User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 511
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 13, 2019 8:16 pm

lightsaber wrote:

The E2-175 needs to be relaunched. It needs a series of viable customers. Without the high volume of the US market, how is it proposed to gain a customer base? 40% of 740 is only 296 aircraft over say 15 years. That is not a viable resale market. That isn't a viable launch market. Leasing companies should, today, avoid the E2-175 until it is a viable market. So cut the potential sales in half again. That is in no way a viable market.
Lightsaber


Besides US market and its scopes, the program is "full steam ahead" ...

Image
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

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

Mon May 13, 2019 8:17 pm

enilria wrote:
smartplane wrote:
A point is reached at smaller airports, with smaller aircraft operations, that flight and ground crews undertake multiple roles (exactly what the small store manager does, and what the Walmart mega store manager doesn't do).

Good post.

I think this is an area of capitalism that people struggle to understand. The Walmart store manager probably doesn't work harder than the convenience store manager and the regional pilots/ground staff often work harder and fly in more difficult conditions than mainline. BUT the pay for these jobs is not just set by skill and difficulty, it is also set by economics. You may want $175k to pilot an RJ or manage a convenience store, but the economics aren't there to support it. The job just won't exist if people are not willing to do the job for the wages in place. Or the number of jobs in that sector will plummet. Whereas the Walmart is producing so much revenue there is a lot more flexibility.



Pilot wages and outstation worker wages aren’t the same thing. The same ground crew that services a SkyWest flight in Pocatello ID would work the same flight flown by a theoretical Delta RJ. And delta has enough revenue to have all RJs at mainline and pay the already negotiated RJ wages to actual delta pilots.
 
ewt340
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Mon May 13, 2019 8:33 pm

Honestly, with Boeing-Embraer coalition on the work and the fact that Mitsubishi haven't even delivered a single aircraft yet. I don't see them penetrating the market that much.

Also I wonder about the smaller MRJ70. Doesn't get much order don't they?
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 511
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 13, 2019 9:05 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Neither side will budge, so I see no reason to discuss changes to scope.

In perspective, the E-170/175:
https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-e170.htm

750 in service.
513 in US scope clause airlines plus 26 at Horizon (no 86,000 lb limit).
Republic: 190
SkyWest 149
Mess 60
Envoy 58
Compass 56

So 68% in US duty under scope clauses. Or, a mere 237 not in scope.

Lightsaber


A market already flooded if you consider the CRJ 700/900 family too ...

As long as Leeham says MRJ have a "leading position", they don´t get any new order a long time ago (last one was in July 2016).
the "go ahead program" was on 2007, first flight 2015, many changes and the maybe mid 2020 for the first delivery. And the two major orders are for TransStates (50 units) and SkyWest (100 units). Just to remember they are for the MRJ90, that faces the same problem with the scope clauses ...

Just to remember that on according to the March 31, 2019 report, EMBRAER has 196 firm orders to delivery plus 250 options for the model E175-E1 ...
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Mon May 13, 2019 9:22 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
Just to remember that on according to the March 31, 2019 report, EMBRAER has 196 firm orders to delivery plus 250 options for the model E175-E1 ...


Good thing they developed the E2 so they could still rely on the E1.

It'd be interesting to see the MRJ v E2 comparison. I'll have to do a little searching.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
iceberg210
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:11 pm

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

Mon May 13, 2019 9:37 pm

lightsaber wrote:
513 in US scope clause airlines plus 26 at Horizon (no 86,000 lb limit).


Lightsaber

Do you think the reason Horizon hasn't gone E2 is that they don't want to be stuck with an orphaned frame? Because my theory at one point was that Embraer was going to launch via Horizon the 175E2, and then use that as pressure for the other airlines to relax scope because who would want to compete with a double digit % more efficient regional jet with the previous generation? Don't know if that was ever even on the table but it felt like the one place they might have an entrance .
Erik Berg
Defying Gravity
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3885
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

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

Mon May 13, 2019 9:40 pm

impilot wrote:
sagechan wrote:
impilot wrote:
I agree. How about scope clauses eliminate anything larger than a 50 seater and limit flight distances to 500nm so they can again become “regional” or “commuter” flights, not cheaply outsourced mainline flights in what should be a mainline plane.

You want 80 seat E175 E2s? Great. Nothing prohibiting them being used at the US3, so long as Express, Connection, or Eagle isn’t painted on the side of them.

Outsourcing to regionals puts less experienced and less vetted pilots at the controls of more and bigger planes. It’s time for that to go away and brings job back that we’re sold to the lowest bidder using bankruptcy and mainline jobs as leverage in the darkest time of aviation history in the US for pilots.

Don’t blame scope clauses. All those “scope non-compliant” planes that the likes of Kirby, Parker, and Bastian want have no restrictions flying at mainline. They are just too cheap to bring them in house and instead rely on cheap labor to subsidize their massive profits.


Nothing prevents the unions from accepting rates on those aircrafts that make them actually flyable at mainline either. In the end everyone but shareholders would be better off bringing everything back to mainline in the US, but that requires union relief on costs in marginal areas (small planes, small outstations, etc)


Unions don’t buy planes or prevent buying of planes (to be operated by mainline). If airline mgmt tells a union they are bringing CRJ-900s to mainline, they then negotiate a rate. The union doesn’t “accept a rate” (or not) as you imply, nor can they say “nope we won’t fly them.” They will fly them after a rate is negotiated (or arbitrated depending on their contract stipulations). And they won’t accept rates that are below what an airline pilot should make in this environment and in this country. They can’t accept artificially low rates just to make them “flyable at mainline.” If they aren’t economically viable at the market rate for pilots, that’s not a union’s fault.

In fact, Delta has a CRJ-900 payscale in their mainline pilot contract. Unsure about other US3. But all 3 of the US3 pilot unions would gladly fly CRJs/ERJs owned and operated by mainline...but the airline management won’t allow that to happen. At least not right now. And I’m not holding my breath for that to ever happen.

I think UA ALPA also has a pay rate for regional jets. And United has a proposal for them to buy even More of them from the Union. Problem is? They don't want to hear it!
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

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

Mon May 13, 2019 11:00 pm

keesje wrote:
So no Passport engines on the CRJ-700 and -900?
That's a shame.


It seems viable, but there is cost and added weight

CF34-8C51 weighs 1.100k kg (2.45k lb) , so 2 is 2.2k kg (4.9k lb), for 14.5k thrust
Passport 20 weights 2.05k kg (4.55k lb), so 2 is 4.1k kg (9.1k lb), for 18.9k thrust

They are almost twice the weight for extra performance you don't need (actually, you might need some of that extra performance because the plane weighs more.).
CRJ700has an MTOW of 34k kg. (75k lb), so 1.9k (kg of extra engine weight is allot. You either reduce significantly what you can carry, or you increase MTOW and haul around a plane that is 5.5% heavier. How much of that is offset by greater efficiency (is Passport 20 8% greater than CF34-8C5a or 10%)?

Regarding the Mitsubishi Regionals, only the smaller of the two, MRJ70 almost meets scope clause (MTOW 89k lb), but I guess can be derated down to an MTOW 86k lb? The MRJ90 (MTOW 94.5k lb) is still overweight.
Regarding Embrear, E175-E2 at MTWO 99k is way over. E175 at MTOW 89 of course is still almost under??(no sense in talking about E190,E195) … Obviously even a spec MTOW of 89k lb can be rated down to 86k lb to meet scope clause?

Back to Bombardier....
A CRJ700NEO with a Passport 20 might be able to weigh in under 80k lb (Current jet plus added engine weight is 75+4.2 = 79.2, and you know you'll need greatly reinforced mounts). I suspect it would need to go on a diet to reduce weight in other places.

They could be apples to apples, the MRJ70 and a CRJ700NEO... CRJ can fly higher, MRJ will have the edge on seating comfort. The question is how efficient would a de-rated Passport20 be compared to a PW1217G when hauling around 76 pax and their luggage in single class on a 1000kmi trip?

But it might come down to what Japan, Russia and Brazil have to offer. Maybe the only regional jet manufactured on the north American continent has grown too long in the tooth. Maybe it's Mitsubishi's for the taking.
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21173
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon May 13, 2019 11:16 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Misleading title. Should specify that the reasons are relevant to the US market only, not the rest of the world.


enilria wrote:
So, sure, the E190 and E2 were basically killed by these scope clauses. OTOH, maybe they shouldn't have built them knowing that scope clauses weren't going to change easily.


Contrary to what many think, there is a world outside the US. Embraer still sold just shy of 740 E190s and E195s. It was only about a year ago that the smaller E170 and E175 took the lead in sales over the E190 and E195.

If it makes you feel any better, it appears Leeham has modified the title a bit:

Pontifications: By accident of timing, convergence of events, Mitsubishi is now well positioned to become major RJ player

Leeham really does need to hire a professional editor, sigh.
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
smithbs
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

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

Mon May 13, 2019 11:39 pm

I remember working on a black box project for the MRJ. We had it ready and we were just waiting for the flight test program to get going. That was 2011. :old: Maybe Mitsu has an opportunity (the kind that only appears to procrastinators), but it's theirs to lose.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17903
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 12:18 am

I haven't forgotten the E-175 backlog. It is the only reason Embraer is still viable. I'm shocked they are going forward with the current E2-175. I understand keeping the design team going and there is a flight test team ready. But no viable customer.

iceberg210 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
513 in US scope clause airlines plus 26 at Horizon (no 86,000 lb limit).


Lightsaber

Do you think the reason Horizon hasn't gone E2 is that they don't want to be stuck with an orphaned frame? Because my theory at one point was that Embraer was going to launch via Horizon the 175E2, and then use that as pressure for the other airlines to relax scope because who would want to compete with a double digit % more efficient regional jet with the previous generation? Don't know if that was ever even on the table but it felt like the one place they might have an entrance .

Financing will be dependent on other orders.

However, Horizon isn't enough of a threat for scope clause relaxation. 26 of an airframe means having to buy on extra just for the time waiting for Embraer's specific spares. It just isn't possible to make stuff economically in batches less than 25. Vendors insist on one batch minimum per year or prices triple. So for small fleet support, someone is buying surplus spares.

This is why business jets share so many parts. A latitude has a sovereign wing. A longitude a Hawker wing. Neither optimal, but both sell. An MRJ has a number of c-series parts that are rediculous sizings.

Because of this, the custom E2 subsystems will save some fuel and should have great maintenance properties. But you won't have spares. Some parts you need the number of flying planes times 4% per year. Some 17%. Wear parts such as tires, brakes, and seals are different. E.g., Wear parts are still in production or rebuild for the MD-80, but good luck finding an anti-ice valve except from a recently scrapped airframe as functioning spares are now rare. Boeing paid vendors to keep 717 parts in production for spares; payments of several million per airframe for tiny numbers flying.

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.

This is why DL received a great offer from Bombardier. UA was offered a great deal too, they just chose incredibly discounted 737s.

Mitsubishi is accepting reality and taking the Mulligan. Embraer's needs to also.

I see a market for a thousand to 1500 frames.

A great example is the E2-190/195 struggles to sell. They are great concepts. But to get MRO support, a decent size US or EU order is required. Each engine requires a separate MRO certification. So to maintain a PW1700, even if super related to the PW1200, takes volume. See V2500 D5 on DL's MD-90s. A fleet of sixty cannot support economical engine overhauls (although shipping to/from Christchurch is an absurd added expense). DL bet others would buy A220s to support their MRO shop. Even DL's expected fleet of 125 A220s is too little. They are counting on JetBlue, Moxy, and as yet unknown additional work (split with Mirabel's shop).

Automation forces larger economies of scale.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
AvFanNJ
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:47 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 12:40 am

triple3driver wrote:
It seems that, based on a combination of the failure of the Embraer E2 to meet scope clauses, the general failure of the Bombardier commercial aircraft division, COMAC's and Sukhoi's failures to penetrate the market, and even Mitsubishi's own delays, it's possible that the that Mitsubishi might be able to secure a leading position in a market that's seemingly devoid of any real contenders.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/13/ponti ... rj-player/


You are extrapolating well beyond what the article actually says. Why didn't you use its actual title for the thread? "Pontifications: By accident of timing, convergence of events, Mitsubishi is now well positioned to become major RJ player." It's a reach to say it's likely to take over the RJ market. Just saying.
 
User avatar
452QX
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:30 am

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

Tue May 14, 2019 1:21 am

iceberg210 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
513 in US scope clause airlines plus 26 at Horizon (no 86,000 lb limit).


Lightsaber

Do you think the reason Horizon hasn't gone E2 is that they don't want to be stuck with an orphaned frame? Because my theory at one point was that Embraer was going to launch via Horizon the 175E2, and then use that as pressure for the other airlines to relax scope because who would want to compete with a double digit % more efficient regional jet with the previous generation? Don't know if that was ever even on the table but it felt like the one place they might have an entrance .


The E175 has already proven itself to be a smart addition to the QX fleet, but as some have pointed out in the past, many believe the E2 to be “too much plane” for what Horizon needs on most routes. During the Seattle stop of the US tour Embraer seemed to be more focused on selling the larger variants to AS instead.

I personally would love to see the E2 wearing Alaska/Horizon colors, but I do wonder if the resources are there to support another fleet type. The wingspan alone prevents it from being able to park in nearly any of the QX spots at SEA or PDX
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1921
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 1:23 am

impilot wrote:
Does scope affect ground ops or any outstation contracting? Don’t think so. As far as I know, scope, as referenced in all scope discussions regarding new RJs, references one thing and that’s pilots (and by association, FAs). And it’s contained in mainline pilot contracts, not in any other corporate document affecting any other work groups. As far as outstations, or even hub GAs, rampers, etc, working for regionals, those jobs already can be outsourced via other means and is a separate outsourcing discussion from pilot scope.

Another option occasionally talked about is to keep 50 seaters and below at regionals and being large RJs to mainline. That would mostly satisfy the smalltown service argument if mainline couldn’t make it work.

Also, if people got to the majors faster, the regional turnover would be faster and more people would be lured into the profession. ATP mins wouldn’t need to be changed.


My former carrier's dispatchers also had a scope clause in their contract. As I recall, the company violated it, the dispatcher's union challenged it and won a settlement from the company.

IMPILOT - you're making some excellent points here, but they'll mostly fall on the deaf ears of those wannbe airline CEOs who already drank the company lemonade.

After many years, the pilots finally enjoy some leverage. Don't overlook how many posters on this board have failed to remember the massive furloughs, the lost pensions, corrupt or inept airline management (see Smisek, J.) and poverty level regional pilot wages (and more).
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

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

Tue May 14, 2019 2:16 am

ODwyerPW wrote:
keesje wrote:
So no Passport engines on the CRJ-700 and -900?
That's a shame.


It seems viable, but there is cost and added weight

CF34-8C51 weighs 1.100k kg (2.45k lb) , so 2 is 2.2k kg (4.9k lb), for 14.5k thrust
Passport 20 weights 2.05k kg (4.55k lb), so 2 is 4.1k kg (9.1k lb), for 18.9k thrust

They are almost twice the weight for extra performance you don't need (actually, you might need some of that extra performance because the plane weighs more.).
CRJ700has an MTOW of 34k kg. (75k lb), so 1.9k (kg of extra engine weight is allot. You either reduce significantly what you can carry, or you increase MTOW and haul around a plane that is 5.5% heavier. How much of that is offset by greater efficiency (is Passport 20 8% greater than CF34-8C5a or 10%)?



While the weight is an issue, the design problem is WHERE than weight is located—in the tail. Putting Passports on the CRJ series won’t work without significant ballast up front to maintain correct CoG.


GF
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13102
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Tue May 14, 2019 9:21 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
ODwyerPW wrote:
keesje wrote:
So no Passport engines on the CRJ-700 and -900?
That's a shame.


It seems viable, but there is cost and added weight

CF34-8C51 weighs 1.100k kg (2.45k lb) , so 2 is 2.2k kg (4.9k lb), for 14.5k thrust
Passport 20 weights 2.05k kg (4.55k lb), so 2 is 4.1k kg (9.1k lb), for 18.9k thrust

They are almost twice the weight for extra performance you don't need (actually, you might need some of that extra performance because the plane weighs more.).
CRJ700has an MTOW of 34k kg. (75k lb), so 1.9k (kg of extra engine weight is allot. You either reduce significantly what you can carry, or you increase MTOW and haul around a plane that is 5.5% heavier. How much of that is offset by greater efficiency (is Passport 20 8% greater than CF34-8C5a or 10%)?



While the weight is an issue, the design problem is WHERE than weight is located—in the tail. Putting Passports on the CRJ series won’t work without significant ballast up front to maintain correct CoG.


GF


:grumpy: partycrasher :wink2:

- put a plug in front of the wing
- use more gold in the pilot seats
- new jetway friendly door
- ACT in front hold
- remove seats in back of the aircraft
- ....

The plug would seem the only viable option. Mating e.g. the CRJ-900 front section to the CRJ-700 would increase overall length around 2.5 meters. It would add approximately 1.2t of OEW (based on interpolating -700, 900 and -1000 OEW's). I wonder if a scope clause and economical viable configuration would still be within reach here..

Image
Source : delta.com

The CRJ is terribly cramped :crowded: & a luggage hater, but very light & efficient.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
triple3driver
Topic Author
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:24 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 11:30 am

I'll be honest, I have my own reservations about whether Mitsubishi can grab a significant chunk of the market, I was just trying to paraphrase what the article was saying. Also, I'm surprised that Embraer to date has not launched an E170E2 or put the E175E2 on a diet, it's a significant market that can make or break a small aircraft program. Mitsubishi has potential, but they need to demonstrate that they have the capability to play in such a market, or else it's going to be another Fokker 70.
If you can walk away from it intact, it was a good landing!
 
xwb565
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 11:59 am

Not sure if this has been mentioned upthread but Mitsubishi is looking to launch a clean sheet 76 seater to meet the scope specs at the Paris Airshow according to another article on Leeham.
 
by738
Posts: 2964
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 7:59 am

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

Tue May 14, 2019 12:08 pm

I dont have great feelings about this Mitsubishi RJ venture.
Surely lots of the technology is already 'out of date'.
The boom of RJ just doesn't seem to be there now with more efficient economical larger aircraft. I doubt Mits can alter the history of SCOPE
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9571
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 1:28 pm

impilot wrote:
Outsourcing flying doesn’t have to be a thing. It hasn’t always been that way.

It *has* actually pretty much always been that way. Even well before deregulation airline operators were broken up into majors with big planes and expensive labor contracts, and regionals with small planes and low wages. The only difference is that code share had not become a thing technologically yet, so interline worked almost the same way code shares do now with single ticket booking, bag transfer, etc. The regionals fed the majors at their "hubs" in pretty much the exact same way it works now. How it is branded is the only difference and that came into play when Allegheny Commuter was born in 1969. Northwest did not operate EMB-110s or Metroliners. Or Delta. Or American. In fact, many of today's regional operators (sub-contractors) are descendants of the very same regional operators like Britt, Simmons, Sunbird, Henson, Rio, and the list goes on and on and on. So yes, it was always like this. Pan Am did not operate 19 seat planes unless you go so far back that all the planes were 19 seats. Once you got even close to the jet age, there was a size break that started to develop between regional carriers and major airlines.

I guess if you want to go back to the 1800s then I agree airlines were not divided into regionals and majors. Since there were no airlines in the 1800s.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9571
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 1:40 pm

impilot wrote:
And delta has enough revenue to have all RJs at mainline and pay the already negotiated RJ wages to actual delta pilots.

Yes, Delta makes a ton of money. And Delta pays out a ton of profit sharing, BTW. More than anybody. Also, I'm not a Delta fanboy. Just a fan of capitalism.

Here's what you are not getting. Delta isn't making all that money flying to CPR. They are making it flying ATL-LGA and similar routes. If you up the cost of flying to Casper to mainline wages they just won't fly to Casper any more. They aren't going to take their massive profits from ATL-LGA to pay for losses on Casper. They'd be dumb to do that. They aren't dumb. So now, either Casper loses all its service, or an airline like Southern Air Express goes into CPR and pays its pilots even less than DL/Skywest was paying. So, what you have accomplished is either to shrink the total number of people working as pilots or further lower average pilot wages. So, I'm guessing those aren't your goals.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9414
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 1:46 pm

enilria wrote:
impilot wrote:
And delta has enough revenue to have all RJs at mainline and pay the already negotiated RJ wages to actual delta pilots.

Yes, Delta makes a ton of money. And Delta pays out a ton of profit sharing, BTW. More than anybody. Also, I'm not a Delta fanboy. Just a fan of capitalism.

Here's what you are not getting. Delta isn't making all that money flying to CPR. They are making it flying ATL-LGA and similar routes. If you up the cost of flying to Casper to mainline wages they just won't fly to Casper any more. They aren't going to take their massive profits from ATL-LGA to pay for losses on Casper. They'd be dumb to do that. They aren't dumb. So now, either Casper loses all its service, or an airline like Southern Air Express goes into CPR and pays its pilots even less than DL/Skywest was paying. So, what you have accomplished is either to shrink the total number of people working as pilots or further lower average pilot wages. So, I'm guessing those aren't your goals.

DL is probably making most of their money on ATL-Southeast routes and similar; where routes are short, local population is still relatively large (compared to places like Casper WY), but LCC competition is minimal.
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 2:28 pm

enilria wrote:
impilot wrote:
Outsourcing flying doesn’t have to be a thing. It hasn’t always been that way.

It *has* actually pretty much always been that way. Even well before deregulation airline operators were broken up into majors with big planes and expensive labor contracts, and regionals with small planes and low wages. The only difference is that code share had not become a thing technologically yet, so interline worked almost the same way code shares do now with single ticket booking, bag transfer, etc. The regionals fed the majors at their "hubs" in pretty much the exact same way it works now. How it is branded is the only difference and that came into play when Allegheny Commuter was born in 1969. Northwest did not operate EMB-110s or Metroliners. Or Delta. Or American. In fact, many of today's regional operators (sub-contractors) are descendants of the very same regional operators like Britt, Simmons, Sunbird, Henson, Rio, and the list goes on and on and on. So yes, it was always like this. Pan Am did not operate 19 seat planes unless you go so far back that all the planes were 19 seats. Once you got even close to the jet age, there was a size break that started to develop between regional carriers and major airlines.

I guess if you want to go back to the 1800s then I agree airlines were not divided into regionals and majors. Since there were no airlines in the 1800s.


You’re talking true “commuter” flying. In small props. And in my statements I’ve called for all RJs, or at least large RJs, to go back to mainline. Not necessarily all “commuter” flying. An 86k lb 80 person jet that flies hub to hub and can fly over 2,000nm is no longer doing commuter/regional flying. That’s historically been mainline flying. Management (complicit with ALPA) moved the goalposts for what is ok to outsource on the “regional” side. It’s mainline flying period dot. But now pilots have realized (a little late) management’s playbook, and have leverage now, so scope gives isn’t even on the table. So this game of scope gives and moving goalposts is over and the E2 won’t say express or connection on it. Simple answer to management who wants more/bigger RJs: bring E175s and E2s (and CRJ7/9s) back to mainline and get as many as you want.

Can you provide historical examples of an 80 person jet with 2,200nm range being outsourced before the RJ explosion? If pilots didn’t get smart with scope, regionals would be flying E190s and maybe even 737s/a320s, and JV partners would be flying widebodies.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21173
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 2:48 pm

xwb565 wrote:
Not sure if this has been mentioned upthread but Mitsubishi is looking to launch a clean sheet 76 seater to meet the scope specs at the Paris Airshow according to another article on Leeham.

IMHO the thread starter article ( https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/13/ponti ... rj-player/ ) and the article about a new clean sheet ( https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/13/mitsu ... -at-paris/ ) are addressing the same topic.
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: 17903
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 2:55 pm

Revelation wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
Not sure if this has been mentioned upthread but Mitsubishi is looking to launch a clean sheet 76 seater to meet the scope specs at the Paris Airshow according to another article on Leeham.

IMHO the thread starter article ( https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/13/ponti ... rj-player/ ) and the article about a new clean sheet ( https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/13/mitsu ... -at-paris/ ) are addressing the same topic.

To save several tons of weight, the original MRJ had a CFRP wing. Is it coming back? I speculate.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
iceberg210
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:11 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 2:57 pm

Lightsaber[/quote]

Mitsubishi is accepting reality and taking the Mulligan. Embraer's needs to also.

I see a market for a thousand to 1500 frames.
Lightsaber[/quote]
Thanks a bunch for the explanation makes a lot more sense now how trying to jumpstart the market through a carrier like Horizon just won't work.

I too don't understand why Embraer isn't going back to the drawing board unless they just don't think there's anyway they can get under the 86k lb requirement. The only way I can understand them not trying is if they have gone to the airlines with the biggest 170E2 they can build under scope and the airlines say they'd rather keep buying the 175. Don't know if that's the case but beyond that being the case I don't understand why Embraer would keep going down a path that has a very high likelyhood of being a dead end.
Erik Berg
Defying Gravity
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17903
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 3:00 pm

impilot wrote:
Can you provide historical examples of an 80 person jet with 2,200nm range being outsourced before the RJ explosion? If pilots didn’t get smart with scope, regionals would be flying E190s and maybe even 737s/a320s, and JV partners would be flying widebodies.

Scope limits to:
76 pax (or even 70 or 50)
86,000 lb maximum weight.
Quantity of each size allowed.

So the worry of larger aircraft isn't warranted. Every aircraft you listed is prohibited.

What will happen is more efficient aircraft for small markets.

Note:. With close to 70% of RJs sold in the USA, the links claiming huge sales amuse me. There is an external market, but not that large.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5581
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 3:18 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Neither side will budge, so I see no reason to discuss changes to scope.

In perspective, the E-170/175:
https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-e170.htm

750 in service.
513 in US scope clause airlines plus 26 at Horizon (no 86,000 lb limit).
Republic: 190
SkyWest 149
Mess 60
Envoy 58
Compass 56

So 68% in US duty under scope clauses. Or, a mere 237 not in scope.

There is no RJ economy of scale without US scope. So Mitsubishi must modify the design to meet scope to sell.

Basically, sell to Republic and SkyWest or go home.

Lightsaber


That's been the argument for a few years now but there seems to be little progress in accepting it. U.S. carrier earnings have been pretty good. Pilot wage increases even at secondary carriers (AS, Spirit) have been good. There's little movement toward relaxing scope. Both sides have dug in (witness 50-seat CR7s at United.) A few people don't want to accept that the U.S. is the market-maker here. The quicker Mitsubishi figures that out and responds to it, the better.
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 3:22 pm

lightsaber wrote:
impilot wrote:
Can you provide historical examples of an 80 person jet with 2,200nm range being outsourced before the RJ explosion? If pilots didn’t get smart with scope, regionals would be flying E190s and maybe even 737s/a320s, and JV partners would be flying widebodies.

Scope limits to:
76 pax (or even 70 or 50)
86,000 lb maximum weight.
Quantity of each size allowed.

So the worry of larger aircraft isn't warranted. Every aircraft you listed is prohibited.

What will happen is more efficient aircraft for small markets.

Note:. With close to 70% of RJs sold in the USA, the links claiming huge sales amuse me. There is an external market, but not that large.

Lightsaber


I’m intimately familiar with the scope clause allowances. I mention 80 seats because e175s (and CR9s) can hold at least that if it weren’t for scope restrictions, so imo that’s what they would hold where they belong (at mainline). So in my ideal world mainline would fly 80 seat 175s and the 4 extra seats on the 175 would probably offset the increased pilot wages (at least the hourly wage difference). Maybe even do a family of 175E2/190E2/195E2s at mainline.

You mention more efficient aircraft for smaller markets. Are there any more efficient RJs being developed currently that are/will be viable? I don’t see the MRJ ever picking up US sales and I don’t know what else airlines will buy as CR7/9/170/175 replacements besides E170/175 first gens, maybe more CRJs until BBD divests the line. Don’t see much else viable in the next decade as a more efficient RJ.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17903
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 4:35 pm

impilot wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
impilot wrote:
Can you provide historical examples of an 80 person jet with 2,200nm range being outsourced before the RJ explosion? If pilots didn’t get smart with scope, regionals would be flying E190s and maybe even 737s/a320s, and JV partners would be flying widebodies.

Scope limits to:
76 pax (or even 70 or 50)
86,000 lb maximum weight.
Quantity of each size allowed.

So the worry of larger aircraft isn't warranted. Every aircraft you listed is prohibited.

What will happen is more efficient aircraft for small markets.

Note:. With close to 70% of RJs sold in the USA, the links claiming huge sales amuse me. There is an external market, but not that large.

Lightsaber


I’m intimately familiar with the scope clause allowances. I mention 80 seats because e175s (and CR9s) can hold at least that if it weren’t for scope restrictions, so imo that’s what they would hold where they belong (at mainline). So in my ideal world mainline would fly 80 seat 175s and the 4 extra seats on the 175 would probably offset the increased pilot wages (at least the hourly wage difference). Maybe even do a family of 175E2/190E2/195E2s at mainline.

You mention more efficient aircraft for smaller markets. Are there any more efficient RJs being developed currently that are/will be viable? I don’t see the MRJ ever picking up US sales and I don’t know what else airlines will buy as CR7/9/170/175 replacements besides E170/175 first gens, maybe more CRJs until BBD divests the line. Don’t see much else viable in the next decade as a more efficient RJ.

The MRJ is being redesigned per the previous links, including OP link. I believe it is a much more efficient concept.

Mainline costs are so much higher, nothing smaller than the E2-195 or A220 is viable. I see ways to remove weight from the MRJ.

If you are familiar with scope, you know it is allowed to reduce seat count. Some airlines have evacuation limits to prevent your prior concerns of outsourcing a larger aircraft.

I believe the latest model will be that efficient RJ. The reality is, I was personally shocked when the original E-jets were launched with the CF-34. Personally, way back when :old: I didn't understand going with such a high fuel burn engine. I'm more amazed it is still selling, which I attribute to Embraer's design.

Now, the CF-34-8 is reliable (E-175). The CF-35-10 has always had issues. Nothing horrid, just a gigapet (engine that needs constant attention or it dies). Man . I date myself with that term, but for some reason it persists in the industry.

I could modify the MRJ to sell, so I have no doubt Mitsubishi can too.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
iceberg210
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:11 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 4:39 pm

lightsaber wrote:

I could modify the MRJ to sell, so I have no doubt Mitsubishi can too.

Lightsaber

Do you think the 175E2 is modifiable to sell or is the previous generation structure with the new generation engines just a match that for 76 seats can't get under 86k?
Erik Berg
Defying Gravity
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9571
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 5:41 pm

impilot wrote:
You’re talking true “commuter” flying. In small props. And in my statements I’ve called for all RJs, or at least large RJs, to go back to mainline. Not necessarily all “commuter” flying. An 86k lb 80 person jet that flies hub to hub and can fly over 2,000nm is no longer doing commuter/regional flying. That’s historically been mainline flying. Management (complicit with ALPA) moved the goalposts for what is ok to outsource on the “regional” side. It’s mainline flying period dot. But now pilots have realized (a little late) management’s playbook, and have leverage now, so scope gives isn’t even on the table. So this game of scope gives and moving goalposts is over and the E2 won’t say express or connection on it. Simple answer to management who wants more/bigger RJs: bring E175s and E2s (and CRJ7/9s) back to mainline and get as many as you want.

Can you provide historical examples of an 80 person jet with 2,200nm range being outsourced before the RJ explosion? If pilots didn’t get smart with scope, regionals would be flying E190s and maybe even 737s/a320s, and JV partners would be flying widebodies.

Sure, but there weren't regional jets in that era, but the size of aircraft is similar.

I think you make a much more effective case when you talk about a route like DEN-SAT operated with RJs. The problem is that if you don't create scope based on seats it gets so much messier. So what do you do now? Mileage? Route size? Both would just create different problems. There are plenty of mainline jets flying routes less than 500 miles and a route list would be a disaster. Something like TTN or SFB would become a hive of RJs because it was left off the ALPA mainline route list.

Arguably Empire flying F28s for Allegheny Commuter was almost exactly that, but again you have created a false comparison because no 80 seat jets could fly anywhere close to 2200nm "before the RJ explosion".
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

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

Tue May 14, 2019 5:50 pm

keesje wrote:
The plug would seem the only viable option. Mating e.g. the CRJ-900 front section to the CRJ-700 would increase overall length around 2.5 meters. It would add approximately 1.2t of OEW (based on interpolating -700, 900 and -1000 OEW's). I wonder if a scope clause and economical viable configuration would still be within reach here..
The CRJ is terribly cramped :crowded: & a luggage hater, but very light & efficient.


Have you had an opportunity to fly on a CRJ700,900,1000 with the Atmosphere interior? The website is clear in that the business class bins are 50% bigger... However, the verbiage is bit wonky with regards to Economy bins... Only that it fits bags that are 40% larger than what can fit in most bins??? Doesn't really say how much more VOLUME the economy bins have.

Regarding your proposed CRJ-800 (see what I just did there?)… It would be very close to the CRJ705, which is a CRJ900 fuse w/ 76pax capacity in 2-classes (10+66). However that bird too would be tail heavy. Your CRJ-800 fixes that! Anyway, this is the Mitsubishi thread.. so I won't comment much more on the CRJ-800 here ;)
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17903
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 6:01 pm

iceberg210 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

I could modify the MRJ to sell, so I have no doubt Mitsubishi can too.

Lightsaber

Do you think the 175E2 is modifiable to sell or is the previous generation structure with the new generation engines just a match that for 76 seats can't get under 86k?

I would do several cost studies for the MRJ:
1. Shrink to under 86,000. Probably 2 lengths in study.
2. CFRP wing as first planned, possibly a length change
3. Make the best of the above an awesome 50 seater replacement (3 class).

The new engine weighs 1700kg versus 1200kg for the CF-34-8E. The larger nacelle will be heavier to. Note: I know the two weights are not equivalent, but the propulsion systems should be about 1200kg heavier including pylon and wing reinforcements.

The E2-175 was stretched and given a better (heavier) wing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_% ... ey_PW1000G

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_CF34

I think the 1200kg can be overcome by efficiency gains, but that requires reverting to as close as possible to the old wing and body.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
dc10lover
Posts: 1535
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:11 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 7:59 pm

Simply will not happen.
Why endure the nightmare and congestion of LAX when BUR, LGB, ONT & SNA is so much easier to fly in and out of. Same with OAK & SJC when it comes to SFO.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

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

Tue May 14, 2019 8:04 pm

This thread focusses a lot on scope clauses.
However, have any of you done the actual math?
A derated version of the MR70 would have 4 to 5 hour flying range, as for the MR90, 2 to 3 hours should be possible.

That's plenty of range for most RJ missions.

The problem with the E175-E2 is that range would be limited to less than 2 hours.
The useable load is just 12 tons, leaving 4 tons for fuel minus 2 tons for reserves of all kinds.
The MR90 will only have a 1 ton advantage but with the narrower fuselage cross section, it will be burning around 1.3 tons the second hour, so that 1 ton of edge gives them so much more range.

So it's obvious that the MRJ customers are hoping that the MR90 will meet scope clauses with 2-3 hour range, which solely depends on the final weights and fuel burn after the required mods for cerrification.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13102
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Tue May 14, 2019 9:24 pm

ODwyerPW wrote:
keesje wrote:
The plug would seem the only viable option. Mating e.g. the CRJ-900 front section to the CRJ-700 would increase overall length around 2.5 meters. It would add approximately 1.2t of OEW (based on interpolating -700, 900 and -1000 OEW's). I wonder if a scope clause and economical viable configuration would still be within reach here..
The CRJ is terribly cramped :crowded: & a luggage hater, but very light & efficient.


Have you had an opportunity to fly on a CRJ700,900,1000 with the Atmosphere interior? The website is clear in that the business class bins are 50% bigger... However, the verbiage is bit wonky with regards to Economy bins... Only that it fits bags that are 40% larger than what can fit in most bins??? Doesn't really say how much more VOLUME the economy bins have.

Regarding your proposed CRJ-800 (see what I just did there?)… It would be very close to the CRJ705, which is a CRJ900 fuse w/ 76pax capacity in 2-classes (10+66). However that bird too would be tail heavy. Your CRJ-800 fixes that! Anyway, this is the Mitsubishi thread.. so I won't comment much more on the CRJ-800 here ;)


A GE Passport powered Scope compliant CRJ-800 (2.5m stretch in front) would balance the CoG but be significantly heavier. I wonder how much range would be left. No doubt BBD looked at it recently.

Image

I'm curious to see what Mitsubishi will come up with in Paris..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

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

Tue May 14, 2019 9:32 pm

It’s been looked and passed. Stretches usually involve frames added on both sides of the MAC. Just stretching foreword of the MAC is likely fraught with stability and control issues, not least rudder power to oppose all that added foreword side area. Then, there’s added structure in the tail for the heavier engines and rudder. An upgraded APU. Lastly, no business case.

GF
 
User avatar
LaunchDetected
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:42 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 9:37 pm

Some of us are even doubting that Airbus can ramp-up the A220 production and now the MRJ is well positioned, with 0 aircraft in service and multiples delays?

I cannot talk about scope clauses, but on the industrial side there is a lot of work to do. We can also have concerns regarding the customer support. Japan is not Russia but it might be an uncertainty.
Caravelle lover
 
c933103
Posts: 3804
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 10:20 pm

impilot wrote:
You’re talking true “commuter” flying. In small props. And in my statements I’ve called for all RJs, or at least large RJs, to go back to mainline. Not necessarily all “commuter” flying. An 86k lb 80 person jet that flies hub to hub and can fly over 2,000nm is no longer doing commuter/regional flying. That’s historically been mainline flying. Management (complicit with ALPA) moved the goalposts for what is ok to outsource on the “regional” side. It’s mainline flying period dot. But now pilots have realized (a little late) management’s playbook, and have leverage now, so scope gives isn’t even on the table. So this game of scope gives and moving goalposts is over and the E2 won’t say express or connection on it. Simple answer to management who wants more/bigger RJs: bring E175s and E2s (and CRJ7/9s) back to mainline and get as many as you want.

Can you provide historical examples of an 80 person jet with 2,200nm range being outsourced before the RJ explosion? If pilots didn’t get smart with scope, regionals would be flying E190s and maybe even 737s/a320s, and JV partners would be flying widebodies.

And JV partners are flying widebodies on routes to America now, what's wrong with that?
When no other countries around the world is going to militarily stop China and its subordinate fom abusing its citizens within its national boundary, it is unreasonable to expect those abuse can be countered with purely peaceful means.
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

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

Tue May 14, 2019 11:16 pm

As someone who lives in a country where RJs are almost non-existent and where there are only two operators of RJs (both of which are BAe 146s), can someone give an ELI5 of what scope clauses are, and why they're such a big deal when it comes to plane sizes and capacity? And if there are parallels outside of the US?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21173
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 11:37 pm

filipinoavgeek wrote:
As someone who lives in a country where RJs are almost non-existent and where there are only two operators of RJs (both of which are BAe 146s), can someone give an ELI5 of what scope clauses are, and why they're such a big deal when it comes to plane sizes and capacity? And if there are parallels outside of the US?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause at least gives an overview.

Feel free to read and let us know what follow on questions you have.
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
 
rrbsztk
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:48 am

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

Wed May 15, 2019 3:54 am

filipinoavgeek wrote:
As someone who lives in a country where RJs are almost non-existent and where there are only two operators of RJs (both of which are BAe 146s), can someone give an ELI5 of what scope clauses are, and why they're such a big deal when it comes to plane sizes and capacity? And if there are parallels outside of the US?



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... sr-446881/

Here's a good article to look at.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13102
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Wed May 15, 2019 11:56 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It’s been looked and passed. Stretches usually involve frames added on both sides of the MAC. Just stretching foreword of the MAC is likely fraught with stability and control issues, not least rudder power to oppose all that added foreword side area. Then, there’s added structure in the tail for the heavier engines and rudder. An upgraded APU. Lastly, no business case.

GF


tecnically has has been done many times. There's a CRJ1000 using the same tail. Think of the string of PW, Rolls & V2500 powered DC9, MD, 717 variants. The tail structure would have to be redone.

Dry weight of the new CRJ 800 Passport (20) = 4,554 lb (2,066 kg),
Dry weight of the current CRJ's CF34-8C2= 2,400 lb (1,090kg)

So overall it's a 2000kg/ 4500lbs increase. Add the stretch in front and aircraft OEW grows ~4t to 24t and it's MTOW to around 38t / 84k lbs.

Since 2012, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines cap their regional airlines' jets at 76 seats and a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) at 86,000 lb (39 t).[3] This limit stands until 2019 at United, and 2020 at Delta and American, limiting the sales of the new Mitsubishi MRJ90 and Embraer 175-E2 to the smaller MRJ70 and current E175.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause

This actually looks good technically ! Range would still be over 1600NM offering some margin. Is the Bombardier 2017 CRJ Passport business case the same as in 2019, or have things changed? US airlines are risk averse & have a lot of CRJ infrastructure today.




.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
texl1649
Posts: 1015
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

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

Wed May 15, 2019 1:28 pm

Well, obviously, BBD has zero interest in a new commercial CRJ aircraft. But, perhaps whoever buys out the remainder of the line/production stuff would do it, and have sort of a reverse MCAS system to have the plane mimic stall/CG of previous variants with a new heavier engine at the back.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

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

Wed May 15, 2019 1:49 pm

And the CRJ 1000 had a difficult FBW rudder, sold very few. There’s no business case for a CRJ 800.

GF
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

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

Wed May 15, 2019 2:24 pm

Will be intreresting to see if the MR2 can be made efficient enough to supplant or disrupt the
Q400 and ATR 72 market.

E-jets are so prevalent in the US, few airlines are going to waste their efforts re-fleeting, and creating dual fleets, and the expense of training for the Mitsubishi. Additionally, US regionals run the risk of losing pilots to other regionals if individual fleet types contract as new transition aircraft are brought on.

For US regionals, holding on to pilots is essential right now.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
Cactusjuba
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:06 am

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

Wed May 15, 2019 8:22 pm

enilria wrote:
impilot wrote:
And delta has enough revenue to have all RJs at mainline and pay the already negotiated RJ wages to actual delta pilots.

Yes, Delta makes a ton of money. And Delta pays out a ton of profit sharing, BTW. More than anybody. Also, I'm not a Delta fanboy. Just a fan of capitalism.

Here's what you are not getting. Delta isn't making all that money flying to CPR. They are making it flying ATL-LGA and similar routes. If you up the cost of flying to Casper to mainline wages they just won't fly to Casper any more. They aren't going to take their massive profits from ATL-LGA to pay for losses on Casper. They'd be dumb to do that. They aren't dumb. So now, either Casper loses all its service, or an airline like Southern Air Express goes into CPR and pays its pilots even less than DL/Skywest was paying. So, what you have accomplished is either to shrink the total number of people working as pilots or further lower average pilot wages. So, I'm guessing those aren't your goals.


enilria wrote:
impilot wrote:
Outsourcing flying doesn’t have to be a thing. It hasn’t always been that way.

It *has* actually pretty much always been that way. Even well before deregulation airline operators were broken up into majors with big planes and expensive labor contracts, and regionals with small planes and low wages. The only difference is that code share had not become a thing technologically yet, so interline worked almost the same way code shares do now with single ticket booking, bag transfer, etc. The regionals fed the majors at their "hubs" in pretty much the exact same way it works now. How it is branded is the only difference and that came into play when Allegheny Commuter was born in 1969. Northwest did not operate EMB-110s or Metroliners. Or Delta. Or American. In fact, many of today's regional operators (sub-contractors) are descendants of the very same regional operators like Britt, Simmons, Sunbird, Henson, Rio, and the list goes on and on and on. So yes, it was always like this. Pan Am did not operate 19 seat planes unless you go so far back that all the planes were 19 seats. Once you got even close to the jet age, there was a size break that started to develop between regional carriers and major airlines.

I guess if you want to go back to the 1800s then I agree airlines were not divided into regionals and majors. Since there were no airlines in the 1800s.


Yes, there has always been regional airliner’s feeding mainline operators. Airlines, ex. SkyWest, marketed as themselves, flew 19 seat Metroliners feeding the tiny communities. They added 30 seat E120s to small towns, then veiled themselves into DL conx/UAX flying 50 seat RJs flying to small cities. The fee for departure wave took off, downgauging in larger markets to a 50 seater in exchange for increased frequency. Later 70 and and 76 seat RJs were added. That 80 seat range of the the 737-100, BAC-111, Fokker70 and DC9-10/20s that we’re mainline products in the same seat range, fully extinguished. Routes flown by mainline just turned over to RJs, in the largest of markets on distant routes. Thousands of mainline pilots were furloughed as regional pilots and hulls grew at fever pitch, peaking at 65% US network flying outsourced to regionals. Regionals of yesteryear have more in common with Great Lakes(RIP), CapeAir, Ravn, SurfAir, Seaborne, ViaAir etc than anything today. That flying was done by mainline pilots, yet today with modern fleets with more fuel efficient GTF engines and potentially extra seats added, pilots cost too high? Not even overtaking a route like SFO-MCI, LGA-ORD, LAX-IAH? They don’t cost too much, they just cost more. What also costs more is billions in CAPEX over the next 5 years on hundreds of Embraers, where SK and RP can foot the finance costs.
I say you are right, capitalism will happen. If a 50 seater route (CPR) can’t upgauge to 70/76 seat with no new 50 seater replacement: A- go away/consolidate frequencies B- raise fares to make them profitable C- Regional operator adds to at risk portfolio/grant money D- market responds with a more right sized Metroliner/Brasilia size aircraft (unlimited scope permitted).
Supply and Demand. Low supply of cheap ATP rated pilot labor, low demand of consumers willing to pay sustainable fares to fly from the middle of nowhere to a big city on ONLY a jet. Freedom to fail.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 411
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 12:57 am

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.

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.

The MRJ is already optimised for scope clauses.
The MR70 can take 74 seats in a 6J + 68Y configuration, or 76 seats in all-Y at an OEW of 25 tons.
That leaves 14 tons of usable load, 8 tons for PAX, 6 tons for fuel.

With 6 tons of fuel at 1.3 tons and even lower for long range missions, it's the perfectly optimised design to serve this segment.


The luggage hold in the back makes sense.
Those who criticise it have obviously never crawled on their knees in the hold of an Ejet.
It reduces turn around times and enabled the design engineers to reduce the fuselage cross section to increase fuel efficiency.

The MRJ is just perfectly optimised for its mission and will not be rivaled in the short term.
The challenges will be competence in support, in-service reliability, durability (where the CRJ and Ejets failed), production ramp-up, production cost and its derivative sales price.

You want a re-engined CRJ? It's called the MRJ.
There is no point for BBD to sink billions in development costs to rival the MRJ at this point.

The only contender that comes near is the E175-E2 but Embraer de-optimised it to be able to compete against the MR90 if the scope clause landscape changed.
So in terms of current scope clauses, the MR70 is the only optimised option.

Image

Pic: Leeham News
 
c933103
Posts: 3804
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

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

Thu May 16, 2019 1:44 am

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.
When no other countries around the world is going to militarily stop China and its subordinate fom abusing its citizens within its national boundary, it is unreasonable to expect those abuse can be countered with purely peaceful means.

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