I agree that AA shouldn't add lots and lots of small planes, but AA's plans are to replace many of the even smaller 37, 44 and 50 seaters with the expected 76 seaters. Just like UA, DL and US already have. And DL just announced an order for up to 70 new 76 seaters that will replace at least that many of its Canadian Torture Tubes (50 seat CRJ200)s. That's part of the deal DL struck with its pilots whereby it is permitted to buy more 76 seaters in exchange for adding the WN 717s (many of which will eventually replace the remaining DC-9s and perhaps some 76 seaters where those are just too small for the market).
UA, DL and US all have more than 100 (and in one case, I think more than 200) 2-class 76 seaters already in operation. This is about AA catching up to its competitors. Once again, AA isn't plowing any new ground here. DL managed to hoodwink Parker into giving it most of its LGA slots and DL has been busy adding lots of nonstop 2-class 76 seaters to places like IND where in the old days, you had to connect somewhere to get to NYC. Now, DL has six convenient 2-class flights a day. AA isn't going to fly 110-120 seat mainline planes between IND and NYC. Just ain't gonna happen. But perhaps some 76 seaters to compete.
DL had about a nine year lead on AA in the 50 seat RJ race more than 20 years ago, and DL's regional subs acquired the largest 50 seat fleet in the world. By time AA caught up with its huge fleet of tiny planes, they were already uneconomical and since then, fuel prices have made things even worse. This time, at least, DL, UA and US don't have quite as long a lead on AA. As I pointed out above, Murphy's Law will probably cause the same situation just as AA gets its 250th 76 seater into service. Is that suspicion enough reason to not acquire competitive planes (just because they might be uneconomical a few years from now)? I don't know the answer.
