Quote:
Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp. today revealed the 100-seat and third member of its regional jet family should enter service in five or six years. On 25 April, the Japanese airframer postponed entry into service of the 90-seat Mitsubishi Regional Jet (MRJ) to the third quarter of 2015.
Previously, Mitsubishi identified the target market for the MRJ 100X as European airlines with looser scope restrictions in pilot labour contracts. In March 2011, then-International Lease Finance Corp chief executive Steven Udvar-Hazy also told an industry audience that Mitsubishi should commit to developing a 100-seater.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4949 times:
Quoting N202PA (Reply 2): Could the MRJ-70 be cancelled in favor of the new 100-seat version? Can't find any orders for the 70-seat one.
You are right. Why not develop the MRJ-100 first?
I am surprised though that Mitsubishi has decided to go for just a 10-seat difference between MRJ-90 and MRJ-100. Perhaps the actual difference is closer to 15 seats with MRJ-90 at 92 seats and MRJ-100(10 foot stretch) at 106 seats.
The 100 seat market is going to be extremely competitive with E-190, CRJ-1000, and SSJ-100. The MRJ-100 may end up as the lightest of the bunch, and with the most fuel efficient engine.
panais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 381 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4905 times:
Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter): MRJ-100X, which I expect to be about 6,000-8,000 lbs. lighter than E-190 but with much less range, should turn out to be a fine competitor to E-190(E190-NEO).
What if Embraer stretches the E-175 to the E-190 fuselage length? This will prove to be a much formidable competitor to the MRJ-100 especially if the E-Jets get a new engine.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4865 times:
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3): The 100 seat market is going to be extremely competitive with E-190, CRJ-1000, and SSJ-100. The MRJ-100 may end up as the lightest of the bunch, and with the most fuel efficient engine.
Of course things could go south geopolitically but... with the time frame still 5-6 years out the oil markets could potentially shift and start to drop significantly.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1913 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4349 times:
Quoting Giancavia (Reply 7): Any new plane to look at in the sky that isnt another boring Airbus/Boeing I give a thumbs up too.
Instead we'll have RJs that all look the same
(and yes I know there are differences, but the E jets, C series, Superjet and MRJ visually all follow the standard twin engines under the wing look of the 737, A320 etc)
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2252 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4272 times:
Good idea as that is where is the market is heading, but comes too late to the game. By 2017-18 EMB will be able to have a reengined E19x out. The MRJ still looks good if on spec, but EMB is a well established manufacturer while Mitsubishi is a complete newcomer that has to prove itself. Airlines may choose to wait for the Ejet NEO and see how they fare against each other, rather than committing to the MRJ100 early. And the MRJ90 will have to arrive "on time" (after the 1.5 year delay) and prove itself as a good aircraft if Mitsubishi wants to stand chance with the -100.
Quoting N202PA (Reply 2): Could the MRJ-70 be cancelled in favor of the new 100-seat version? Can't find any orders for the 70-seat one.
I agree. The market is clearly shifting towards 90/100 seats wherever scope clauses allow it, look at the E170 orders. M should postpone the -70 indefinitely and put all efforts into the -100 as soon as the -90 is finished.
Giancavia From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1262 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4100 times:
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 8): Instead we'll have RJs that all look the same
(and yes I know there are differences, but the E jets, C series, Superjet and MRJ visually all follow the standard twin engines under the wing look of the 737, A320 etc)
Eh atleast they have different shapes, I guess I was more targeting the A319/320/B737 with my dig. When your home airport is Luton and the main players are Easyjet, Ryanair and Wizz you beg for a little mish mash to break the generic scenery.
Wisdom From Netherlands, joined Apr 2011, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3942 times:
I'm following the program very closely, I even offered to join their sales department in Amsterdam, but I was turned down like 100 times already. A man's gotta keep trying .
This is what I think:
-The MR70 is a waste of time and resources.
But, since it's already developped, it could be offered as an effective business jet platform at some point in the program.
-The MR90 and MR100 are, at least on paper, excellent platforms.
The biggest issues for the MRJ program are not the product itself but everything around it:
-The aircraft are being offered at too high prices compared to their competitors from Brazil, Russia and China. The strong Yen and high labour costs play a big role in this. However, they have a lot to improve in their sales pitches, there are 200 ways to make expensive aircraft interesting. One example is that Japanese banks would be drooling to offer lease contracts with a 4% yearly return, while the industry norm is much higher.
-They decided to rely on Boeing for after-sales support, which is a move that I and many airlines will fail to understand.
-Their marketing department is a bit stuck in the 1990's. The cheap-looking simulations aren't helping.
-The cabin product is less than convincing. The Oriental touches in the galley and the seat design may look attractive to Japanese airlines but European airlines won't be convinced.
-The supplier structure build-up is a unique opportunity to offer customers something other manufacturers scarcely offer. You often hear on airliners.net how aircraft manufacturers make a lot of money by selling aircraft parts. Airbus has been doing this more and more, focussing on the more expensive parts, but the other aircraft manufacturers are way behind on this.
Buying straight from the supplier/subcontractor represents a disadvantage for both airlines and manufacturers, as exclusive parts suppliers tend to ask airlines any price they want. If you look at what they charge for simple fasterners, I'm convinced that Mitsubishi should control the entire parts supply chain, top to bottom.
For the MRJ program, it is a unique opportunity to center all the parts logistics through them and to make it the sole supplier for all the parts of the aircraft it sells, new and overhauled. This not only offers guarranteed revenue for Mitsubishi, it also offers a parts maximum price-guarrantee to the customer airline, making maintenance costs much more predictable and the whole procurement process much smoother.
While they're at it, why not offer as the first aircraft manufacturer in the world, a MRO structure where they can offer maintenance, aircraft and parts overhaul services, with a large facility in Japan and smaller facilities spread over the world? What better than to have the manufacturer itself lead complex structural repairs, carry-out end-of-lease inspections, send a regional field team to do complex troubleshooting or overhaul parts?
That would form an excellent foundation for after-sales support.
Smaller operators will appreciate this a lot and I for one think that the MRJ sales in Europe should be focussed on second tier operators. Smaller operators tend to accept higher prices but require closer assistance and support, a combination that will suit well with the MRJ.
The big ones such as AF, LH, AZ, BA, IB, Flybe already ordered aircraft in numbers significant enough that there isn't much left for the MRJ to grab. Some Fokkers here, some BAe's there, but most of these airline groups already operate either CRJ's or E-Jets. The MRJ needs to have a look at the other operators.
I also think that Mitsubishi should unveil a business jet variant and start marketing it.
Those extra sales will be highly needed.
If they can manage to solve all the above, mark these words, they can virtually drive Embraer out of business by the early 2020's, just as Embraer has virtually done with Bombardier.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10696 posts, RR: 100 Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3922 times:
I'm surprised this wasn't offered earlier.
Quoting ADent (Reply 1): Is it kinda of odd to announce a 3rd version without a launch customer?
Perhaps this is to drum up interest? But the time frame is a long way away for an unknown airframer.
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3): You are right. Why not develop the MRJ-100 first?
Stretches have risk. By 'debugging' the lighter/shorter airframe, the kinks are worked out where they have less of a usability issue.
Quoting Wisdom (Reply 11): -The MR70 is a waste of time and resources.
But, since it's already developped, it could be offered as an effective business jet platform at some point in the program.
Agreed on both points. I enjoyed your post overall.
Quoting Wisdom (Reply 11): One example is that Japanese banks would be drooling to offer lease contracts with a 4% yearly return, while the industry norm is much higher.
A good point and that would offset the high sales price.
Quoting Wisdom (Reply 11): they can virtually drive Embraer out of business by the early 2020's, just as Embraer has virtually done with Bombardier.
Do not know. Most likely not. Will need a 16,000-18,000 lbs thrust on the E-175 wings. Probably use the PW1215G/1217G, same engine as the MRJ, even if it is similar in diameter to the E-190 engine.
While speculating, Embraer might build a family of 90-120 seater planes with similar engines but optimised for different missions. So you might have a 90 seater optimised for long range build around the E-190 and another 90 seater optimised for shorter range build around the E-175, each with a different engine from the same manufacturer.
Quote:
Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp. (MITAC) said it is confident the issues that forced it to delay the first flight of the MRJ (ATW Daily News, April 26), originally slated for the current quarter, are being resolved and will enable it to stick to a new schedule that calls for first flight to occur in the fourth quarter of 2013.
He said MITAC has made sure MRJ suppliers are now in compliance with the proper procedures and has worked out how to overcome the documentation shortfall. “We are very confident in the new schedule and we do not want to repeat a change in schedule,” Fukuhara added.
MITAC has 65 firm orders for the MRJ from three customers. It has started to build the first flight test aircraft, and plans to have five flight test aircraft in the MRJ testing program. “Our minimum target on [total lifetime] MRJ sales is 1,000 aircraft,” Fukuhara said. “We are very confident we can sell more than 1,000 worldwide.”
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, 
From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 381 posts, 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1262 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1913 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2252 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2011, 221 posts, 
.
Perhaps this is to drum up interest? But the time frame is a long way away for an unknown airframer. 
Printer friendly format 
