Will those be done under the UAX brand?

 

thats cute. Any increase in Capacity or Weight limit is a scope give.

 

Exactly... even one more 76 seater is a scope give.

 

yes

filler

 

Remove 4 50-seats for 2 76-seat. If it’s all 70-76 seat replacing the 50’s equaling no more lift capability then they currently have, what’s the argument?

 

That’s your opinion and feel free to vote that way. I still feel if we reduce the UAX footprint on a total seat basis, it’s an improvement.

 

The 50 seaters are going away anyway due to poor economics, so why give management more 76 seaters as sympathetic bonus? It's not like they're gonna keep the 50 seaters if you don't give them more 76 seaters.

A 76 seater can do DEN-CHS, DEN-SYR, DEN-DTW, DEN-RIC, DEN-ATL, etc... flights that can and should be done on a 319... a 50 seater can't do that. Why give them more opportunities to use E175s and CRJ7s instead of A319s/737-700s?

Also, replacing four 50 seaters that are doing short haul flying with 30-40% load factors and replacing them with two 76 seaters that will be doing what should be mainline flying does actually give more lift capability since the 76 seaters will have more than double the load factor.

 

1. This has been said multiple times before and here we are.

2. Embraer is already talking about a clean sheet 50 seat turboprop or possibly shrinking the 170.

Assuming the 50 seaters are dead is short sighted. They will, like the bedbugs they are, lie dormant until the economics get better or a more economical one is built. It’s not for me to suggest you all vote one way or the other but I’d be careful basing your vote on the death of the 50 seat airplane if an opportunity presents itself to shrink the total number of express frames.

 

Okay, but now you need to actually think critically about what you're saying and fully develop that thought...

Under the current scope clause:

If Embraer actually builds a 50 seat turbo prop or 50 seat 175, it would be better to have more of those than more 76 aircraft that have more weight/range.

Here's why:

1. A 50 seat 175 would still have to meet the weight requirement of the scope clause just like the CRJ 550, which would significantly limit its range.
2. A 50 seat turboprop isn't going to have the range for DEN-CHS, DEN-SYR, DEN-DTW, DEN-RIC, DEN-ATL. Nor would anyone book a flight on one when the competition is running A320s and A319s.

 

1.They aren’t talking about a 175 with 50 seats. They’re talking about *shrinking* the 175, a la the 320 to the 319.

2. Turboprops are more fuel efficient, although they would be limited by speed in that case. They’re already using the bigger RJ’s on those routes, the vast majority of -200/145 flights are less than two hour flights. SBN-ORD 5x a day, CHO-IAD, CRW-ORD/IAD, etc. People are already buying tickets on clapped out 200’s, a clean sheet turboprop would be far more comfortable and most of the flying public under 40 have no preconceived notion of a turboprop. If it weren’t possible for them to make a turboprop that the public finds safe and comfortable they wouldn’t have sold thousands of kingairs and Pilatuses to the 1%rs of the world. For many of these markets it’s a 50 seat aircraft or withdrawing service.

I hate RJ’s, which is precisely why I won’t count out a replacement for the -200. It doesn’t even have to be w turboprop or a shrunken 170. If there is a market left, and scope left open for it, someone will build a viable replacement. Short term you’re right, which is why I think it makes sense to kill off as many 50 seat jets as possible before something better than the 550 rears it’s ugly head.