User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17015
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Thu May 16, 2019 4:44 am

c933103 wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
Yes freedom to fail, but the MRJ brings a whole new dimension to the equation.
80-90 seaters cruising up high with the big boys, 50% faster than the Q400, but at a fuel flow of 1250kg per hour or about 40% more than the Q400.

Cruise speed's effect on trip time is not that significant for a typical journey that would warrant a discussion/comparison between props and jets.

C933103

You miss the point, less fuel per nm. Also, less time is lower crew costs and more flights per day; that means better asset utilization.

If the MRJ meets promise, it destroys similar size turboprop economics for trips over 300nm.

Lightsaber
You know nothing John Snow.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9197
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Thu May 16, 2019 1:11 pm

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.
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Thu May 16, 2019 3:05 pm

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
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9197
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Thu May 16, 2019 3:11 pm

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

I knew this in the back of my head, but hadn't seen numbers put to it before. Explains why the C-Series had to be rebooted.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Thu May 16, 2019 4:57 pm

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



Sure, the MRJ is late to the market, it has lost years worth of production. The opportunity cost of that is huge.
On the flip side, the RJ landscape is waiting for it. It's not raining orders for the E175-E1 or CRJ700 nor for the E175-E2. Small orders have been placed right and left recently, but nothing huge.
2020 is just around the corner and with thousands of hours of flight testing completed, EIS is just there.
Once the MRJ goes into EIS, if the EIS is successful, there will be a huge demand for it.

The market is waiting for a reliable, low operating cost platform.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9197
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Thu May 16, 2019 6:51 pm

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. It's the same with any new airplane and worse with what is more or less a new manufacturer to this space at least. I think they will have to give the plane away to an operator that is respected and then hope that attracts others. Doesn't OO have a big order that seems kinda flimsy? Or is it somebody else?
 
mxaxai
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Thu May 16, 2019 7:34 pm

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.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12650
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Thu May 16, 2019 8:22 pm

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.


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
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17015
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Thu May 16, 2019 10:03 pm

keesje wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
enilria wrote:
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.


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
You know nothing John Snow.
 
ITB
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:50 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Thu May 16, 2019 11:57 pm

Although I'm late to the discussion, I'd like to chime in on a few points. First, and most important, the clean-sheet characterization of MITAC's smaller MRJ variant may not be precise. Here's the pertinent quote from the Leeham article of May 10th:

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.


The keyword is, of course, "refreshed." There's a significant gap between refreshed and clean-sheet. What appears to be underway is MITAC is updating the design of the MRJ70, principally to enlarge the cabin to seat 76 passengers — the maximum per current scope provisions — in a 3-class configuration. Apparently, the re-design has been ongoing for some time, as MITAC is anticipating the design process to complete this summer. While MITAC has not formerly announced that the new design will be revealed at PAS19, it appears the push is on to do just that.

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.

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.

Link: Leeham article (May 10, 2019): https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/13/mitsu ... -at-paris/

From the MRJ – Flight Test and Production Thread (#222, 2 years ago):
JA786A wrote:
Image

On the left are two MRJ70 frames. Window-wise, the MRJ90 has 22; the MRJ70, 19.
 
ITB
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:50 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Fri May 17, 2019 2:04 am

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.


A correction to my earlier post. As of July 2018, MITAC was publicly projecting EIS for the MRJ70 to be late 2021, not summer 2022.

Source: Reuter's article "After delays, Japan's regional jet faces dogfight with industry giants": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKBN1K71IW
 
lutfi
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Fri May 17, 2019 5:11 am

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)
 
GmvAfcs
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:25 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Fri May 17, 2019 11:17 am

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.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12650
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Fri May 17, 2019 11:26 am

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.


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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Fri May 17, 2019 1:53 pm

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.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17015
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Fri May 17, 2019 3:15 pm

keesje wrote:
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.


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.
You know nothing John Snow.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 4851
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Fri May 17, 2019 3:32 pm

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)


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.
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2358
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Fri May 17, 2019 3:33 pm

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)


And in the rest of the world, "regional jets" fly true "regional" routes - i.e. routes length are more similar to routes there were flown by Skywest EMB-120 (i.e. nothing over an hour) rather than those 2-3hrs flight that regional operators in US operates with EMB-170/175.

Even MRJ's home country, Japan, doesn't have THAT big of a regional fleet. JAL (J-Air to be exact) is getting 32 MRJs, replacing their 18 E70 and 14 E90 1-for-1. But 32 planes is nothing compare to ~150 E-Jets operated by Skywest ALONE. Meanwhile, ANA is only getting 15 MRJ (Replacing ANA Wings' 735 and probably some of those 73G on domestic flying). Even if ANA decided to replace all their Q400s with MRJ, that's still only like ~25 more planes.

Within the region I just don't see much orders. South Korea ordering a Japanese plane is VERY doubtful, plus KE already filled their smaller jet market with CS300/A223; PRC has their own RJ program; Taiwan in Mandarin Airlines may replace their E90 with MRJ, but that's only like 5 planes (Plus they're moving towards mostly ATR anyway). Philippines and Indonesia love their ATRs for those island-hopping routes (And I'm not sure if some of those airports can even handle MRJ), and even if GA replace their CRJ1000 with MRJ, that's again only like ~20 planes. Rest of SE Asia? Again, the "smaller plane" market is dominated by ATR.

EDIT:
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.


Which is exactly my point - good luck trying to find 2000+km routes operated by RJs outside of US.

Hack, for that matter, US is about the only place where hourly E70/E75 flight between cities like NYC and CHI or LA Basin to/from SF Bay Area. E90/E95 is understandable, but 70/76-seaters is not. Everything to do with the scope clause. AA is dumping their E90 for that reason, even though E90/E95 is definitely more common than E70/E75 outside US.

BTW, ATR will run out of fuel trying to fly those routes anyway :white:
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12650
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Fri May 17, 2019 3:41 pm

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.



CRFP wing for the MRJ's might actually be a smart move. It would lighten up the wing, increase range. MHI has been been building CRFP wing for the Dreamliner for years. They might actually be able to do a lean process, a quick fix. Agile wing development using eight week 'scrum' cycles which reduced wing development time by 50%. Without having to go through old school TC paperwork. This is 2019, we work paperless! Probably hundreds of engineers have already working on a CRFP CRFP MRJ wing in secret, slashing development timetables, aggressively pulling forward EIS. I would definitely move forward with this opportunity, it's low hanging fruit actually.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1455
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Fri May 17, 2019 10:11 pm

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


Man. That put a damper on my enthusiasm for a CRJ800....From time to time, I've mulled the prospect over quietly to myself in the mornings while I sip coffee and watch the finches tend to their business from my patio. Just couldn't understand why Bombardier wasn't going to give it one last go in the 76pax space. I had no idea the Passport was 'that' unready for commercial service. I thought perhaps the fuel burn would be different in the CRJ at .78mach compared to the speed of a Global private jet... more to the plus side of 10%... However with the mods you mention to increase durability and service intervals, I suspect that would cut into fuel burn. Guess, I'd just like to see the last regional manufactured on the North American continent succeed. Will be a shame to see the CRJs just go away. 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.
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20092
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Fri May 17, 2019 11:14 pm

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.

Yes, it certainly is a fun forum diversion watching K-man pitch CRJ-neo ideas in the face of industry insiders posting how such an idea would take $billions to implement with little chance of any ROI at the same time BBD's core train business is struggling and BBD is trying to sell off its C-Series wing factory and pretty much everything else that is not bolted down. He's dragged over content from this thread trying to enliven that one, and made now made his second post with no response in 12 hours pondering a CRJ-neo with an updated CF-34. A great a.net diversion, all do agree! Fun times!
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17015
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Fri May 17, 2019 11:27 pm

ODwyerPW wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
keesje wrote:

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


Man. That put a damper on my enthusiasm for a CRJ800....From time to time, I've mulled the prospect over quietly to myself in the mornings while I sip coffee and watch the finches tend to their business from my patio. Just couldn't understand why Bombardier wasn't going to give it one last go in the 76pax space. I had no idea the Passport was 'that' unready for commercial service. I thought perhaps the fuel burn would be different in the CRJ at .78mach compared to the speed of a Global private jet... more to the plus side of 10%... However with the mods you mention to increase durability and service intervals, I suspect that would cut into fuel burn. Guess, I'd just like to see the last regional manufactured on the North American continent succeed. Will be a shame to see the CRJs just go away. 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.

The mods I note would reduce fuel burn about 5%. Weight would increase, about 300kg per engine.

Business jets peak at 500 cycles for those who buy new. Quickly, within 7 years, they are sold to customers who do 250 or fewer cycles per year and so on down to 4th hand buyers typically do 50 or so cycles a year. This is why business jets almost never break 12,000 cycles. I'm not aware of any in fact. So spending an extra $500+ million of R&D and adding $350k+ to engine build costs make no sense. Also, production runs of a few thousand engines take many variations of the engine for multiple thrust levels.

Commercial jets typically do 2,000 to 3,000 cycles per year and are typically retired in the 40,000 to 70,000 cycle range (yes, MD-80s have done 98,000+). The only high cycle RJs are the CRJ where I believe (can anyone confirm?) That the fleet leaders are just passing 60,000 cycles. So the CF-34 missing 20,000 cycles because one regulator failed early annoyed airlines (now fixed). One little part, that met warranty but not promise, added 1/2% to the total cost of flying because of reduced overhaul intervals. So details matter.

Yeah, Island hopping airlines do exceed 5,000 cycles per year. No one engineers for small volumes.

So don't be discouraged. The 717 engines cost more per cycle, so the aircraft had a limited production run and found its way, excluding HA, into lower utilization duty. I could make a great CRJ engine off the Passport or Pearl, but both cores need new auxiliary systems, nacelles, and a full low spool. The current systems would require an engine overhaul every 10 to 15 months in the duty new aircraft are thrown into.

No one buys new for low utilization duty. There is a reason leasors have Allegiant, Volotea, and Delta are on speed dial for 12+ year old aircraft. (E.g., DL doesn't fly a third of their fleet Tuesday through Wednesday outside of surge events).

For RJs, the old aircraft serve the low utilization duty (fixed vs. variable costs favor old). New are flogged their first six years, basically the entire low maintenance life of the aircraft, as they have the lowest fuel burn too.

The MRJ is really an island hopper. Everything I know about the design shouts to the limit of validity (cycles and Hours) being dramatically increased (to almost MD-80 levels).

Lightsaber
PS
I'm amused by Photonsword in a good way.
You know nothing John Snow.
 
c933103
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Fri May 17, 2019 11:42 pm

I have just read a Japanese newspaper from last month saying that, the situation around 737 Max could affect the time MRJ come onto the market. Because back in year 1979, they was trying to certify the aircraft MU300, however problems occurred to MD aircraft at the time caused FAA to heighten their level of checks significantly and delayed the aircraft's certification time to year 1981. They worry that the same could happen to MRJ now as FAA is now under attack for their role in the 737 Max certification process.
This is a placeholder.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2458
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Sat May 18, 2019 12:02 am

zakuivcustom wrote:
BTW, ATR will run out of fuel trying to fly those routes anyway :white:


No, not even close. But not with a full payload either. Tried it a few times on substitute and charter/VIP flights, can't recommend it.

And those who say US passengers won't accept it, I can assure you no ordinary passengers anywhere will accept it 8-)
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Sat May 18, 2019 7:58 am

The CFRP wing was as good as ready when they decided to take it back to aluminum.
The reason for the switch was time to market and cost, while CFRP did not offer major weight benefits because of the small size if the wings.

“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.



Aero-mag.com

I don't think that we should expect to see major changes to the airframe. Even a small one row stretch to make a MRJ75 would be quite a stretch, even if not impossible.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17015
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Sat May 18, 2019 2:26 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
The CFRP wing was as good as ready when they decided to take it back to aluminum.
The reason for the switch was time to market and cost, while CFRP did not offer major weight benefits because of the small size if the wings.

“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.



Aero-mag.com

I don't think that we should expect to see major changes to the airframe. Even a small one row stretch to make a MRJ75 would be quite a stretch, even if not impossible.

The reason was perceived risk due to 787 delays too. I've had teams build CFRP wings smaller than the MRJ's and they saved significant weight.

Lightsaber
You know nothing John Snow.
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1689
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Sat May 18, 2019 3:42 pm

Honestly considering there's no next-gen aircraft that meets scope clauses the MRJ70 (or a refreshed one or whatever) could be the next big seller. I would assume either DL or UA would be the first to move along with it. Unless EMB can come up with a way to cut 15% of the E175-E2's weight MITAC have their work cut out for them
A350/CSeries = bae
 
ITB
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:50 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Sat May 18, 2019 7:39 pm

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:
Image


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.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Sat May 18, 2019 11:05 pm

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:
Image


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.
Image


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

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.
 
fjhc
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:34 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Sun May 19, 2019 11:27 am

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:
Image


What's going on with this livery? Looks like a cut-and-shunt plane! Or one of those old Star Alliance logojets back from when there were only 5 or 6 members.

Regarding the whole baggage compartment thing- with the rise of bag fees, how full do those baggage compartments actually get? I can't imagine cargo is much of a factor for RJs. Would pushing the rear cabin doors and the bulkhead, galley, and toilets between the cabin and the baggage compartment back be possible?
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3033
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Sun May 19, 2019 12:37 pm

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:
Image


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.
Image


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

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.
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17015
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Sun May 19, 2019 2:31 pm

DiamondFlyer 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):



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:



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.
Image


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

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
You know nothing John Snow.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3033
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Sun May 19, 2019 5:58 pm

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.
Image


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

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


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.
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17015
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Sun May 19, 2019 8:38 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:

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


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
You know nothing John Snow.
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Sun May 19, 2019 9:26 pm

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


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.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17015
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Sun May 19, 2019 9:39 pm

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.

Thank you. The MR7 is thus too heavy. Cest la vie.

Lightsaber
You know nothing John Snow.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21350
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Sun May 19, 2019 11:04 pm

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 20, 2019 12:41 am

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.


I share the same thought ...

- plan
- develops
- build
- test
- approve
- ramp up
- deliver
- support

It's not a matter of being biased or not, it's what the project timeline shows ...
 
oosnowrat
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:55 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 20, 2019 1:38 am

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.


Anyone know the reason for these max weights? Is there something magic about 37k, 65k and 86k?
 
ITB
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:50 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 20, 2019 2:41 am

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/
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 2760
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 20, 2019 3:26 am

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?


What’s magical? It’s money which makes airplanes fly.
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 20, 2019 3:47 am

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.
 
Naincompetent
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:20 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 20, 2019 4:03 am

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?
 
ITB
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:50 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 20, 2019 5:23 am

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?


According to specs released by Mitsubishi, both the Standard and ER versions of the MRJ70 are scope compliant, but the LR version is too heavy. However, as currently designed, the MRJ70 only seats 69 passengers in a dual-class configuration (9J + 60Y), not quite reaching the scope provision capacity of 76.

MITAC (Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation) is currently undertaking a design reevaluation or "refresh" to modify the MRJ70 to seat up to 76 in a 3-class configuration. The design refresh has been ongoing for more than a year. It is anticipated this aircraft will be scope compliant, at least the STD and ER versions. Details of the MRJ70's refreshed design are likely to be revealed at the Paris Air Show next month, but it's not a certainty.

The MRJ's specs can be found at: https://www.flythemrj.com/aircraft/
 
Naincompetent
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:20 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 20, 2019 5:42 am

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.
 
ITB
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:50 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 20, 2019 5:57 am

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.


MITAC engineers have been going over the MRJ70's design with a fine tooth comb, looking for any way possible to add seats. Simple adjusting pitch probably won't do it, as it may not be palatable to airlines or passengers. The refreshed design appears to be more substantial. Take a few moments and read back in the thread for some ideas what might be involved.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 20, 2019 8:33 am

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.


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.
 
FlyinRabbit88
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 4:16 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 20, 2019 10:58 am

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.

Unfair?!?! There is nothing stoping UA/DL/AA for ordering any scope related aircraft and having their pilots fly them. But after decades of outsourcing to the regionals and now many of those regional pilots now at legacy airlines, relaxation of the scope clauses will never be given away again. Delta has seen efficiencies to the operation and customer satisfaction by removing many of the 50 seat RJs for 717s, A220s and upgauging rjs with more CR7/9 and ER7s.
Plus with Delta scope even if some how United or AA lowered their scope then a regional wouldn’t be allowed to fly under the delta connection banner. Ie skywest can’t fly a E190 or MRJ for Alaska.
Scope and the pilot hiring market / “shortage” at the regionals has given an advantage to pilots at the majors in current and future contracts that won’t be just given away with pay raises. Many have seen how that played out before and it won’t happen again.
 
WPvsMW
Posts: 1971
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 20, 2019 11:41 am

zeke wrote:
UnitedTristar wrote:
and they are SLOW AF....


Air France ? :roll:


SLOW as [bleep]
A term a/c pilots borrowed from Moto GP pilots. /humour
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 20, 2019 11:54 am

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.



Unfair? United has a mechanism to match Delta’s number of large RJs, but hasn’t taken the required steps to do so. So for them the complain they are at a disadvantage is self induced indeed.

And how many 737-700’s has United taken from that order? Zero. United knew that the Boeing order wouldn’t unlock scope, much like the RJ manufactures knew their new designs were not scope compliant. They bet/hoped scope would change and bet wrongly.

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