I haven't thought about long distance flights but I know that on short to medium hauls, it is better to have smaller aircraft at a high frequency. There comes a point where if the flights are too far apart in time, people will drive. The original Braniff had this philosophy. When everyone else was getting larger aircraft, BN stuck with 727's and, until they stupidly overexpanded too rapidly, was doing pretty good. I think the regional jets are not hurting the mainline flights. It's good for the pax because it helps to avoid the hubs. David R. http://home.attbi.com/~damiross http://www.secure-skies.org/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alireza Alivandivafa" <DEmocrat2n@xxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [AIRLINE] An interesting bit of...COLUSION (sic?) > Boeing is delivering more 772s because the industry has an idiotic idea in > its head that smaller is always better. Look at the move toward regional > jets that is hurting the mainlines. Just like the best way to run short-haul > routes is ultra-low fares, with managed growth, on 737s/A320s (even in small > markets), the best way to run long-haul routes is with the 744. When a plane > can only opperate once a day, you need to get the most revenue possible, and > that is with a 400-450 PAX plane, not 220-280 PAX. Additionally, if you are > putting passengers in the seats with the right prices, you have a better > margin. Just like filling medium sized single aisles over small RJs. The 50 > seat RJs get twice the economy of the 737s, but hold 1/4th-1/3rd of the > seats. You are also still paying 2 pilots and an FA. Same thing