Lear70 said:I disagree.
There will ALWAYS be a need for a 50-seat jet on some short- to medium-length routes into small capacity cities such as Pellston, MI and Coeur de Lane, ID during peak seasons, just as there will always be a need for 19 seat turboprops operating into short hops (less than 30 minutes in a jet) into small cities.
If you give up these aircraft, you give up these passengers (what airline will send a 70- or 90- seat jet into a market where only 20-30 people will board with ticket prices where they are?). Someone else will come in to pick up the slack, they always do.
Sometimes carriers will operate these flights at a loss in order to connect them to long-haul domestic or international routes where they make the profit back.
I don't see them buying NEW aircraft and I do see production decreasing, but even with reduced scope and companies like Mesa and "Newco" flying 70 and 90 seaters, some 50 seaters and 19-30 seat turboprops will remain...
I agree with that. 50-seat jets will only be profitable on non-LCC competitive routes like SLC-Pasco or ATL-HPN that can support higher nonstop fares. Too bad business travelers will have to suffer on these more convenient, non-competitive routes. After 2 hours on a CRJ/ERJ my back starts to ache...