Regional carriers jettison 50-seat planes

Seems more like typical airline BS to me. If you can't make money on a market that supports 50 seat planes, how are they going to make money on 100 seat planes? Or you can abandon that market and have less business share. Sometimes that makes sense, but this article doesn't address that.

Just because Mike Boyd says its so, doesn't mean it is. Skywest/Expressjet-ASA still plan on there being a need for the 50 seat market. That was the primary reason SKW purchased BTA. And the contracts they have with both UA/CO and DL, will stand as they are for a few more years, since CO has a scope clause that only allows 50 seat jets. However DL and UA have scope clauses for larger a/c, but with the CO/UA merger still a long ways from being final, the need for the 50 seaters is there. Now if oil shoots over $100bbl again, then this will have to be reviewed again.
JD

This story is 100% true. COA cut back Jetlink operations at CLE ten fold and replaced them with Q200's. The push back to prop was in full swing. However, with fuel prices back down this movement did not last all that long.

This is what the key lobbyists at ORD and more want. Bigger planes means more butts and more revenuve. Daley can retire now with a bigger pension and what he grabbed under the table with his family and buddies as well. Source: The Brunner Report 2004'. The smaller jets just can't feed the kitty......

OK, here we go - again. Market economics are driving this change. With larger airframes serving smaller markets, the bean counters will once again demand more revenue per seat. Smaller markets only able to fill 40 seats will either be cut from the routes or fares will rise. Then the demand will be to size the aircraft properly for the market. On and on goes the cycle. If the current generation of 50 seaters are too expensive, then a replacement is needed. Will it be the Q400 class of turboprops or true jets? The answer will always be the economics of fuel. Bio-jets? Who knows? The best part of all this is change. Biplanes to DC-3 to DC-6/7 to 707 to 747 to 787 and all the various short hauls that happened along the way. After all this nation has gone from foot hiking to horse riding to wagon to railroad to interstate highway to airline back to auto and trains and improved air travel. Change? It's with us no matter how much folks kick.

Found out this morning that the CLE-ORD route will no longer be E145 service. Just had a Q400 take their flight number.

I guess we don't remember that the pax wanted something to replace turboprops a few years ago. Now we are going to jettison jets and return to turboprops on short legged routes?

It's all a bunch of BS. Mike Boyd has been saying that for years. Although the economics may not favor an 'independent' airline (like Independence Air or Express Jet's braded service), 50 seat jets are very viable supplementing the network carriers. Remember a carrier (like a UA Express, or AA Eagle, etc) does not have reservations, or ticket counter at most major airport - that's provided by the network carrier. That's a tremendous savings on cost! Airlines that fly branded service with 50 seat jets have the added expense of operating thos services that the network carriers provide for the feeders...just enough to make the margins almost non-existant.

One more poinrt, scope clauses at a lot of airlines restrict the number of regional jets over 50 seats.

"..scope clauses at a lot of airlines restrict the number of regional jets over 50 seats..." is good rhetoric from ATA and the RAA. In reality, scope clauses don't restrict the number of 50-seat jets an airline can operate/schedule. They only restrict how many can be out-sourced. An airline can operate all the 50-seaters it wants. It's just that any 50-seaters over the limit must be flown by the airline's own pilots.