Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
 
Jetport
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 4:34 am

bkmbr wrote:
Jetport wrote:
The most likely outcome is actually (e) E175 E1-V2, (the current E175) will stay in production for another decade and dominate US regional flying. It is already a very efficient aircraft and now the only game in town.


Embraer will need to stop producing the E175E1 in 2028 like it or not because of the ICAO rules for CO2 emissions.


I am sure Embraer will be delighted if the market supports the production of the E175E1 all the way until 2028 at a profitable production rate.
 
SkyLife
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 4:39 am

This seems to be a popular discussion lately and I’ll reiterate it from a 121 pilot perspective. Regional jets are now flying mainline routes at a fraction of the cost and this severely limits career movement of regional pilots (Republic routinely flies DCA-CLT, HUB to HUB. Usually only one flight a day but it proves a valuable point - one less mainline flight ). Anyone who thinks regional A/C are flying ‘regional’ routes only needs to pull up FlightAware. I’ve flown 3hr/1000nm+ flights in the CRJ, not so ‘regional’. A few things I see in the market...

1- Props aren’t coming back. Passengers hate them. The Dash was not missed at PDT. One particular PDT airport over a decade ago had a celebration when they became all jet (only to go back to Dash’s later lol) but that should tell you all you need to know on the discussion. They are a worse experience and the crashes of them (Roselawn etc) haven’t been forgotten by many.

2-Scope won’t be relaxed unless severe concessions are given. Only 2 options I see are huge pay increases (100k+ for both pilots at the regionals) or a seniority # and a firm hire date at mainline. I want my hire date guaranteed and if it doesn’t happen then you pay me mainline pay regardless. I’ll fly a CRJ across the Atlantic for the right pay.

3-CRJ line is most likely done. Mitsubishi didn’t even want to produce CRJs that weren’t firm (options). Doesn’t make sense to me honestly, Mitsubishi doesn’t have a product ready...why not make $$$ off the CRJ line that had demand. COVID may change this thinking?

4-Embraer gambled and lost. As previously stated TO weight is interchangeable with fuel. 76 seats and fuel burn means my 3hr just became 3.5hrs in a regional jet. Max weight matters.

5-50 seat flying is drawing down but will exist for most likely well over a decade. Smallest cities that only saw Dash-8s or -200s will see -200/140/145/550 for the longest time. (PGV, SBY etc) I don’t see a new jet designed for this though. Economics don’t support a billion+ dollar investment. Places such as PGV will either be upgauged, cut in frequency or cut altogether.

6-Why are regional jets roughly the size of a DC-9-15?! Regional jets are basically previous generation bottom of the line mainline aircraft, that’s not the pilots problem. Regional pilots have been trapped for over a decade at the regional level to see regionals take over previous mainline flying. We won’t make that mistake again.

I hope this provides some insight into how we are thinking. Mainline can fly the aircraft if it is so great economically, even at lower mainline rates for the A/C. Some majors already have these pay rates agreed upon. Regionals don’t need to be the ones making the sacrifices.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 4:47 am

If increasing the diameter of the fan in a turbofan leads to such strong weight increase that it can't be kept within scope, turboprops are the solution. But for the US I doubt ATRs are right. Something new that flies higher and faster is required. A Q400 with less maintenance.
The low wing loading makes turboprops bumpy. A computer controlled flap that compensates turbulence is needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KiWaO-zhu0&t=20s

Should train drivers of a long train earn triple the salary of a train driver that drives a short train?
Mainline pilots argue they want regional pilots to earn their salary. Very well: agree to a pay cut in exchange for having regional pilots absorbed into mainline. Otherwise just admit that you are happy to enjoy the surplus value of labor of regional pilots.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 7:01 am

Jetport wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
The companies and customers also loss in the end. The E2 is a significant improvement over the E1 and no company will get any of this advantage based on arbitrary created limit. Apart from the 175E2, there is no other product capable of serving this market at least in the next decade (and yes, I don't believe that the M90 ​​can get certified and go into operation before 2030).



This whining and special pleading is silly. The airlines are responsible for the "arbitrary" limit. They could just pay employees a decent wage.

How beaten down are Americans that their natural reaction is to want to beat down fellow workers wages so that a corporation can make more money. Because that's exactly what those calling for scope to change are doing.

Get on a turboprop. Regional flying is short, hence the name. It's podunk America to a hub.


Many CRJ900's and E175's are flying long flights, these are not just short hops. One of my most memorable flights was MSP to YVR on an E175 in first class. FA's on 76 seaters usually have better attitudes than FA's on mainline domestic flights.


That's not regional flying. Just pay mainline wages.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13835
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 7:34 am

bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
This isn't something to be proud of it's pathetic. The super rich aren't our friends. I'm not trying to screw over other workers. I recognize the world we live in but I'm not calling for pilots to take huge paycuts so that corporations can make more money. That wouldn't be rational.

There are plenty of other solutions. Namely a turboprop....


I never said I'm proud of this situation, but the things are the way they are and my particular opinion as to whether this is fair or unfair will not change that reality. I recognize that what pilots defend is fair, but if there is one thing that history has already proven, it is that when big capital faces the worker it is always the worker who loses in the long run. I am not going to bet against something that has been proven thousands of times in the history of mankind that it is those who have money always impose their wills on those who do not. This is precisely the case in point, shareholders versus workers. And I don't really believe in the turboprops solution, the SAAB 340 and 2000 are proof that even a high-tech turboprop don't stand a chance in this market today. ATRs only work in other markets because they are proportionately cheap and there is no other realistic option for them as the Q400 is a zombie that is more dead than alive since the 90s


ATR could push up speed, ceiling and capacity on the ATR's a bit. New suitable engines were under development.
They have been discussing for a decade, little competition and -600 success made them shy of the investment I guess.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4804
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 7:48 am

SkyLife wrote:
This seems to be a popular discussion lately and I’ll reiterate it from a 121 pilot perspective. Regional jets are now flying mainline routes at a fraction of the cost and this severely limits career movement of regional pilots (Republic routinely flies DCA-CLT, HUB to HUB. Usually only one flight a day but it proves a valuable point - one less mainline flight ). Anyone who thinks regional A/C are flying ‘regional’ routes only needs to pull up FlightAware. I’ve flown 3hr/1000nm+ flights in the CRJ, not so ‘regional’. A few things I see in the market...

1- Props aren’t coming back. Passengers hate them. The Dash was not missed at PDT. One particular PDT airport over a decade ago had a celebration when they became all jet (only to go back to Dash’s later lol) but that should tell you all you need to know on the discussion. They are a worse experience and the crashes of them (Roselawn etc) haven’t been forgotten by many.

2-Scope won’t be relaxed unless severe concessions are given. Only 2 options I see are huge pay increases (100k+ for both pilots at the regionals) or a seniority # and a firm hire date at mainline. I want my hire date guaranteed and if it doesn’t happen then you pay me mainline pay regardless. I’ll fly a CRJ across the Atlantic for the right pay.

3-CRJ line is most likely done. Mitsubishi didn’t even want to produce CRJs that weren’t firm (options). Doesn’t make sense to me honestly, Mitsubishi doesn’t have a product ready...why not make $$$ off the CRJ line that had demand. COVID may change this thinking?

4-Embraer gambled and lost. As previously stated TO weight is interchangeable with fuel. 76 seats and fuel burn means my 3hr just became 3.5hrs in a regional jet. Max weight matters.

5-50 seat flying is drawing down but will exist for most likely well over a decade. Smallest cities that only saw Dash-8s or -200s will see -200/140/145/550 for the longest time. (PGV, SBY etc) I don’t see a new jet designed for this though. Economics don’t support a billion+ dollar investment. Places such as PGV will either be upgauged, cut in frequency or cut altogether.

6-Why are regional jets roughly the size of a DC-9-15?! Regional jets are basically previous generation bottom of the line mainline aircraft, that’s not the pilots problem. Regional pilots have been trapped for over a decade at the regional level to see regionals take over previous mainline flying. We won’t make that mistake again.

I hope this provides some insight into how we are thinking. Mainline can fly the aircraft if it is so great economically, even at lower mainline rates for the A/C. Some majors already have these pay rates agreed upon. Regionals don’t need to be the ones making the sacrifices.

This doesn’t xplain why an arlihe can’t replace an e175 with an e2 just coz it got a lil fatter
 
Flying-Tiger
Posts: 4040
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 1999 5:35 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 8:16 am

bkmbr wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
Because of the scope rules outlined in the pilot’s contract, it’s safe to say that we will see more airline experiments such as the Jazz CRJ-705 or the UA CRJ-550. The unions will not budge on scope. It’s probably better to acquire more CRJ 700’s and convert them to 550’s while removing the outdated E145’s (United) and taking CRJ-900’s and converting them into 76 seaters to obtain cost savings without fighting the unions over the 175-E2


Downgrading the CRJs is a shot term solution for a long term problem, and why the regional companies would pay to convert used CRJ-900 to 76 standard if the ERJ-175SC offers a lot more than a bunch of second hand CRJs?
Embraer will keep selling the 175SC until 2028 when the ICAO regulations kill it, after that the only option for regional airlines to replace the 175SC will be move to the even older ATR72 turboprop designs or just dropout the routes operated by those ERJs altogether.


Looking at today´s costs to develop a completely new air frame [actually family of] one has to wonder if there will really be a new development anytime soon. With about 560 Embraer 175 and around 450 CRJ700/900 being operated in the US the client base to spread the investment of a new family isn´t too big, unfortunately.

It might be worth to consider if a mid-life update of the CRJ200/700/900 and E-175E1 might be the more effective and viable solution to keep capacity of this class in the market.
Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A343/346, A359, A380,AT4,AT7,B712, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9,B742/4,B752/3, B762/763,B772/77W,CR2/7/9/K,ER3/4,E70/75/90/95, F50/70/100,M11,L15,SF3,S20, AR8/1, 142/143,... 330.860 miles and counting.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 8:46 am

SkyLife wrote:
6-Why are regional jets roughly the size of a DC-9-15?! Regional jets are basically previous generation bottom of the line mainline aircraft, that’s not the pilots problem. Regional pilots have been trapped for over a decade at the regional level to see regionals take over previous mainline flying. We won’t make that mistake again.

TBH that's just in line with the general up-gauging trend in the industry. "Back in the day", Regional aircraft were in the 19 - 60 seat bracket, mainline short haul was 100 - 180, long haul was 200 - 300 seats (DC-10, 767, A340). Nowadays, regional aircraft have moved up to 50 - 100 seats, mainline is focused around 180 - 240 seats and the most common long haul aircraft carry 300 - 400 passengers (A350, 77W).

I do agree that airlines will have to make concessions to pilots if they want to change the existing arrangement.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 11:23 am

SkyLife wrote:
This seems to be a popular discussion lately and I’ll reiterate it from a 121 pilot perspective. Regional jets are now flying mainline routes at a fraction of the cost and this severely limits career movement of regional pilots (Republic routinely flies DCA-CLT, HUB to HUB. Usually only one flight a day but it proves a valuable point - one less mainline flight ). Anyone who thinks regional A/C are flying ‘regional’ routes only needs to pull up FlightAware. I’ve flown 3hr/1000nm+ flights in the CRJ, not so ‘regional’. A few things I see in the market...

1- Props aren’t coming back. Passengers hate them. The Dash was not missed at PDT. One particular PDT airport over a decade ago had a celebration when they became all jet (only to go back to Dash’s later lol) but that should tell you all you need to know on the discussion. They are a worse experience and the crashes of them (Roselawn etc) haven’t been forgotten by many.

2-Scope won’t be relaxed unless severe concessions are given. Only 2 options I see are huge pay increases (100k+ for both pilots at the regionals) or a seniority # and a firm hire date at mainline. I want my hire date guaranteed and if it doesn’t happen then you pay me mainline pay regardless. I’ll fly a CRJ across the Atlantic for the right pay.

3-CRJ line is most likely done. Mitsubishi didn’t even want to produce CRJs that weren’t firm (options). Doesn’t make sense to me honestly, Mitsubishi doesn’t have a product ready...why not make $$$ off the CRJ line that had demand. COVID may change this thinking?

4-Embraer gambled and lost. As previously stated TO weight is interchangeable with fuel. 76 seats and fuel burn means my 3hr just became 3.5hrs in a regional jet. Max weight matters.

5-50 seat flying is drawing down but will exist for most likely well over a decade. Smallest cities that only saw Dash-8s or -200s will see -200/140/145/550 for the longest time. (PGV, SBY etc) I don’t see a new jet designed for this though. Economics don’t support a billion+ dollar investment. Places such as PGV will either be upgauged, cut in frequency or cut altogether.

6-Why are regional jets roughly the size of a DC-9-15?! Regional jets are basically previous generation bottom of the line mainline aircraft, that’s not the pilots problem. Regional pilots have been trapped for over a decade at the regional level to see regionals take over previous mainline flying. We won’t make that mistake again.

I hope this provides some insight into how we are thinking. Mainline can fly the aircraft if it is so great economically, even at lower mainline rates for the A/C. Some majors already have these pay rates agreed upon. Regionals don’t need to be the ones making the sacrifices.



What passenger wants and what they say they want are different and TBH largely irrelevant. They say they don't like cramped cabins on LCC.

Pilots aren't going to give up anything and nor should day.

So either old RJ will keep being made or people will fly on turboprops. Or they can not fly at all. Anyway the complaints around props are silly, modern ones are grand and again it's only a 90 minute flight.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23945
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 11:38 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Scope isn’t a “problem”; it’s a fact that ain’t going away. If routes cannot produce viable revenue to continue the service, the service will end or move to a profitable model. Courts have no way in the matter except possibly in a dire bankruptcy filing and “.amicable” won’t happen either. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get the NMB to release parties to self-help?

Scope is an economic inefficiency. There will always be an incentive to get rid of it. Nature abhors a vacuum. I'm confident it will eventually go away. I can't say how or when.
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
 
saab2000
Posts: 1232
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 11:56 am

Bring ALL flying in house, under the brand name selling the tickets. “Regional” is nothing more than a term used to depress careers. I flew CRJs for twelve years for a well known contract airline and it cost me hundreds of thousands or more in career earnings, not due to poor pay for the type but because there was no career progression. None. And when I finally got hired at a true major carrier I started over at the bottom. Bottom of the pay scale and bottom of the seniority list. Happy to be where I am but it’s a bad system and “regional” aviation is nothing more or less than a B-scale or worse.

I have zero sympathy for the idea of producing scope compliant aircraft. Bring it all in house. It absolutely can be done.
smrtrthnu
 
ethernal
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 12:20 pm

Revelation wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Scope isn’t a “problem”; it’s a fact that ain’t going away. If routes cannot produce viable revenue to continue the service, the service will end or move to a profitable model. Courts have no way in the matter except possibly in a dire bankruptcy filing and “.amicable” won’t happen either. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get the NMB to release parties to self-help?

Scope is an economic inefficiency. There will always be an incentive to get rid of it. Nature abhors a vacuum. I'm confident it will eventually go away. I can't say how or when.


The US is more resistant to ULCC due to its more robust in-air business travel and other structural differences that effectively subsidizes leisure travel on non-business travel days, but in the long run the US majors are doomed in the same way that the European legacies are doomed intra-Europe. The scope clause will eventually go away because the US majors cannot compete with a cost base twice as high as that of their competitors. In short, the regional cost curve is going to extend up to mainline labor - not the other way around.

Spirit Airline's CASM is literally 2/5ths that of Delta's. Anyone that thinks that in the long-run this will not decimate the US majors is deluded by economic reality. Even business travel at stingier companies will eventually shift to ULCC carriers. I'm a Diamond on Delta and I still regularly fly Spirit. I can buy a big seat up front (a domestic first class seat) and pay for a carry-on for 30%+ less than I would pay for a main cabin (regular economy) ticket on Delta. Spirit now has decent operational reliability and an ever increasing array of routes and frequencies. When there is a comparable Spirit offering, why would I ever fly Delta?

This shift will take place over 20+ years, but it is inevitable so long as labor costs remain structurally different between the legacies and ULCC.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 12:34 pm

Dmoney wrote:
SkyLife wrote:
This seems to be a popular discussion lately and I’ll reiterate it from a 121 pilot perspective. Regional jets are now flying mainline routes at a fraction of the cost and this severely limits career movement of regional pilots (Republic routinely flies DCA-CLT, HUB to HUB. Usually only one flight a day but it proves a valuable point - one less mainline flight ). Anyone who thinks regional A/C are flying ‘regional’ routes only needs to pull up FlightAware. I’ve flown 3hr/1000nm+ flights in the CRJ, not so ‘regional’. A few things I see in the market...

1- Props aren’t coming back. Passengers hate them. The Dash was not missed at PDT. One particular PDT airport over a decade ago had a celebration when they became all jet (only to go back to Dash’s later lol) but that should tell you all you need to know on the discussion. They are a worse experience and the crashes of them (Roselawn etc) haven’t been forgotten by many.

2-Scope won’t be relaxed unless severe concessions are given. Only 2 options I see are huge pay increases (100k+ for both pilots at the regionals) or a seniority # and a firm hire date at mainline. I want my hire date guaranteed and if it doesn’t happen then you pay me mainline pay regardless. I’ll fly a CRJ across the Atlantic for the right pay.

3-CRJ line is most likely done. Mitsubishi didn’t even want to produce CRJs that weren’t firm (options). Doesn’t make sense to me honestly, Mitsubishi doesn’t have a product ready...why not make $$$ off the CRJ line that had demand. COVID may change this thinking?

4-Embraer gambled and lost. As previously stated TO weight is interchangeable with fuel. 76 seats and fuel burn means my 3hr just became 3.5hrs in a regional jet. Max weight matters.

5-50 seat flying is drawing down but will exist for most likely well over a decade. Smallest cities that only saw Dash-8s or -200s will see -200/140/145/550 for the longest time. (PGV, SBY etc) I don’t see a new jet designed for this though. Economics don’t support a billion+ dollar investment. Places such as PGV will either be upgauged, cut in frequency or cut altogether.

6-Why are regional jets roughly the size of a DC-9-15?! Regional jets are basically previous generation bottom of the line mainline aircraft, that’s not the pilots problem. Regional pilots have been trapped for over a decade at the regional level to see regionals take over previous mainline flying. We won’t make that mistake again.

I hope this provides some insight into how we are thinking. Mainline can fly the aircraft if it is so great economically, even at lower mainline rates for the A/C. Some majors already have these pay rates agreed upon. Regionals don’t need to be the ones making the sacrifices.



What passenger wants and what they say they want are different and TBH largely irrelevant. They say they don't like cramped cabins on LCC.

Pilots aren't going to give up anything and nor should day.

So either old RJ will keep being made or people will fly on turboprops. Or they can not fly at all. Anyway the complaints around props are silly, modern ones are grand and again it's only a 90 minute flight.


I guess old RJ’s will keep on flying.

Q-200 gone
Q-300 gone
Q-400 gone

Commutair and Expressjet E-145’s are getting repainted.

CRJ-700/550
CRJ-900/705
E-175SC experiments to skirt scope clause rules

American and United are already well familiar with props and chose to get rid of them anyway. With all of the seasonal weather patterns in the Northeast and Midwest, turboprops will get hammered during irrops conditions.
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 691
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 12:51 pm

bigb wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
I bet airlines will get scope release in exchange for keeping more pilots during this climate.

Pilots giving up scope is a fast trip to the furlough themselves today the way management works.


Who cares, still won't happen. In unions majority rules and the top 50 + 1 percent will never vote for scope relief. Half the bottom won't vote for it either because they are not short sighted.
 
bigb
Posts: 1108
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 12:55 pm

CobaltScar wrote:
bigb wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
I bet airlines will get scope release in exchange for keeping more pilots during this climate.

Pilots giving up scope is a fast trip to the furlough themselves today the way management works.


Who cares, still won't happen. In unions majority rules and the top 50 + 1 percent will never vote for scope relief. Half the bottom won't vote for it either because they are not short sighted.


Wait what? I know this, lol. Hence my statement, pilots voting for scope relief is their fast ticket to furlough I.e. not going to happen....
 
SkyLife
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 1:10 pm

32andBelow wrote:
SkyLife wrote:
This seems to be a popular discussion lately and I’ll reiterate it from a 121 pilot perspective. Regional jets are now flying mainline routes at a fraction of the cost and this severely limits career movement of regional pilots (Republic routinely flies DCA-CLT, HUB to HUB. Usually only one flight a day but it proves a valuable point - one less mainline flight ). Anyone who thinks regional A/C are flying ‘regional’ routes only needs to pull up FlightAware. I’ve flown 3hr/1000nm+ flights in the CRJ, not so ‘regional’. A few things I see in the market...

1- Props aren’t coming back. Passengers hate them. The Dash was not missed at PDT. One particular PDT airport over a decade ago had a celebration when they became all jet (only to go back to Dash’s later lol) but that should tell you all you need to know on the discussion. They are a worse experience and the crashes of them (Roselawn etc) haven’t been forgotten by many.

2-Scope won’t be relaxed unless severe concessions are given. Only 2 options I see are huge pay increases (100k+ for both pilots at the regionals) or a seniority # and a firm hire date at mainline. I want my hire date guaranteed and if it doesn’t happen then you pay me mainline pay regardless. I’ll fly a CRJ across the Atlantic for the right pay.

3-CRJ line is most likely done. Mitsubishi didn’t even want to produce CRJs that weren’t firm (options). Doesn’t make sense to me honestly, Mitsubishi doesn’t have a product ready...why not make $$$ off the CRJ line that had demand. COVID may change this thinking?

4-Embraer gambled and lost. As previously stated TO weight is interchangeable with fuel. 76 seats and fuel burn means my 3hr just became 3.5hrs in a regional jet. Max weight matters.

5-50 seat flying is drawing down but will exist for most likely well over a decade. Smallest cities that only saw Dash-8s or -200s will see -200/140/145/550 for the longest time. (PGV, SBY etc) I don’t see a new jet designed for this though. Economics don’t support a billion+ dollar investment. Places such as PGV will either be upgauged, cut in frequency or cut altogether.

6-Why are regional jets roughly the size of a DC-9-15?! Regional jets are basically previous generation bottom of the line mainline aircraft, that’s not the pilots problem. Regional pilots have been trapped for over a decade at the regional level to see regionals take over previous mainline flying. We won’t make that mistake again.

I hope this provides some insight into how we are thinking. Mainline can fly the aircraft if it is so great economically, even at lower mainline rates for the A/C. Some majors already have these pay rates agreed upon. Regionals don’t need to be the ones making the sacrifices.

This doesn’t xplain why an arlihe can’t replace an e175 with an e2 just coz it got a lil fatter


Sure it does. The contract says a weight and Embraer as many have stated just thought pilots would be giving concessions and wouldn’t care. Does it not increase the range of the A/C? As I said if the TO weight is increased it is most likely an increased range. With regionals already doing 1000nm+ flights, where does it stop? It’s replacing mainline A/C flying the same route, that’s the problem. It hurts career progression and pay.
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 1:17 pm

Jetport wrote:
DiamondFlyer 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.


The only way the 175E2 ends up at a regional, is if a bankruptcy judge forces it. There is simply no conceivable reason for mainline pilots to give up more flying in the current and future enviroment.


I don’t really think mainline will give up much flying, if any by allowing the E175-E2 under scope. The additional 76 seaters will probably replace 50 seaters at less than one for one, so there won’t be much if any loss in flying. As part of the negotiations I would also assume the mainline pilots can get some concessions they want for allowing the E2 under scope.

I am surprised that the post 9/11 airline bankruptcies didn’t’ teach pilots unions a litter more about capitalism and economics. I am all for paying pilots (and everyone else) a fair and reasonable wage, but very highly compensated part time Airbus drivers are not sustainable in the long term.


Where are you getting part time?
 
ethernal
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 1:31 pm

EssentialBusDC wrote:
Jetport wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:

The only way the 175E2 ends up at a regional, is if a bankruptcy judge forces it. There is simply no conceivable reason for mainline pilots to give up more flying in the current and future enviroment.


I don’t really think mainline will give up much flying, if any by allowing the E175-E2 under scope. The additional 76 seaters will probably replace 50 seaters at less than one for one, so there won’t be much if any loss in flying. As part of the negotiations I would also assume the mainline pilots can get some concessions they want for allowing the E2 under scope.

I am surprised that the post 9/11 airline bankruptcies didn’t’ teach pilots unions a litter more about capitalism and economics. I am all for paying pilots (and everyone else) a fair and reasonable wage, but very highly compensated part time Airbus drivers are not sustainable in the long term.


Where are you getting part time?


I assume based on the fact that a pilot typically only "works" 800-1000 hours a year. But that is a big misrepresentation since - unless you've got absolutely perfect routes - for every hour you're flying you're working at least another on the ground between flights.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 1:35 pm

Jetport wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
Jetport wrote:
The most likely outcome is actually (e) E175 E1-V2, (the current E175) will stay in production for another decade and dominate US regional flying. It is already a very efficient aircraft and now the only game in town.


Embraer will need to stop producing the E175E1 in 2028 like it or not because of the ICAO rules for CO2 emissions.


I am sure Embraer will be delighted if the market supports the production of the E175E1 all the way until 2028 at a profitable production rate.


Especially because it is not as if the market had any other option besides the 175SC.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Topic Author
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 1:36 pm

keesje wrote:
ATR could push up speed, ceiling and capacity on the ATR's a bit. New suitable engines were under development.
They have been discussing for a decade, little competition and -600 success made them shy of the investment I guess.

Image


Wouldn't jet powered aircraft be better? So develop a new wing, with higher sweep / higher flight speed for the regional jet. This could be offered besides the ATR turboprops. The turbo props for short and STOL flights and the jets for longer range flights.
If they keep the same fuselage, possibly they could use the same assembly line. This would be like the Do328(jet) or An140 / An-148/-158.


I think that however scope clause develops. So if it stays or if it goes. There will be demand for smaller aircraft. And developing light weight regional aircraft will make them more (fuel) efficient. So for me the scope clause isn't really relevant. I'm more interested in how industry could develop more efficient regional (50-100 seat) aircraft.

I don't get why development of a new regional jet would be prohibitively expensive, while there are three families of large busness jets being offered (Falcon, Global and Gulfstream Gxx0). What is the big difference that prohibits the development of a new scope compliant regional jet (family)?

AFAIK the PW1000G is actually three different sizes of engine. The PW1200G/PW1700G has little commonality with the other members because it's thrust output is so much smaller. The PW1000G have had problems on the A320 and A220, AFAIK they have been overcome. But these engine problems have lowered orders. I think the PW1200G/1700G is actually still to strong for regional jets.
No other engine manufacturer has offered a new generation engine for regional aircraft. I think this has been the main problem.
I think Bombardier realized that the PW1200G wouldn't work on the CRJs within scope clause. MRJ and Embraer thought they could work it out.
Possibly the higher compression ratio core technologie needs to mature, and ceramic brisk and CFPR fan blade and casing technology needs to mature before engine manufacturers can offer a good engine for regional jets. Is the problem engine reliability and spare part availability?

I don't know if P&W has weight reduction technology available to reduce engine weight of the PW1200G/PW1700G, or if it would be beter to offer PW812 / PW814 for regional aircraft. Possibly RR could make a regional jet version of the Pearl, or GE a version of the Passport (a CF34 successor).
 
bkmbr
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 2:03 pm

keesje wrote:
ATR could push up speed, ceiling and capacity on the ATR's a bit. New suitable engines were under development.
They have been discussing for a decade, little competition and -600 success made them shy of the investment I guess.


The american passenger never really accepted the Q400, why they would accept the ATR? The american public don't like turboprop and actively try not to fly on them unless there is no other viable option. The companies know this and therefore insist on keeping jets even in the not most profitable routes because of that. If the mainlines eventually are not able to renegotiate the scope clauses they will not absorb the cost of operating these routes either, we all know that. It's a great opportunity for the other companies that are not stuck under these scope clauses.
And forget about ATR pushing any update anytime soon, Airbus already stated that will not invest a cent in a new ATR anytime soon.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 2:15 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
Wouldn't jet powered aircraft be better? So develop a new wing, with higher sweep / higher flight speed for the regional jet. This could be offered besides the ATR turboprops. The turbo props for short and STOL flights and the jets for longer range flights.
If they keep the same fuselage, possibly they could use the same assembly line. This would be like the Do328(jet) or An140 / An-148/-158.


The Do328 jet and the An148 where huge commercial failures and the ATRjet idea was scraped by ATR in the 90's because they failed to find a way to make the project viable. A jet powered conversion from a turboprop will never have the same efficiency as a clean sheet design like the ERJ or C-Series no matter how much they try to improve the design.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I don't get why development of a new regional jet would be prohibitively expensive, while there are three families of large busness jets being offered (Falcon, Global and Gulfstream Gxx0). What is the big difference that prohibits the development of a new scope compliant regional jet (family)?


Because neither of the companies you mention want's to put money in this. Dassault will probably never produce another commercial jet after the huge failure of the dassault mercure, General Dynamics (owners of Gulfstream) have a similar story with the Convair jets and Bombardier just dropout of the race altogether. Create a viable comercial jet for the 50-100 passenger market is not easy task, not even Boeing are willing to put money in this segment for a good reason, if you don't have a good understanding of how this market works you gonna lose a lot of money, mitsubishi is a great example of that.
Last edited by bkmbr on Wed May 27, 2020 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 2:18 pm

ethernal wrote:
EssentialBusDC wrote:
Jetport wrote:

I don’t really think mainline will give up much flying, if any by allowing the E175-E2 under scope. The additional 76 seaters will probably replace 50 seaters at less than one for one, so there won’t be much if any loss in flying. As part of the negotiations I would also assume the mainline pilots can get some concessions they want for allowing the E2 under scope.

I am surprised that the post 9/11 airline bankruptcies didn’t’ teach pilots unions a litter more about capitalism and economics. I am all for paying pilots (and everyone else) a fair and reasonable wage, but very highly compensated part time Airbus drivers are not sustainable in the long term.


Where are you getting part time?


I assume based on the fact that a pilot typically only "works" 800-1000 hours a year. But that is a big misrepresentation since - unless you've got absolutely perfect routes - for every hour you're flying you're working at least another on the ground between flights.



I’m very familiar with how a pilot gets paid.

The comment made me think that the poster doesn’t really understand since 73 hours is a full month of work, not part time. :banghead:
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5627
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 2:39 pm

I don't get why development of a new regional jet would be prohibitively expensive, while there are three families of large busness jets being offered (Falcon, Global and Gulfstream Gxx0). What is the big difference that prohibits the development of a new scope compliant regional jet (family)?


Any empty green Global 7500 (CRJ 700 size) weighs about 57,000#, far to heavy a start to make an 86,000# compliant 76–seat RJ. That’s using the basic fuselage, FBW controls. New wing, stretch the cabin, adds about 8,0000#. New clean sheet design is, at least, a $4-5 billion investment. That’s $10 billion over an initial 500 aircraft line to recover non-recurring costs.
Last edited by GalaxyFlyer on Wed May 27, 2020 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5627
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 2:41 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I don't get why development of a new regional jet would be prohibitively expensive, while there are three families of large busness jets being offered (Falcon, Global and Gulfstream Gxx0). What is the big difference that prohibits the development of a new scope compliant regional jet (family)?


Any empty green Global 7500 (CRJ 700 size) weighs about 57,000#, far to heavy a start to make an 86,000# compliant 76–seat RJ. New clean sheet design is, at least, a $4-5 billion investment using a G7500 frame as basis, so FBW, fuselage is a given. New wing would be needed, plus a stretch adding probably 8,000#. That’s $10 billion over an initial 500 aircraft line to recover non-recurring costs.
 
Jetport
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 2:57 pm

EssentialBusDC wrote:
ethernal wrote:
EssentialBusDC wrote:

Where are you getting part time?


I assume based on the fact that a pilot typically only "works" 800-1000 hours a year. But that is a big misrepresentation since - unless you've got absolutely perfect routes - for every hour you're flying you're working at least another on the ground between flights.



I’m very familiar with how a pilot gets paid.

The comment made me think that the poster doesn’t really understand since 73 hours is a full month of work, not part time. :banghead:


I fully understand how a pilot gets paid. I have a friend who works for Untied and he has 2 businesses on the side, because he has plenty of time to run them. He also chooses to be a FO on long international routes which maximizes his days off but costs him some money.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 3:02 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
With all of the seasonal weather patterns in the Northeast and Midwest, turboprops will get hammered during irrops conditions.

Can you expand on that?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 3:18 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I don't get why development of a new regional jet would be prohibitively expensive, while there are three families of large busness jets being offered (Falcon, Global and Gulfstream Gxx0). What is the big difference that prohibits the development of a new scope compliant regional jet (family)?

I suppose the main difference is that there is no engine developed specifically for this market.
That apart that's something to think about. I believe because of B787 mismanagement the usual guesstimates are too high. The C-Series gives orientation.

bkmbr wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I don't get why development of a new regional jet would be prohibitively expensive, while there are three families of large busness jets being offered (Falcon, Global and Gulfstream Gxx0). What is the big difference that prohibits the development of a new scope compliant regional jet (family)?


Because neither of the companies you mention want's to put money in this. Dassault will probably never produce another commercial jet after the huge failure of the dassault mercure, General Dynamics (owners of Gulfstream) have a similar story with the Convair jets and Bombardier just dropout of the race altogether. Create a viable comercial jet for the 50-100 passenger market is not easy task, not even Boeing are willing to put money in this segment for a good reason, if you don't have a good understanding of how this market works you gonna lose a lot of money, mitsubishi is a great example of that.

You are probably right, but:
IIRC Dessault Mercure had a range problem. How should Mitsubishi know how to build a plane? Bombardier bet on high oil price and on cost decreases in carbon fiber production. Both didn't happen.

One can argue the other way round: A snowmobile manufacturer shook the market. Embraer also was successful. It's very high risk, but only high reward.

About Convair:
"The company also entered the jet airliner business with its Convair 880 and Convair 990 designs. These were smaller than contemporary aircraft like the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8, but somewhat faster than either. This combination of features failed to find a profitable niche and the company exited the airliner design business. However, the manufacturing capability built up for these projects proved very profitable and the company became a major subcontractor for airliner fuselages."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 860
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 3:24 pm

[quote="CowAnon"]
No. Open rotor engines are a bit heavier per thrust produced (i.e., they have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio). ... [quote] This post, with citations, epitomizes what I love about this site. Thank you.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5627
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 3:25 pm

A snowmobile manufacturer BOUGHT cheaply an airplane builder that designed the Canadair RJ. Not quite the same as an innovator.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 3:29 pm

Sokes wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
With all of the seasonal weather patterns in the Northeast and Midwest, turboprops will get hammered during irrops conditions.

Can you expand on that?

Jets have a better chance of being above weather. Not the massive towering cumulus of course, but a jet at 35,000+ ft will clear far more weather than a prop in the 20s.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 3:41 pm

Sokes wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
With all of the seasonal weather patterns in the Northeast and Midwest, turboprops will get hammered during irrops conditions.

Can you expand on that?


Easily

When the weather hits the first planes that are grounded are the RJ’s. Turboprops are worse. Any company planning irrops will make the turboprops the first target for cancellations.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 3:46 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
SkyLife wrote:
This seems to be a popular discussion lately and I’ll reiterate it from a 121 pilot perspective. Regional jets are now flying mainline routes at a fraction of the cost and this severely limits career movement of regional pilots (Republic routinely flies DCA-CLT, HUB to HUB. Usually only one flight a day but it proves a valuable point - one less mainline flight ). Anyone who thinks regional A/C are flying ‘regional’ routes only needs to pull up FlightAware. I’ve flown 3hr/1000nm+ flights in the CRJ, not so ‘regional’. A few things I see in the market...

1- Props aren’t coming back. Passengers hate them. The Dash was not missed at PDT. One particular PDT airport over a decade ago had a celebration when they became all jet (only to go back to Dash’s later lol) but that should tell you all you need to know on the discussion. They are a worse experience and the crashes of them (Roselawn etc) haven’t been forgotten by many.

2-Scope won’t be relaxed unless severe concessions are given. Only 2 options I see are huge pay increases (100k+ for both pilots at the regionals) or a seniority # and a firm hire date at mainline. I want my hire date guaranteed and if it doesn’t happen then you pay me mainline pay regardless. I’ll fly a CRJ across the Atlantic for the right pay.

3-CRJ line is most likely done. Mitsubishi didn’t even want to produce CRJs that weren’t firm (options). Doesn’t make sense to me honestly, Mitsubishi doesn’t have a product ready...why not make $$$ off the CRJ line that had demand. COVID may change this thinking?

4-Embraer gambled and lost. As previously stated TO weight is interchangeable with fuel. 76 seats and fuel burn means my 3hr just became 3.5hrs in a regional jet. Max weight matters.

5-50 seat flying is drawing down but will exist for most likely well over a decade. Smallest cities that only saw Dash-8s or -200s will see -200/140/145/550 for the longest time. (PGV, SBY etc) I don’t see a new jet designed for this though. Economics don’t support a billion+ dollar investment. Places such as PGV will either be upgauged, cut in frequency or cut altogether.

6-Why are regional jets roughly the size of a DC-9-15?! Regional jets are basically previous generation bottom of the line mainline aircraft, that’s not the pilots problem. Regional pilots have been trapped for over a decade at the regional level to see regionals take over previous mainline flying. We won’t make that mistake again.

I hope this provides some insight into how we are thinking. Mainline can fly the aircraft if it is so great economically, even at lower mainline rates for the A/C. Some majors already have these pay rates agreed upon. Regionals don’t need to be the ones making the sacrifices.



What passenger wants and what they say they want are different and TBH largely irrelevant. They say they don't like cramped cabins on LCC.

Pilots aren't going to give up anything and nor should day.

So either old RJ will keep being made or people will fly on turboprops. Or they can not fly at all. Anyway the complaints around props are silly, modern ones are grand and again it's only a 90 minute flight.


I guess old RJ’s will keep on flying.

Q-200 gone
Q-300 gone
Q-400 gone

Commutair and Expressjet E-145’s are getting repainted.

CRJ-700/550
CRJ-900/705
E-175SC experiments to skirt scope clause rules

American and United are already well familiar with props and chose to get rid of them anyway. With all of the seasonal weather patterns in the Northeast and Midwest, turboprops will get hammered during irrops conditions.



Explain that one to me again? I've flown in ATRs and q400s in the great white north or in Scotland and channel island. They come with headmounted synethtic vision displays and everything else. Why wouldn't they be able to fly in the Northeast and MidWest? I'm not a pilot.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 3:47 pm

TonyClifton wrote:
Sokes wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
With all of the seasonal weather patterns in the Northeast and Midwest, turboprops will get hammered during irrops conditions.

Can you expand on that?

Jets have a better chance of being above weather. Not the massive towering cumulus of course, but a jet at 35,000+ ft will clear far more weather than a prop in the 20s.


Exactly

Even during the recovery from irrops, you can get an RJ back into the operations faster. You’ll be surprised at how many reroutes are needed to get a turboprop from point A to point B when the weather is bad between 18,000ft and 22,000ft
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 3:50 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
keesje wrote:
ATR could push up speed, ceiling and capacity on the ATR's a bit. New suitable engines were under development.
They have been discussing for a decade, little competition and -600 success made them shy of the investment I guess.

Image


Wouldn't jet powered aircraft be better? So develop a new wing, with higher sweep / higher flight speed for the regional jet. This could be offered besides the ATR turboprops. The turbo props for short and STOL flights and the jets for longer range flights.
If they keep the same fuselage, possibly they could use the same assembly line. This would be like the Do328(jet) or An140 / An-148/-158.


I think that however scope clause develops. So if it stays or if it goes. There will be demand for smaller aircraft. And developing light weight regional aircraft will make them more (fuel) efficient. So for me the scope clause isn't really relevant. I'm more interested in how industry could develop more efficient regional (50-100 seat) aircraft.

I don't get why development of a new regional jet would be prohibitively expensive, while there are three families of large busness jets being offered (Falcon, Global and Gulfstream Gxx0). What is the big difference that prohibits the development of a new scope compliant regional jet (family)?

AFAIK the PW1000G is actually three different sizes of engine. The PW1200G/PW1700G has little commonality with the other members because it's thrust output is so much smaller. The PW1000G have had problems on the A320 and A220, AFAIK they have been overcome. But these engine problems have lowered orders. I think the PW1200G/1700G is actually still to strong for regional jets.
No other engine manufacturer has offered a new generation engine for regional aircraft. I think this has been the main problem.
I think Bombardier realized that the PW1200G wouldn't work on the CRJs within scope clause. MRJ and Embraer thought they could work it out.
Possibly the higher compression ratio core technologie needs to mature, and ceramic brisk and CFPR fan blade and casing technology needs to mature before engine manufacturers can offer a good engine for regional jets. Is the problem engine reliability and spare part availability?

I don't know if P&W has weight reduction technology available to reduce engine weight of the PW1200G/PW1700G, or if it would be beter to offer PW812 / PW814 for regional aircraft. Possibly RR could make a regional jet version of the Pearl, or GE a version of the Passport (a CF34 successor).


It's weird how this conversation is started when you just ignore reality. "For me scope isn't important"

Well okay then.....

Scope matters and isn't going anywhere.
No speed doesn't matter on a regional airliners. It's regional flights. It you want to build a mainline aircraft to fly 1300 km that's fine. But it's not a regional jet and you'll have to pay pilots properly
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 3:53 pm

bkmbr wrote:
keesje wrote:
ATR could push up speed, ceiling and capacity on the ATR's a bit. New suitable engines were under development.
They have been discussing for a decade, little competition and -600 success made them shy of the investment I guess.


The american passenger never really accepted the Q400, why they would accept the ATR? The american public don't like turboprop and actively try not to fly on them unless there is no other viable option. The companies know this and therefore insist on keeping jets even in the not most profitable routes because of that. If the mainlines eventually are not able to renegotiate the scope clauses they will not absorb the cost of operating these routes either, we all know that. It's a great opportunity for the other companies that are not stuck under these scope clauses.
And forget about ATR pushing any update anytime soon, Airbus already stated that will not invest a cent in a new ATR anytime soon.



As if what passenger say they want matters? They say they don't like LCC but they have moved the industry that way for 40 years.

They can either fly an old scope compliant RJ or a turboprop. Any passengers are dumb.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 3:54 pm

Dmoney wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:


What passenger wants and what they say they want are different and TBH largely irrelevant. They say they don't like cramped cabins on LCC.

Pilots aren't going to give up anything and nor should day.

So either old RJ will keep being made or people will fly on turboprops. Or they can not fly at all. Anyway the complaints around props are silly, modern ones are grand and again it's only a 90 minute flight.


I guess old RJ’s will keep on flying.

Q-200 gone
Q-300 gone
Q-400 gone

Commutair and Expressjet E-145’s are getting repainted.

CRJ-700/550
CRJ-900/705
E-175SC experiments to skirt scope clause rules

American and United are already well familiar with props and chose to get rid of them anyway. With all of the seasonal weather patterns in the Northeast and Midwest, turboprops will get hammered during irrops conditions.



Explain that one to me again? I've flown in ATRs and q400s in the great white north or in Scotland and channel island. They come with headmounted synethtic vision displays and everything else. Why wouldn't they be able to fly in the Northeast and MidWest? I'm not a pilot.


It’s like buying a car, you have the cheap base model, afterwards you can start adding additional extras.

Most regional airlines operate a simple base model aircraft. Certified for Cat I maybe Cat II approach. Regional airlines don’t usually equip their aircraft with all of the luxury bells and whistles.

I never knew the CRJ had a HUD display until I worked the CRJ-705 at JFK.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1103
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 4:44 pm

Scope will change if the E1 E175 goes out of production.

If American or Delta upgrades scope to allow E2-175 and United has to kill United Express because there are no airplanes - there will be great stress placed on United and pilots to come up with a solution.

Until then or some other external force (Greenhouse gas cuts, fuel prices skyrocket,etc) I don’t see a change in scope.
 
bigb
Posts: 1108
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 4:50 pm

ADent wrote:
Scope will change if the E1 E175 goes out of production.

If American or Delta upgrades scope to allow E2-175 and United has to kill United Express because there are no airplanes - there will be great stress placed on United and pilots to come up with a solution.

Until then or some other external force (Greenhouse gas cuts, fuel prices skyrocket,etc) I don’t see a change in scope.


How will change if the E1 goes out of production if pilots aren’t going to give into scope. United Express simply will not just go away lol.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 4:59 pm

Dmoney wrote:
They can either fly an old scope compliant RJ or a turboprop. Any passengers are dumb.


Those dumb passengers are the ones who pays to fly, and they are not willing to pay to fly on a turboprops.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 5:04 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
A snowmobile manufacturer BOUGHT cheaply an airplane builder that designed the Canadair RJ. Not quite the same as an innovator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Inc.#Aviation
Beautiful. We are both right.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 5:15 pm

TonyClifton wrote:
Sokes wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
With all of the seasonal weather patterns in the Northeast and Midwest, turboprops will get hammered during irrops conditions.

Can you expand on that?

Jets have a better chance of being above weather. Not the massive towering cumulus of course, but a jet at 35,000+ ft will clear far more weather than a prop in the 20s.


JFKalumni wrote:
Easily

When the weather hits the first planes that are grounded are the RJ’s. Turboprops are worse. Any company planning irrops will make the turboprops the first target for cancellations.

Good I asked. I thought of landing problems in bad weather because of low wing loading. Thanks to both of you.


JFKalumni wrote:
Even during the recovery from irrops, you can get an RJ back into the operations faster. You’ll be surprised at how many reroutes are needed to get a turboprop from point A to point B when the weather is bad between 18,000ft and 22,000ft

The Q400 has a ceiling of 27.000ft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havill ... ifications
No idea if it can climb so high close to MTOW. That operators don't want to carry oxygen systems isn't the fault of turboprops.
The ATR is of course a joke in this respect.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 5:29 pm

Sokes wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Can you expand on that?

Jets have a better chance of being above weather. Not the massive towering cumulus of course, but a jet at 35,000+ ft will clear far more weather than a prop in the 20s.


JFKalumni wrote:
Easily

When the weather hits the first planes that are grounded are the RJ’s. Turboprops are worse. Any company planning irrops will make the turboprops the first target for cancellations.

Good I asked. I thought of landing problems in bad weather because of low wing loading. Thanks to both of you.


JFKalumni wrote:
Even during the recovery from irrops, you can get an RJ back into the operations faster. You’ll be surprised at how many reroutes are needed to get a turboprop from point A to point B when the weather is bad between 18,000ft and 22,000ft

The Q400 has a ceiling of 27.000ft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havill ... ifications
No idea if it can climb so high close to MTOW. That operators don't want to carry oxygen systems isn't the fault of turboprops.
The ATR is of course a joke in this respect.


You also have to consider:

winds aloft
Passenger bag weight
Route of flight
Etc
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5627
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 6:32 pm

It isn’t weather that delays/cancels RJ flights directly, it’s ATC capacity. ATC starts limiting or re-routing flights during severe weather, the carriers start canceling flights based on revenue, connecting flights, etc. Most RJ are CAT II capable and have every bit as much weather capability as any airliner, but limited by ATC, perhaps range to avoid large areas of weather on a short leg. If there’s a line of weather between ORD and DSM, the B777 headed to NRT has lots of options to circumnavigate it, but the RJ going to DSM has fewer and ATC has limits on how much traffic they can manage going around the weather.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 6:47 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:

I guess old RJ’s will keep on flying.

Q-200 gone
Q-300 gone
Q-400 gone

Commutair and Expressjet E-145’s are getting repainted.

CRJ-700/550
CRJ-900/705
E-175SC experiments to skirt scope clause rules

American and United are already well familiar with props and chose to get rid of them anyway. With all of the seasonal weather patterns in the Northeast and Midwest, turboprops will get hammered during irrops conditions.



Explain that one to me again? I've flown in ATRs and q400s in the great white north or in Scotland and channel island. They come with headmounted synethtic vision displays and everything else. Why wouldn't they be able to fly in the Northeast and MidWest? I'm not a pilot.


It’s like buying a car, you have the cheap base model, afterwards you can start adding additional extras.

Most regional airlines operate a simple base model aircraft. Certified for Cat I maybe Cat II approach. Regional airlines don’t usually equip their aircraft with all of the luxury bells and whistles.

I never knew the CRJ had a HUD display until I worked the CRJ-705 at JFK.


So you were wrong then? It's perfectly possible to fly turboprops in those situations. You gave the impression it wasn't. Glad we cleared that up.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 6:50 pm

bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
They can either fly an old scope compliant RJ or a turboprop. Any passengers are dumb.


Those dumb passengers are the ones who pays to fly, and they are not willing to pay to fly on a turboprops.


We've established they are willing. Thanks for playing though. If someone isn't making a scope compliant RJ they will take turboprops instead.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 7:12 pm

Dmoney wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:


Explain that one to me again? I've flown in ATRs and q400s in the great white north or in Scotland and channel island. They come with headmounted synethtic vision displays and everything else. Why wouldn't they be able to fly in the Northeast and MidWest? I'm not a pilot.


It’s like buying a car, you have the cheap base model, afterwards you can start adding additional extras.

Most regional airlines operate a simple base model aircraft. Certified for Cat I maybe Cat II approach. Regional airlines don’t usually equip their aircraft with all of the luxury bells and whistles.

I never knew the CRJ had a HUD display until I worked the CRJ-705 at JFK.


So you were wrong then? It's perfectly possible to fly turboprops in those situations. You gave the impression it wasn't. Glad we cleared that up.


Read GalaxyFlyers post.

Not only weather conditions but ATC flow control delays also play into the equation. Turboprops are also notorious for weight restrictions. Weather it’s passenger capacity or passenger bags loaded on the aircraft. Turboprops are a pain to deal with during irrops conditions that’s one of the reasons why we got rid of them.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 7:58 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
Even during the recovery from irrops, you can get an RJ back into the operations faster. You’ll be surprised at how many reroutes are needed to get a turboprop from point A to point B when the weather is bad between 18,000ft and 22,000ft

Not doubting you or anything, but the ATR and the Q400 are relatively popular in South-East Asia and other tropical regions. They see tons of thunderstorms (and also high terrain in many places) but I haven't found them to be worse than A320s or 737s in that regard. They're also operated all over Europe, which is no stranger to high winds and snow in winter; again I haven't found them less punctual than jets.

Are those reroutes you describe something a regular passenger wouldn't notice, but an airline's planning department would be impacted by?
 
bkmbr
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 8:11 pm

Dmoney wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
They can either fly an old scope compliant RJ or a turboprop. Any passengers are dumb.


Those dumb passengers are the ones who pays to fly, and they are not willing to pay to fly on a turboprops.


We've established they are willing. Thanks for playing though. If someone isn't making a scope compliant RJ they will take turboprops instead.


Apparently my crystal ball is not just as powerful as yours since you can see this clearly what will happen in the next 20 years. I`m sure that Boeing is willing to pay a good money for your services.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 8:18 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Not doubting you or anything, but the ATR and the Q400 are relatively popular in South-East Asia and other tropical regions. They see tons of thunderstorms (and also high terrain in many places) but I haven't found them to be worse than A320s or 737s in that regard. They're also operated all over Europe, which is no stranger to high winds and snow in winter; again I haven't found them less punctual than jets.

Are those reroutes you describe something a regular passenger wouldn't notice, but an airline's planning department would be impacted by?


The problem in the US is not just de technical capabilities of the turboprops. In the US market turboprops have a long standing bad reputation among the customers and some operators and a lot of people are afraid to fly on them because of the alleged "poor reputation" that turboprops developed in the US since the 70s and 80s due to several crashes. Here most of us know that a turboprop is a perfectly fine plane to fly regardless of climate, but for most people turboprop is synonymous to deathtrap, especially in winter.
Last edited by bkmbr on Wed May 27, 2020 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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