Why no small Boeing or Airbus ?

The Rape of Lucretia

There must be a simple known reason why neither Boeing nor Airbus, either alone or in a head to head as they do in all jets larger, offer a jet in the 90-140 passenger range. Does anyone one know why ? Or refer me to a discussion.
The field seems open to the likes of Sukhoi, Embraer, and Bombardier. But why? Surely there is valuable market there to be had, yet the two big players do not seem to want to tackle it at all, when surely one could mop up if they wished - particularly if only one of them.

L1011

They had the 737-600, the 717-200 and the A318. They all flopped.

Boeing used to own DeHaviland Canada (so had the Dash8) and Airbus own 50% of ATR so they have both have/had interest in propliners.

Bazzy

I suspect this boils down to a few factors

They have built planes originally many moons which would have required a lot of research and development and have moved on with making them better with efficiencies

More people carried means more revenue in a previous industry I was in it was called ARPU ( average revenue per user) so logic would dictate that the more people on board the more they can charge for tickets , and sell products to etc

Theres very few of the big airlines that have a small fleet like that they subby it in so to speak with the likes of stobart air operating under Aer Lingus regional

john boye

As above, A & B both tested the water with smaller variants of their offerings and they didn't sell well at all. Part of the trouble was that they were still built very similarly to their larger counterparts and weren't much cheaper to purchase and run. Ultimately they both decided to leave it to the experts.

The Rape of Lucretia

Bazzy wrote: »

More people carried means more revenue in a previous industry I was in it was called ARPU ( average revenue per user) so logic would dictate that the more people on board the more they can charge for tickets , and sell products to etc

There must be some gain though in the small plane though - the likes of KLM and Lufhansa are flying a good number, when surely it would have been easier to stick with the A320s and 738s that they have oodles of anyway.

Bazzy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

There must be some gain though in the small plane though - the likes of KLM and Lufhansa are flying a good number, when surely it would have been easier to stick with the A320s and 738s that they have oodles of anyway.

The market has changed a lot in the last 15 years i'm trying to stay away from naming airlines but before the invention of low cost travel flying was a privilege enjoyed by few,

so now its bums on seats

Some airports will never be able to facilitate the bigger jets I can only use my own experience the isle of man was one that required a smaller prop jet.

A bigger machine burning more fuel with empty seats the accountants wont like is not going to work in the modern world

L1011

Small planes are needed for constrained airports and also useful for where you have a premium or unique product to sell for more and it justifies operating the route with less, dearer seats. Frequency is the main premium there, hub connectivity the other