Originally Posted by
Ber2dca
Before defending UA on the premise that an E145 can somehow make that distance in good conditions, let's consider the lunacy of using a very small regional jet on a route that's almost a mid-con. Most intra-European flights are shorter than this - this is on the long end of short-haul travel and you're using a jet typically used for 40 minute commuter flights? No-one should be on an E145 for this long.
Furthermore, no other legacy airline seems to have as big a problem with headwinds as UA, probably because no-one else tries to run an operation with so much equipment on the smallest possible side of things, whether it is the obsession of using Embraers on 2+ hour domestic flights or their old habit of running 757s on TATL routes from and to central and southern Europe when everyone knows London is about as far as those birds should fly from the U.S.
So, what should UA --- or any other carrier do?
UA is down to two -145's a day on that route. That is presumably based on data which you don't have, showing likely PRASM based on different aircraft. If that data is correct, upguaging means that in order to maintain the same PRASM, UA must either cut the frequency or raise fares. Cut the frequency means either shifting to once daily or abandoning the route. Cutting the frequency also means that people have less choice and presumably shift more business to CVG, thus cutting loads, PRASM, and circling the drain further.
If UA raises fares markedly, same thing. More people shift to CVG and so on. More drains circled.
You are looking at this the wrong way. It is market conditions in DAY which don't support larger or more frequent aircraft. If you want those, improve the economy, get a few large employers to guarantee seats or whatever. But, looking at this through the narrow lens of aircraft assignments won't change the future.