise or condemn their decisions, but we can’t change them.

So, you fly for United I assume?

Yes, I fly for United, but who we work for doesn’t impact discussions on what a company is doing or where the industry seems to be heading. It only affects our approval or disapproval of those decisions.

Reason I asked, is because usually one's perspective of a situation is self motivated, and not based on what's best for the company.

Respectfully, you yourself posted an article that detailed United's proposed reduction in 50 seat flying that indicates what 50 seat flying will be left.

In the interest of the greater pilot group, what would be best is for the major partner to pull most, if not all, the flying in and hire those doing their contracted flying in. Pay, QOL/work rules, etc elevated for those of us under the whipsaw.

Yes, I did post that. See, you are looking at this in a myopic fashion on what is "best for the pilot group", and not the company as a whole. Gotta step out of the bubble and see the whole picture.

The whole picture is what's best for the work force, not the shareholders.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but without shareholders there is no workforce. Step out of the box and think as a whole.

I’d obviously prefer for all flying to be flown by legacy pilots and get rid of the whipsaw regional model that treats pilots like second class citizens, but we all know that’s not going to happen. We all have biases and look out for our own interest more than the company. It would be best for the company to get rid of scope and restrictive work rules, but fortunately we have union contracts that restrict their options. I do find this industry shift interesting though. There is still some demand in small markets that support 50 seat aircraft, but evidently the revenue generated there isn’t enough to create enough demand to have airlines asking for a clean sheet 50 seat aircraft that will be affordable, efficient, and preferred by customers. It appears that we are definitely moving towards larger aircraft for now. People will get used to the new normal, and then it will change again. Hopefully this change will allow more opportunity for people to move on to the job of their choice rather than get stuck at the regionals due to lack of places to go. Much of the big United order is replacement aircraft, but around 200 are growth that will require hiring pilots in addition to attrition.

We are here to make money for the shareholders, not to provide some public service or care for employees. We are all just cost on a spreadsheet. The argument that comes into play is how to best maximize shareholder wealth. If abusing the workers does that, then that is the path that they’ll follow. If spending additional money on work force QOL will generate even more money, then that is where they will go. We only get what we’re able to negotiate, nothing more, nothing less, and we never will.