Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
TonyClifton
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Thu May 21, 2020 12:09 am

strfyr51 wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
bkmbr wrote:

Good luck fighting the big corporations and the army of lobbying lawyers they have at the government. This is how the capitalism system works, profit over people, shareholder over employees. If the unions do not budge they will find a way to override the unions, either legally (with the companies looking to hire striker replacements and the government through something that allows that kind of thing) or illegally (and who knows what they are capable of).
That's how our system works now, every single time, big money and big business prevails, why would be different this time? If the pilots go on strike against this be sure we will see something awful happening just like the PATCO's 1981 strike happening all over again in the worse case scenario or some kind of legislation presented by the industry army of lobbying lawyers to circumvent the scope clauses in the best case scenario. Is not like the american business and the american government really cares about the scope clauses to be honest.

So far both sides the airlines and the unions have stuck to the RLA very closely simply because both sides fear the replacement, and by the way neither the company nor the union can start self help for multiple years if negotiating and it actually hasn't happened in nearly thirty years. Despite extreme negotiating deadlocks see airways east vs West.

the RLA can string out Negotiations for YEARS that under an Industrial Labor CONTRACT? The negotiations would have ended when the contract ended and there would BE no flying until a NEW or Extended contract was in place. Also? Most of the Majors would not even want to take ot to arbitration. Because if they LOSE?
It can become LAW for every OTHER US Airline in Labor Negotiations. I'd guess you had better "bone up" on Labor Law. What they want? And what they can Get?
Might be 2 different Stories...

Forgive me if I misread your post, but just as a point of information, under the RLA contacts do not expire, they only become amendable. Notably, Air Wisconsin was in negotiations on and off between 2010-2019 under an amendable contract.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5033
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Thu May 21, 2020 12:18 am

TonyClifton wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
So far both sides the airlines and the unions have stuck to the RLA very closely simply because both sides fear the replacement, and by the way neither the company nor the union can start self help for multiple years if negotiating and it actually hasn't happened in nearly thirty years. Despite extreme negotiating deadlocks see airways east vs West.

the RLA can string out Negotiations for YEARS that under an Industrial Labor CONTRACT? The negotiations would have ended when the contract ended and there would BE no flying until a NEW or Extended contract was in place. Also? Most of the Majors would not even want to take ot to arbitration. Because if they LOSE?
It can become LAW for every OTHER US Airline in Labor Negotare a LOTiations. I'd guess you had better "bone up" on Labor Law. What they want? And what they can Get?
Might be 2 different Stories...

Forgive me if I misread your post, but just as a point of information, under the RLA contacts do not expire, they only become amendable. Notably, Air Wisconsin was in negotiations on and off between 2010-2019 under an amendable contract.

THAT? IS CORRECT! I know of contracts that went 5 years beyond the amendable dates. And? BTW. the minimum airline pilot time in the USA? 1500 Hrs. Unless you have Military hours. Or? Graduated from a certificated College Aviation Program with a Degree in an Aviation Discipline. And I think even Then? It's 1200 Hours.
The FAA did not buy into Ab Inito as there a LOT of Pilots still in the USA.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Thu May 21, 2020 12:25 am

strfyr51 wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
the RLA can string out Negotiations for YEARS that under an Industrial Labor CONTRACT? The negotiations would have ended when the contract ended and there would BE no flying until a NEW or Extended contract was in place. Also? Most of the Majors would not even want to take ot to arbitration. Because if they LOSE?
It can become LAW for every OTHER US Airline in Labor Negotare a LOTiations. I'd guess you had better "bone up" on Labor Law. What they want? And what they can Get?
Might be 2 different Stories...

Forgive me if I misread your post, but just as a point of information, under the RLA contacts do not expire, they only become amendable. Notably, Air Wisconsin was in negotiations on and off between 2010-2019 under an amendable contract.

THAT? IS CORRECT! I know of contracts that went 5 years beyond the amendable dates. And? BTW. the minimum airline pilot time in the USA? 1500 Hrs. Unless you have Military hours. Or? Graduated from a certificated College Aviation Program with a Degree in an Aviation Discipline. And I think even Then? It's 1200 Hours.
The FAA did not buy into Ab Inito as there a LOT of Pilots still in the USA.

No argument here.
For an ATP, it’s 1500 overall. 1250 or 1000 for collegiate, depending on the program (under 60 credit hours of approved program yields the higher time) school, etc; 750 for mil. Then of course you get into the R-ATP with age and cross country cutouts. Don’t forget night time subtraction if you have done enough landings, and some airlines would even allow 25-50 hours of approved sim time for TT and Multi engine requirements. You could even use the very sim training for your type rating to meet that stipulation. Fun times auditing logbooks...

No chance of those times being peeled back now, especially as the cry up to now was pilot shortage, and so many have indicated it’s been waved goodbye to. Different year, different problems. It’ll all resume in five years.

Back onto the E2... could never figure out why they stretched the 175 to essentially make it an E2-180. The 175 as it is was already a bit portly under scope. Compass had a few dozen that exceeded standard scope weight and flew them via a contractual stipulation. Curious, is there any feasible way to shrink the E2-175 to a 76 seater that also sheds enough fat to remain under 87k? Those GTFs are meaty to say the least.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5033
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Thu May 21, 2020 1:00 am

TonyClifton wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
Forgive me if I misread your post, but just as a point of information, under the RLA contacts do not expire, they only become amendable. Notably, Air Wisconsin was in negotiations on and off between 2010-2019 under an amendable contract.

THAT? IS CORRECT! I know of contracts that went 5 years beyond the amendable dates. And? BTW. the minimum airline pilot time in the USA? 1500 Hrs. Unless you have Military hours. Or? Graduated from a certificated College Aviation Program with a Degree in an Aviation Discipline. And I think even Then? It's 1200 Hours.
The FAA did not buy into Ab Inito as there a LOT of Pilots still in the USA.

No argument here.
For an ATP, it’s 1500 overall. 1250 or 1000 for collegiate, depending on the program (under 60 credit hours of approved program yields the higher time) school, etc; 750 for mil. Then of course you get into the R-ATP with age and cross country cutouts. Don’t forget night time subtraction if you have done enough landings, and some airlines would even allow 25-50 hours of approved sim time for TT and Multi engine requirements. You could even use the very sim training for your type rating to meet that stipulation. Fun times auditing logbooks...

No chance of those times being peeled back now, especially as the cry up to now was pilot shortage, and so many have indicated it’s been waved goodbye to. Different year, different problems. It’ll all resume in five years.

Back onto the E2... could never figure out why they stretched the 175 to essentially make it an E2-180. The 175 as it is was already a bit portly under scope. Compass had a few dozen that exceeded standard scope weight and flew them via a contractual stipulation. Curious, is there any feasible way to shrink the E2-175 to a 76 seater that also sheds enough fat to remain under 87k? Those GTFs are meaty to say the least.

the E2 added fuselage extensions from jhe original 175, How much weight was added? I have no idea as I don't really know what the other upgrades were.
But? I would bet good Money that Embraer could if they chose to? Shrink it back to where it was and still keep the new engines. The Question would be?
Are they going ti think like Businessmen? Or are they going to stick with their Guns? or? Demand that Boeing do their heavy lifting with the US majors? Because I can tell you, Boeing is Good? But they Aren't THAT Good! They do NOT have the clout to sway ALPA!
 
battlegroup62
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:05 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Thu May 21, 2020 1:06 am

TonyClifton wrote:
Back onto the E2... could never figure out why they stretched the 175 to essentially make it an E2-180. The 175 as it is was already a bit portly under scope. Compass had a few dozen that exceeded standard scope weight and flew them via a contractual stipulation. Curious, is there any feasible way to shrink the E2-175 to a 76 seater that also sheds enough fat to remain under 87k? Those GTFs are meaty to say the least.
[/quote][/quote]

I heard the reason was because with the extra weight of the new engines they didn't want people to see the aircraft as heavier than the original so they stretched it about 6 feet to hide the weight gain. That reasoning doesn't make sense to me but that is the best explanation I've heard. I've never heard of the 175 being over scope due to weight only the seat count so they made the 175 sc with 70 seats. Tell me about these Compass 175's, I've worked some never heard of them being overweight makes me curious. I don't see why they couldn't shrink the E275 the 175 had plugs removed to make it the 170 so why not do the same. It would be easier now that the E275 is full fly by wire just need to re-tune the flight controls for shorter fuselage and test fly it, probably take about a year like the 175 to 170.I think Embraer is working on cutting weight because from a 2017 data sheet the E275 had an MTOW of about 98767 I believe, but I went to their website the other day and it says MTOW of 91480 now so I would almost guarantee it could be made under scope with a fuselage the length of the original 175. Who knows perhaps if they only put 76 seats in it would be under 89k as is.
We have to keep planes airworthy. That doesn't mean they have to fly.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Thu May 21, 2020 1:29 am

battlegroup62 wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
Back onto the E2... could never figure out why they stretched the 175 to essentially make it an E2-180. The 175 as it is was already a bit portly under scope. Compass had a few dozen that exceeded standard scope weight and flew them via a contractual stipulation. Curious, is there any feasible way to shrink the E2-175 to a 76 seater that also sheds enough fat to remain under 87k? Those GTFs are meaty to say the least.
[/quote]

I heard the reason was because with the extra weight of the new engines they didn't want people to see the aircraft as heavier than the original so they stretched it about 6 feet to hide the weight gain. That reasoning doesn't make sense to me but that is the best explanation I've heard. I've never heard of the 175 being over scope due to weight only the seat count so they made the 175 sc with 70 seats. Tell me about these Compass 175's, I've worked some never heard of them being overweight makes me curious. I don't see why they couldn't shrink the E275 the 175 had plugs removed to make it the 170 so why not do the same. It would be easier now that the E275 is full fly by wire just need to re-tune the flight controls for shorter fuselage and test fly it, probably take about a year like the 175 to 170.I think Embraer is working on cutting weight because from a 2017 data sheet the E275 had an MTOW of about 98767 I believe, but I went to their website the other day and it says MTOW of 91480 now so I would almost guarantee it could be made under scope with a fuselage the length of the original 175. Who knows perhaps if they only put 76 seats in it would be under 89k as is.[/quote]
E-175 has a standard mtow of 89,000 pounds which is a fairly easy paperwork change away from 86,000 pounds compass as does mesa have a few planes that are overweight but grandfathered in mesa's are also 79 seats as usair hold overs
 
battlegroup62
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:05 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Thu May 21, 2020 4:30 am

I wonder if they could do the same for the E275 just rate it at 89k and 76 seats.
We have to keep planes airworthy. That doesn't mean they have to fly.
 
bigb
Posts: 1129
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Thu May 21, 2020 1:22 pm

battlegroup62 wrote:
I wonder if they could do the same for the E275 just rate it at 89k and 76 seats.


It would to be 86K
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Fri May 29, 2020 6:19 pm

As expected Embraer is attracting interest for possible co-operation not only from COMAC but from Irkut as well.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-embr ... SKBN235269

The shares of Embraer spiked 17% thanks to this article

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/ ... today.aspx
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 677
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 2:58 am

bkmbr wrote:
As expected Embraer is attracting interest for possible co-operation not only from COMAC but from Irkut as well.


Well explained here why Embraer must continue alone, on its own legs.

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... erExcerpts:

"Embraer’s E175 backlog can support three more years of production at a rate of 60 airplanes a year, even without new orders."

Three more years solely for E175-E1.

And:

"Of course, the fuel price environment could look completely different by 2023, when, according to the International Air Transport Association, traffic should return to 2019 levels and theoretically support a return to popularity of the E195-E2.
So, it appears, Embraer’s most promising product in the long term lies with its biggest airplane.
“The rest of the world has made it clear that they’re not really interested in the 175-E2 and they're really not that interested in the 190-E2. They’re more interested in the 195-E2,” said Hamilton. “All you need to do is look at the order book. The 195-E2 operating expense by our analysis is only 5 or 6 percent more than the 190-E2, but in a typical configuration you get 20 to 22 more seats of revenue potential.”


And for those who are interested, good reading:

Source:
https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... -recovery/
Small Aircraft Lead Airline Recovery
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5033
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 3:17 am

all of that E-195E2 news is really good, However? Why then ! did Boeing wreck their Agreement? One of the reasons I think? The contracts of the US Majors and their Scope Clause with the Pilot Unions. We all know that Embraer builds a good airplane as that fact was never in question, What WAS in question?
Could even Boeing use it's considerable clout to get the US Majors to amend or abandon the scope clause and Peace with it's pilots? I say the answer is NO!
Now? Were Boeing to build and certify a knockoff of either the A220 or the E-195? There wouldn't be any question as to it's viability. Hell! They could probably build it in St,Louis or South Carolina. as now? They could probably build all kinds of facilities were they of a mind to one the 737 problems are solved.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 4:20 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Why then ! did Boeing wreck their Agreement?


Once upon a time there was a plane called 737 Max ...
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 4:22 am

EMBSPBR wrote:
“The rest of the world has made it clear that they’re not really interested in the 175-E2 "


I don't know if this is the right place, but being so close to Embraer, would you care to comment on why they won't just do a 170-E2 that seats 76 single class pax @ 31" pitch with limited regional type range (cut the fuel weight) that meets the 86.4k MTOW scope in the US? There are allot of E170/175/CRJ700/CRJ900 planes that will need replacing. E175-E2 can't do it.

We had a lively discussion here on possibilities for a US Scope Compliant Regional: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1446733&start=250#p22243065

It's so strange that Embraer isn't going to reboot the 170/175 to address this.
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 4:38 am

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
EMBSPBR wrote:
“The rest of the world has made it clear that they’re not really interested in the 175-E2 "


I don't know if this is the right place, but being so close to Embraer, would you care to comment on why they won't just do a 170-E2 that seats 76 single class pax @ 31" pitch with limited regional type range (cut the fuel weight) that meets the 86.4k MTOW scope in the US? There are allot of E170/175/CRJ700/CRJ900 planes that will need replacing. E175-E2 can't do it.

We had a lively discussion here on possibilities for a US Scope Compliant Regional: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1446733&start=250#p22243065

It's so strange that Embraer isn't going to reboot the 170/175 to address this.


As stated in the other topic there are countless possible answers to this question, the fact that there are more than 100 175SC units ordered yet to be delivered, the possible bet that scope clauses would be extended at least at the MTOW restriction, the difficulty (or impossibility) to produce a new generation aircraft within the existing technological limits and resources (especially in regard to engine options) today and so on.
With the virtual death of the M100, the 175SC will be the only viable aircraft to serve the American market for many years to come, it is a market that Embraer dominates today and once the 175E2 is certified they will probably be able to consider the option of producing a 170E2SC if they think there really is a market for that. Until the 175SC is forced out of production in 2028 by ICAO rules, there is still a lot that can happen.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2164
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 5:14 am

bkmbr wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
EMBSPBR wrote:
“The rest of the world has made it clear that they’re not really interested in the 175-E2 "


I don't know if this is the right place, but being so close to Embraer, would you care to comment on why they won't just do a 170-E2 that seats 76 single class pax @ 31" pitch with limited regional type range (cut the fuel weight) that meets the 86.4k MTOW scope in the US? There are allot of E170/175/CRJ700/CRJ900 planes that will need replacing. E175-E2 can't do it.

We had a lively discussion here on possibilities for a US Scope Compliant Regional: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1446733&start=250#p22243065

It's so strange that Embraer isn't going to reboot the 170/175 to address this.


As stated in the other topic there are countless possible answers to this question, the fact that there are more than 100 175SC units ordered yet to be delivered, the possible bet that scope clauses would be extended at least at the MTOW restriction, the difficulty (or impossibility) to produce a new generation aircraft within the existing technological limits and resources (especially in regard to engine options) today and so on.
With the virtual death of the M100, the 175SC will be the only viable aircraft to serve the American market for many years to come, it is a market that Embraer dominates today and once the 175E2 is certified they will probably be able to consider the option of producing a 170E2SC if they think there really is a market for that. Until the 175SC is forced out of production in 2028 by ICAO rules, there is still a lot that can happen.


The airlines need the 175E2 over the long term. Small markets are facing a complete loss of service as the sub 76 seat aircraft head to the boneyards, which is another problem. We need a new 50-seater or they need to bite the bullet and go back to turboprops. I’m sure ATR would love a ramp up in production.

In terms of scope, the airlines should work with the pilots groups on changing to a range scope vs. weight, or net capacity cap as a percentage of mainline capacity. They need to come to terms with the fact that having a scope agreement based in weight is an irrational metric given what’s out there for serving small markets. That or start buying up the regionals and bring the flying in house at regional airline pay.
Funny. It only took one pandemic for those who argue endlessly about natural selection to stop believing in natural selection.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 5:26 am

DL717 wrote:
The airlines need the 175E2 over the long term. Small markets are facing a complete loss of service as the sub 76 seat aircraft head to the boneyards, which is another problem. We need a new 50-seater or they need to bite the bullet and go back to turboprops. I’m sure ATR would love a ramp up in production.

In terms of scope, the airlines should work with the pilots groups on changing to a range scope vs. weight, or net capacity cap as a percentage of mainline capacity. They need to come to terms with the fact that having a scope agreement based in weight is an irrational metric given what’s out there for serving small markets. That or start buying up the regionals and bring the flying in house at regional airline pay.


If they manage to equalize the general operation costs within a mainliner with the cost of a regional company I have no doubt that this could happen in the future, but the problem is going to be if the unions allow it. I doubt it. On the other hand, it would be good to end these completely arbitrary limits created in these negotiations.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 5:42 am

bkmbr wrote:
DL717 wrote:
The airlines need the 175E2 over the long term. Small markets are facing a complete loss of service as the sub 76 seat aircraft head to the boneyards, which is another problem. We need a new 50-seater or they need to bite the bullet and go back to turboprops. I’m sure ATR would love a ramp up in production.

In terms of scope, the airlines should work with the pilots groups on changing to a range scope vs. weight, or net capacity cap as a percentage of mainline capacity. They need to come to terms with the fact that having a scope agreement based in weight is an irrational metric given what’s out there for serving small markets. That or start buying up the regionals and bring the flying in house at regional airline pay.


If they manage to equalize the general operation costs within a mainliner with the cost of a regional company I have no doubt that this could happen in the future, but the problem is going to be if the unions allow it. I doubt it. On the other hand, it would be good to end these completely arbitrary limits created in these negotiations.


No. It would be good to end the outsourcing of jobs to underpaid labor. There is certainly no reason to move the goalposts on previously mutually agreed upon outsourcing just because embraer made a terrible miscalculation in their planning and development. If anything, scope should go the other way. As a start, 50 seats max, 500-800 nm max distance allowed for revenue flights, 50,000 lb MTOW...you know...make it REGIONAL flying again. All 51+ seats and above at mainline. Eventually a phase out of all outsourced flying...at least with the jets. Maybe get some props and keep those as the outsourced feed as it used to be.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 5:59 am

Maybe the fact that neither Embraer, who is the leader of this market, or any other company was able to create a new generation model within the scope market to me is a clear signal that there's some problem in the scope in the first place, at least at the MTOW clause that will make the entire scope market incompatible with all the new engines that have arrived on the market. Betting against the regional airlines and try to force the mainliners to absorve those routes with the single objective of raising the payment of the pilots it probably won't work as expected either because the most likely thing that will happen is that most of these cities that are too small for an E195E2 or A220 to operate, and all the other bigger costs involved in that, will simply stop being served by flights and no one will win anything in the end.
 
VV
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 6:54 am

VV wrote:
From the discussion above, these are the points that seem to be outstanding.
  • Embraer and Boeing failed to form a joint-venture in the commercial aircraft business.
  • In addition, a press article mentions that Mitsubishi Heavy Industry (MHI) cuts SpaceJet's budget by 50% and review the SpaceJet M100 project.
  • Bombardier CRJ program is acquired by MHI with the end of CRJ production expected in 2020.

Some posters have already mentioned the points below. Are they correct?
  • With the end of CRJ900 production, the E175 (E1) will be the only 76 seater regional jet that complies with the scope clause as it is currently defined. This is valid until M100 enters into service someday.
  • Embraer E175 will be ready in 2021, but it does not comply with the scope clause for 76 seater. However, it will be the only current generation 76 seater in the market until M100 enters into service someday.
  • Without the joint venture between Embraer and Boeing there will not be a new 50-70 seat regional turboprop in the next ten years.

Basically during the next ten years (roughly),
  • Embraer is the only one that can deliver 76 seater regional jet until M100 is ready someday.
  • ATR enjoys a very dominant position in the 50-70 seat turboprop market.



I guess the above is still valid today.

Without Mitsubishi SpaceJet M100 and with the end of CRJ production this year, Embraer will become the sole supplier of 76 seater regional jet during the next 10 years unless someone else jumps into that market soon.

The question is, "How big is the market for 76 seater?"
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 7:38 am

bkmbr wrote:
Maybe the fact that neither Embraer, who is the leader of this market, or any other company was able to create a new generation model within the scope market to me is a clear signal that there's some problem in the scope in the first place, at least at the MTOW clause that will make the entire scope market incompatible with all the new engines that have arrived on the market. Betting against the regional airlines and try to force the mainliners to absorve those routes with the single objective of raising the payment of the pilots it probably won't work as expected either because the most likely thing that will happen is that most of these cities that are too small for an E195E2 or A220 to operate, and all the other bigger costs involved in that, will simply stop being served by flights and no one will win anything in the end.

Got a source for that? I don’t think that’s accurate...it’s not that they couldn’t design a new plane within scope limits...they just didn’t try, thinking they could get pilots to budge. I mean, they didn’t even keep the 175-E2 the same length...they increased it over the first gen and increased the wingspan by 16 feet. If they were trying to stay under the scope weights, they’d likely have done the opposite. They gambled...and lost. Not the pilots’ problem.

And you are misconstruing the scope issue...bringing flying back in house is not simply to raise pilot pay. It’s about returning flying to where it should be, and from where it was taken. Regional flying in theory exists to feed hubs. It’s been perverted over the last couple decades to outsource what was DC9/717/737/a319/etc flying. As I (and others) have explained to you numerous times, AA/US/DL all have pay scales for 76 seaters. Management and the unions have all mutually agreed upon pay scales to fly those planes. Fortunately some airlines out there don’t like outsourcing their flying and still make it work during non covid times just as well as those who do. Jetblue flies E190s on many of the same routes (and types of routes) that mainline DL/AA/UA fly RJs on. No reason they can’t fly 100-130 seaters in place of 76 seaters, or even bring 76 seaters in house, and still make money (in normal times).

And last, you still cannot refute the following point. The E175-E2 is roughly one row larger than the E1. Mainline could fit 80-84 seats in it fairly easily. With the additional revenue of those additional pax, the fuel and mx savings of the E2 over E1, the relatively low pay rate of the mainline 76 seat rates, you cannot tell me airlines can’t fly it in house profitably. Throw in parts and crew commonality with an E190/E195-E2 fleet to fit the in-between markets, and it makes sense to insource the entire E2 fleet. And guess what else...those airlines could take all those planes as fast as the E175-E2 could be made. Now seems like a great time for that for all involved.

And a new small narrowbody unlocks more E175-E1 76 seaters at mainline (at least at UAL where it’s I believe a 1.25:1 ratio for additional outsourced 76 seaters with a new small narrowbody purchase). Seems like a good way for Scott Kirby to get tons of large RJs. Insource some 80-120 seat E2s, get more outsourced E1s. That’s about the extent of the compromise I can see being made, which fits existing scope allowances.

But as I’ve said, all jets should be flown by mainline. In a profession where you cannot take your seniority or longevity with you (the key difference when comparing part 121 airline flying to any other career), having a 5-10 year stay at a regional making peanuts artificially crushes career earnings. It’d be like a doctor paying a lot of money to get through a lot of school, then being a significantly underpaid resident (tho regional pilots make about half what resident MDs make, and are fully qualified in their job which, at a regional, is no different than the job at mainline unlike the resident MD who hasn’t completed a residency) for 5-10 years, then starting over as a probationary doctor again, making first year first officer pay ( which is not great), and not being able to switch companies without another seniority/longevity reset if you want to switch employers. Once trained, the doctor can go anywhere he/she wants and take his/her experience with them, and in theory keep/improve salary with each employer move. The pilot can’t do that. A 777 DL captain wants to go to UAL? Now he’s at the bottom of the list as a first year FO. MBAs, MDs, JDs, engineers, or any other profession for that matter, has the ability to move around with employers and pick up where they left off. Pilots don’t. Throw in the furloughs, bankruptcies, mergers (which screw up seniority/career expectations), which seem to happen every 10 years or so in this “seniority/longevity handcuffed” profession, a “normal” pilot career is very unstable. RJs add to this instability significantly, as they take away a significant portion of years at the “career” or “destination” airline, as well as reducing the number of “career” jobs, and they insert a forced seniority/longevity reset going from a regional to a major. The key difference here is that a regional pilot has all the same certifications as a major pilot (and often times as much experience). So it’s an unnecessary “experience building” job (with the sole purpose of making more $$$ for major airline mgmt), where 121 pax carrying flights are being operated by a regional captain and first officer. If that crew is qualified to fly delta pax who bought a ticket on delta.com and fly on a delta painted plane (that says connection on it), they should be qualified to fly delta jets and be on the delta seniority list...not “building experience” to hopefully one day be “experienced enough” to fly delta jets that don’t say connection on them. A resident doctor works under supervision of experienced doctors. But in this case the regional captain is the one in charge and supervising a new first officer...both of them have ATPs and type ratings. So in that regard the pay/status shouldn’t be severely lower than mainline as they are doing the full job as their mainline counterpart with the same responsibility. They aren’t being supervised by mainline pilots like a resident doctor is being supervised by a fully trained doctor. The captain is doing the supervising.

While doctors (or any other profession) aren’t comparable to airline pilots in their training or job, I wrote all this out to make the point that pilots have a very unique profession, primarily because they are locked by seniority/longevity resets, along with having a large amount of the work done by fully qualified, but outsourced contractors who perform the exact same job but for less in the name of “building experience.” The disparity in pay between these two sets of equally qualified employee groups who fly the same pax under the same paint schemes is just lunacy. But hey, so long as you can get your 8x a day flights to podunkville for $99 RT and scott Kirby can get his 8th vacation house, while the guys in the front end of the jet who paid $100k-200k+ for training make peanuts in the regionals for 5-10 (more like 5-15+) years, while likely getting furloughed or going thru a bankruptcy, finally getting to a major, getting furloughed again, and are lucky to pick up a job at Home Depot or in some cases get back in the military waiting to get their airline job back. Yeah...those greedy pilots and unions. Let’s give away more jobs and make this turbulent career even worse. No, those airplane manufacturers and their management, as well as airline management, can honor the agreements they previously agreed on, and work within those confines. Or better, do the right thing and bring it all in house where it belongs.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 3:55 pm

The engines of this new generation are physically bigger and heavier, other components have also grown in size and weight in the last few years (like avionics) so for you to put this on an airplane that already existed you need to readjust the entire airplane to this factor including structural growth, and among another thing is the increase in the area of ​​the wing and the plane in general (and the consequent weight gain resulting from that). From 175E1 to 175E2 there was no significant gain whatsoever due to the increase in frame weight, the fact that the size has increased physically and has not dramatically increased the number of passengers (up to 88 in the 175E1 and 90 in the 175E2 in its larger configurations density), max payload (10.1 ton in the 175E1 10.6 ton in the 175E2) and and range has even decreased (2,200 nm in the 175E1 and 2,017 nm in the 175E2) shows that the physical increase in the size of the plane was not just due to commercial choices. You tell me to present proof that airplanes cannot be designed within the scope but I propose to you the following, it is much easier to prove that something can be done than something cannot be done, show 1 airplane that uses the most current technologies capable of meeting the scope and has already effectively flown. If it were something feasible and there was a market for it because no one did it?

If the big companies are outsourcing flights of up to 76 passengers to other companies, some reason (probably economic) exists for this and to think that in a period when the companies' revenues are falling due to the coronavirus that the companies will revert this policy to please the unions is naive proposition. I am not against pilots earning more and having better conditions in their jobs, but I am an adult and I am not and I'm not inclined to believe in fairy tales. I know that in "Corporate America" today whenever the interest of big capital is confronted by the interests of workers eventually the big capital that wins the arm wrestling and welcome to the capitalist system in which whoever has the most money is usually the winner of any dispute. If pilots do not want to negotiate amicably and keep some leverage in the discussion they probably will eventually be forced to accept the terms if that is the interest of big capital. Creating all this fuss on account of an MTOW clause because of that is a lack of strategic vision on the part of the unions in my opinion. The fact that regional jets fly is those routes only a consequence of the interest of big capital, not cause.
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 677
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 8:00 pm

This:

bkmbr wrote:
The engines of this new generation are physically bigger and heavier, other components have also grown in size and weight in the last few years (like avionics) so for you to put this on an airplane that already existed you need to readjust the entire airplane to this factor including structural growth, and among another thing is the increase in the area of ​​the wing and the plane in general (and the consequent weight gain resulting from that). From 175E1 to 175E2 there was no significant gain whatsoever due to the increase in frame weight, the fact that the size has increased physically and has not dramatically increased the number of passengers (up to 88 in the 175E1 and 90 in the 175E2 in its larger configurations density), max payload (10.1 ton in the 175E1 10.6 ton in the 175E2)


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

And forget it about an E170-E2 or a shortened E175-E2: no gain if compared to E175-E1.
 
VV
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 8:32 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
...
And forget it about an E170-E2 or a shortened E175-E2: no gain if compared to E175-E1.


E170-E2 is just a fantasy of some people here. Obviously it is NOT going to happen. Full stop.
 
marcogr12
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 8:44 pm

I am not sure there is no market for the E2-190..Airlines in Latin America, Europe,Africa etc are still flying the E190..Copa, Aeromexico, Austral,AZ,AF,LH,KLM, Finnair,LOT, BACF,TUI Belgium, Georgian Airways,UIA etc..And others like SAS,IB,Hop that operate the CR9...Do we know what they will be replaced with? No..Some might go for the A220 some for the E2 jets but we don;t know which model..So let's not yet foreshadow ominous future for the E290
Flying is breathing..no planes no life..
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 9:12 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
And forget it about an E170-E2 or a shortened E175-E2: no gain if compared to E175-E1.


The ERJ-170E2 would only exist for the american market if there's the necessity for it. I don't see what could be gained with a ERJ170E2 mas with the union acting irrationally who know?
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 11:39 pm

I totally agree that A E170-E2 will never work with PW1715G engines. They are ~600lb (270kg) to heavy.
KLM already decided they want E195-E2 to replace and supplement the E190's. But possibly because of covid, the resulting lowered demand for air travel will result in more demand for smaller aircraft. On the other hand, covid-19 resulted in the AMS limit to stay at 500k movements until 2024. So if air travel demand really recovers well, the slot restriction might keep demand at larger aircraft.
I think in Europe budget airlines have put pressure on legacy airlines and their regional operations. Won't the same happen when the US mayors start operating the regional network under their own contracts.

I think the Linkedin article: U.S. Scope Clauses - A Detailed Look at the Past, Present, and Future discribes the development of scope clause very nicely. The scope clauses at the three remaining mayors have been aligned in the 2011 - 2017 period. Airlines have started introducing the 100 to 120 seat (E190 / 717 /A220-100) into their fleets. In 2011 the pay-rate difference wasn't very large as well. But the ATP licance changes caused shortage in pilots. This caused a 30% pay increase at Delta in 2016. Because salaries at regional's didn't grow that much, the salaries difference between mainline and subcontracted regional's grew again.
I think pilot surplus at mayors will cause salaries to be cut again, to prevent layoffs. Because main line flights shrink, the scope clause flights also have to shrink. Unless the mayors start operating more smaller aircraft. This is an opportunity for Embraer, they can sell E190-E2 and E195-E2 to mayors so they grow their 100-150 seat fleet, the 150-200 fleet can shrink some.
AFAIK there is very little incentive to change scope clauses because of the COVID-19 crisis.
Do pilots at regional's have any influence on the scope clauses?
If they have; pushing for better transition possibilities and condition to the mayors, has a far higher possibility of succes than requesting higher salaries. Especially because of covid-19.
If the do,
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sat May 30, 2020 11:59 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I totally agree that A E170-E2 will never work with PW1715G engines. They are ~600lb (270kg) to heavy.
KLM already decided they want E195-E2 to replace and supplement the E190's. But possibly because of covid, the resulting lowered demand for air travel will result in more demand for smaller aircraft. On the other hand, covid-19 resulted in the AMS limit to stay at 500k movements until 2024. So if air travel demand really recovers well, the slot restriction might keep demand at larger aircraft.
I think in Europe budget airlines have put pressure on legacy airlines and their regional operations. Won't the same happen when the US mayors start operating the regional network under their own contracts.

I think the Linkedin article: U.S. Scope Clauses - A Detailed Look at the Past, Present, and Future discribes the development of scope clause very nicely. The scope clauses at the three remaining mayors have been aligned in the 2011 - 2017 period. Airlines have started introducing the 100 to 120 seat (E190 / 717 /A220-100) into their fleets. In 2011 the pay-rate difference wasn't very large as well. But the ATP licance changes caused shortage in pilots. This caused a 30% pay increase at Delta in 2016. Because salaries at regional's didn't grow that much, the salaries difference between mainline and subcontracted regional's grew again.
I think pilot surplus at mayors will cause salaries to be cut again, to prevent layoffs. Because main line flights shrink, the scope clause flights also have to shrink. Unless the mayors start operating more smaller aircraft. This is an opportunity for Embraer, they can sell E190-E2 and E195-E2 to mayors so they grow their 100-150 seat fleet, the 150-200 fleet can shrink some.
AFAIK there is very little incentive to change scope clauses because of the COVID-19 crisis.
Do pilots at regional's have any influence on the scope clauses?
If they have; pushing for better transition possibilities and condition to the mayors, has a far higher possibility of succes than requesting higher salaries. Especially because of covid-19.
If the do,

ATP rule did not affect Deltas pay in 2016. It was a new contract returning many aircraft back to rates more equivalent to pre-bankruptcy. Regional rate increases since 2014 have been because of the ATP rule, but legacy carriers have seen no such “shortage”.

Regionals have zero say over scope. Hence regional pilots are as adamant as mainline pilots to not expand scope, as it reduces mainline job opportunities for them. The goal of a regional pilot is to get in and get out faster. Doesn’t matter if you fly a CRJ-200 or ERJ-175, ERJ-175-2 etc, it won’t get you to a major faster.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20283
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 5:54 am

VV wrote:
EMBSPBR wrote:
...
And forget it about an E170-E2 or a shortened E175-E2: no gain if compared to E175-E1.


E170-E2 is just a fantasy of some people here. Obviously it is NOT going to happen. Full stop.

Then it depends on if Mitsubishi restarts the M100 R&D.

The E2-175 lengthened the fuselage and increased the wingspan. Two areas where weight could be reduced.
If the E2-170 had the E1-175 body length and reverted to prior wingspan, I think it could work.


There is not going to be any push to change scope for 3 to 5 years. For until then, there is a surplus of RJs for the scope airlines. I speculate the realization that the surplus of scope limited RJs allows a delay in funding the M100 explains why that program was delayed.

So I believe we'll still be debating an E2-170 (but more E1-175 size) will be discussed here for the next 3 to 5 years.

Policy tends to be driven by economics. The mainline pilots are unlikely to allow the scope relief many here wish for. If anything, the airlines need so many other concessions to survive, that they won't risk discussing scope.


Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
VV
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 6:52 am

lightsaber wrote:
VV wrote:
EMBSPBR wrote:
...
And forget it about an E170-E2 or a shortened E175-E2: no gain if compared to E175-E1.


E170-E2 is just a fantasy of some people here. Obviously it is NOT going to happen. Full stop.

Then it depends on if Mitsubishi restarts the M100 R&D.

The E2-175 lengthened the fuselage and increased the wingspan. Two areas where weight could be reduced.
If the E2-170 had the E1-175 body length and reverted to prior wingspan, I think it could work.


There is not going to be any push to change scope for 3 to 5 years. For until then, there is a surplus of RJs for the scope airlines. I speculate the realization that the surplus of scope limited RJs allows a delay in funding the M100 explains why that program was delayed.

So I believe we'll still be debating an E2-170 (but more E1-175 size) will be discussed here for the next 3 to 5 years.

Policy tends to be driven by economics. The mainline pilots are unlikely to allow the scope relief many here wish for. If anything, the airlines need so many other concessions to survive, that they won't risk discussing scope.

Lightsaber


Mitsubishi won't restart the SpaceJet M100 development unless they know for sure the status of US scope clause.
In addition there is no current generation engine that is light enough to allow the M100 to be inside the current scope clause with a decent range.

It is very likely they already did the preliminary overall aircraft design and concluded that they cannot build an M100 that complies with scope clause as it is defined today.
I think that's the real reason why they mothballed the M100 development.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 2:48 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The E2-175 lengthened the fuselage and increased the wingspan. Two areas where weight could be reduced.
If the E2-170 had the E1-175 body length and reverted to prior wingspan, I think it could work.


But you gonna need to find another engine then because the PW1700G is to big to fit under the wing of the original 175E1. As I said before, the 175E2 doesn't have and significant improvements due to its increased overall size, the seating (88 on E1 and 90 in the E2 both in the high density configuration with 29 in pitch), max payload (10.1 ton in the E1 and 10.6 ton in the E2), range (2,200 nm in the E1 and 2,017 nm in the E2) and the max fuel weight (9.35 ton in the E1 8.5 ton in the E2) are very close so the weight is mostly due the increased size of the engine and onboard systems. The only major gain f
Most newer airplanes are increasing in overall weight due the new technologies (as it seems mainly because of the engines they use), the 737-800 MTOW is 79 ton, the 737Max 8 is 82.1 ton (+3.1 ton), the A320ceo MTOW is 78 ton while the A320neo is 79 ton (+1 ton), the A333ceo MTOW is 212 ton and the new A339neo is 251 ton (+49 ton), the 772LR MTOW is 347.4 ton and the 778 is 351.5 ton (+4.1 ton) and so on. The 175E1 (40.3 ton MTOW in the non SC configuration) to the 175E2 (44.8 ton) weight gain is no exception to that rule.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 3:41 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
And forget it about an E170-E2 or a shortened E175-E2: no gain if compared to E175-E1.


No appreciable gain in fuel burn efficiency?
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2164
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 4:59 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
DL717 wrote:
The airlines need the 175E2 over the long term. Small markets are facing a complete loss of service as the sub 76 seat aircraft head to the boneyards, which is another problem. We need a new 50-seater or they need to bite the bullet and go back to turboprops. I’m sure ATR would love a ramp up in production.

In terms of scope, the airlines should work with the pilots groups on changing to a range scope vs. weight, or net capacity cap as a percentage of mainline capacity. They need to come to terms with the fact that having a scope agreement based in weight is an irrational metric given what’s out there for serving small markets. That or start buying up the regionals and bring the flying in house at regional airline pay.


If they manage to equalize the general operation costs within a mainliner with the cost of a regional company I have no doubt that this could happen in the future, but the problem is going to be if the unions allow it. I doubt it. On the other hand, it would be good to end these completely arbitrary limits created in these negotiations.


No. It would be good to end the outsourcing of jobs to underpaid labor. There is certainly no reason to move the goalposts on previously mutually agreed upon outsourcing just because embraer made a terrible miscalculation in their planning and development. If anything, scope should go the other way. As a start, 50 seats max, 500-800 nm max distance allowed for revenue flights, 50,000 lb MTOW...you know...make it REGIONAL flying again. All 51+ seats and above at mainline. Eventually a phase out of all outsourced flying...at least with the jets. Maybe get some props and keep those as the outsourced feed as it used to be.


Those goal posts were set when the market suitable for 50-seat aircraft was viable. That doesn’t exist anymore. No one is interested in going back to props, which are the only aircraft in this space that meets the criteria until someone comes up with something else.
Last edited by DL717 on Sun May 31, 2020 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Funny. It only took one pandemic for those who argue endlessly about natural selection to stop believing in natural selection.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2164
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 5:02 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
This:

bkmbr wrote:
The engines of this new generation are physically bigger and heavier, other components have also grown in size and weight in the last few years (like avionics) so for you to put this on an airplane that already existed you need to readjust the entire airplane to this factor including structural growth, and among another thing is the increase in the area of ​​the wing and the plane in general (and the consequent weight gain resulting from that). From 175E1 to 175E2 there was no significant gain whatsoever due to the increase in frame weight, the fact that the size has increased physically and has not dramatically increased the number of passengers (up to 88 in the 175E1 and 90 in the 175E2 in its larger configurations density), max payload (10.1 ton in the 175E1 10.6 ton in the 175E2)


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

And forget it about an E170-E2 or a shortened E175-E2: no gain if compared to E175-E1.


Agreed. There is virtually no benefit of a 170 variant. Heck, the original 170 was barely viable with the smaller and lighter engine. The E2 is a much heavier aircraft overall, but sometimes to make a tech leap things get heavier, like the 787. Shrinking the 175E2 would be a waste of time.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
EMBSPBR wrote:
And forget it about an E170-E2 or a shortened E175-E2: no gain if compared to E175-E1.


No appreciable gain in fuel burn efficiency?


The E2 is a heavier aircraft and the benefits come from the overall design and the engines. You’re not going to take much weight out of it by shrinking it. The end result will be a 170 that is no more efficient than the existing 175 enhanced, but with fewer seats.
Funny. It only took one pandemic for those who argue endlessly about natural selection to stop believing in natural selection.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 5:33 pm

DL717 wrote:
EMBSPBR wrote:
This:

bkmbr wrote:
The engines of this new generation are physically bigger and heavier, other components have also grown in size and weight in the last few years (like avionics) so for you to put this on an airplane that already existed you need to readjust the entire airplane to this factor including structural growth, and among another thing is the increase in the area of ​​the wing and the plane in general (and the consequent weight gain resulting from that). From 175E1 to 175E2 there was no significant gain whatsoever due to the increase in frame weight, the fact that the size has increased physically and has not dramatically increased the number of passengers (up to 88 in the 175E1 and 90 in the 175E2 in its larger configurations density), max payload (10.1 ton in the 175E1 10.6 ton in the 175E2)


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

And forget it about an E170-E2 or a shortened E175-E2: no gain if compared to E175-E1.


Agreed. There is virtually no benefit of a 170 variant. Heck, the original 170 was barely viable with the smaller and lighter engine. The E2 is a much heavier aircraft overall, but sometimes to make a tech leap things get heavier, like the 787. Shrinking the 175E2 would be a waste of time.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
EMBSPBR wrote:
And forget it about an E170-E2 or a shortened E175-E2: no gain if compared to E175-E1.


No appreciable gain in fuel burn efficiency?


The E2 is a heavier aircraft and the benefits come from the overall design and the engines. You’re not going to take much weight out of it by shrinking it. The end result will be a 170 that is no more efficient than the existing 175 enhanced, but with fewer seats.



You do realize a 175-E2 is longer than an E175-E1, correct? I think what they are proposing is a current gen 175 length for the 170-E2. That would be the same size as a 175 and still seat 76. They could go back to shorter wings and have a lighter plane.

I don’t care what they do or what the market conditions are. Tech makes things lighter (new avionics and electrical subsystems are lighter than old, CFRP parts generally lighter than aluminum, full FBW lighter than pulleys and cables, etc). This notion that bkmbr is spreading that new tech is heavier is just wrong, with the exception of larger fan GTF engines, and the additional weight that is required to support it. Everything else is lighter. And a more fuel efficient plane needs less fuel (less weight).

Some of you guys just don’t/won’t get it. Oh well. E175-E2 is (from what we know) a great plane. DL/UAL/AA pilots all welcome it with open arms. Just can’t say connection. express, or eagle on the side.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20283
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 6:22 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
DL717 wrote:
EMBSPBR wrote:
This:



:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

And forget it about an E170-E2 or a shortened E175-E2: no gain if compared to E175-E1.


Agreed. There is virtually no benefit of a 170 variant. Heck, the original 170 was barely viable with the smaller and lighter engine. The E2 is a much heavier aircraft overall, but sometimes to make a tech leap things get heavier, like the 787. Shrinking the 175E2 would be a waste of time.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

No appreciable gain in fuel burn efficiency?


The E2 is a heavier aircraft and the benefits come from the overall design and the engines. You’re not going to take much weight out of it by shrinking it. The end result will be a 170 that is no more efficient than the existing 175 enhanced, but with fewer seats.



You do realize a 175-E2 is longer than an E175-E1, correct? I think what they are proposing is a current gen 175 length for the 170-E2. That would be the same size as a 175 and still seat 76. They could go back to shorter wings and have a lighter plane.

I don’t care what they do or what the market conditions are. Tech makes things lighter (new avionics and electrical subsystems are lighter than old, CFRP parts generally lighter than aluminum, full FBW lighter than pulleys and cables, etc). This notion that bkmbr is spreading that new tech is heavier is just wrong, with the exception of larger fan GTF engines, and the additional weight that is required to support it. Everything else is lighter. And a more fuel efficient plane needs less fuel (less weight).

Some of you guys just don’t/won’t get it. Oh well. E175-E2 is (from what we know) a great plane. DL/UAL/AA pilots all welcome it with open arms. Just can’t say connection. express, or eagle on the side.

Engines will be heavier. Higher pressure ratios meed thicker (heavier) casings and are paired with higher bypass (larger diameter and thus heavier fans and fan casings whose weight is driven by the blade out condition, not fan pressure ratio).

The E2-175 is longer and has a much wider wingspan.

E2 E1
Length 32.4m 31.68m
Wingspan 31m 26m


While a 31m wingspan is much more efficient after 500nm than the old 26m wingspan, it adds several tons of weight. Good weight, but not the right optimization for the 86,000 lb weight limit.

For reference, the E1-170 is 29.9m long.

Or the E2-175 is almost as longer than the E1-175 as it was over the E-170.

I could engineer a better E2-170 using the old wing, beefed up for the new engines and modern (heavier) subsystems. It would have about the range and length of the old E1-175, but much lower fuel burn.

Embraer intentionally ignored scope.

So the question is, will Mitsubishi restart the M100. I believe so. If they do, there is competition and the market decides the winner.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
VV
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 6:34 pm

lightsaber wrote:
....
So the question is, will Mitsubishi restart the M100. I believe so. If they do, there is competition and the market decides the winner.
...


No, Mitsubishi won't restart the M100 unless the US scope clause is relaxed.

By now Mitsubishi knows that they cannot build a 76 seat regional jet with modern engine that complies with the current scope clause.

In the meantime, the only 76 seat regional jets in production today are the E175 and the E175-E2.

The only remaining question is whether airline industry needs a lot of 76 seater.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5033
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 6:34 pm

DL717 wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

I don't know if this is the right place, but being so close to Embraer, would you care to comment on why they won't just do a 170-E2 that seats 76 single class pax @ 31" pitch with limited regional type range (cut the fuel weight) that meets the 86.4k MTOW scope in the US? There are allot of E170/175/CRJ700/CRJ900 planes that will need replacing. E175-E2 can't do it.

We had a lively discussion here on possibilities for a US Scope Compliant Regional: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1446733&start=250#p22243065

It's so strange that Embraer isn't going to reboot the 170/175 to address this.


As stated in the other topic there are countless possible answers to this question, the fact that there are more than 100 175SC units ordered yet to be delivered, the possible bet that scope clauses would be extended at least at the MTOW restriction, the difficulty (or impossibility) to produce a new generation aircraft within the existing technological limits and resources (especially in regard to engine options) today and so on.
With the virtual death of the M100, the 175SC will be the only viable aircraft to serve the American market for many years to come, it is a market that Embraer dominates today and once the 175E2 is certified they will probably be able to consider the option of producing a 170E2SC if they think there really is a market for that. Until the 175SC is forced out of production in 2028 by ICAO rules, there is still a lot that can happen.


The airlines need the 175E2 over the long term. Small markets are facing a complete loss of service as the sub 76 seat aircraft head to the boneyards, which is another problem. We need a new 50-seater or they need to bite the bullet and go back to turboprops. I’m sure ATR would love a ramp up in production.

In terms of scope, the airlines should work with the pilots groups on changing to a range scope vs. weight, or net capacity cap as a percentage of mainline capacity. They need to come to terms with the fact that having a scope agreement based in weight is an irrational metric given what’s out there for serving small markets. That or start buying up the regionals and bring the flying in house at regional airline pay.

the weight limiting metric? Is actually a master stroke of a limit! ALPA has them Coming and Going! you might get One? But you Won't get the other!!
This could very well spell the end of Regional "branded"0 flying in the future. The regionals would then have to go back to being self contained units like they were previously. It may mean the expansion of terminals to make room for them. Reservations jobs, and other management jobs in customer service and the like.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 7:54 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
You do realize a 175-E2 is longer than an E175-E1, correct? I think what they are proposing is a current gen 175 length for the 170-E2. That would be the same size as a 175 and still seat 76. They could go back to shorter wings and have a lighter plane.


Yes, whopping 60 cm / 24 inches longer. :lol: This alone is not enough to explain why the 175E2 is more than 4 ton heavier.

JoseSalazar wrote:
I don’t care what they do or what the market conditions are. Tech makes things lighter (new avionics and electrical subsystems are lighter than old, CFRP parts generally lighter than aluminum, full FBW lighter than pulleys and cables, etc). This notion that bkmbr is spreading that new tech is heavier is just wrong, with the exception of larger fan GTF engines, and the additional weight that is required to support it. Everything else is lighter. And a more fuel efficient plane needs less fuel (less weight).


One PW1700G alone weight 1.7 ton/ 3,800 lb, the CF34 weight if 1.2 ton / 2,600 lb, multiply by 2 and you have over 1 ton just on the engines alone. This is not significant? Add the new pylons, landing gear, stabilizers and all new auxiliary systems for the new engine and you can add easily another ton or two over the base model. As I said before, all new aircraft with newer technology engine are getting heavier, from the E175E2 to the 778.

JoseSalazar wrote:
Some of you guys just don’t/won’t get it. Oh well. E175-E2 is (from what we know) a great plane. DL/UAL/AA pilots all welcome it with open arms. Just can’t say connection. express, or eagle on the side.


At the operating costs of the mainliners you know that's impossible to happen.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 8:05 pm

lightsaber wrote:
So the question is, will Mitsubishi restart the M100. I believe so. If they do, there is competition and the market decides the winner.


No. Mitsubishi even publicly acknowledged that the M100 would need a complete reengineering of the M90 project including a new wing, a reworked fuselage and empennage to hit the scope target, in a way this would be equivalente of a M90Max for a company that has not yet been able to put the M90 in operation after almost 10 years of delay (the original estimated date for MRJ start-up was 2013), even more now that their budget has been cut in half and Mitsubushi stated that is "reconsidering the M100" project. The M90 will fly eventually, will be a new NAMC YS-11 for the Japanese industry sure, but the M90 will probably never see daylight.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 8:14 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
This could very well spell the end of Regional "branded"0 flying in the future. The regionals would then have to go back to being self contained units like they were previously. It may mean the expansion of terminals to make room for them. Reservations jobs, and other management jobs in customer service and the like.


This will be great news for Allegiant, Breeze, JetBlue, Southwest and Spirit. Who says that unions cannot represent great business options? For the competition at least this is sure a great news.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20283
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 8:34 pm

VV wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
VV wrote:

E170-E2 is just a fantasy of some people here. Obviously it is NOT going to happen. Full stop.

Then it depends on if Mitsubishi restarts the M100 R&D.

The E2-175 lengthened the fuselage and increased the wingspan. Two areas where weight could be reduced.
If the E2-170 had the E1-175 body length and reverted to prior wingspan, I think it could work.


There is not going to be any push to change scope for 3 to 5 years. For until then, there is a surplus of RJs for the scope airlines. I speculate the realization that the surplus of scope limited RJs allows a delay in funding the M100 explains why that program was delayed.

So I believe we'll still be debating an E2-170 (but more E1-175 size) will be discussed here for the next 3 to 5 years.

Policy tends to be driven by economics. The mainline pilots are unlikely to allow the scope relief many here wish for. If anything, the airlines need so many other concessions to survive, that they won't risk discussing scope.

Lightsaber


Mitsubishi won't restart the SpaceJet M100 development unless they know for sure the status of US scope clause.
In addition there is no current generation engine that is light enough to allow the M100 to be inside the current scope clause with a decent range.

It is very likely they already did the preliminary overall aircraft design and concluded that they cannot build an M100 that complies with scope clause as it is defined today.
I think that's the real reason why they mothballed the M100 development.

I'm confused. The M100 is the M90 with a shorter body (less cargo too, in the tail) and the smaller wing to meet scope. I think they mothballed the design as it is obvious the scope market won't be buying for 5 years and Mitsubishi is cash short. If it is as theorized too heavy, that would be bad news. But they didn't cancel immediately. The cancelled during the current economic crisis.

If they need lighter materials in the body, they could. Now, the business case is a different discussion.

I'm in the camp that doesn't see scope changing. That is the design point.

On the CRJ CF-34-8 is 2,780 lb
https://www.flyradius.com/bombardier-cr ... cf34-8c5b1

The pw1200G is 3,800lb:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1000G

So each engine adds 1,020 lb to the aircraft, plus increased nacelle weight.

If you cannot meet performance with 1200kg or so of total added weight when over 1200kg less fuel is needed, something is wrong.

Why couldn't Mitsubishi make the criteria? Embraer could. We not talking multiple tons of weight, we are talking 1200 kg.

The M90 has a known empty weight of 26,000kg. The E1-175 is 21,890kg. So we're talking 4,110 kg to reduce.
So reduce wingspan from 29.2m to 27.8m. Hmm... Much less than E2-175 wingspan of 31m. Much closer to the 26m of the E1-175.
The length was reduced from 35.8m to 34.5m for the M100. So, now we start estimating the empty weight reduction.

We know the E1-175 worked well in scope. The 1.4m wingspan reduction should eliminate over a 1,000kg of weight. The shrinking of the body by 1.3m should eliminate a few hundred more kg. The M100 was also to use more optimal aluminum. I think it can be done.

Now, the poor business case to date of the MRJ/Spacejet is a different story. I see a business case delay, not a fundamental reason to stop.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
bigb
Posts: 1129
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 8:44 pm

lightsaber wrote:
VV wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Then it depends on if Mitsubishi restarts the M100 R&D.

The E2-175 lengthened the fuselage and increased the wingspan. Two areas where weight could be reduced.
If the E2-170 had the E1-175 body length and reverted to prior wingspan, I think it could work.


There is not going to be any push to change scope for 3 to 5 years. For until then, there is a surplus of RJs for the scope airlines. I speculate the realization that the surplus of scope limited RJs allows a delay in funding the M100 explains why that program was delayed.

So I believe we'll still be debating an E2-170 (but more E1-175 size) will be discussed here for the next 3 to 5 years.

Policy tends to be driven by economics. The mainline pilots are unlikely to allow the scope relief many here wish for. If anything, the airlines need so many other concessions to survive, that they won't risk discussing scope.

Lightsaber


Mitsubishi won't restart the SpaceJet M100 development unless they know for sure the status of US scope clause.
In addition there is no current generation engine that is light enough to allow the M100 to be inside the current scope clause with a decent range.

It is very likely they already did the preliminary overall aircraft design and concluded that they cannot build an M100 that complies with scope clause as it is defined today.
I think that's the real reason why they mothballed the M100 development.

I'm confused. The M100 is the M90 with a shorter body (less cargo too, in the tail) and the smaller wing to meet scope. I think they mothballed the design as it is obvious the scope market won't be buying for 5 years and Mitsubishi is cash short. If it is as theorized too heavy, that would be bad news. But they didn't cancel immediately. The cancelled during the current economic crisis.

If they need lighter materials in the body, they could. Now, the business case is a different discussion.

I'm in the camp that doesn't see scope changing. That is the design point.

On the CRJ CF-34-8 is 2,780 lb
https://www.flyradius.com/bombardier-cr ... cf34-8c5b1

The pw1200G is 3,800lb:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1000G

So each engine adds 1,020 lb to the aircraft, plus increased nacelle weight.

If you cannot meet performance with 1200kg or so of total added weight when over 1200kg less fuel is needed, something is wrong.

Why couldn't Mitsubishi make the criteria? Embraer could. We not talking multiple tons of weight, we are talking 1200 kg.

The M90 has a known empty weight of 26,000kg. The E1-175 is 21,890kg. So we're talking 4,110 kg to reduce.
So reduce wingspan from 29.2m to 27.8m. Hmm... Much less than E2-175 wingspan of 31m. Much closer to the 26m of the E1-175.
The length was reduced from 35.8m to 34.5m for the M100. So, now we start estimating the empty weight reduction.

We know the E1-175 worked well in scope. The 1.4m wingspan reduction should eliminate over a 1,000kg of weight. The shrinking of the body by 1.3m should eliminate a few hundred more kg. The M100 was also to use more optimal aluminum. I think it can be done.

Now, the poor business case to date of the MRJ/Spacejet is a different story. I see a business case delay, not a fundamental reason to stop.

Lightsaber


I am with you on M100, I don’t see Mitsubishi not moving forward on the M100. I see them moving forward, after we get past this pandemic.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20283
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 8:45 pm

This analysis notes an expected high availability of used aircraft in 3 years:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... st-embraer

There are a slew of 170s in storage; not that that’s a particularly attractive airplane but they are there, and there are a bunch of older-model 175s that might be available, plus there are [Bombardier] CRJs on the used market,” he noted. “A brand new 175-E1 would be sold for $22 or $24 million. So, for United, you consider a lease rate of 0.7 [per month] for that [airplane]. You can get a used CRJ for a lease rate of something like 40 or 50 percent [less than] that. And in the Covid environment and the immediate post-Covid environment, low lease rates are going to be important, particularly as fuel continues to be cheap.”

So we can debate for a few years. But as I look at the business case, there isn't any incentive to start developing new before 2023. Sigh. Bummer. As an aerospace engineer, I always want to see demand. There just won't be any demand to justify investing scarce cash into an E2-170 or M100 before 2024. Cest la view.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
Nean1
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 8:47 pm

The E175E2 was a direct response to MRJ aircraft. Embraer was fully convinced that PW GTF was not adequate to US Scope Clauses.
They will sit and wait til the moment when such MTOW limit will be increased, maybe with some range limitation.
Its very unexpected that American customers will be willing to accept the ATR72 as a new regional commuter standard.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 8:51 pm

lightsaber wrote:
This analysis notes an expected high availability of used aircraft in 3 years:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... st-embraer

There are a slew of 170s in storage; not that that’s a particularly attractive airplane but they are there, and there are a bunch of older-model 175s that might be available, plus there are [Bombardier] CRJs on the used market,” he noted. “A brand new 175-E1 would be sold for $22 or $24 million. So, for United, you consider a lease rate of 0.7 [per month] for that [airplane]. You can get a used CRJ for a lease rate of something like 40 or 50 percent [less than] that. And in the Covid environment and the immediate post-Covid environment, low lease rates are going to be important, particularly as fuel continues to be cheap.”

So we can debate for a few years. But as I look at the business case, there isn't any incentive to start developing new before 2023. Sigh. Bummer. As an aerospace engineer, I always want to see demand. There just won't be any demand to justify investing scarce cash into an E2-170 or M100 before 2024. Cest la view.

Lightsaber

Yep, I’ve said this here and on the other thread that deteriorated over scope too... There’s not going to be any buying of RJs now due to COVID demand collapse, scope having to contract with mainline shrinking, and the vast majority of RJs not timing out until 2027 era and beyond. That’s it, no scope arguments needed either for or against, I just don’t see a need beyond a few top up ERJ-175s here and there.
 
VV
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 10:54 pm

lightsaber wrote:
VV wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Then it depends on if Mitsubishi restarts the M100 R&D.

The E2-175 lengthened the fuselage and increased the wingspan. Two areas where weight could be reduced.
If the E2-170 had the E1-175 body length and reverted to prior wingspan, I think it could work.


There is not going to be any push to change scope for 3 to 5 years. For until then, there is a surplus of RJs for the scope airlines. I speculate the realization that the surplus of scope limited RJs allows a delay in funding the M100 explains why that program was delayed.

So I believe we'll still be debating an E2-170 (but more E1-175 size) will be discussed here for the next 3 to 5 years.

Policy tends to be driven by economics. The mainline pilots are unlikely to allow the scope relief many here wish for. If anything, the airlines need so many other concessions to survive, that they won't risk discussing scope.

Lightsaber


Mitsubishi won't restart the SpaceJet M100 development unless they know for sure the status of US scope clause.
In addition there is no current generation engine that is light enough to allow the M100 to be inside the current scope clause with a decent range.

It is very likely they already did the preliminary overall aircraft design and concluded that they cannot build an M100 that complies with scope clause as it is defined today.
I think that's the real reason why they mothballed the M100 development.

I'm confused. The M100 is the M90 with a shorter body (less cargo too, in the tail) and the smaller wing to meet scope. I think they mothballed the design as it is obvious the scope market won't be buying for 5 years and Mitsubishi is cash short. If it is as theorized too heavy, that would be bad news. But they didn't cancel immediately. The cancelled during the current economic crisis.

If they need lighter materials in the body, they could. Now, the business case is a different discussion.

I'm in the camp that doesn't see scope changing. That is the design point.

On the CRJ CF-34-8 is 2,780 lb
https://www.flyradius.com/bombardier-cr ... cf34-8c5b1

The pw1200G is 3,800lb:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1000G

So each engine adds 1,020 lb to the aircraft, plus increased nacelle weight.

If you cannot meet performance with 1200kg or so of total added weight when over 1200kg less fuel is needed, something is wrong.

Why couldn't Mitsubishi make the criteria? Embraer could. We not talking multiple tons of weight, we are talking 1200 kg.

The M90 has a known empty weight of 26,000kg. The E1-175 is 21,890kg. So we're talking 4,110 kg to reduce.
So reduce wingspan from 29.2m to 27.8m. Hmm... Much less than E2-175 wingspan of 31m. Much closer to the 26m of the E1-175.
The length was reduced from 35.8m to 34.5m for the M100. So, now we start estimating the empty weight reduction.

We know the E1-175 worked well in scope. The 1.4m wingspan reduction should eliminate over a 1,000kg of weight. The shrinking of the body by 1.3m should eliminate a few hundred more kg. The M100 was also to use more optimal aluminum. I think it can be done.

Now, the poor business case to date of the MRJ/Spacejet is a different story. I see a business case delay, not a fundamental reason to stop.

Lightsaber


No.

Mitsubishi will NOT proceed with M100 because they cannot meet the US scope clause as it is defined today with a competitive range.

So, M100 can only happen if the scope clause is relaxed.

The law of physics is the same in Brazil or in Japan.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Sun May 31, 2020 11:13 pm

lightsaber wrote:
This analysis notes an expected high availability of used aircraft in 3 years:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... st-embraer

There are a slew of 170s in storage; not that that’s a particularly attractive airplane but they are there, and there are a bunch of older-model 175s that might be available, plus there are [Bombardier] CRJs on the used market,” he noted. “A brand new 175-E1 would be sold for $22 or $24 million. So, for United, you consider a lease rate of 0.7 [per month] for that [airplane]. You can get a used CRJ for a lease rate of something like 40 or 50 percent [less than] that. And in the Covid environment and the immediate post-Covid environment, low lease rates are going to be important, particularly as fuel continues to be cheap.”

So we can debate for a few years. But as I look at the business case, there isn't any incentive to start developing new before 2023. Sigh. Bummer. As an aerospace engineer, I always want to see demand. There just won't be any demand to justify investing scarce cash into an E2-170 or M100 before 2024. Cest la view.

Lightsaber


Mitsubishi originally expected the M90 to would enter service in 2013 and just before Covid was expecting to be able to enter service in 2023, a decade delay, so if the M100 was expected for 2024 we can expect that until 2034 we will see if Mitsubishi can pull that out. The E175E2 is a great product and can comply to the scope in every aspect of the scope clause besides the MTOW clause. Embraer will keep producing the 175E1SC until 2028 (they have a over 100+ units firm back order for them) but after that will need to see how the market will behave for the next few years. The E175E2 is not a complete lost cause yet since besides Embraer doesn't appear that any other company will be able to provide an aircraft like this for the market after 2028.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20283
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:10 am

VV wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
VV wrote:

Mitsubishi won't restart the SpaceJet M100 development unless they know for sure the status of US scope clause.
In addition there is no current generation engine that is light enough to allow the M100 to be inside the current scope clause with a decent range.

It is very likely they already did the preliminary overall aircraft design and concluded that they cannot build an M100 that complies with scope clause as it is defined today.
I think that's the real reason why they mothballed the M100 development.

I'm confused. The M100 is the M90 with a shorter body (less cargo too, in the tail) and the smaller wing to meet scope. I think they mothballed the design as it is obvious the scope market won't be buying for 5 years and Mitsubishi is cash short. If it is as theorized too heavy, that would be bad news. But they didn't cancel immediately. The cancelled during the current economic crisis.

If they need lighter materials in the body, they could. Now, the business case is a different discussion.

I'm in the camp that doesn't see scope changing. That is the design point.

On the CRJ CF-34-8 is 2,780 lb
https://www.flyradius.com/bombardier-cr ... cf34-8c5b1

The pw1200G is 3,800lb:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1000G

So each engine adds 1,020 lb to the aircraft, plus increased nacelle weight.

If you cannot meet performance with 1200kg or so of total added weight when over 1200kg less fuel is needed, something is wrong.

Why couldn't Mitsubishi make the criteria? Embraer could. We not talking multiple tons of weight, we are talking 1200 kg.

The M90 has a known empty weight of 26,000kg. The E1-175 is 21,890kg. So we're talking 4,110 kg to reduce.
So reduce wingspan from 29.2m to 27.8m. Hmm... Much less than E2-175 wingspan of 31m. Much closer to the 26m of the E1-175.
The length was reduced from 35.8m to 34.5m for the M100. So, now we start estimating the empty weight reduction.

We know the E1-175 worked well in scope. The 1.4m wingspan reduction should eliminate over a 1,000kg of weight. The shrinking of the body by 1.3m should eliminate a few hundred more kg. The M100 was also to use more optimal aluminum. I think it can be done.

Now, the poor business case to date of the MRJ/Spacejet is a different story. I see a business case delay, not a fundamental reason to stop.

Lightsaber


No.

Mitsubishi will NOT proceed with M100 because they cannot meet the US scope clause as it is defined today with a competitive range.

So, M100 can only happen if the scope clause is relaxed.

The law of physics is the same in Brazil or in Japan.

I agree with the laws of physics being the same. What do you know Leeham doesn't?

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

MHI’s decision to halve R&D spending is in line with moves by Airbus, Boeing and Embraer to cut costs.

MHI’s decision to continue M90 certification progress makes sense. MITAC and the Japanese regulators need to finish its agonizingly slow process. Doing so will position both for a speedier certification of the M100, assuming MHI eventually greenlights the program.

Regional jet demand will be slower to recover than mainline jets. Legacy airlines worldwide are likely to use their own jets with their own pilots and flight attendants to resume service before tapping regional partners. In the US, the Scope restrictions also include a ratio of regional jets and partners to mainline service.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/06/13/how-m ... -spacejet/

The MRJ70 was light enough to have an adequate range when operating under the 86,000lb Scope limit, even with the new Pratt & Whitney 56-inch GTF engines. And it had the same cross-section as the E175, so boarding and seating comfort were fine.

Please read the above analysis into how Mitsubishi is going to reduce weight.

This is a cash flow issue, not a technical issue. Mitsubishi must first overcome the debacle of taking so long to certify the M90. So minimal resources are focused towards that small market. Then, the M70, rebranded the M100 with less cargo space, but more passenger space (advantage of moving the rear pax/cargo bulkhead).

Or do you have a source showing the M100 is far heavier than any analysis I've seen or I've personally performed. Leeham estimates about a 1,500 nm range for the M100 vs. 950 for the E2-175 is caped at 86,000 lb.

The M100 is far lighter than the E2-175. Hence the future need for an E2-170 with the E1-175 body length and about the E1-175 wingspan. That will free up enough fuel to have competitive range.

But no one is going to spend the money in this climate. You are talking in absolutes about a problem me and my team could solve. If I can find a solution, than Mitsubishi certainly could. I also see a solution for Embraer. I just see no market before 2025 to 2027. With oil prices low, CR7/CR9/E170/E175 will be maintained. The oldest E175 I could find is still below 30,000 cycles and 45,000 flight hours (but just), so these planes have another 12 to 15 years of service. With the extension of the CR2/7/9 to 80,000 flight cycles and 120,000 flight hours, the market will limp along until demand grows again.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:31 am

Maybe Embraer will be able to do something along the lines of the 175E1-SC (which eliminated 3,000 lbs on the 175E1 with minimal changes to the aircraft) on the 175E2 to comply with the scope it may be able to reduce the weight enough to reach these 1500 nm of the M100 as well with a viable aircraft for the market, but I think that Embraer will only focus on that after the 175E2 certification that is still ongoing and is scheduled to be finished next year.
They will probably try to do something that doesn’t need a new certification process, but if that is not possible I have no doubt that you can do something along the lines of what was proposed for the M100 if they really plan to carry out a new certification process if they have a customer willing to sign an order for 100 units like skywest (which did something similar with the M90) and still be able to deliver the certified plane before the M100 makes its first flight.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Updated: Boeing Terminates Agreement to Establish Joint Ventures with Embraer

Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:05 am

bkmbr wrote:
Maybe Embraer will be able to do something along the lines of the 175E1-SC (which eliminated 3,000 lbs on the 175E1 with minimal changes to the aircraft) on the 175E2 to comply with the scope it may be able to reduce the weight enough to reach these 1500 nm of the M100 as well with a viable aircraft for the market, but I think that Embraer will only focus on that after the 175E2 certification that is still ongoing and is scheduled to be finished next year.
They will probably try to do something that doesn’t need a new certification process, but if that is not possible I have no doubt that you can do something along the lines of what was proposed for the M100 if they really plan to carry out a new certification process if they have a customer willing to sign an order for 100 units like skywest (which did something similar with the M90) and still be able to deliver the certified plane before the M100 makes its first flight.

If you time it for the post-COVID replacement cycle, you’ll sell hundreds of scope compliant jets. The first round of CRJ-900s and ERJ-175s from the ~2007 scope expansion will be up for replacement.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos