Load factors are the driving metric. There is a break even point for every type of aircraft and for the fleet as a whole. Anything above is gravy. Anything below is a loss. Since we aren't flying full aircraft, now, they would match seats to passengers to try to maximize the return. Flying the larger aircraft won't draw the people.
Using 80% as a hypthetical break even point, an airline would have to put only 56 people on a 70 seat regional jet to make money on that route. To make money on a 767-200 with 250 seats they would have to have at least 200 people on the same flight. This is obviously over simplified, but it's a sweeping brush stroke of what they look at. I remember flying 737's and MD88's into PC, but they were never profitable so Delta turned over everything to ASA. Ft Walton, on the other hand, maxed out the aircraft that were being used so, now, there are 3 MD88 flights per day into there.
The other mitigating factor is the fact that all of the major carriers are hub and spoke operators. They use smaller aircraft to feed larger markets. That being the case the obvious choices for bigger jets would come from American to feed Dallas, United to feed Chicago or Denver, and USAir to feed Charlotte. Delta is too close to waste long haul aircraft considering there are still plenty of empty seats on the smaller aircraft already here. Looks like USAir may already be testing the waters, though. I seem to remember somebody posting something about flights to Charlotte.
ugh...
...and after typing all this I remember posting a link a while back to this...
http://pcairport.pbsjis.com/
"The pavement for the runway and taxiways will consist of a grooved asphalt surface course and will be designed to accommodate narrow-body aircraft such as the A320-200 (greater than 150,000-pound dual wheel loading). The pavement strength will be designed to accommodate the following gross weights:
? Single-Wheel Gear: 100,000 pounds
? Dual-Wheel Gear: 174,000 pounds
? Dual-Tandem: 300,000 pounds"
Weight-wise it's OK, but the runway is only 8000ft long which is short by big airplane standards.
I also stumbled across this. It looks like the terminal really isn't going to be very big...
"Terminal features and amenities will be designed to a minimum ?C? level of service during the peak hour, as classified in International Air Transport Association reference manual. The terminal will comfortably accommodate 227 peak-hour passengers, including 181 peak-hour enplanements or deplanements."
Bottom line is that I think they are approaching the new airport in a very responsible manner by building it in such a way that the facilities can be expanded to meet demand rather than blowing everything up front and winding up with loads of unused resources.
Patience, Grasshopper! Let all those condos sell, and I'm guessing you'll see bigger airplanes down the road...
