Hi all:

It's a fact that the CR2 is rapidly approaching the end of its life as the frame, gear, etc. just weren't originally designed for a regional jet with high cycles. I can't imagine the E145 is much better off.

ExpressJet, SkyWest, and Air Wisconsin all have CR2s and 145s listed on Planefleets from the late 1990s in active service. None of these planes are getting older, and yet UA just brought AW on as United Express to boost capacity. I think the newest 145s are the XRs which are about 12 years old.

Eventually, these things are going to max out on cycles, and 50seater capacity will get scarce. Is there anything forthcoming to replace them?

Q400 is an option CO tried right before the merger. I flew one in 2011 and it seemed ok, minus the usual turbulence of hot days out of IAH.
Embraer still lists the 135/40/45/45XR on its website, but no idea if they'll sell one.

Or should, e.g. UA, just finally bite the bullet and buy CS100s for mainline so they can add more 175s?

Did you read Cranky Flier too? Kind of wrote about that today with UA and the scope clauses. If there are no restrictions below 51 seats then how come someone can't come up with a decent replacement? I know the economics at that passenger amount aren't ideal but if airlines are still using CR2s and 145s wouldn't anything newly designed be better. I've seen mention of small scale electric planes in the works with no pilot or maybe one but that seems a ways away and I don't know how people would feel about that.

Springs1816 wrote:

If there are no restrictions below 51 seats then how come someone can't come up with a decent replacement? I know the economics at that passenger amount aren't ideal but if airlines are still using CR2s and 145s wouldn't anything newly designed be better.

That's basically the problem. Nobody is going to spend the money necessary to come up with a new design for a plane whose economics and size aren't going to be ideal. Airlines won't want to pay the prices a manufacturer would have to charge in order to pay for the development costs. Eventually you'd need something, but they're not at the point yet where they're desperate to replace 50-seaters due to age (right now it's mostly economics, and new types don't solve that).

There's a large number of 200's in IGM, it may well be a simple equation, short term, of parking the high cycle birds in service now to replace them with birds that have been there for years, sitting, not accumulating cycles and hours. United is certainly more dependent on the 50 seater than anyone else, and it's going to hurt them more. Long term, Delta has made it clear that by 2023 ASM on 50 seaters is going to be down 50% from today. I would expect that when it gets to that, OO will be the sole 50 seat operator (well, one of 3 DCI carriers in general).

Hopefully nothing replaces them.

hOMSaR wrote:

Springs1816 wrote:

If there are no restrictions below 51 seats then how come someone can't come up with a decent replacement? I know the economics at that passenger amount aren't ideal but if airlines are still using CR2s and 145s wouldn't anything newly designed be better.

That's basically the problem. Nobody is going to spend the money necessary to come up with a new design for a plane whose economics and size aren't going to be ideal. Airlines won't want to pay the prices a manufacturer would have to charge in order to pay for the development costs. Eventually you'd need something, but they're not at the point yet where they're desperate to replace 50-seaters due to age (right now it's mostly economics, and new types don't solve that).

The economics of 50-seaters don't work on the pilot side, not with pilot availability nor with pilot labor $ productivity. (Two pilots will fly 76 seats at about the same wage as a 50-seater.)

The economics of 50-seaters don't work on the fuel cost side, with fuel burn per ASM.

50-seaters came into being ~25 years ago on two things:

1. A wave of U.S. pilots willing to work for low wages expecting (not merely hoping) to move into mainline with ever-rising wages. 9/11 and a bunch of bankruptcy cram-downs showed the fragility of that plan.

2. Very low and quite stable fuel prices. Chart the 30-yr price. https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/ ... months=360

I don't think anybody wants to bet $Billions (new small jet development costs) and $Billions more on fleet that those factors will be sustainable again.

In my dream world.

There are a couple things that make the economics of the 50 and under seater planes rough nowadways, fuel, staff, and the high expense of developing a new model for the decent sized market that could support a plane, but not big enough to support a clean sheet design which would might be the only way to fix the other two issues of fuel and staff.

So what if a manufacture such as Embraer, dusted off the EMB120, new engines (GE Catalyst fits the HP requirements perfectly, is lighter and 20% more efficient, and much less maintenance costs than original engines) pulled the advanced avionics and FBW off the E2 and also built in it the architecture that would allow for one pilot operation, and designed out the need for a flight attendant. You offer it in two lengths, the 30 seater variety, and the 50 seater variety with a bigger engine to replace 50 seater jets (ie Saab 2000 higher performance than the 30 seater it's derived from). I understand the regulatory changes necessary to extract the cost savings wouldn't come right away but by having that ability you're making it in the airlines interest to push hard on changing the regulations so that once they get relaxed you've got a turn key option. If you could pull it off (which granted is a big if) you might end up with a 30 seat aircraft with not a lot of development costs (just a reengine and new avionics plus a stretch that could use the same wing they were planning for the original ERJ145) that has 20% better fuel efficiency, much less maintenance costs and the ability to decrease staffing costs by over half. I think you'd need a HUGE improvement in the economics of 50 seat or less flying to have it make a come back, but the above idea might be just the huge step change that could make it work.

Now to convince Keesje or someone else with more photoshop skill from myself to draw up a quick sketch of the EMB120E2 and 150E2

Well in the meantime imagine the jet with props and you get the idea
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1990/1990%20-%201688.html?search=erj%20145

Springs1816 wrote:

Did you read Cranky Flier too?

I did, but after I posted this! He usually has good stuff.

I've been thinking about it for a while, but the impetus was that I just booked a trip on UA that's literally:
Outbound: 175 to 145
Inbound: 170 to 175

For major spoke to hub or even hub to hub, it's still incredible to me that the best UA can do is a 145 or 170. Especially when your competitors are running multiple 717s or 737s/319s at the same time on what is basically a spoke to spoke route for them.

Varsity1 wrote:

Low end mainline aircraft will take the current 76 seat routes, 76 seaters will take the current 50 seat routes on less frequency.

This is about what I figured. Which makes it seem nonsensical to me that UA hasn't bit the bullet and ordered CS100s or E2s.

Trying to get more scope is just going to upset the pilots (rightly so) and delay the inevitable small aircraft order. Especially if Scott Kirby is so hell-bent on optimizing the connection possibilities at the hubs: http://crankyflier.com/2018/01/29/a-conversation-with-myself-about-uniteds-domestic-growth-plan/

I remember way back in the day when I was excited to see the CR2 take over saab/prop routes. Now its probably the worst plane out there that I would go out of my way to avoid with its small and low windows (what where they thinking when they designed it that way?). I dont mind the E45 as much as at least the windows are big and makes it feel less claustrophobic but Im liking what I see these days with mainline returning to some markets as well as larger aircraft like the E75's and CR9's. Big improvement. I think we will see the 66/70 seaters replace the 50 seaters in due time as soon as the 50 seaters reach their life span.

Isn't Delta Connection using some Embraer 175's into a 70 passenger jet? Why not AA and UA do the same? Especially UA of course.

dc10lover wrote:

Isn't Delta Connection using some Embraer 175's into a 70 passenger jet? Why not AA and UA do the same? Especially UA of course.

UA is maxed out on those aircraft too. They can't add anymore CR7s or 170s.

dc10lover wrote:

Isn't Delta Connection using some Embraer 175's into a 70 passenger jet? Why not AA and UA do the same? Especially UA of course.

I found something to add to my post. It's called the E75S. Interesting though.

https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/E75S

LOWS wrote:

Springs1816 wrote:

Did you read Cranky Flier too?

I did, but after I posted this! He usually has good stuff.

I've been thinking about it for a while, but the impetus was that I just booked a trip on UA that's literally:
Outbound: 175 to 145
Inbound: 170 to 175

For major spoke to hub or even hub to hub, it's still incredible to me that the best UA can do is a 145 or 170. Especially when your competitors are running multiple 717s or 737s/319s at the same time on what is basically a spoke to spoke route for them.

Varsity1 wrote:

Low end mainline aircraft will take the current 76 seat routes, 76 seaters will take the current 50 seat routes on less frequency.

This is about what I figured. Which makes it seem nonsensical to me that UA hasn't bit the bullet and ordered CS100s or E2s.

Trying to get more scope is just going to upset the pilots (rightly so) and delay the inevitable small aircraft order. Especially if Scott Kirby is so hell-bent on optimizing the connection possibilities at the hubs: http://crankyflier.com/2018/01/29/a-conversation-with-myself-about-uniteds-domestic-growth-plan/

They are trying to fix the problem created by Smisek but they simply don’t have enough mainline aircraft.

The 50s ( The Deuce and the jungle jet) are doing great it today's market. Pax may not like them, but as a pilot that flies one for one, we are almost always full. From larger markets to small town America we are constantly at a 90 percent plus load percentage. And while daddy d or uncle u, tries to figure out its scope position and where to place aircraft, the 50s wil solider on. There are so many markets where a larger 70 seater doesn't work. The 200 is built much better than the 145 as far as construction and cycles.

LOWS wrote:

For major spoke to hub or even hub to hub, it's still incredible to me that the best UA can do is a 145 or 170. Especially when your competitors are running multiple 717s or 737s/319s at the same time on what is basically a spoke to spoke route for them.

PreMerger UA parked 100 737s during the downturn and basically replaced them with CRJ-700s.

After the merger UA focused on yields and getting as many 70 seaters for PreMerger Continental routes (CO was limited to 50 seaters and turboprops). Sure some 737 were rolling in, but not as many as their competitors.

United still needs a bunch of 50 seaters flying - they are capped on 70/76 seaters.

LOWS wrote:

Hi all:

It's a fact that the CR2 is rapidly approaching the end of its life as the frame, gear, etc. just weren't originally designed for a regional jet with high cycles. I can't imagine the E145 is much better off.

Q400 is an option CO tried right before the merger. I flew one in 2011 and it seemed ok,

Err...frankly no, I don't find the Q400 any better than a CRJ.... The Q400 is awfully noisy for being a "quiet technology turboprop"...Really, that Q in the name seems very out place!!??
The ATR is SO MUCH better. I'd take a slower ATR any day over a Q400.

From an ATC standpoint, I hope whatever it is can climb AND speed up at the same time. Not one or the other...

flyguy84 wrote:

They are trying to fix the problem created by Smisek but they simply don’t have enough mainline aircraft.

If that's the case they should be using $3 Billion on aircraft purchases and leases, not share buybacks.

http://newsroom.united.com/2017-12-07-U ... se-Program

DiamondFlyer wrote:

There's a large number of 200's in IGM, it may well be a simple equation, short term, of parking the high cycle birds in service now to replace them with birds that have been there for years, sitting, not accumulating cycles and hours. United is certainly more dependent on the 50 seater than anyone else, and it's going to hurt them more. Long term, Delta has made it clear that by 2023 ASM on 50 seaters is going to be down 50% from today. I would expect that when it gets to that, OO will be the sole 50 seat operator (well, one of 3 DCI carriers in general).

I'm thinking you may be correct there for a short while at least. CRJ2s are limited to what? 40,000 cycles? You may be able to park one that's cycle limited (and there is a bubble of these birds out there coming down the pipe) and pick up one that will soldier on for another 5 years, but in the end, that's just a band-aid that kicks the can down the road a little further that in the end leaves you even less slack to address the issue when it rears its head again. How's that for metaphor salad?

Would manufacturers like Dassault or Gulfstream be interested in stretching their business jets to make it a 50-seater? That's where CRJ came from in the first place. While manufacturers are not willing to put money to develop a clean sheet 50-seat RJ, a stretched new business jet would surely have better economics than the 20-year-old CRJ or ERJ?

dc10lover wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

Isn't Delta Connection using some Embraer 175's into a 70 passenger jet? Why not AA and UA do the same? Especially UA of course.

I found something to add to my post. It's called the E75S. Interesting though.

https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/E75S

This is simply an ATC code to differentiate between the two different types of E175s. The E75S is the older style winglets, and the E75L is the newer style winglets. Think of it at E175 Short wing (E75S) and E175 Long wing (E75L). All new deliveries of E175s are the E75L.

Peace

How much weight savings would there be if a new 50 seat RJ came out made of CFRP versus a current gen aluminum RJ?

93Sierra wrote:

The 50s ( The Deuce and the jungle jet) are doing great it today's market. Pax may not like them, but as a pilot that flies one for one, we are almost always full. From larger markets to small town America we are constantly at a 90 percent plus load percentage. And while daddy d or uncle u, tries to figure out its scope position and where to place aircraft, the 50s wil solider on. There are so many markets where a larger 70 seater doesn't work. The 200 is built much better than the 145 as far as construction and cycles.

I think this is a worthwhile view. Others have said the unit cost of the 50 is bad, and they are right too. But I especially agree with your point that "there are so many markets where a larger 70 seater doesn't work." In my experience as a former HQ employee, this was true. What you describe, constant 50 seat loads, really suggests unmet demand, and a 70 seater will be better. But constant 37-42 seat loads on CRJ, those can be profitable to the network on a 50 seater, but would be a piss poor result on a 70 seater. There are still many of those markets.

The load carrying ability of the 50 seaters is a problem, but they provide a lower trip cost that small cities need. The 50 seater is what you use to keep your network active along its weaker areas. The next step is not necessarily expansion; the next step may be cutting the flight entirely. Not only depriving small markets of flights, but eliminating the pilot jobs as well.

MIflyer12 wrote:

flyguy84 wrote:

They are trying to fix the problem created by Smisek but they simply don’t have enough mainline aircraft.

If that's the case they should be using $3 Billion on aircraft purchases and leases, not share buybacks.

http://newsroom.united.com/2017-12-07-U ... se-Program

You won’t find anyone who disagrees with that. There’s so much more that money can be spent on, especially after just ending a 2 billion stock buyback. However, the activists investors on the board seem to be the ones guiding this. It’s the business climate we are in today in the US. Investors are pretty much top priority.

Spacepope wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

There's a large number of 200's in IGM, it may well be a simple equation, short term, of parking the high cycle birds in service now to replace them with birds that have been there for years, sitting, not accumulating cycles and hours. United is certainly more dependent on the 50 seater than anyone else, and it's going to hurt them more. Long term, Delta has made it clear that by 2023 ASM on 50 seaters is going to be down 50% from today. I would expect that when it gets to that, OO will be the sole 50 seat operator (well, one of 3 DCI carriers in general).

I'm thinking you may be correct there for a short while at least. CRJ2s are limited to what? 40,000 cycles? You may be able to park one that's cycle limited (and there is a bubble of these birds out there coming down the pipe) and pick up one that will soldier on for another 5 years, but in the end, that's just a band-aid that kicks the can down the road a little further that in the end leaves you even less slack to address the issue when it rears its head again. How's that for metaphor salad?

Not limited per se, but there is an expensive MX program needed at 40K cycles. I believe ZW has some above 40K cycles. But for instance, at 9E, there are some 200's that still only have around 20-25K cycles on them (so I'm told), so there's a lot of life left in those planes before you get to needing to replace them. By the time the 200's are totally worn out, there simply won't be pilots left to staff them.

bomber996 wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

Isn't Delta Connection using some Embraer 175's into a 70 passenger jet? Why not AA and UA do the same? Especially UA of course.

I found something to add to my post. It's called the E75S. Interesting though.

https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/E75S

This is simply an ATC code to differentiate between the two different types of E175s. The E75S is the older style winglets, and the E75L is the newer style winglets. Think of it at E175 Short wing (E75S) and E175 Long wing (E75L). All new deliveries of E175s are the E75L.

Peace

Correct, but Embraer, Delta and Skywest are all calling the 70 seat 175 a 175SC, as a marketing term. Very confusing.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

bomber996 wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

I found something to add to my post. It's called the E75S. Interesting though.

https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/E75S

This is simply an ATC code to differentiate between the two different types of E175s. The E75S is the older style winglets, and the E75L is the newer style winglets. Think of it at E175 Short wing (E75S) and E175 Long wing (E75L). All new deliveries of E175s are the E75L.

Peace

Correct, but Embraer, Delta and Skywest are all calling the 70 seat 175 a 175SC, as a marketing term. Very confusing.

Which is is type certificated at the ERJ 170-200 LL.

The original ERJ 170 had different passenger capacity certifications to accommodate the different scope clauses and were designated LR, SU, or SE . These variations weren't differentiated in IATA or ICAO coding.

hOMSaR wrote:

Springs1816 wrote:

If there are no restrictions below 51 seats then how come someone can't come up with a decent replacement? I know the economics at that passenger amount aren't ideal but if airlines are still using CR2s and 145s wouldn't anything newly designed be better.

That's basically the problem. Nobody is going to spend the money necessary to come up with a new design for a plane whose economics and size aren't going to be ideal. Airlines won't want to pay the prices a manufacturer would have to charge in order to pay for the development costs. Eventually you'd need something, but they're not at the point yet where they're desperate to replace 50-seaters due to age (right now it's mostly economics, and new types don't solve that).

The Chinese would do it. The question is if anyone (outside of China) will buy it...or if they could make it on-time, on-spec, etc.

See: ARJ-21, C919, etc

There are a LOT of CR2s still flying around, and despite passengers not liking them, there are some routes they are still the best aircraft for. I could see a 40ish seat a/c being used to replace both the CR2 and the remaining larger turboprops. However, even that isn't a guarantee with both the looming pilot supply issue, as well as the tenancy of airlines to throw smaller/thinner markets that can't support 70+ seats to the wayside. I guess my answer would be that I don't think it's a cut and dry case yet whether airlines will choose to just dump all those smaller markets that can't support the increasing size of a/c, or whether another regional aircraft will come along that will allow those smaller markets to continue to have service.

WorldFlier wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

Springs1816 wrote:

If there are no restrictions below 51 seats then how come someone can't come up with a decent replacement? I know the economics at that passenger amount aren't ideal but if airlines are still using CR2s and 145s wouldn't anything newly designed be better.

That's basically the problem. Nobody is going to spend the money necessary to come up with a new design for a plane whose economics and size aren't going to be ideal. Airlines won't want to pay the prices a manufacturer would have to charge in order to pay for the development costs. Eventually you'd need something, but they're not at the point yet where they're desperate to replace 50-seaters due to age (right now it's mostly economics, and new types don't solve that).

The Chinese would do it. The question is if anyone (outside of China) will buy it...or if they could make it on-time, on-spec, etc.

See: ARJ-21, C919, etc

I don't think there are any active 50-seats jets flying in China right now except maybe a few so I don't think they would be interested in it

Flighty wrote:

93Sierra wrote:

The 50s ( The Deuce and the jungle jet) are doing great it today's market. Pax may not like them, but as a pilot that flies one for one, we are almost always full. From larger markets to small town America we are constantly at a 90 percent plus load percentage. And while daddy d or uncle u, tries to figure out its scope position and where to place aircraft, the 50s wil solider on. There are so many markets where a larger 70 seater doesn't work. The 200 is built much better than the 145 as far as construction and cycles.

I think this is a worthwhile view. Others have said the unit cost of the 50 is bad, and they are right too. But I especially agree with your point that "there are so many markets where a larger 70 seater doesn't work." In my experience as a former HQ employee, this was true. What you describe, constant 50 seat loads, really suggests unmet demand, and a 70 seater will be better. But constant 37-42 seat loads on CRJ, those can be profitable to the network on a 50 seater, but would be a piss poor result on a 70 seater. There are still many of those markets.

The load carrying ability of the 50 seaters is a problem, but they provide a lower trip cost that small cities need. The 50 seater is what you use to keep your network active along its weaker areas. The next step is not necessarily expansion; the next step may be cutting the flight entirely. Not only depriving small markets of flights, but eliminating the pilot jobs as well.

Perhaps something like ATR42? I think that is one of the few pr maybe only? current aircraft in production with similar seat count? And when the alternative is no flights I don't think passengers would mind too much on if it's a jet?

MIflyer12 wrote:

50-seaters came into being ~25 years ago on two things:

1. A wave of U.S. pilots willing to work for low wages expecting (not merely hoping) to move into mainline with ever-rising wages. 9/11 and a bunch of bankruptcy cram-downs showed the fragility of that plan.

2. Very low and quite stable fuel prices.

There were several other factors at play which were equally, if not more important than the ones you give.

* In many markets, 50-seaters ended up replacing slower, noisy, and uncomfortable turboprops. The early RJ operators like Comair and ASA ended up with an enormous competitive advantage; even the now-reviled 50-seat CRJ was an enormous improvement over Junkstreams, E120s, Saab 340s, B1900s, Dash-8s, and even ATRs. If you've ever had to bounce across the Midwest or South in an ATR during thunderstorm season, even the CRJ-200 is a big step up.
* The 50-seat RJ and its subsequent larger and smaller cousins allowed the network carriers to substantially broaden the reach of certain hubs. At CVG, for example, traffic flows to secondary & tertiary markets outside the Midwest really weren't strong enough to support DL mainline service on 727s, MD-88s, 757s, etc. Markets like CVG-MHT or CVG-BGR were simply outside the reach of most turboprops and also uncomfortably long on non-jet equipment. 50-seat RJs allowed DL to access connecting flows from those smaller airports and steal traffic from other hubs.
* In some markets where RJs replaced mainline service, like CVG-SYR or CVG-HOU/IAH, RJs often allowed more schedule options or, as in the case of Houston, service to both airports. In some markets RJ capacity was a better fit (think of the days when average load factors on 100- to 150-seat aircraft were in the 60-70% range).
* RJs also allowed network carriers to reduce or eliminate round-robin and multi-stop through routes on mainline: think routes like SLC-PSC-BOI-SLC, ATL-MGM-JAN, or DFW-SHV-MLU-ATL. Passengers preferred non-stops versus having to spend an extra hour making an additional stop somewhere.

Everyone forgets this, but Comair was one of the pioneers of the RJ and they were ENORMOUSLY profitable when Delta purchased them. In the fiscal year from 4/1/1998 to 3/31/1999, Comair made $204 million in profit on $763 million in revenue: an operating margin of nearly 27%! Delta paid over $2 billion (basically, about as much as AS paid for VX, but in 1999 dollars!) later that year to acquire the 80% of Comair it didn't own, even though Comair only had about 100 aircraft at the time.

LOWS wrote:

Q400 is an option CO tried right before the merger. I flew one in 2011 and it seemed ok, minus the usual turbulence of hot days out of IAH.

CO tried the Q400 because it was their only option (apart from the ATR72) to get around their pilot scope. CO's pilot contract prohibited jet aircraft with over 50 seats to be flown by regional carriers on CO's behalf, but there was no restriction on seats on turboprops. CO's pilots were unwilling to give in on scope and looking around the industry at that time, it's hard to argue they were wrong. More permissive scope was forced on United's pilots through the company's bankruptcy and the result was thousands of mainline pilot furloughs when the carrier chose to park over 100 737s within a few months.

Springs1816 wrote:

Did you read Cranky Flier too? Kind of wrote about that today with UA and the scope clauses. If there are no restrictions below 51 seats then how come someone can't come up with a decent replacement? I know the economics at that passenger amount aren't ideal but if airlines are still using CR2s and 145s wouldn't anything newly designed be better.

Yes, a new design would probably be better, but the overall costs of a new 50-seat airliner (when one factors in the purchase price) probably wouldn't be competitive with pulling an idle CRJ or ERJ out of the desert. The U.S. market isn't the only important one, but it clearly drove the 50-seat segment during its decade-long boom and even inexpensive used aircraft haven't driven the same sort of demand for the segment elsewhere in the world.

raylee67 wrote:

Would manufacturers like Dassault or Gulfstream be interested in stretching their business jets to make it a 50-seater? That's where CRJ came from in the first place. While manufacturers are not willing to put money to develop a clean sheet 50-seat RJ, a stretched new business jet would surely have better economics than the 20-year-old CRJ or ERJ?

First off, what are the cycle limits and maintenance requirements of current Dassault and Gulfstream business jets versus CRJs and ERJs? Also, I'm guessing stretching a Dassault or Gulfstream to CRJ/ERJ proportions would be like stretching a Ferrari to minivan proportions- It could be done, sure, but there'd be a lot fewer compromises involved and a vastly superior end product by simply designing something for its intended use from the get-go.

TWA772LR wrote:

How much weight savings would there be if a new 50 seat RJ came out made of CFRP versus a current gen aluminum RJ?

With current CFRP technology, weight savings are only realized over aluminum at larger (wide-body) barrel diameters. CFRP fuselage construction would incur a weight penalty over aluminum on a regional jet.

TSS wrote:

First off, what are the cycle limits and maintenance requirements of current Dassault and Gulfstream business jets versus CRJs and ERJs?

Can't speak for the rest, but the CRJ1/2 is certified until 80,000 flight cycles. A lot of maintenance checks (structural fatigue inspections and such) are required beyond 40,000 cycles, and as mentioned, a few operates are already beyond 40,000 cycles on certain frames at their respective companies (Skywest, Jazz, ...)

All CRJs share the same limit, except the CRJ1000, which is maxed out at 60,000 cycles.

The simple reason is that turboprops are far more economical than jets for aircraft with 50 or fewer seats, but despite that fact no one wants to operate turboprops because of the negative perception.

Otherwise we'd see far more Dash-8-300s, Saab 2000s, or modern-day counterparts in service.

ThatsNotAPlane wrote:

From an ATC standpoint, I hope whatever it is can climb AND speed up at the same time. Not one or the other...

Unable.

How about this question -- is there a suitable engine for a 50 seater such as CRJ200 NEO or ERJ-145 NEO?

How about a re-engine option for the CR7-CR9?

Turboprops aren't gonna work in the US. They are slow, even less pilot productivity than jets, noisy, etc. I do think the age of turboprop airliners in the USA is nearly completed.

JBo wrote:

The simple reason is that turboprops are far more economical than jets for aircraft with 50 or fewer seats, but despite that fact no one wants to operate turboprops because of the negative perception.

They're more economical on short missions thanks to their lower fuel burn, but on longer missions, the jet wins in a labor environment where pilot and cabin crew costs (which are accrued per hour, not by distance) end up being higher thanks to the props being slower.

Flighty wrote:

How about a re-engine option for the CR7-CR9?
.

The best/most likely CR2 replacement is a CR7 with improved economics.

50-seat jets will no longer work for the reasons stated by others.
Either the market can support a 70-seat RJ (at lower frequency if necessary),
or it can support a 50 or 70 seat prop,
or it won't get any air service at all.

Single pilot or fully electric 50-seaters are still a long way off...

The MRJ70 can offer likely equal trip costs and fuel consumption to a CR2, while giving you 20 more seats "for free". That looks like the best alternative out there, short of a CR7/9/K NEO if that ever happens.
However, the MRJ70 does not seem to maximize scope, particularly in a 2-class configuration. Perhaps Mitsibishi should think of an "MRJ75", with one more row, tailored specifically to scope clause limits.

Seems from the discussion that the need to find a way of replacing 50 seat regional jets is mainly a problem in the USA for two reasons, one is that there have always been more there than anywhere else, and the other is pilot scope agreements.
So just how many of these planes are actually being used in the USA at the moment? It's not that easy to tell for an outsider, due to the complicated ownership arrangements, and the number that are stored rather than in service or waiting scrapping.
It's important to know just how many planes will eventually need replacing to inform any discussion on the market size of any new or modified models of plane.