Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Massive Expansion Of RJ Market Over Next 20 Years?  
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11387 times:

Market forecasts by RJ manufacturers for next 20 years reported by FlightGlobal

Embraer: 6,360 regional jets sized in the 61- to 120-seat category

Superjet International: 5,750 aircraft in the same seat category

Mitsubishi: 5,000 70- to 90-seat aircraft

Bombardier: 2,900 60 to 99-seat jets and 6,900 100- to 149-seat aircraft

"Today, the 100-seat passenger jet fleet numbers around 2,200 aircraft. Over the past 12 years, that's a growth of only 200, despite deliveries of 1,500 new aircraft. In the recent past, this market has been about replacement of early 737-200s, DC-9s and other previous generation 100-seaters such as the Fokker F28/100 and BAe 146/Avro RJ, rather than growth of the 100-seat market."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...so-many-new-aircraft-types-376797/

Assuming ARJ-21 and Superjet do not sell well outside of their own "captive" markets, what chance is there of Mitsubishi turning the existing RJ duopoly into a triopoly?

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13543 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11196 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Notice how no one is talking the 50 seat RJ market? IMHO, the costs have been brought down enough in the 70 to 99 seat market to kill that off. Or at least the costs will be brought down.   

Quoting art (Thread starter):
what chance is there of Mitsubishi turning the existing RJ duopoly into a triopoly?

There is no 'triopoly.' That would be tough competition with the CRJ-700/900/1000 the 'weak link.' One reason Bombardier is going for the C-series is their weaker forcasts for below 100 seats. If Bombardier had predicted a far larger sub-hundred seat market, they might have made the C-series a little (not much) smaller.

As to the MRJ, it will have some excellent cost advantages when it delivers on promise. IMHO, it is forcing the re-engine of the E-jets which will remain quite competitive. I think we'll see an MRJ/E-jet RJ duopoly.

Quoting art (Thread starter):
"Today, the 100-seat passenger jet fleet numbers around 2,200 aircraft. Over the past 12 years, that's a growth of only 200, despite deliveries of 1,500 new aircraft. In the recent past, this market has been about replacement of early 737-200s, DC-9s and other previous generation 100-seaters such as the Fokker F28/100 and BAe 146/Avro RJ, rather than growth of the 100-seat market."

Due to the DL and AA scope changes, I see significant growth at the 76 and 88 seat sizes. But then again, only a few hundred planes from them but now we have the mid-east and Asian hubs maturing. I could see them employing a large fleet of RJs. Now, the Chinese will use the ARJ21. (I've yet to have anyone point out the advantages of that plane over a short field E170/E175.) But that still leaves tremendous growth.

The one market that will be tough is India. I see that going to large narrowbody LCCs. But I could see a decent size RJ fleet at ICN for example. Possibly HKG to give a frequency advantage, but smaller than what I could envision at ICN.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11134 times:

Quoting art (Thread starter):
Assuming ARJ-21 and Superjet do not sell well outside of their own "captive" markets, what chance is there of Mitsubishi turning the existing RJ duopoly into a triopoly?

There's a pretty good chance, as if the SkyWest agreement for 100 a/c turns into a firm order, it gives the MRJ program a lot of legitimacy. As it currently stands, the largest order so far is Tran States' 100 a/c (50 + 50 options) and when that order was announced, it was definitely out of left field. When you look at the combined fleet of SkyWest and ExpressJet, the 100 MRJs (if turned into a firm order) could be just the start.

Bombardier's CSeries will definitely factor into things as well, but is more likely to be operated as a mainline a/c as opposed to being operated by a regional affiliate. They do have updated versions of the CRJ-700 and CRJ-900 as well as the CRJ-1000 which does give them a product range to compete with other manufacturers.

Embraer could potentially be the odd man out as nothing concrete has emerged from them beyond talk of updated versions of the E-Jets with new engines, taller landing gear and a new wing. There has been talk of a small stretch in order to give the E-195 one additional row of seating. If they don't get the ball rolling soon, they could be left behind.

The ARJ-21 as well as the Superjet will have more of a captive market in the regions they are built in, but will see some sales in other markets. You will soon be seeing the Superjet gracing the skies in Mexico and the US as Mexican LCC Interjet ordered the Superjet 100 and will be taking delivery of them in the near future. The Superjet has also garnered orders in Asia which has also seen several airlines outside of China order the ARJ-21.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 10729 times:

I find this number extremely optimistic. I fuel get evenmore expensive, the future is with larger aircraft, 199 seaters.

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7968 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10670 times:

Quoting art (Thread starter):
Assuming ARJ-21 and Superjet do not sell well outside of their own "captive" markets, what chance is there of Mitsubishi turning the existing RJ duopoly into a triopoly?

Since OO has an agreement, and given OO's rep, I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a triopoly, especially since it's not some obscure manufacturer with a safety record in the red. Mitsubishi has a lot of potential and is a really strong Japanese company so I think they can pull this off easily.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13543 posts, RR: 100
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10613 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 3):
I find this number extremely optimistic. I fuel get evenmore expensive, the future is with larger aircraft, 199 seaters.

Why? The numbers for larger aircraft are 24k to 28k (my estimate). I think there are a bit optimistic, but there will always be some routes for RJs. I just do not think 50 seat RJs have much of a market.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8976 posts, RR: 39
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10505 times:

These numbers are over 20 years. I wouldn't say that's a "massive expansion" at all.


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10388 times:

.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 6):
These numbers are over 20 years. I wouldn't say that's a "massive expansion" at all.

Perhaps "massive" was not the best adjective to choose. All the same, the manufacturers' figures point to projected sales of around 3000 60-120 seat jets per decade in the next 2 decades in contrast to less than 1500 in the past decade.

[Edited 2012-09-23 13:39:36]

[Edited 2012-09-23 13:41:33]

User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9455 times:

Interestingly, in countries like Australia and South Africa with similar distances to domestic flying in the USA there is virtually zero RJ flying.

Because RJs are inefficient gas guzzlers with terrible operating economics.

They only survive in the USA because airlines are permitted to dabble in reincarnation when they bankrupt themselves. And because passengers in markets which only merit turboprop service expect to be carried on a jet.


User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9093 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 8):
Interestingly, in countries like Australia and South Africa with similar distances to domestic flying in the USA there is virtually zero RJ flying.

The population distribution in the US is not comparable to that of Australia or South Africa.

Quoting koruman (Reply 8):
They only survive in the USA because airlines are permitted to dabble in reincarnation when they bankrupt themselves.

The RJs would still be around if the airlines were not able to go through Chapter 11. Maybe not as prevalent, but they would still be operating.

Quoting koruman (Reply 8):
And because passengers in markets which only merit turboprop service expect to be carried on a jet.

There's plenty of turboprop service in the US. The airlines choose to fly jets over turboprops. The passengers aren't twisting their arms.



"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 447 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8898 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
The one market that will be tough is India. I see that going to large narrowbody LCCs.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think Indian capacity will go to LCCs over RJs? I certainly agree with you that some routes are better suited for mainline aircraft (DEL-BOM, BLR-DEL, AMD-BOM) but I think RJs have potential on routes between smaller cities or new city pairs with less demand (BOM-UDR-JDH, COK-AMD), particularly if an airline decided to start point-to-point service, or if an airline wanted to upgrade current turboprop service to RJs.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5):
there will always be some routes for RJs. I just do not think 50 seat RJs have much of a market.

I would tend to agree with you on this. Because of the high cost of fuel and the (comparatively) low fuel economy of 50-seat RJs such as the CRJ-200, I think they are on the way out (as evidenced by DL pulling them out of their regional brands and completely shuttering Comair). However, in the U.S. alone, RJs are used on a huge variety of routes, from connecting smaller airports to larger hubs to serving routes that, due to existing competition, cannot be profitably served by an airline introducing service with a mainline a/c to serving airports that don't have sufficient runway length for mainline a/c, so I think they are here to stay.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8667 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 8):
Interestingly, in countries like Australia and South Africa with similar distances to domestic flying in the USA there is virtually zero RJ flying.

Interesting to hear. Without flying, how do passengers get to a hub that is hundreds of miles away without that taking many, many hours?


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8102 times:

Very simply, one of two things happens in Australia and South Africa.

Either there is a frequent turboprop service, which might take 1 hour 40 minutes to fly what a jet would fly in 1 hour.

Or there is a morning, afternoon and evening 737 or 320 flight.

The town gets what its demand justifies, rather than being cross-subsidised by city-based passengers. The only exception is that some rich mining towns with workers living far away get two or three 737s per day, but that is because fares average around $900 return for a ninety minute flight on such routes.


User currently offlinejustinlee From China, joined Aug 2012, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7801 times:

When talking about China, I don't see a big market for RJs, even ARJ. The high speed train system has already killed a lot of profitable 800km- routes. For example,after the high speed train between Wuhan and Guangzhou started, CZ have to cut its Wuhan-Guangzhou route from 16*daily to 4*daily. What's the case in Europe then?

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11708 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6255 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 8):
Because RJs are inefficient gas guzzlers with terrible operating economics.

They were, but not any more. Embraer has not sold a stack of E-Jets because they are a gas guzzlers...



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinethijs1984 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3311 times:

Quoting justinlee (Reply 13):
When talking about China, I don't see a big market for RJs, even ARJ. The high speed train system has already killed a lot of profitable 800km- routes. For example%uFF0Cafter the high speed train between Wuhan and Guangzhou started, CZ have to cut its Wuhan-Guangzhou route from 16*daily to 4*daily. What's the case in Europe then?

If i talk about the Nethetlands, the high speed railway network is rather limited. But the train route Amsterdam-Rotterdam-anwerp-Brussels-Paris has killed the airlink from Rotterdam to Paris. But the number of Flights from Amsterdam to Paris is till quite frequent.
The disadvantage of hightspeed railway systems is their inflexibility.
2,5 km of rail doesn't even take you out of the city centre. 2,5 km of Runway takes you acros Europe and further.
There is simply not enough (land)space and money to build a great highspeed railway network.

I still forsee a bright future for the RJ's


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3249 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5):
I just do not think 50 seat RJs have much of a market.

Completely agree. The about 50-70 seater 1000 RJ out there will replaced by 100 seaters. And that's most of the market for below 180 seaters...


User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1729 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2337 times:

But how late and overweight with the MRJ really be by the time it actually flies?

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13543 posts, RR: 100
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2205 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 10):
why do you think Indian capacity will go to LCCs over RJs?

Right now my impression is that India lacks enough 'economy of scale' in the premium domestic market. Customers are willing to go out of their way to hub and in general do not pay high RASMs. It takes that high RASM "I must be there by X O'clock" market to support RJs. Thus, I see a tremendous opportunity for a connecting LCC in India instead of RJs. I still see an RJ market in most of the world, it is just my impression of Indian airline economics.

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 10):
RJs are used on a huge variety of routes, from connecting smaller airports to larger hubs to serving routes that, due to existing competition, cannot be profitably served by an airline introducing service with a mainline a/c to serving airports that don't have sufficient runway length for mainline a/c, so I think they are here to stay.

I agree there is a market. Those that do not support a larger RJ, will have to go to a turboprop once the current 50-seat RJs are retired (which is a long time away). In about 3 years, someone should start developing an extremely low cost per flight 50 seat turboprop. With fuel prices going where they will, I do not see a market that doesn't support a MRJ/E-jet/CRJ-700/900/1000 continuing to see jet service, in the long run. It will naturally be a transition.

I also see room for a new 19 seat turboprop. But only from one vendor (small market). But it needs better efficiency and cruise speed than the Beech 1900D. Where will the development money come from? That I do not know.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 16):
The about 50-70 seater 1000 RJ out there will replaced by 100 seaters.

If you rephrase that as 76 to 88 seaters (DL and AA scope clause), I agree.   

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
Very simply, one of two things happens in Australia and South Africa.

Either there is a frequent turboprop service, which might take 1 hour 40 minutes to fly what a jet would fly in 1 hour.

Or there is a morning, afternoon and evening 737 or 320 flight.

There will be more of that globally.

Quoting Tod (Reply 17):
But how late and overweight with the MRJ really be by the time it actually flies?

It is already quite late. But weight seems to be something they will make. It also seems as if cost might be less than predicted. Mitsubishi is making many of the parts via automotive standards. This cuts costs. The latest delay is reviving the drawings to the actual manufacturing process and ensuring that meets the air vehicle's goals.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently onlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6119 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2167 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18):
It also seems as if cost might be less than predicted. Mitsubishi is making many of the parts via automotive standards. This cuts costs. The latest delay is reviving the drawings to the actual manufacturing process and ensuring that meets the air vehicle's goals.

I just hope that Mitsu is testing these parts to make sure that they meet or exceed engineered standards with the adjusted manufacturing processes.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2120 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 8):
Interestingly, in countries like Australia and South Africa with similar distances to domestic flying in the USA there is virtually zero RJ flying.

Coincidentally, that's the population of Australia's interior. RJ's competing with the Indian Pacific?



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1729 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2110 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 19):
I just hope that Mitsu is testing these parts to make sure that they meet or exceed engineered standards with the adjusted manufacturing processes.

Since their JCAB TC will get FAA approval, airworthiness should not be an issue.


User currently offlinejustinlee From China, joined Aug 2012, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2077 times:

Quoting thijs1984 (Reply 15):
If i talk about the Nethetlands, the high speed railway network is rather limited. But the train route Amsterdam-Rotterdam-anwerp-Brussels-Paris has killed the airlink from Rotterdam to Paris. But the number of Flights from Amsterdam to Paris is till quite frequent.
The disadvantage of hightspeed railway systems is their inflexibility.
2,5 km of rail doesn't even take you out of the city centre. 2,5 km of Runway takes you acros Europe and further.
There is simply not enough (land)space and money to build a great highspeed railway network.

I still forsee a bright future for the RJ's

Emmm, maybe the difference between East Asia countries and Europe is that, although we both have big cities, East Asia's population concentrates more in big cities. For example, maybe all of the high yield passengers in Korea lives in Seoul or Busan and half of the high yield passengers in Japan lives in Tokyo and Osaka. The same in China, most business travelers live in Beijing, Pearl River Delta (Guangzhou and Shenzhen) or Yangtze River Delta (Shanghai and surrounding areas).

So there is little needs for high frequency connection between small cities and big cities, and connections between big cities can easily fill up a 737/320. The fact is that ANA, JAL, KE, OZ and CA have no RJs at all. Only CZ (18 RJs) and MU (15 RJs) use some RJs in West and Southwest China.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13543 posts, RR: 100
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2033 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 19):
I just hope that Mitsu is testing these parts to make sure that they meet or exceed engineered standards with the adjusted manufacturing processes.

They are required to have documentation showing future parts meet the standards of the parts tested. It is ensuring the manufacturing is 'static.' I'm much more excited about the MRJ. The reality is that the other offered RJs need a new generation engine. Embraer is looking, but that isn't the same as launching a re-engine. I personally would be shocked if they didn't re-engine soon.



Quoting justinlee (Reply 22):
The fact is that ANA, JAL, KE, OZ and CA have no RJs at all. Only CZ (18 RJs) and MU (15 RJs) use some RJs in West and Southwest China.

I speculate that as the Chinese market martures, there will be more RJ demand. The question is, when will that happen?

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4327 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2000 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting koruman (Reply 8):
Interestingly, in countries like Australia and South Africa with similar distances to domestic flying in the USA there is virtually zero RJ flying.

I'm guessing that's because of population distribution. In addition, both countries have few large interior business or manufacturing centers.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Middle East Needs 8000 Pilots In The Next 20 Years posted Sun Nov 4 2007 04:17:02 by EK156
Demise Of Midway Airlines 20 Years Ago This Month posted Tue Nov 29 2011 08:11:50 by 727LOVER
India Needs 1,000 Planes Over 20 Years: Airbus posted Fri Oct 5 2007 17:58:03 by LAXDESI
Braniff FA Uniform Auction 20 Years Of Uniforms posted Tue Dec 12 2006 01:41:52 by Luv2fly
Golden City: Massive Expansion Out Of Vienna posted Wed Oct 11 2006 02:42:27 by VORFMD
Boeing Forecasts $2.6 Trillion Market Over 20 Year posted Wed Jul 12 2006 17:31:00 by LAXDESI
Boeing: 492 Orders From India Over 20 Years posted Sat Jan 28 2006 02:55:40 by LAXDESI
Cathay Pacific's Orders Over The Past 20 Years posted Wed Jun 8 2005 16:19:06 by United Airline
BA: 20 Years In GRU - What's Next? posted Wed May 18 2005 23:40:56 by Hardiwv
RJ Outlook 20 Years From Now posted Tue Apr 27 2004 02:07:45 by Frugalqxnwa