Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:12 am

c933103 wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
JHwk wrote:
I have a very hard time believing scope requirements will not be changing with re-negotiations post-COVID restructuring. The E2-175 will end up as a regional jet.

Pilots union saw last time that jets for jobs does not work and that allowing better regional jets just keeps mainline on the street longer. It's much better to take pay or work rules cut than a scope cut because you can get pay and work rules back a lot easier then you can get a scope back. The first 70 seaters were framed as a thing needed after 9/11 now look where that ended up scope is the only reason mainline pilots exist and they have to know every scope concession just increases the time they spend furloughed or stuck in a more junior seat.

If scope is the only reason mainline pikots exist, then why should there be any of them?



Why should scope exist at all? Why shouldn't pilots be paid properly for all commerical flights ?
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:15 am

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
The weight increase eats away engine fuel efficiency gains. That's why I think designing within current scope clauses will result in a more efficient plane than the E175-E2 or the M90.
Currently there is hardly demand for passenger flights, thus a huge aircraft surplus. But in a couple of years demand will have returned, and by then the new aircraft could become available.


This isn't true. Nobody is building a new jet. You've given no reason why they would? A ATR72 is much cheaper. Why would you build a new plane? It's incumbent on you to provide a case for doing so.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:53 am

Maybe the CRJ could be a scope & commonality driven alternative afterall.

Image
Source: keesje
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mmo
Posts: 2059
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:05 am

Maybe I am missing something in this discussion but there is no "magic" number of seats for scope relief. To be honest, if airlines had their way there would be no scope at all. That way they could reduce wages to rock bottom by shopping the flying around. Scope relief was given to protect jobs. However, there was growth tied into the relief or some other provision for positions tied to the number of aircraft/seats/gross weight involved in the agreement. But, the motivation for the parent company pilots was jobs by allowing expansion into less lucrative markets by using feeder aircraft. In a growth environment, it is most likely a smart move. However, what does the union have to gain in a downsizing environment? I think we will see the unions dig their heels in with any expansion on relief and I could see a move to terminate existing scope agreements or downsize them considerably.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
CFRPwingALbody
Topic Author
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 10:35 am

keesje wrote:
Maybe the CRJ could be a scope & commonality driven alternative afterall.

Image
Source: keesje

This could be a 80-84 seat full economy new scope compliant aircraft. I think there would also be demand for a 56-60 all economy seat aircraft, for 50seat scope.

The E175 entered market by 2005, that's 15 years ago. The CRJ700 entered market in 2001, that's 19 years ago. With 15 to 20 years of technology improvements it's time to introduce new aircraft.
But E175-E2 grew outside scope, and M100 development was put on hold. CRJ production is going to stop soon. So the only available scope comlient option is the 15year old E175.
Or the ATR-600 family that entered market by 2010, also a decade ago.
Regional aircrafts are a substantial market, that needs new products in my oppinion.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4446
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 11:00 am

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
Or the ATR-600 family that entered market by 2010, also a decade ago.


The -600 is just an update of the interior and some other minor stuff. It is still pretty much the same aircraft as certified in 1997, which was itself a minor update (added the 6-bladed propellers) of the 72-210 from 1992. For all intents and purposes, it is a 23 - 28 year old aircraft.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 12:13 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
This could be a 80-84 seat full economy new scope compliant aircraft. I think there would also be demand for a 56-60 all economy seat aircraft, for 50seat scope.

The E175 entered market by 2005, that's 15 years ago. The CRJ700 entered market in 2001, that's 19 years ago. With 15 to 20 years of technology improvements it's time to introduce new aircraft.
But E175-E2 grew outside scope, and M100 development was put on hold. CRJ production is going to stop soon. So the only available scope comlient option is the 15year old E175.
Or the ATR-600 family that entered market by 2010, also a decade ago.
Regional aircrafts are a substantial market, that needs new products in my oppinion.


I don't think the CRJ is the most outdated aircraft around. The cockpit could easily be updated, bigger screeens, but there a HUD option etc. already. A more up to date cockpit than many mainline aircraft being produced today.
Image
https://www.aircraftcompare.com/aircraf ... r-crj-900/

The Passport might be a bit heavy, but a stretch could compensate. The GE Passport is on the Global Rangers.
Otherwise the PW1700 could be a suitable, quiet alternative. But who wants to put up the 2B required?

Low risk, commonality, infrastructure, existing customer base and full scope compliance might be selling points.

Image
source: keesje
Last edited by keesje on Tue May 26, 2020 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6022
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 12:21 pm

That’s “Global Express”!

There’s no market for new 50-seat RJ, the existing market is pretty much 70-76 seats. There simply isn’t enough revenue from 50 seats in too many markets
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10630
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 12:31 pm

All this talk about a CRJ update is ignoring the elephant in the room-Mitsubishi is buying the CRJ program with no intention of continuing production (rather primarily just wanting its support network). To update the CRJ Mitsubishi is either going to have to set up a new production line (and adjust supply chain/supplier contracts as required) or work out some agreement with Bombardier to continue to produce the aircraft for them in the future. Mitsubishi is also not necessarily getting all the engineers who developed the CRJ and are most familiar with the aircraft.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9628
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 12:38 pm

Passport is a biz jet engine, it does not really work for such a plane.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 1:11 pm

Polot wrote:
All this talk about a CRJ update is ignoring the elephant in the room-Mitsubishi is buying the CRJ program with no intention of continuing production (rather primarily just wanting its support network). To update the CRJ Mitsubishi is either going to have to set up a new production line (and adjust supply chain/supplier contracts as required) or work out some agreement with Bombardier to continue to produce the aircraft for them in the future. Mitsubishi is also not necessarily getting all the engineers who developed the CRJ and are most familiar with the aircraft.


I think a lot of insights, assumptions and strategies that seems reasonable 3 months ago, are binned these days.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10630
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 1:13 pm

keesje wrote:
Polot wrote:
All this talk about a CRJ update is ignoring the elephant in the room-Mitsubishi is buying the CRJ program with no intention of continuing production (rather primarily just wanting its support network). To update the CRJ Mitsubishi is either going to have to set up a new production line (and adjust supply chain/supplier contracts as required) or work out some agreement with Bombardier to continue to produce the aircraft for them in the future. Mitsubishi is also not necessarily getting all the engineers who developed the CRJ and are most familiar with the aircraft.


I think a lot of insights, assumptions and strategies that seems reasonable 3 months ago, are binned these days.

Both companies confirmed earlier this month that the deal is closing June 1st, with BBD committing to produce the aircraft until the end of its current backlog.

Covid is not changing what Mitsubishi is buying and what they have to do if they want to alter it. Probably does change any hope of Mitsubishi trying to sell/build new builds though.
Last edited by Polot on Tue May 26, 2020 1:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 1:13 pm

Unless someone is going to build an extensive rail network in US there will be a need for something to do what RJ do. If that can only be done with a Prop that is what we will end up with. A lot of my business travel involved two RJs connecting small cities (chemical plants and suppliers tend to be located away from urban centers these days) There will be a demand for this in the future I am sure.
 
amcnd
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:19 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 1:36 pm

Everyone is focused on a “re-engine”. But fail to recognize the cost savings on “cost of Scale”. Look at GE. Who is there largest (volume wise) customer?... AA/UA..? Nope SkyWest... there is nothing wrong with the current E175/900 engine. I could see More 175’s in regionals future and less 50 seaters... Delta even leases engines from SkyWest do to cheaper then them buying/leasing them themselves.. Republics one fleet type also helps, CRJ E145 Engines get thrown on the used citation 10/challenger market...
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3373
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 1:42 pm

Dmoney wrote:
c933103 wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
Pilots union saw last time that jets for jobs does not work and that allowing better regional jets just keeps mainline on the street longer. It's much better to take pay or work rules cut than a scope cut because you can get pay and work rules back a lot easier then you can get a scope back. The first 70 seaters were framed as a thing needed after 9/11 now look where that ended up scope is the only reason mainline pilots exist and they have to know every scope concession just increases the time they spend furloughed or stuck in a more junior seat.

If scope is the only reason mainline pikots exist, then why should there be any of them?



Why should scope exist at all? Why shouldn't pilots be paid properly for all commerical flights ?


It shouldn't, the planes should all be flown by mainline. But that's not going to happen.
From my cold, dead hands
 
CFRPwingALbody
Topic Author
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 1:43 pm

The name CRJ is wrong, for what Keesje is proposing. Another draw back of the CRJ is it's just a couple of inch to narrow cross section. Do the Global 5500, 6500 and Global 7500 have the same cross section as the CRJs, or is it larger?
I think the ATR cross section or the Falcon 6X could be beter for a new regional jet.
And indeed the current GE Passport, P&W PW800s and RR Pearl engines are for biz jets, but RR showed with the BR700 (pearl predesessor) and AE3007 that an engine can be optimized for biz jets or regional jets. P&W tried with the PW306 on the Do328, but Fairchild Dornier went bankrupt before it could prove itself.
The PW800s use the core of the PW1000G, the PW812 uses the PW1200G (M100) core. The PW814/815 use the PW1500 (A220 core) it's most likely nearly identical to the PW 1900G (E19x-E2) core.
Possibly CFRP-titanium fan blades and CFRP casing is required for new regional jet engines. The increased weight of the higher compression ratio core can be compensated by a lighter fan and casing. Eliminating the fan casing, and increasing the bypass ratio from ~10 to >20 with an unducted fan results in a lighter and more efficient engine.
This could be a new CRJ (4ab) or a new MD-94X (5ab).
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 1:54 pm

Just saying the expiration date of confirmed strategies is short these days. After the CRJ confirmation MHI closed all US offices, cancelled part of their Spacejet program.https://www.aerotime.aero/rytis.beresne ... ted-states . Boeing developed second thoughts on the Embraer take-over, A & B cut production, airlines go bust & large fleets get parked indefinitely. What was confirmed 3 weeks ago must be reviewed today. The starting points, situation is changing. I think second thoughts on the e.g. CRJ are very well possible, in terms of low risks, scope clauses and investment.Stranger things happened, and we don't need an official confirmation for that.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
CFRPwingALbody
Topic Author
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 2:02 pm

Afaik turboprop engines work better at sea level and less efficient during cruise. Jet engines are more efficient during cruise, but less efficient during takeoff and landing. There is a range crosspoint where jets get more efficient (CASM) than turboprops. This is mainly because the flight speed difference.
I don't know if US regional market is mainly short range ~500nm or more long range. The 1500nm range requirement is more suitable for a jet than a prop.

Some state there isn't demand for a 50seat RJ, because it can't operate profitably. But it's 3crew versus 4 crew members and ~1/3th less thrust required (10k lbf vs 15k lbf) that's a lot less fuel consumption. That's currently not important, with the low fuel prices. But I expect this to change back to high fuel prices.
Last edited by CFRPwingALbody on Tue May 26, 2020 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
AndoAv8R
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:29 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 2:02 pm

Given the post covid-19 outlook, it seems like there would be a higher demand for a design that can go to smaller airports that currently are served in the 30-70 seat market that cant handle bigger aircraft like the E175/do not have the demand for something in the 90-100 seat range as well as something that has more cargo capability.

Possible examples I could see would be an updated turboprop design with a high wing and capability to quickly convert to a combi/all cargo layout.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Topic Author
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 2:20 pm

AndoAv8R wrote:
Possible examples I could see would be an updated turboprop design with a high wing and capability to quickly convert to a combi/all cargo layout.

That's basicly the ATR-600 family with the cargo flex solution. It's unconventional forward cargo door, makes this possible.
But DHC also developed quick cargo conversion solutions for the Dash-8.
The 9G barrier requirement between passengers and cargo makes fast conversion from passenger to more freight very complicated.

Embraer could develop a unducted fan ERJ, but that's 30-50 seats aircraft. The Do328(neu) with max 39seats is also for the <50seat market.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6022
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 2:33 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
The name CRJ is wrong, for what Keesje is proposing. Another draw back of the CRJ is it's just a couple of inch to narrow cross section. Do the Global 5500, 6500 and Global 7500 have the same cross section as the CRJs, or is it larger?
I think the ATR cross section or the Falcon 6X could be beter for a new regional jet.
And indeed the current GE Passport, P&W PW800s and RR Pearl engines are for biz jets, but RR showed with the BR700 (pearl predesessor) and AE3007 that an engine can be optimized for biz jets or regional jets. P&W tried with the PW306 on the Do328, but Fairchild Dornier went bankrupt before it could prove itself.
The PW800s use the core of the PW1000G, the PW812 uses the PW1200G (M100) core. The PW814/815 use the PW1500 (A220 core) it's most likely nearly identical to the PW 1900G (E19x-E2) core.
Possibly CFRP-titanium fan blades and CFRP casing is required for new regional jet engines. The increased weight of the higher compression ratio core can be compensated by a lighter fan and casing. Eliminating the fan casing, and increasing the bypass ratio from ~10 to >20 with an unducted fan results in a lighter and more efficient engine.
This could be a new CRJ (4ab) or a new MD-94X (5ab).


The Globals have the same exterior dimensions but the frames were optimized for bizjet use offering slightly larger interior dimensions, on the order of <2” larger. The 7500 has a new fuselage but the same barrel diameter. The BR series was exclusively on the Global/Gulfstream and designed for them, but only fitted to the 717 as they just happened to be the required dimensions, weight and thrust.

A 6500 is pretty close to the CRJ-200 and the G7500 is pretty close to the -700 in cabin length.
GF
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6022
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 2:39 pm

Exeiowa wrote:
Unless someone is going to build an extensive rail network in US there will be a need for something to do what RJ do. If that can only be done with a Prop that is what we will end up with. A lot of my business travel involved two RJs connecting small cities (chemical plants and suppliers tend to be located away from urban centers these days) There will be a demand for this in the future I am sure.


This is where companies like to use small Bizjets. I’ve been to dozens of businesses that use a Citation/Lear for these trips. They gain productivity lost to sitting in terminals or spending nights in hotels when their employees could be home. See WalMart, Eaton Corp., Southern Company, they all have fleets that fan out daily. I had a request for a vinyl and rubber interior on a bizjet so they could move mechanics around.
 
ethernal
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 2:51 pm

bkmbr wrote:
JHwk wrote:
I have a very hard time believing scope requirements will not be changing with re-negotiations post-COVID restructuring. The E2-175 will end up as a regional jet.


I believe in the same thing but the last time I said it out loud here I almost got beaten by unionists who believe that companies will prefer to please their employees than their shareholders. But you know how A.net is a strange place, here a second hand 767 is always a better option than an A330neo.
At best, the scope will be expanded to include the 175E2, at worst Embraer will end up launching a 170E2 based on a shortened 175E2.


The E175-E2 isn't a bit overweight relative to the scope clause, it's overweight by like 15% / 6 tons. Making a 170E2 that fits scope is not a simple task. Taking out a frame or two would save a couple of thousand pounds at most. If there is a scope-compliant version of the E175, it will come at severe operational costs.

Best case, taking out frames, weakening things a bit, and ongoing PIPs would knock down the weight by 6000 pounds. The remaining 6000 pounds? It would likely include significant paper-derating limiting range significantly as the plane could never get close to leaving with full fuel and pax (my guess it would go down to 1200-1300nm from the current 2000nm range). Which is perfectly fine in the eyes of the mainline pilots.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 2:57 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Exeiowa wrote:
Unless someone is going to build an extensive rail network in US there will be a need for something to do what RJ do. If that can only be done with a Prop that is what we will end up with. A lot of my business travel involved two RJs connecting small cities (chemical plants and suppliers tend to be located away from urban centers these days) There will be a demand for this in the future I am sure.


This is where companies like to use small Bizjets. I’ve been to dozens of businesses that use a Citation/Lear for these trips. They gain productivity lost to sitting in terminals or spending nights in hotels when their employees could be home. See WalMart, Eaton Corp., Southern Company, they all have fleets that fan out daily. I had a request for a vinyl and rubber interior on a bizjet so they could move mechanics around.


Interesting. It wonder what Cessna/ Beech/ Dassault / anyone would put on the table if the requirements are multi engine, up to 12 passengers, good airfield performance, quiet for late flights and range up to 1500NM / 3 hours at the lowest possible operating costs. Still conventional Al T-tailed BJ's ?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4221
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 3:00 pm

Dmoney wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
JHwk wrote:
I have a very hard time believing scope requirements will not be changing with re-negotiations post-COVID restructuring. The E2-175 will end up as a regional jet.


I believe in the same thing but the last time I said it out loud here I almost got beaten by unionists who believe that companies will prefer to please their employees than their shareholders. But you know how A.net is a strange place, here a second hand 767 is always a better option than an A330neo.
At best, the scope will be expanded to include the 175E2, at worst Embraer will end up launching a 170E2 based on a shortened 175E2.


You've misunderstood what people said to you. Companies look out for shareholders while unions look out for employees. Because of this unions aren't agreeing to any scope creep which impoverishes their employees. It's that simple.


companies look after shareholders
unions look after employees
Then
we need government to look after passengers
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 3:13 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
bkmbr wrote:

I believe in the same thing but the last time I said it out loud here I almost got beaten by unionists who believe that companies will prefer to please their employees than their shareholders. But you know how A.net is a strange place, here a second hand 767 is always a better option than an A330neo.
At best, the scope will be expanded to include the 175E2, at worst Embraer will end up launching a 170E2 based on a shortened 175E2.


You've misunderstood what people said to you. Companies look out for shareholders while unions look out for employees. Because of this unions aren't agreeing to any scope creep which impoverishes their employees. It's that simple.


companies look after shareholders
unions look after employees
Then
we need government to look after passengers

Hence EAS, ensuring small and remote communities retain air links. Does Decatur (for example, current OO CRJ200 city) or other small communities need a 50 seat jet, or could a Caravan or Tecnam do, as we’ve seen plenty of airports switch to.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 3:19 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Passport weighs 2,000# more PER engine, it’s a high altitude, Mach .90, low cycle design when a RJ needs a lightweight, low-ish altitude, M.78, high cycle engine. Try again.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Engine mass is not a linear function of thrust. The Passport was designed for a very specific application. Now could some of that technology be used in a new RJ-specific design? Sure, if an OEM has a business case for a new RJ, which doesn’t exist now due to poor sales.

I think we can see why the CF-34 lasted as long as it did. Designed to lift the A-10 with its bathtub cockpit and lots of fuel for low loiter missions, it meshed pretty well with the need for a RJ engine. Passport is for the high flying bizjet segment, not so great a match.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
The weight increase eats away engine fuel efficiency gains.

The key thing to realize is that the engine weight gains are what provides the fuel efficiency gains. To get better fuel burn you need bigger fans which means bigger/heavier fan and nacelle, and higher temperatures and pressures inside the engines mean heavier blades with more complex shapes, heavier bearings and rotors, etc.

The trend has been really clear if you've followed jet engine development. Unfortunately the trend is not improving. We keep getting better fuel economy and other important gains such as lower noise and other emissions, but the cost of this is more weight and more cost. Some new materials like CFRP fan blades and CMC turbine parts have been developed, but these have cost a lot to develop and still cost a lot to produce.

The pilots think they gave up too much in the earlier scope clauses. Now we see the way tech has developed since then has closed the window. CF-34 era engines do not provide enough fuel efficiency to be economical and can't provide the payload/range that airlines desire. Fixing those problems can only be done by heavier engines, but these bust scope. Vendors felt rational adjustments would be made with both sides giving up some things to allow the heavier aircraft into service, but no one involved is behaving rationally. Pilots are upset about all the jobs they've given away to RJs, airlines are used to finding some way to get the pilots to knuckle under.

Welcome to the real world.
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
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 3:30 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Exeiowa wrote:
Unless someone is going to build an extensive rail network in US there will be a need for something to do what RJ do. If that can only be done with a Prop that is what we will end up with. A lot of my business travel involved two RJs connecting small cities (chemical plants and suppliers tend to be located away from urban centers these days) There will be a demand for this in the future I am sure.


This is where companies like to use small Bizjets. I’ve been to dozens of businesses that use a Citation/Lear for these trips. They gain productivity lost to sitting in terminals or spending nights in hotels when their employees could be home. See WalMart, Eaton Corp., Southern Company, they all have fleets that fan out daily. I had a request for a vinyl and rubber interior on a bizjet so they could move mechanics around.


I am not important enough to be moved around by company jet..... Plus I don't think we have one

It is often just as easy to drive than fly if its up to 7hrs away because the slide to larger planes has meant less favorable flight times and takes much longer. I only get to sit in the back of the plane and when I am travelling I am not working.
 
bigb
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 3:33 pm

Why hasn’t anyone who Really wants to see the E2 flying the US push for these aircrafts to be operated by mainline carriers. I see a lot of folks here who are dead set on pilots giving up their jobs for scope relief for the E2.

These solution is right there,
 
ethernal
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 3:50 pm

bigb wrote:
Why hasn’t anyone who Really wants to see the E2 flying the US push for these aircrafts to be operated by mainline carriers. I see a lot of folks here who are dead set on pilots giving up their jobs for scope relief for the E2.

These solution is right there,


It is not unlikely that a major will pick up the E195-E2 as a more efficient replacement for A319-sized planes (competing of course with the A220 series.. which for mainline makes more sense).

But if you think that a mainline operator will ever fly an 80-seat sized jet with the current union pay structure, you're just wrong. The trip costs are just too high. There will always be an "empty plateau" in the United States between a 76-seaters and 110 seaters. The extra cost of paying a mainline flight crew is just too much and causes CASM to shoot way up.

A first year captain (not FO) salary at a regional is like $70K. A first year captain (not FO) at a major is like $250K. The captain on a mainline plane will make more compensation per block hour than the entire flight crew + cabin crew on an E-175 flown by a regional. The CASM of regional jets is already bad - putting a mainline crew in them makes them astronomically bad.

The options are either (a) unions give on the scope clause, (b) the US will fly a lot of old regional jets in the coming decades, (c) Embraer or other carrier manages to make a scope-compliant plane to sell with some sacrifices, or (d) a lot of routes get axed.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 4:08 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I think there would also be demand for a 56-60 all economy seat aircraft, for 50seat scope.


This is what Bombardier was hopping for. The CRJ550 conversion is aimed to that market, but those are conversions from the CRJ700 to the CRJ550 standard, not a new plane.
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 4:21 pm

bigb wrote:
Why hasn’t anyone who Really wants to see the E2 flying the US push for these aircrafts to be operated by mainline carriers. I see a lot of folks here who are dead set on pilots giving up their jobs for scope relief for the E2.

These solution is right there,


Exactly,

Flown by mainline pilots eliminates any scope issues ( seat or weight limits, number of airframes allowed etc). The 175E2 would most likely be configured in a 80-82 passenger configuration.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 4:23 pm

ethernal wrote:
The E175-E2 isn't a bit overweight relative to the scope clause, it's overweight by like 15% / 6 tons. Making a 170E2 that fits scope is not a simple task. Taking out a frame or two would save a couple of thousand pounds at most. If there is a scope-compliant version of the E175, it will come at severe operational costs.


Embraer was able to shave about 2 ton of the ERJ-175E1 to create the ERJ-175SC with minimal chances to the airplane so I don't think that to create a 170E2 should be such a difficult task to them. Only in fuel the 175E2 have 8.5 ton for a 2k+ miles range. If you reduce the range and 20% you will have almost 1.5 ton in reduction of the MTOW of the airplane and so on. I`m not saying that to create a ERJ-175E2SC or a ERJ-170E2 would be the easiest thing to do, but is not an impossible thing to do. Embraer already did it with the ERJ-175SC not long ago, why they couldn't do it again?
Last edited by bkmbr on Tue May 26, 2020 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 4:25 pm

EssentialBusDC wrote:
bigb wrote:
Why hasn’t anyone who Really wants to see the E2 flying the US push for these aircrafts to be operated by mainline carriers. I see a lot of folks here who are dead set on pilots giving up their jobs for scope relief for the E2.

These solution is right there,


Exactly,

Flown by mainline pilots eliminates any scope issues ( seat or weight limits, number of airframes allowed etc). The 175E2 would most likely be configured in a 80-82 passenger configuration.


The cost of operating the 175E2 with mainline staff probably kills most (if not all) the financial advantages the company have nowadays.
 
alasizon
Posts: 2597
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 4:36 pm

EssentialBusDC wrote:
bigb wrote:
Why hasn’t anyone who Really wants to see the E2 flying the US push for these aircrafts to be operated by mainline carriers. I see a lot of folks here who are dead set on pilots giving up their jobs for scope relief for the E2.

These solution is right there,


Exactly,

Flown by mainline pilots eliminates any scope issues ( seat or weight limits, number of airframes allowed etc). The 175E2 would most likely be configured in a 80-82 passenger configuration.


The cost issue now is not the mainline pilots or FAs, the issue is all the rest of the support and ground staff at Mainline wages. Previously when ground and support wages were much lower, the pilot and FA costs were the issue but now they are a much smaller portion of the costs.
Airport (noun) - A construction site which airplanes tend to frequent
 
User avatar
Rookie87
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 4:40 pm

TonyClifton wrote:
Rookie87 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
There are typically the scope limits of:
70 seats and 76,000 lb
76 seats and 86,000 lb

There is also a lighter weight Japanese 70 seat scope (anyone have the weight? I'm going off memory).

The 76 needs great efficiency (heavy engines) and a minimum range of 1500nm.

The 70 seater needs a minimum range, just my opinion, of 1300nm.

While a 50 seater is desired, the economics are tough. I personally see that being a modern, electrical subsystem, turboprop with CFRP wings.

Lightsaber


Why the weight limit?

So that airlines cannot buy whatever aircraft they see fit and call it an RJ by limiting seats. Hypothetically something like an ERJ-190 or CRJ-1000 or even up to A318 or 717 if you got big enough armchairs in it. I know Mesa flies around some RJs greater than 76 seats, but I don’t know the details there.


Makes sense now thank you
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 4:48 pm

ethernal wrote:
bigb wrote:
Why hasn’t anyone who Really wants to see the E2 flying the US push for these aircrafts to be operated by mainline carriers. I see a lot of folks here who are dead set on pilots giving up their jobs for scope relief for the E2.

These solution is right there,


It is not unlikely that a major will pick up the E195-E2 as a more efficient replacement for A319-sized planes (competing of course with the A220 series.. which for mainline makes more sense).

But if you think that a mainline operator will ever fly an 80-seat sized jet with the current union pay structure, you're just wrong. The trip costs are just too high. There will always be an "empty plateau" in the United States between a 76-seaters and 110 seaters. The extra cost of paying a mainline flight crew is just too much and causes CASM to shoot way up.

A first year captain (not FO) salary at a regional is like $70K. A first year captain (not FO) at a major is like $250K. The captain on a mainline plane will make more compensation per block hour than the entire flight crew + cabin crew on an E-175 flown by a regional. The CASM of regional jets is already bad - putting a mainline crew in them makes them astronomically bad.

The options are either (a) unions give on the scope clause, (b) the US will fly a lot of old regional jets in the coming decades, (c) Embraer or other carrier manages to make a scope-compliant plane to sell with some sacrifices, or (d) a lot of routes get axed.


Are mainline rates going to be higher? Sure. But not as high as you claim. The current first year Captain rate on the smallest equipment (CRJ 900) at United is $166/hour. American’s E190 rate is $165. So plan on a 175 paying paying less then those rates. So more like $150,000 a year, not $250,000. Heck any narrowbody Captain at United on reserve makes roughly $243k (pay rate of $278/hr times 73hr/ month guarantee). A 175 Captain would not come close to that without significant premium/overtime flying and even then probably wouldn’t hit $250k.

But higher crew costs would be offset by the lack of scope restrictions resulting in higher seat counts (thus more revenue), the profit no longer paid to the Express carriers, etc. United already owns a lot of the 175’s, pays for the landing fees and fuel etc directly or passed through to them, utilizes mainline ramp and gate agents in hubs. The only thing really that would be changing is the crew component and maintenance.
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 4:54 pm

alasizon wrote:
EssentialBusDC wrote:
bigb wrote:
Why hasn’t anyone who Really wants to see the E2 flying the US push for these aircrafts to be operated by mainline carriers. I see a lot of folks here who are dead set on pilots giving up their jobs for scope relief for the E2.

These solution is right there,


Exactly,

Flown by mainline pilots eliminates any scope issues ( seat or weight limits, number of airframes allowed etc). The 175E2 would most likely be configured in a 80-82 passenger configuration.


The cost issue now is not the mainline pilots or FAs, the issue is all the rest of the support and ground staff at Mainline wages. Previously when ground and support wages were much lower, the pilot and FA costs were the issue but now they are a much smaller portion of the costs.


The hubs already have mainline gate agents. And possibly ramp as well. Would need to verify that. So not much change there. The majority of outstations are already contracted out even for mainline flights.
Last edited by EssentialBusDC on Tue May 26, 2020 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 4:56 pm

Flight crew is just a part of the costs, not all. Add the rest of the staff (at the airplane and at the ground) to operate the flight and the costs will quickly add up.
 
bigb
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 5:29 pm

bkmbr wrote:
Flight crew is just a part of the costs, not all. Add the rest of the staff (at the airplane and at the ground) to operate the flight and the costs will quickly add up.


Mainline carriers have crew resources (scheduling, planning), operational resources (dispatchers), Mx resources, (line maintenance staff, regular maintenance staff, and maintenance controllers) to handle the E2 if shows up to mainline. Ground staff is still the same I. The hubs and outstations. You are eliminating the need for middle management to run the regional carrier if it’s a wholly owned.

FFDs the mainline carrier is just paying a fee for the RJ to fly while still proving ground staff to operate the flights, paying for fuel and landing fees.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 5:41 pm

bigb wrote:
Mainline carriers have crew resources (scheduling, planning), operational resources (dispatchers), Mx resources, (line maintenance staff, regular maintenance staff, and maintenance controllers) to handle the E2 if shows up to mainline. Ground staff is still the same I. The hubs and outstations. You are eliminating the need for middle management to run the regional carrier if it’s a wholly owned.

FFDs the mainline carrier is just paying a fee for the RJ to fly while still proving ground staff to operate the flights, paying for fuel and landing fees.


If the cost difference for the mainline is really so minimal why they let the regional lines use their name instead of running those lines themselves in the first place? If costs were really so irrelevant as many propose the shareholders would be asking mainline to operate these lines for a long time so they don't have to share profits with regional companies in the first place.
 
ethernal
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 5:54 pm

EssentialBusDC wrote:
Are mainline rates going to be higher? Sure. But not as high as you claim. The current first year Captain rate on the smallest equipment (CRJ 900) at United is $166/hour. American’s E190 rate is $165. So plan on a 175 paying paying less then those rates. So more like $150,000 a year, not $250,000. Heck any narrowbody Captain at United on reserve makes roughly $243k (pay rate of $278/hr times 73hr/ month guarantee). A 175 Captain would not come close to that without significant premium/overtime flying and even then probably wouldn’t hit $250k.

But higher crew costs would be offset by the lack of scope restrictions resulting in higher seat counts (thus more revenue), the profit no longer paid to the Express carriers, etc. United already owns a lot of the 175’s, pays for the landing fees and fuel etc directly or passed through to them, utilizes mainline ramp and gate agents in hubs. The only thing really that would be changing is the crew component and maintenance.


Those are paper pay rates. Let's see how it works as soon as airliners actually start to indicate they may fly those planes. Delta's E195 year-1 pay rate is $183/hr but magically the planes they actually fly (717 and A220) are $220/hour despite only having maybe 5-6 more seats in comparable layouts. That's not a coincidence.

Regardless, my numbers still true up. The mainline captain on a hypothetical E175 pay rate exceeds the entire crew costs of an E175 flown by a regional. For simplicity, let me use the Y1 rates for all roles.

Republic Airlines: Captain $70 / hr, FO $40 / hr, 2X FAs = $40 / hr = $150 / hour
Delta Airlines Captain on an CRJ900 = $157 / hour (in practice expect these rates to be $200/hour if this ever happened)
 
ethernal
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 5:59 pm

bkmbr wrote:
ethernal wrote:
The E175-E2 isn't a bit overweight relative to the scope clause, it's overweight by like 15% / 6 tons. Making a 170E2 that fits scope is not a simple task. Taking out a frame or two would save a couple of thousand pounds at most. If there is a scope-compliant version of the E175, it will come at severe operational costs.


Embraer was able to shave about 2 ton of the ERJ-175E1 to create the ERJ-175SC with minimal chances to the airplane so I don't think that to create a 170E2 should be such a difficult task to them. Only in fuel the 175E2 have 8.5 ton for a 2k+ miles range. If you reduce the range and 20% you will have almost 1.5 ton in reduction of the MTOW of the airplane and so on. I`m not saying that to create a ERJ-175E2SC or a ERJ-170E2 would be the easiest thing to do, but is not an impossible thing to do. Embraer already did it with the ERJ-175SC not long ago, why they couldn't do it again?


I agree that they can do it, but it will come at the expense of range as they will have to paper derate and limit fuel with full pax load. There is zero chance that taking out 2 frames and weakening a few items will cut 6 tons. If that was the case, they would have already have done it on the base model already.

A 1400 nm regional jet is still very useful and covers most routes.
 
bigb
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 6:19 pm

bkmbr wrote:
bigb wrote:
Mainline carriers have crew resources (scheduling, planning), operational resources (dispatchers), Mx resources, (line maintenance staff, regular maintenance staff, and maintenance controllers) to handle the E2 if shows up to mainline. Ground staff is still the same I. The hubs and outstations. You are eliminating the need for middle management to run the regional carrier if it’s a wholly owned.

FFDs the mainline carrier is just paying a fee for the RJ to fly while still proving ground staff to operate the flights, paying for fuel and landing fees.


If the cost difference for the mainline is really so minimal why they let the regional lines use their name instead of running those lines themselves in the first place? If costs were really so irrelevant as many propose the shareholders would be asking mainline to operate these lines for a long time so they don't have to share profits with regional companies in the first place.


You have look at at the history of mainline carriers, Regional Carriers, and Scope. Most of the contracts today were signed pre-2014 before the rise of staff compensation at the regionals, other reasons contacts are signed includes putting more risk on a separate Entity (risk-sharing routes and financing of airplanes). This is how Air Wisconsin, Mesa, Republic and Skywest scored contracts, they purchase the airplanes themselves 70 percent of time.

But now there industry is undergoing a shift on the regional level. Mainline carriers are starting the bring back RJ flying under their Umbrella.

Hence is why Delta has shifted most of its uncontracted flying to Endeavor after their Gojet contracted ended.
Compass lost its Delta flying to Republic only because Republic has the staffing already to conver that flying on the east Coast, Skywest is backing filling Compass old Delta flying.

Looking at AA. They took the airplanes they owned from Compass after their contracted ended and placed them back in-house with Envoy. Skywest purchased a batch of E-175s and got a contract for it to conver Compass flying. Had AA bought those airplanes, I guarantee you they would have been placed at Envoy. AA also pulled E-145s they owned from Trans States a couple years ago and assigned them Piedmont. The big question marks remain Mesa when their contract expires at the end of this year this is something PSA and Envoy both have been watching. AA has been slowing bring that RJ flying back in-house.

United the last outliner and have been behind the curve on their RJ operators and their over reliance on RJs which had a negative effect on United on its domestic network vs AA and Delta. United slowly has made that shift with Commutair and ExpressJet ownership. But who’s what’s going on United, except one thing. They have a CEO now who loves regional jets. It’s been one of his top priorities to get more RJs at United.....

Placing RJs at regional FFDs hasn’t always been about costs in a lot of cases.
 
alasizon
Posts: 2597
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 6:40 pm

EssentialBusDC wrote:
alasizon wrote:
EssentialBusDC wrote:

Exactly,

Flown by mainline pilots eliminates any scope issues ( seat or weight limits, number of airframes allowed etc). The 175E2 would most likely be configured in a 80-82 passenger configuration.


The cost issue now is not the mainline pilots or FAs, the issue is all the rest of the support and ground staff at Mainline wages. Previously when ground and support wages were much lower, the pilot and FA costs were the issue but now they are a much smaller portion of the costs.


The hubs already have mainline gate agents. And possibly ramp as well. Would need to verify that. So not much change there. The majority of outstations are already contracted out even for mainline flights.


Just because there are already gate and ramp agents there doesn't mean the costs are zero. If you add more mainline flights, you have to pay for additional agents. Those costs add up quite quickly. Likewise, most Mainline staffing requirements call for 2+ agents to work each regional flight while the regional vendors do it with one.
Airport (noun) - A construction site which airplanes tend to frequent
 
bigb
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:00 pm

alasizon wrote:
EssentialBusDC wrote:
alasizon wrote:

The cost issue now is not the mainline pilots or FAs, the issue is all the rest of the support and ground staff at Mainline wages. Previously when ground and support wages were much lower, the pilot and FA costs were the issue but now they are a much smaller portion of the costs.


The hubs already have mainline gate agents. And possibly ramp as well. Would need to verify that. So not much change there. The majority of outstations are already contracted out even for mainline flights.


Just because there are already gate and ramp agents there doesn't mean the costs are zero. If you add more mainline flights, you have to pay for additional agents. Those costs add up quite quickly. Likewise, most Mainline staffing requirements call for 2+ agents to work each regional flight while the regional vendors do it with one.


That’s station dependent though not flight dependent. If the stationed staffed by mainline, then it’s two agents regardless of flights unless the station has multiple flights that need to be turned at once, the mainline gets priority with staffing over the regional flights.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:02 pm

ethernal wrote:
they would have already have done it on the base model already.


Maybe they had some inside information that indicated the possibility to the scope clauses to chance and decided to create a single product for the American and European markets based on this information. Embraer have clearly bet in the scope clause changes from day 1, maybe they have some information we don't have here to do this bet in the first place.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2223
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:06 pm

It's not just the pilots.

Regional gate agents, baggage handlers, ops agents, dispatchers, mechanics, instructors, management etc.. all make less than their mainline counterparts.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2223
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:07 pm

bkmbr wrote:
ethernal wrote:
they would have already have done it on the base model already.


Maybe they had some inside information that indicated the possibility to the scope clauses to chance and decided to create a single product for the American and European markets based on this information. Embraer have clearly bet in the scope clause changes from day 1, maybe they have some information we don't have here to do this bet in the first place.


More likely they just got it dead wrong.

Had they built it under 86,400lbs it would be flying everywhere for years at this point.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
alasizon
Posts: 2597
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:14 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
It's not just the pilots.

Regional gate agents, baggage handlers, ops agents, dispatchers, mechanics, instructors, management etc.. all make less than their mainline counterparts.


Not to mention less division of labor. In Mainline maintenance , you may have a structures person, an avionics person, an airframe person and so-on. Regional side is usually just generic AMTs and avionics techs and occasionally a few interior techs in the bigger bases.
Airport (noun) - A construction site which airplanes tend to frequent
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

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