@WHBM
I was speaking specificly of a sector requiring 2 hours of trip fuel. The F70 could operate comfortably out of LCY without any restrictions on sectors under 90 minutes (it was Air Littoral operating on behalf AF, sat as observer on several of their approaches and departures). Same issues come to play at SHA with the minimum 2h+ alternate fuel.
In the end you're correct, it is a financial decision. The high probability of payload restriction / diversion / weather delays all add to the total cost of the operation, and to recover that would place the already high fares in the unaffordable category for anyone not on an expense account. I'm sure the folks at Comair have done the maths and have come to the conclusion that there is no way to make money on a 738 with the known constraints. The small inelastic market can easily be served with a BJ. The only slight and insignificant little detail is that the airport project numbers were based on the assumption that a commercial service is feasible.
For those bringing up FNC as a comparison, apples & oranges. FNC has a 2700m runway (that is 1000m more than SHA) and the alternate, TFN is under an hour. It is not the wind/turbulence per se that caused the isse with SHA but the combination of short runway, high landing weights AND wind - you cannot have all three at the same time. With wind, runway length and distance of alternate given, it is only the payload that may be varied - with predictable commercial results.
Last edited by andrasz; 27th Sep 2016 at 08:36.