Jetport wrote:lightsaber wrote:Jetport wrote:
Alright Lightsaber, I'll bite, you keep pumping the M100 for some unknown reason. The Mitsubishi M100 is many years from entering service and will likely will be a hanger queen if ever enters service at all. The odds of the M100 being a viable commercial aircraft appear to be very low, based on the program and company history. Do you have some insight or reason for your inexplicable confidence in the M100?
The program had issues. I look at this from the big picture, there is a competitor.
As to insight, I have contacts in the industry. There have been numerous issues. My first exposure was their initial bid for an engine that... was a joke. They fixed that.
Technically, I really like the aircraft. As a passenger, it fixes the issues I wanted fixed. From a predictive maintenance/avionics standpoint, it sets the standard for RJs.
The M90 is amazingly delayed. That is obvious. But Mitsubishi keeps fixing the issues. The Hondajet was even more delayed. Yet it happened. Hondajet first flight in 2003, delivery in 2015, now a top product in the category.
The Japanese aircraft design culture seems to not seek experienced help until they hit a major delay. However, they eventually produce reliable aircraft.
This thread is on expanding scope to allow the E2-175. With two alternatives (E175, M100), why would scope be reduced?
Now, the MRJ program will never make a profit.
I am of the opinion it will sell, enter service, and be supported by the purchased CRJ maintenance network. I am of the opinion Mitsubishi selected good vendors. I am not of the opinion the competitiveness should be dismissed.
Thank you for the answers and insights. As to your question why scope would be reduced, I think you answered it. The current E175 qualifies and M100 will qualify, why lock out a more modern and efficient aircraft with the same number of seats just because of weight? It is an irrational position, considering the two aircraft that meet scope perform the same function, just less efficiently. Of course unions have never been known for rational behavior, just maximizing pay and benefits and protecting the poorest performing employees.
We come full circle. The scope weight and seats is the only dividing line between outsourced and in house labor. It is actually rational for the unions to maximize dues at mainline.
Let us take a trip down memory lane. The initial maximum takeoff weight of the DC-9 was 90,700lb.
To myself, it seems rational to reserve DC-9 and more capable aircraft for mainline.
Heck, a WW2 "Heavy Bomber" had a MTOW of 65,000lb.
86,000 seems fair.
The original regional had no domestic first seats. Now that they do, the mainline crews (not just pilots) will defend their position.
The M100 has to give up a row of J+ to meet scope efficiently. I would prefer it over my last 5 regional flights (all CRJ variants). The E-175 needs predictive maintenance (retrifitable) and much more efficient engines (hence, the E2).
I'm not seeing the irrational behavior. By no means am I pro union. I believe in the rule of law which means contracts. Contracts are I give you something and I receive something.