Waterbomber2 wrote:

The MRJ kills the business case for the Q400 as it can do everything the Q400 does, faster and at the same fuel burn per seat.

enilria wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The MRJ kills the business case for the Q400 as it can do everything the Q400 does, faster and at the same fuel burn per seat.

LOL. The E170 killed the case for the Q400 a long time ago. The Q400 has been on life support for years. The MRJ has nothing to do with its situation. You'd have a better argument with the ATR-72. At least that program is still kicking.

Lightsaber wrote:

It takes 400+ examples to keep spare rebuilds going. For lessor opperating numbers, someone pays the vendors. Note, easier for quads as they need twice the parts. (They need only 200 flying examples).

No airline wants an orphan. That is why most airlines will not buy a type until 400+ examples have sold. Hence, launch pricing.
Lightsaber

EMBSPBR wrote:

Lightsaber wrote:

It takes 400+ examples to keep spare rebuilds going. For lessor opperating numbers, someone pays the vendors. Note, easier for quads as they need twice the parts. (They need only 200 flying examples).

No airline wants an orphan. That is why most airlines will not buy a type until 400+ examples have sold. Hence, launch pricing.
Lightsaber

EMBSPBR wrote:

enilria wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The MRJ kills the business case for the Q400 as it can do everything the Q400 does, faster and at the same fuel burn per seat.

LOL. The E170 killed the case for the Q400 a long time ago. The Q400 has been on life support for years. The MRJ has nothing to do with its situation. You'd have a better argument with the ATR-72. At least that program is still kicking.

All I see is a promise of a project launched in 2007, whose first delivery would be in 2018 and is now expected to happen in 2020.

And to use the words of fellow Lightsaber:

Lightsaber wrote:

It takes 400+ examples to keep spare rebuilds going. For lessor opperating numbers, someone pays the vendors. Note, easier for quads as they need twice the parts. (They need only 200 flying examples).

No airline wants an orphan. That is why most airlines will not buy a type until 400+ examples have sold. Hence, launch pricing.
Lightsaber

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The market is waiting for a reliable, low operating cost platform.

enilria wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The market is waiting for a reliable, low operating cost platform.

I agree with that. We just don't know if this is it or not.

mxaxai wrote:

enilria wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The market is waiting for a reliable, low operating cost platform.

I agree with that. We just don't know if this is it or not.

We do know that there is no new alternative for at least 5 - 8 years. More importantly, there seems to be no new engine that could leapfrog the PW1000 within the next decade (in this thrust range).
Realistically, the only options for a next-gen 76-seater are a derated MTOW MRJ or E2-175. Alternatively, airlines could abandon the market altogether but that leaves the 130-seaters - E2-195, CS100 - as the smallest jet in the fleet. Or wait for a decade and hope that cheap oil keeps the CRJ-700s competitive with the incoming NEO & MAX and CSeries fleets.

I'd say the MRJ has a chance.

Assuming it’s formally announced at Paris, the new design–Bellamy and his team don’t want to call it an MRJ70 replacement–will have a significant advantage over its big sister, the MRJ90. The new plane will be “refreshed to the marked [sic] that exists today,” he said.

JA786A wrote:

ITB wrote:

It's been a year since Mitsubishi Heavy, the parent of MITAC, officially gave the go-ahead to the MRJ70 program. Prior timelines put forward by MITAC had estimated the EIS for the MRJ70 as summer 2022. Considering the refresh, the timeline may be pushed out a bit, but not by all that much. Bear in mind, two years ago, tubes for the MRJ70 (picture below) had already been manufactured. It's not like MITAC is starting over.

ITB wrote:

Exactly how MITAC plans to refresh the MRJ70 has yet to be revealed. To me "refreshed" implies many of the core elements of the MRJ70 will remain the same, such as fuselage width, wing, empennage, nose, and landing gear. Could a modest stretch be in the works? Possible. Will the MRJ70's expansive aft cargo compartment be reduced in size, allowing the cabin to be extended? Another possibility. New materials? Very possible. Likely, we'll learn more during PAS19.

GmvAfcs wrote:

ITB wrote:

Exactly how MITAC plans to refresh the MRJ70 has yet to be revealed. To me "refreshed" implies many of the core elements of the MRJ70 will remain the same, such as fuselage width, wing, empennage, nose, and landing gear. Could a modest stretch be in the works? Possible. Will the MRJ70's expansive aft cargo compartment be reduced in size, allowing the cabin to be extended? Another possibility. New materials? Very possible. Likely, we'll learn more during PAS19.

I agree with this statement. I would put my money on the returning of the CFRP wings to the model. This would give the MRJ a little advantage over 175E1, since the CFRP wings would help reducing its wings weight in about 30%, and MITAC has the pockets to hold on an unprofitable production line for an expensive process that this requires. but the MRJ would still lag behind in cargo space. Don't know how much this is valuable for the customers.

keesje wrote:

Replacing the wings by CFRP would push back the project 4-5 years and cost $2billion extra for a brand new production process and supply chain.

lutfi wrote:

Scope clauses - chicken and egg.

The rest of the world doesn't have them - and the rest of the world has very few regional jets. WIthout artificially low pilot costs, RJ are niche - which is why you see more turboprops instead (better economics for short thin routes)

lutfi wrote:

The rest of the world doesn't have them - and the rest of the world has very few regional jets. WIthout artificially low pilot costs, RJ are niche - which is why you see more turboprops instead (better economics for short thin routes)

MIflyer12 wrote:

The use of 2-class RJs by U.S. carriers is thin - but not necessarily short - routes. MKE-SEA is 2,727km. MCI-SEA is 2,397km. EWR-SAT is 2,525km. Most Americans aren't going to touch props on routes of that length. You may as well as them to board a plane that's on fire.

smithbs wrote:

keesje wrote:

Replacing the wings by CFRP would push back the project 4-5 years and cost $2billion extra for a brand new production process and supply chain.

Shhh! Don't tempt them.

lightsaber wrote:

keesje wrote:

GmvAfcs wrote:

I agree with this statement. I would put my money on the returning of the CFRP wings to the model. This would give the MRJ a little advantage over 175E1, since the CFRP wings would help reducing its wings weight in about 30%, and MITAC has the pockets to hold on an unprofitable production line for an expensive process that this requires. but the MRJ would still lag behind in cargo space. Don't know how much this is valuable for the customers.

Replacing the wings by CFRP would push back the project 4-5 years and cost $2billion extra for a brand new production process and supply chain.

Maybe not.

If it is the only way to save the program, do it.

lightsaber wrote:

keesje wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

We do know that there is no new alternative for at least 5 - 8 years. More importantly, there seems to be no new engine that could leapfrog the PW1000 within the next decade (in this thrust range).
Realistically, the only options for a next-gen 76-seater are a derated MTOW MRJ or E2-175. Alternatively, airlines could abandon the market altogether but that leaves the 130-seaters - E2-195, CS100 - as the smallest jet in the fleet. Or wait for a decade and hope that cheap oil keeps the CRJ-700s competitive with the incoming NEO & MAX and CSeries fleets.

I'd say the MRJ has a chance.

Challenge for the MRJ is that the after market & support infrastructure doesn't exist. Few airlines would be ready to set that up completely them selves..

If the current operators, GE and Bombardier and a new owner would have a billion laying around.. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1422729

Only a billion? Much lower than my estimate. The Passport isn't ready for high cycle duty. Oh, it can be made ready, I see no issue. But besides I creasing the bypass ratio, the subsystems are not ready for 20,000 FC (flight cycles) and 30,000+ hours before the first overhaul.

The nacelle isn't going to survive 80,000 FC either. It is a great design for the Global, an aircraft with a limit of validity of 17,000 cycles:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -certified

Seriously, if any Global sees 12,000 cycles, I would be shocked. CRJs are already passing 60,000 FC, hence the LOV expansion to 80,000 FC. A huge difference in design optimization...

The Passport claims 8% lower fuel burn than comparable engines (BMR-725).

Errr.... That sucks compared to a GTF. Now, it isn't built to compete. It is faster and cheaper. Just as RR did well taking the BMR 715 and putting in a durable BMR720, it still hasn't received the maintenance PIP (too few sold). Overhauls every 8,000 cycles vs. 20,000+ cycles between overhauls for commercial engines.

Oh, both the BMR720 or Passport could do 20,000, but neither has had that billion dollar PIP. Perhaps 2 billion. RR is trying for a lesser number at lower cost per contract with DL. I do not know the status.

Why yes Virginia, the Pearl could be adapted to commercial duty too. The core of both are excellent, they just need different high turbine blades for commercial duty, different turbine clearance control, sump back pressure regulator, low spool, compressor stator linkages, anti ice valves, fuel pumps (durability), a low turbine Clearance control valve (reduced fuel burn), LEAP variable turbine cooling (how the LEAP can compete with the PW1100G), and a totally different nacelles.

But yeah, otherwise ready.

Lightsaber

ODwyerPW wrote:

Anyway, I'll follow Keesje's other thread on a proposed CRJ800, because I like the idea of it. But having been educated by PhotonSword (LightSaber I never cease to be impressed by your depth of knowledge... you know your craft!) on the matter, I concede it's just going to be a fun forum diversion for the K-man and I, probably nothing more. Bummer.

zakuivcustom wrote:

BTW, ATR will run out of fuel trying to fly those routes anyway

“We realised that the projected weight savings were not there for such a small aeroplane,” explains Yosuke Takigawa, senior vice president of sales and marketing at Mitsubishi Regional Jet in Nagoya, Japan. “We challenged ourselves to use composite wings for this size of aircraft. That’s why we marketed it that way. Before switching to aluminium, we worked very hard to develop composite wings – but they were not beneficial from a weight point of view.

In a future regional market without scope clause relief, the MRJ70 is likely compete with two 76-seat products with a two-class layout: the original version of the E175 and the Bombardier CRJ900. With newer engines and other technology advances, Mitsubishi’s MRJ70 should be more fuel efficient in absolute terms, but it may have fewer seats, thus potentially eroding any advantage on the cost per available seat mile compared to the Embraer and Bombardier alternatives.

Aware of that competitive problem, Bellamy is already working on a solution. An engineering team within Mitsubishi is analysing options for increasing the number of seats within the MRJ70, without changing the exterior dimensions or sacrificing performance.

JA786A wrote:

ITB wrote:

While it's possible the refreshed MRJ70 might include a CFRP wing, it appears the engineering focus is on increasing the number of seats within the aircraft's current dimensions.

Here's the pertinent quote from a FlightGlobal article (May 22, 2018):

In a future regional market without scope clause relief, the MRJ70 is likely compete with two 76-seat products with a two-class layout: the original version of the E175 and the Bombardier CRJ900. With newer engines and other technology advances, Mitsubishi’s MRJ70 should be more fuel efficient in absolute terms, but it may have fewer seats, thus potentially eroding any advantage on the cost per available seat mile compared to the Embraer and Bombardier alternatives.

Aware of that competitive problem, Bellamy is already working on a solution. An engineering team within Mitsubishi is analysing options for increasing the number of seats within the MRJ70, without changing the exterior dimensions or sacrificing performance.

Link: FlightGlobal article: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nd-448798/

To compare the MRJ70 to the E175, here are the length and cargo compartment specs for the respective frames:

Length
MRJ70: 33.4 m (109 ft 8 in)
E175: 31.68 m (103 ft 11 in)

Cargo Compartment(s)
MRJ70: 644 cubic ft
E175: 604.59 cubic ft

Although the MRJ70 is 5 ft 9 in longer than that of the E175, the MRJ70 frame seats fewer passengers in every configuration. This is due to the MRJ's expansive aft cargo compartment, as well as the design of its empennage. The following photo of the MRJ90 (JA24MJ) illustrates this:

JA786A wrote:

Initially, the first released concept design of the MRJ featured an aft cargo compartment as well as small belly compartment. As the design was refined, the belly compartment was designed out. In order to expand the MRJ70's cabin, it's possible MITAC engineers may look to reduce the size of the aft compartment and return the supplemental belly compartment. To reach a seating capacity of 76 in a 2- or 3-class configuration, the MRJ70's cabin needs the be extended to fit in two additional rows of seats, or about six feet in length. It may be possible to do just that by shrinking the aft compartment. Also, under consideration might be a re-design of the aft pressure bulkhead itself. If not already in place, engineers, to save weight, may look toward a composite material structure.

Here's a relatively recent article (May 3, 2018) that details how a Spanish firm is now supplying cutting-edge CFRP aft pressure bulkheads for the Boeing 787 program:

Link: "Spanish Aernnova delivers first Aft Pressure Bulkhead to Boeing 787 production line": http://www.aernnova.com/en/spanish-aern ... tion-line/

Undoubtedly, MITAC engineers are hard at work exploring a myriad of aspects to refresh the MRJ70. Apparently, they are near the finish line, as the new concept may be announced at the upcoming Paris Air Show, now less than a month away. It's safe to say MITAC is confident they can deliver a refreshed frame that meets scope provisions, and do so in a timely fashion. There are billions at stake, as well as country prestige.

ITB wrote:

Although the MRJ70 is 5 ft 9 in longer than that of the E175, the MRJ70 frame seats fewer passengers in every configuration. This is due to the MRJ's expansive aft cargo compartment, as well as the design of its empennage. The following photo of the MRJ90 (JA24MJ) illustrates this:

JA786A wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

ITB wrote:

While it's possible the refreshed MRJ70 might include a CFRP wing, it appears the engineering focus is on increasing the number of seats within the aircraft's current dimensions.

Here's the pertinent quote from a FlightGlobal article (May 22, 2018):

In a future regional market without scope clause relief, the MRJ70 is likely compete with two 76-seat products with a two-class layout: the original version of the E175 and the Bombardier CRJ900. With newer engines and other technology advances, Mitsubishi’s MRJ70 should be more fuel efficient in absolute terms, but it may have fewer seats, thus potentially eroding any advantage on the cost per available seat mile compared to the Embraer and Bombardier alternatives.

Aware of that competitive problem, Bellamy is already working on a solution. An engineering team within Mitsubishi is analysing options for increasing the number of seats within the MRJ70, without changing the exterior dimensions or sacrificing performance.

Link: FlightGlobal article: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nd-448798/

To compare the MRJ70 to the E175, here are the length and cargo compartment specs for the respective frames:

Length
MRJ70: 33.4 m (109 ft 8 in)
E175: 31.68 m (103 ft 11 in)

Cargo Compartment(s)
MRJ70: 644 cubic ft
E175: 604.59 cubic ft

Although the MRJ70 is 5 ft 9 in longer than that of the E175, the MRJ70 frame seats fewer passengers in every configuration. This is due to the MRJ's expansive aft cargo compartment, as well as the design of its empennage. The following photo of the MRJ90 (JA24MJ) illustrates this:

JA786A wrote:

Initially, the first released concept design of the MRJ featured an aft cargo compartment as well as small belly compartment. As the design was refined, the belly compartment was designed out. In order to expand the MRJ70's cabin, it's possible MITAC engineers may look to reduce the size of the aft compartment and return the supplemental belly compartment. To reach a seating capacity of 76 in a 2- or 3-class configuration, the MRJ70's cabin needs the be extended to fit in two additional rows of seats, or about six feet in length. It may be possible to do just that by shrinking the aft compartment. Also, under consideration might be a re-design of the aft pressure bulkhead itself. If not already in place, engineers, to save weight, may look toward a composite material structure.

Here's a relatively recent article (May 3, 2018) that details how a Spanish firm is now supplying cutting-edge CFRP aft pressure bulkheads for the Boeing 787 program:

Link: "Spanish Aernnova delivers first Aft Pressure Bulkhead to Boeing 787 production line": http://www.aernnova.com/en/spanish-aern ... tion-line/

Undoubtedly, MITAC engineers are hard at work exploring a myriad of aspects to refresh the MRJ70. Apparently, they are near the finish line, as the new concept may be announced at the upcoming Paris Air Show, now less than a month away. It's safe to say MITAC is confident they can deliver a refreshed frame that meets scope provisions, and do so in a timely fashion. There are billions at stake, as well as country prestige.

This is an option but it's also a major challenge considering that the doors and galleys would need to be moved aft.
It might be easier to just stretch the fuselage.

I think that there is another option and it's to slim down the seats slightly more, while designing the bulkhead between First and Economy to waste less space.

MR70 at 80 seats, with 29"pitch.



MR70 at 69 seats, with 9 x 36" + 60 x 30" pitch


flythemrj.com


20 rows at 29" = 580"
3 rows at 36" + 15 rows at 30" = 558"
=> 22" wasted in the bulkhead between F and Y.

If airlines want 9 F seats per se, it's much easier to redesign the seats and cabin fittings that are at the pre-production stage than start modifying the structure.
If they want 12F seats, then the MR90 is the most suitable platform.

Quite frankly though, if you look at Skywest, they have 300 aircraft that can be covered by the MR70.
For the other airframes, it makes more sense to combine the MR90 with the E175-E1 where range is needed, replacing older E175's by newer MR90's and keeping newer E175's for the longer routes.

Similar things can be said about Republic, Mesa, Expressjet and Transstates who have a lot of CRJ700, E170 and a whole bunch of 50 seaters for which the MRJ is an optimal replacement.

I think that rather than the few seats lost right and left, it's more important for the MRJ to stick to the current schedule and start delivering.
Airlines will adapt and work with what they have.

lightsaber wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

This is an option but it's also a major challenge considering that the doors and galleys would need to be moved aft.
It might be easier to just stretch the fuselage.

I think that there is another option and it's to slim down the seats slightly more, while designing the bulkhead between First and Economy to waste less space.

MR70 at 80 seats, with 29"pitch.



MR70 at 69 seats, with 9 x 36" + 60 x 30" pitch


flythemrj.com


20 rows at 29" = 580"
3 rows at 36" + 15 rows at 30" = 558"
=> 22" wasted in the bulkhead between F and Y.

If airlines want 9 F seats per se, it's much easier to redesign the seats and cabin fittings that are at the pre-production stage than start modifying the structure.
If they want 12F seats, then the MR90 is the most suitable platform.

Quite frankly though, if you look at Skywest, they have 300 aircraft that can be covered by the MR70.
For the other airframes, it makes more sense to combine the MR90 with the E175-E1 where range is needed, replacing older E175's by newer MR90's and keeping newer E175's for the longer routes.

Similar things can be said about Republic, Mesa, Expressjet and Transstates who have a lot of CRJ700, E170 and a whole bunch of 50 seaters for which the MRJ is an optimal replacement.

I think that rather than the few seats lost right and left, it's more important for the MRJ to stick to the current schedule and start delivering.
Airlines will adapt and work with what they have.

In no way is the MRJ a 50 seat replacement, as scope won’t allow for that, thankfully.

What scope limits it? If configured in 50 seats, what is not allowed? For example, is there an exit limit or MTOW?

My expectation was that MR7s would be used as are CR7s as high premium 50 seaters.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

What scope limits it? If configured in 50 seats, what is not allowed? For example, is there an exit limit or MTOW?

My expectation was that MR7s would be used as are CR7s as high premium 50 seaters.

Lightsaber

Well, United has a 50 seat weight limit for starters. One of the reasons that the CRJ550 is so limited in range for them. Secondly, economics. The only way a 50 seat large RJ makes sense is if it’s paid for.

What weight limit? I know about the 86,000lb limit.

United is otherwise limited to 90% of their mainline fleet. Hence why they are the CRJ-550 launch customer.
https://simpleflying.com/bombardier-crj550/

If there is a weight the crj-550 qualifies for, but not the MR7, what is that weight. To my knowledge, the CR7 qualifies.

Economically, it takes premium seats. Now the MR7 is designed to have the same per flight costs as a CR2. So if there is a market for the CRJ-550, why not the much lower fuel burn MR7?

Lightsaber

LAX772LR wrote:

They've had incredible difficulty even getting 1 into commercial service, now they're going to take over?

DocLightning wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

They've had incredible difficulty even getting 1 into commercial service, now they're going to take over?

This. I'm not saying it can't or won't happen; I'm saying I'll believe it when I see it.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Well, United has a 50 seat weight limit for starters. One of the reasons that the CRJ550 is so limited in range for them. Secondly, economics. The only way a 50 seat large RJ makes sense is if it’s paid for.

What weight limit? I know about the 86,000lb limit.

United is otherwise limited to 90% of their mainline fleet. Hence why they are the CRJ-550 launch customer.
https://simpleflying.com/bombardier-crj550/

If there is a weight the crj-550 qualifies for, but not the MR7, what is that weight. To my knowledge, the CR7 qualifies.

Economically, it takes premium seats. Now the MR7 is designed to have the same per flight costs as a CR2. So if there is a market for the CRJ-550, why not the much lower fuel burn MR7?

Lightsaber

There is a 50 seat MTOW limit as well.

1-L-29 “Regional Aircraft” means one (1) or more (including all) of the following aircraft (as defined below): 37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft, 50-Seat Aircraft, 70-Seat Aircraft and 76-Seat Aircraft.

“37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft” means Turboprop Aircraft certificated in the United States for operations with thirty-seven (37) or fewer passenger seats and with a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United States of 37,000 or fewer pounds.

“50-Seat Aircraft” means aircraft certificated in the United States for fifty (50) or fewer passenger seats and a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United States of 65,000 or fewer pounds. The definition of “50-Seat Aircraft” does not include “37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft.” If a 50-Seat Aircraft is certificated for fifty (50) or fewer passenger seats when first placed into service by a United Express Carrier but is subsequently certificated for operation in the United States with a capacity in excess of fifty (50) passenger seats, this aircraft type may continue to be operated by United Express Carriers as long as all United Express Carriers operate such aircraft type with no more than 50 passenger seats and no more than 65,000 pounds gross takeoff weight.

“70-Seat Aircraft” means aircraft configured with more than fifty (50) passenger seats but no more than seventy (70) passenger seats, and certificated in the United States with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 86,000 or fewer pounds.

“76-Seat Aircraft” means aircraft configured with more than seventy (70) passenger seats but no more than seventy-six (76) passenger seats, and certificated in the United States for ninety (90) or fewer passenger seats and with a maximum United States certificated gross takeoff weight of 86,000 or fewer pounds.

oosnowrat wrote:

Anyone know the reason for these max weights? Is there something magic about 37k, 65k and 86k?

United wants more large regional jets – a torch it publicly carries alone, for now, among the mainline carriers.

"Our growth really does need more 76-seaters," said Scott Kirby, president of the Chicago-based carrier, at a financial conference on 14 March.

Kirby and United chief financial officer Andrew Levy say the airline needs the additional regional lift to remain competitive against American and Delta, and to meet its ambitious capacity growth plans of 4-6% annually through 2020.

"If we're trying to fly a 50-seat product into Rochester, Minnesota… and our competitors are flying a nice 76 [seat] two-class product, we're going to lose that battle," says Kirby.

United's scope clause limits it to 255 regional jets with 70- to 76-seats, a number that it hit by the end of 2017. It can add up to 70 more large regional jets if it adds a new small mainline aircraft, specifically the Bombardier CSeries or Embraer E-Jet, at a ratio of one additional regional aircraft for every 1.25 mainline aircraft.

The airline can have an almost unlimited number of small regional jets, or those with 50 seats or fewer, and an unlimited number of turboprops in its feeder fleet.

United had 256 small regional jets and 255 large models in its feeder fleet at the end of 2017, its fleet plan shows.

oosnowrat wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

What weight limit? I know about the 86,000lb limit.

United is otherwise limited to 90% of their mainline fleet. Hence why they are the CRJ-550 launch customer.
https://simpleflying.com/bombardier-crj550/

If there is a weight the crj-550 qualifies for, but not the MR7, what is that weight. To my knowledge, the CR7 qualifies.

Economically, it takes premium seats. Now the MR7 is designed to have the same per flight costs as a CR2. So if there is a market for the CRJ-550, why not the much lower fuel burn MR7?

Lightsaber

There is a 50 seat MTOW limit as well.

1-L-29 “Regional Aircraft” means one (1) or more (including all) of the following aircraft (as defined below): 37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft, 50-Seat Aircraft, 70-Seat Aircraft and 76-Seat Aircraft.

“37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft” means Turboprop Aircraft certificated in the United States for operations with thirty-seven (37) or fewer passenger seats and with a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United States of 37,000 or fewer pounds.

“50-Seat Aircraft” means aircraft certificated in the United States for fifty (50) or fewer passenger seats and a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United States of 65,000 or fewer pounds. The definition of “50-Seat Aircraft” does not include “37-Seat Turboprop Aircraft.” If a 50-Seat Aircraft is certificated for fifty (50) or fewer passenger seats when first placed into service by a United Express Carrier but is subsequently certificated for operation in the United States with a capacity in excess of fifty (50) passenger seats, this aircraft type may continue to be operated by United Express Carriers as long as all United Express Carriers operate such aircraft type with no more than 50 passenger seats and no more than 65,000 pounds gross takeoff weight.

“70-Seat Aircraft” means aircraft configured with more than fifty (50) passenger seats but no more than seventy (70) passenger seats, and certificated in the United States with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 86,000 or fewer pounds.

“76-Seat Aircraft” means aircraft configured with more than seventy (70) passenger seats but no more than seventy-six (76) passenger seats, and certificated in the United States for ninety (90) or fewer passenger seats and with a maximum United States certificated gross takeoff weight of 86,000 or fewer pounds.

Anyone know the reason for these max weights? Is there something magic about 37k, 65k and 86k?

ITB wrote:

oosnowrat wrote:

Anyone know the reason for these max weights? Is there something magic about 37k, 65k and 86k?

In the United States, the weight of aircraft used by regional affiliates, is limited by the scope clause, a provision in the contracts between the major airlines (UA, DL, and AA) and their respective pilot unions. The weights noted above specifically involve the contract between United Airlines and its pilots. At this time, under the contractual provisions of all three majors, the maximum size of a regional aircraft allowed under scope is 76 seats and 86,000 lb. All aircraft to be utilized by a regional affiliate must meet, or fall below, these provisions. There are other regional contractual provisions as well, which vary by airline. For instance, at UA, its regional affiliates are restricted to a maximum of 255 aircraft between 51 -76 seats, and no more than 153 76-seat aircraft.

Wikipedia has a worthwhile page on the "Scope Clause": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause

UA management is looking to modify current scope provisions, as it is finding itself at a disadvantage compared to DL and AA. In March 2018, FlightGlobal published a useful analysis on scope and how airlines, particularly UA, were looking forward:

United wants more large regional jets – a torch it publicly carries alone, for now, among the mainline carriers.

"Our growth really does need more 76-seaters," said Scott Kirby, president of the Chicago-based carrier, at a financial conference on 14 March.

Kirby and United chief financial officer Andrew Levy say the airline needs the additional regional lift to remain competitive against American and Delta, and to meet its ambitious capacity growth plans of 4-6% annually through 2020.

"If we're trying to fly a 50-seat product into Rochester, Minnesota… and our competitors are flying a nice 76 [seat] two-class product, we're going to lose that battle," says Kirby.

United's scope clause limits it to 255 regional jets with 70- to 76-seats, a number that it hit by the end of 2017. It can add up to 70 more large regional jets if it adds a new small mainline aircraft, specifically the Bombardier CSeries or Embraer E-Jet, at a ratio of one additional regional aircraft for every 1.25 mainline aircraft.

The airline can have an almost unlimited number of small regional jets, or those with 50 seats or fewer, and an unlimited number of turboprops in its feeder fleet.

United had 256 small regional jets and 255 large models in its feeder fleet at the end of 2017, its fleet plan shows.

Link: FlightGlobal article "ANALYSIS: Are US airlines at their next scope crossroads?": https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... sr-446881/

Naincompetent wrote:

Please forgive me for the stupid question but could there be just be a paper derate to reduce the MTOW on paper and make the MRJ70 scope compliant? What impact would a 2000lb MTOW derate have on the performance? Is it something possible or am I luring myself?

Naincompetent wrote:

Thank you for the info, so basically the non-LR is already a fit for the 70-seater scope (69 is close enough) but they need to find where to put 2 additional rows for getting to 76? Would it be enough to play with the pitch? Like reducing it from 31" to 29". On the link you have they give an example of 29" pitch seating 80, that would take them to 73 seats in a 2 class config.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

ITB wrote:

oosnowrat wrote:

Anyone know the reason for these max weights? Is there something magic about 37k, 65k and 86k?

In the United States, the weight of aircraft used by regional affiliates, is limited by the scope clause, a provision in the contracts between the major airlines (UA, DL, and AA) and their respective pilot unions. The weights noted above specifically involve the contract between United Airlines and its pilots. At this time, under the contractual provisions of all three majors, the maximum size of a regional aircraft allowed under scope is 76 seats and 86,000 lb. All aircraft to be utilized by a regional affiliate must meet, or fall below, these provisions. There are other regional contractual provisions as well, which vary by airline. For instance, at UA, its regional affiliates are restricted to a maximum of 255 aircraft between 51 -76 seats, and no more than 153 76-seat aircraft.

Wikipedia has a worthwhile page on the "Scope Clause": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause

UA management is looking to modify current scope provisions, as it is finding itself at a disadvantage compared to DL and AA. In March 2018, FlightGlobal published a useful analysis on scope and how airlines, particularly UA, were looking forward:

United wants more large regional jets – a torch it publicly carries alone, for now, among the mainline carriers.

"Our growth really does need more 76-seaters," said Scott Kirby, president of the Chicago-based carrier, at a financial conference on 14 March.

Kirby and United chief financial officer Andrew Levy say the airline needs the additional regional lift to remain competitive against American and Delta, and to meet its ambitious capacity growth plans of 4-6% annually through 2020.

"If we're trying to fly a 50-seat product into Rochester, Minnesota… and our competitors are flying a nice 76 [seat] two-class product, we're going to lose that battle," says Kirby.

United's scope clause limits it to 255 regional jets with 70- to 76-seats, a number that it hit by the end of 2017. It can add up to 70 more large regional jets if it adds a new small mainline aircraft, specifically the Bombardier CSeries or Embraer E-Jet, at a ratio of one additional regional aircraft for every 1.25 mainline aircraft.

The airline can have an almost unlimited number of small regional jets, or those with 50 seats or fewer, and an unlimited number of turboprops in its feeder fleet.

United had 256 small regional jets and 255 large models in its feeder fleet at the end of 2017, its fleet plan shows.

Link: FlightGlobal article "ANALYSIS: Are US airlines at their next scope crossroads?": https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... sr-446881/

UAL management finding itself at a disadvantage compared to Delta is self induced. If they ordered a NSNB, they could have the exact same number of 76 seaters that Delta has. But that also means they would have to have the exact same number of 50 seaters as well (only 125 max)

But since they haven’t ordered one, they have to comply with a more restrictive scope number.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

ITB wrote:

In the United States, the weight of aircraft used by regional affiliates, is limited by the scope clause, a provision in the contracts between the major airlines (UA, DL, and AA) and their respective pilot unions. The weights noted above specifically involve the contract between United Airlines and its pilots. At this time, under the contractual provisions of all three majors, the maximum size of a regional aircraft allowed under scope is 76 seats and 86,000 lb. All aircraft to be utilized by a regional affiliate must meet, or fall below, these provisions. There are other regional contractual provisions as well, which vary by airline. For instance, at UA, its regional affiliates are restricted to a maximum of 255 aircraft between 51 -76 seats, and no more than 153 76-seat aircraft.

Wikipedia has a worthwhile page on the "Scope Clause": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause

UA management is looking to modify current scope provisions, as it is finding itself at a disadvantage compared to DL and AA. In March 2018, FlightGlobal published a useful analysis on scope and how airlines, particularly UA, were looking forward:



Link: FlightGlobal article "ANALYSIS: Are US airlines at their next scope crossroads?": https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... sr-446881/

UAL management finding itself at a disadvantage compared to Delta is self induced. If they ordered a NSNB, they could have the exact same number of 76 seaters that Delta has. But that also means they would have to have the exact same number of 50 seaters as well (only 125 max)

But since they haven’t ordered one, they have to comply with a more restrictive scope number.

That is unfair. UA ordered two dozens of B737-700's where those aircraft were in direct competition with the Cseries. Boeing gave them rock bottom pricing.
The CL550 is a mistake imo, but eventually, the unions will have to acceot that a 50-seater is not competitive in this landscape. I expect DL and AA to see scope relief in terms of numbers of aircraft and not so much in terms of seats per aircraft or MTOW, or vice-versa.
Either way, the MRJ will offer the most competitive solution in that market, if they can produce quality and quantity.

zeke wrote:

UnitedTristar wrote:

and they are SLOW AF....

Air France ?

Waterbomber2 wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

ITB wrote:

In the United States, the weight of aircraft used by regional affiliates, is limited by the scope clause, a provision in the contracts between the major airlines (UA, DL, and AA) and their respective pilot unions. The weights noted above specifically involve the contract between United Airlines and its pilots. At this time, under the contractual provisions of all three majors, the maximum size of a regional aircraft allowed under scope is 76 seats and 86,000 lb. All aircraft to be utilized by a regional affiliate must meet, or fall below, these provisions. There are other regional contractual provisions as well, which vary by airline. For instance, at UA, its regional affiliates are restricted to a maximum of 255 aircraft between 51 -76 seats, and no more than 153 76-seat aircraft.

Wikipedia has a worthwhile page on the "Scope Clause": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause

UA management is looking to modify current scope provisions, as it is finding itself at a disadvantage compared to DL and AA. In March 2018, FlightGlobal published a useful analysis on scope and how airlines, particularly UA, were looking forward:



Link: FlightGlobal article "ANALYSIS: Are US airlines at their next scope crossroads?": https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... sr-446881/

UAL management finding itself at a disadvantage compared to Delta is self induced. If they ordered a NSNB, they could have the exact same number of 76 seaters that Delta has. But that also means they would have to have the exact same number of 50 seaters as well (only 125 max)

But since they haven’t ordered one, they have to comply with a more restrictive scope number.

That is unfair. UA ordered two dozens of B737-700's where those aircraft were in direct competition with the Cseries. Boeing gave them rock bottom pricing.
The CL550 is a mistake imo, but eventually, the unions will have to acceot that a 50-seater is not competitive in this landscape. I expect DL and AA to see scope relief in terms of numbers of aircraft and not so much in terms of seats per aircraft or MTOW, or vice-versa.
Either way, the MRJ will offer the most competitive solution in that market, if they can produce quality and quantity.