Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6112
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 2:58 pm

bkmbr wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
You have a point, but you have to account for the elasticity of supply for pilots. Until COVID, the supply was looking less elastic than many expected. Rules like the FAA ATP rule, cost of training, other more attractive careers made pilot supply limited.


Yes, but thanks to COVID Delta alone is about to furlough 7k pilots, who knows how many the AA and United will furlough. Let's forget how the world was before COVID, we will never go back to that.


Delta never said furlough 7,000 pilots, that was the projected overage for later this year. Furlough numbers were in the 1500-2500 range based 2021 flying. It’s going to return fairly quickly, 2022 at the latest. Retirements go on and that’s a huge number in the next five years.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24396
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 3:08 pm

bkmbr wrote:
All engines from all engine companies are getting bigger and heavier, doesn't appear to me that the failure is that airframe vendors can't express requirements for those engines, appears to me to be a limitation of the technology itself. As they usually say in South America appears to be the short blanket dilemma (if you cover your feet, you have your head cold), to increase the energy efficiency of the engines seems to be irreversible the need to make them bigger (and consequently increasing the weight). It is not because of a lack of attempt on the part of engine manufacturers to reduce the weight (most companies are increasing the use advanced materials such as carbon fiber and 3D printed parts to try to decrease the engine weight) but because there is a physical (and chemical) limit to the extent to which it is impossible to decrease the size engines maintaining the same levels of efficiency, consumption and emissions. The CF-34 to have greater thrust and lighter weight at the cost of greater fuel consumption and higher emission levels. Will this be accepted indefinitely because of the scope clauses limitations?

Yes, some things are getting heavier due to increased temperature/pressure which increases economy but it's not clear to me it's balanced.

My thought is we got CF-34 because the military had mission requirements for smaller aircraft (USAF ground support A-10, USN anti-sub carrier based patrol S-3) that needed good fuel economy for long loiter times and high reliability needed by carrier based aircraft. The civil market took the ball and ran with it to produce RJs using this engine.

We now have E2 and MRJ sized aircraft being powered by the same engine tech as A321XLR, main difference being the size of the fan blades and thus size of nacelle and containment structures and removal of one low pressure compressor stage.

It seems to me fair to suggest that PW was focused on capturing the A220 and above market, whatever they got from smaller RJs was gravy.

What if there was an engine that focused on the 10k-20k lb thrust band like CF-34 instead of PW at 15k-35k?

We know the airframe vendors looked at bizjet engines, but the big problem is they aren't designed for the number of cycles a commercial engine is. Look at complaints about the BR on the 717 to see what happens when you can't meet time on wing requirements. Thus the RJ vendors took the worse of two evils, an engine that has a lot of elements of the higher thrust engines baked into its design just to get the desired durability, but now have an aircraft too heavy to meet scope.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1000G
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_CF34
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
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 3:35 pm

Maybe we need Elon Musk to start a new aircraft manufacturing company. And I'm only half joking.
    300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
     
    bkmbr
    Posts: 267
    Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 3:37 pm

    MohawkWeekend wrote:
    Maybe we need Elon Musk to start a new aircraft manufacturing company. And I'm only half joking.


    Please, keep Elon "Jesus" Musk away from planes, please :lol: :lol: :lol:
     
    bkmbr
    Posts: 267
    Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 3:38 pm

    Revelation wrote:
    My thought is we got CF-34 because the military had mission requirements for smaller aircraft (USAF ground support A-10, USN anti-sub carrier based patrol S-3) that needed good fuel economy for long loiter times and high reliability needed by carrier based aircraft. The civil market took the ball and ran with it to produce RJs using this engine.


    Don't forget that emissions is not a problem for military operations.

    Revelation wrote:
    What if there was an engine that focused on the 10k-20k lb thrust band like CF-34 instead of PW at 15k-35k?


    This would be great but there's any engine like that in the market today? Not that I know.
    Last edited by bkmbr on Thu May 28, 2020 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
     
    32andBelow
    Posts: 4975
    Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 3:39 pm

    bkmbr wrote:
    MohawkWeekend wrote:
    Maybe we need Elon Musk to start a new aircraft manufacturing company. And I'm only half joking.


    Please, keep Elon "Jesus" Musk away from planes, please :lol: :lol: :lol:

    I mean space x smoked Boeing in their space race. When does the Boeing capsule fly again?
     
    User avatar
    Revelation
    Posts: 24396
    Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 3:52 pm

    bkmbr wrote:
    Revelation wrote:
    What if there was an engine that focused on the 10k-20k lb thrust band like CF-34 instead of PW at 15k-35k?

    This would be great but there's any engine like that in the market today? Not that I know.

    Agree. This is kind of a "what if" thought experiment.

    I guess I'd boil it down to "how much better would a clean sheet 15k thrust engine be than the PW1700G on E175-E2, and would that engine allow it to be in scope?".

    If we look at it from an economic point of view, there doesn't seem to be a business case to support such a thing. In the real world the vendors decided a good 7+ years ago to go with the PW GTF and hope the scope rules could be fudged because there was no engine on the drawing boards that could meet scope.

    I know I'm flogging the point a bit, but these multi-billion dollar decisions are fascinating to me.

    It seems we want to say "dumb EMB, everyone knew scope wouldn't change yet you built a non compliant airplane" whereas they probably could not have built a scope compliant airplane given the engines on the drawing board at the time.
    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
     
    Sokes
    Posts: 1674
    Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 3:58 pm

    bigb wrote:
    There isn't a requirement for 90 mins of fuel on the ground per say. But there is a requirement that you can't dispatch over your MFPTOW (Max flight plan take off weight), the max weight where you can depart that you will allow you to land at your destination at your Max Landing Weight.

    So the destination is too close, not too far. Now that's a funny problem to have.

    CRJ-200:
    Maximum take-off weight (CRJ200 ER) 51,000 lb 23,134 kg
    Maximum landing weight 47,000 lb 21,319 kg
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

    ATR 72:
    Max take-off weight (basic) 22,800 kg - 50,265 lb
    Max take-off weight (option) 23,000 kg - 50,705 lb
    Max landing weight (basic) 22,350 kg - 49,272 lb
    http://www.atraircraft.com/products_app ... n-2014.pdf

    What was Bombardier thinking?

    Thanks to both of you for the explanation.
    Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
     
    TonyClifton
    Posts: 233
    Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 3:59 pm

    Revelation wrote:
    bkmbr wrote:
    Revelation wrote:
    What if there was an engine that focused on the 10k-20k lb thrust band like CF-34 instead of PW at 15k-35k?

    This would be great but there's any engine like that in the market today? Not that I know.

    Agree. This is kind of a "what if" thought experiment.

    I guess I'd boil it down to "how much better would a clean sheet 15k thrust engine be than the PW1700G on E175-E2, and would that engine allow it to be in scope?".

    If we look at it from an economic point of view, there doesn't seem to be a business case to support such a thing. In the real world the vendors decided a good 7+ years ago to go with the PW GTF and hope the scope rules could be fudged because there was no engine on the drawing boards that could meet scope.

    I know I'm flogging the point a bit, but these multi-billion dollar decisions are fascinating to me.

    It seems we want to say "dumb EMB, everyone knew scope wouldn't change yet you built a non compliant airplane" whereas they probably could not have built a scope compliant airplane given the engines on the drawing board at the time.

    Could either of Embraer or Bombardier made a convincing enough case to GE or Pratt to make a replacement in the class of the CF34? Passport is of course a business jet engine, but surely there’s the basis of a decent engine for RJs there, likewise the PW800.
     
    TonyClifton
    Posts: 233
    Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 4:02 pm

    Sokes wrote:
    bigb wrote:
    There isn't a requirement for 90 mins of fuel on the ground per say. But there is a requirement that you can't dispatch over your MFPTOW (Max flight plan take off weight), the max weight where you can depart that you will allow you to land at your destination at your Max Landing Weight.

    So the destination is too close, not too far. Now that's a funny problem to have.

    CRJ-200:
    Maximum take-off weight (CRJ200 ER) 51,000 lb 23,134 kg
    Maximum landing weight 47,000 lb 21,319 kg
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

    ATR 72:
    Max take-off weight (basic) 22,800 kg - 50,265 lb
    Max take-off weight (option) 23,000 kg - 50,705 lb
    Max landing weight (basic) 22,350 kg - 49,272 lb
    http://www.atraircraft.com/products_app ... n-2014.pdf

    What was Bombardier thinking?

    Thanks to both of you for the explanation.

    Limitations with the movement from Challenger to CRJ200. The 700/900 has a totally different MLG, and while I’ve never gotten close enough to a Challengers gear, I’d assume it’s 99% identical to a 200s. Winter, full boat, and an alternate and you’re sitting on the ground on the 200 burning some gas before you can get airborne, especially on the 30 minute hops. Conversely the 900 I had never run into a MLW issue. I’d always been curious what the proposed CRJ500 would have been like. Might have gained some efficiencies learned from the 700 series expansion.
     
    User avatar
    Revelation
    Posts: 24396
    Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 4:03 pm

    TonyClifton wrote:
    Could either of Embraer or Bombardier made a convincing enough case to GE or Pratt to make a replacement in the class of the CF34? Passport is of course a business jet engine, but surely there’s the basis of a decent engine for RJs there, likewise the PW800.

    I doubt it. As above, CF-34 was largely funded by the taxpayers. Engines cost a lot to develop, and this one seems it would need commercial customers to do the bulk of the funding. As above I'm not even sure the current tech could meet the goal of having more efficiency and durability with weight held within scope. I'm also not sure PW GTF is all that far off spec, which means it's pretty optimized already, and the incremental linear improvements will probably require non-linear amounts of cash to achieve.
    Last edited by Revelation on Thu May 28, 2020 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    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
     
    bigb
    Posts: 1127
    Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 4:03 pm

    Sokes wrote:
    bigb wrote:
    There isn't a requirement for 90 mins of fuel on the ground per say. But there is a requirement that you can't dispatch over your MFPTOW (Max flight plan take off weight), the max weight where you can depart that you will allow you to land at your destination at your Max Landing Weight.

    So the destination is too close, not too far. Now that's a funny problem to have.

    CRJ-200:
    Maximum take-off weight (CRJ200 ER) 51,000 lb 23,134 kg
    Maximum landing weight 47,000 lb 21,319 kg
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

    ATR 72:
    Max take-off weight (basic) 22,800 kg - 50,265 lb
    Max take-off weight (option) 23,000 kg - 50,705 lb
    Max landing weight (basic) 22,350 kg - 49,272 lb
    http://www.atraircraft.com/products_app ... n-2014.pdf

    What was Bombardier thinking?

    Thanks to both of you for the explanation.


    Exactly unless you need a Takeoff Alternate in the CRJ-200, then you need to load up more fuel for the FAA flaps AD which equals to about an additional 5,500 lbs of fuel.
     
    bigb
    Posts: 1127
    Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 4:07 pm

    TonyClifton wrote:
    Sokes wrote:
    bigb wrote:
    There isn't a requirement for 90 mins of fuel on the ground per say. But there is a requirement that you can't dispatch over your MFPTOW (Max flight plan take off weight), the max weight where you can depart that you will allow you to land at your destination at your Max Landing Weight.

    So the destination is too close, not too far. Now that's a funny problem to have.

    CRJ-200:
    Maximum take-off weight (CRJ200 ER) 51,000 lb 23,134 kg
    Maximum landing weight 47,000 lb 21,319 kg
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

    ATR 72:
    Max take-off weight (basic) 22,800 kg - 50,265 lb
    Max take-off weight (option) 23,000 kg - 50,705 lb
    Max landing weight (basic) 22,350 kg - 49,272 lb
    http://www.atraircraft.com/products_app ... n-2014.pdf

    What was Bombardier thinking?

    Thanks to both of you for the explanation.

    Limitations with the movement from Challenger to CRJ200. The 700/900 has a totally different MLG, and while I’ve never gotten close enough to a Challengers gear, I’d assume it’s 99% identical to a 200s. Winter, full boat, and an alternate and you’re sitting on the ground on the 200 burning some gas before you can get airborne, especially on the 30 minute hops. Conversely the 900 I had never run into a MLW issue. I’d always been curious what the proposed CRJ500 would have been like. Might have gained some efficiencies learned from the 700 series expansion.


    I will say from experience, the the 700/900s don’t have weight balance issues like I’ve seen in the CRJ-200. I’ve had to leave commuters behind on the 200. But a 700/900, no problem.
     
    TonyClifton
    Posts: 233
    Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 4:20 pm

    Revelation wrote:
    TonyClifton wrote:
    Could either of Embraer or Bombardier made a convincing enough case to GE or Pratt to make a replacement in the class of the CF34? Passport is of course a business jet engine, but surely there’s the basis of a decent engine for RJs there, likewise the PW800.

    I doubt it. As above, CF-34 was largely funded by the taxpayers. Engines cost a lot to develop, and this one seems it would need commercial customers to do the bulk of the funding. As above I'm not even sure the current tech could meet the goal of having more efficiency and durability with weight held within scope. I'm also not sure PW GTF is all that far off spec, which means it's pretty optimized already, and the incremental linear improvements will probably require non-linear amounts of cash to achieve.

    The CF-34-8 family is probably the closest you’ll get to balance. It’s not inefficient by any means, but I think any additional gains from that point would be dragged down by development costs and weight. Typically seen burns in the realm of 2,000 a side in cruise. GTF can get lower, but again at that point you’re strapping cinderblocks on. Delta has effectively swapped the longest RJ routes to the 220 (NYC-Texas, etc) and I’d imagine a continued swap in the future, as 76 seat jets retrench into actual “regional” flying.
     
    Dmoney
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 4:35 pm

    TonyClifton wrote:
    Revelation wrote:
    bkmbr wrote:
    I believe the main point of contention is, there's any possible viable (technical and economical) to have an aircraft able to keep the scope clauses in the long run?

    From the point of view of the manufacturers apparently is hard (maybe impossible) to develop a 76 passenger new generation of airplane within the current MTOW limits without significant limitations on the performance and/or range of the airplane due the natural process of evolution of the engines (just look for the 777x engine compared to the 777-200 engines). If it was really possible what is preventing Embraer, Mitsubishi, Bombardier/Airbus, Boeing, COMAC and Sukhoi/Leonardo or any other company from doing it in the first place? With the market that exists in the USA now due the actual scope clauses would be a crazy proposition for a company with the technical and financial capability to not make a product that would virtually have no competitors in the market for the next 20 to 25 years.

    From the point of view from the mainliners, with the bankruptcy filings in the horizon in the post-covid world, I personally don't see a point to insist on not negotiating at all costs at least the MTOW clause to allow the 175E2 and M90 to operate in the market, To me seems idiotic seeing pilots and unions willing to chance of the unions being forced into labor contract renegotiation through the chapter 11 process because of the MTOW clause and, in the end, get a even worst deal (like not only increasing the MTOW clause but also the max passenger within the scope from 76 to 100 for example). In a way this is exactly what Delta/Northwest did in 2011 to force the renegotiation of their agreement and they succeeded in that in a general aviation scenario that was nowhere near as bad as it is now.

    I personally do not see what could the pilots and the unions could gain from not renegotiated the scope clauses to allow these heavier aircraft like the ERJ-175E2 or M90 in a 76 passenger configuration (or what irreversible loss would this represent based on what the already have) even if the go a few tons over the current MTOW clause to be honest, and to see the situation escalating the point where unions and pilots are apparently actively betting against their employer's survival in the long run at a point in time where the number of unemployed pilots available on the market will clearly be greater than the number of available seats for, at least, a couple of years doesn't sound like the smartest thing to do in my opinion.

    I guess we can say the engine companies failed by not producing an engine with similar thrust to weight ratio as CF-34 but with better economy, emissions and maintenance to enable scope compliant regional aircraft. The 'failure' though seems to be the airframe vendors not expressing requirements for such, presumably because they were counting on scope relief.

    I think we should stick to the assumption that scope rules will not change. We just had statements from various US3 CEOs saying they do not see bankruptcy as likely. I think a.net in general thinks BK is an easy way for airlines to shed cost, but there's nothing easy about it. It wipes out the share holders, and given the executives are largely paid in stock and options, it wipes out the executives too. It also causes great career damage since being a senior executive of a failed enterprise is a strong negative in most cases. For everyone involved, it's a last resort. So, as much as an executive might want to get rid of RJ scope rules, they want to keep the value of all those shares they own from plunging to near zero and want to remain employable. Once they are in BK even then they have to get a judge to allow amendments, and they aren't likely to allow sweeping scope changes because they know it will undermine the solvent airlines.

    Overall agreed with this, some great points.

    I think folks seem to forget management wants to avoid BK as much as labor. It’s not like a quick trip through the courts is a guaranteed fix. BK purely over scope won’t happen, the cost is just extreme.

    While this is a hiatus of pilot hiring and stop to the shortage, there’s still going to be thousands retiring every year for the next decade+. Just as Age 65 was only a stay of execution, this too will slow it down, but we will be right back to where we started.




    This is dramatically understating it. Management works for the owners and the owners loose everything in bankruptcy. If management could have avoided bankruptcy but didn't then they've left themselves open to being personally sued for everything they are worth. Hope your professional insurance holds up.
     
    GalaxyFlyer
    Posts: 6112
    Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 5:01 pm

    TonyClifton wrote:
    Sokes wrote:
    bigb wrote:
    There isn't a requirement for 90 mins of fuel on the ground per say. But there is a requirement that you can't dispatch over your MFPTOW (Max flight plan take off weight), the max weight where you can depart that you will allow you to land at your destination at your Max Landing Weight.

    So the destination is too close, not too far. Now that's a funny problem to have.

    CRJ-200:
    Maximum take-off weight (CRJ200 ER) 51,000 lb 23,134 kg
    Maximum landing weight 47,000 lb 21,319 kg
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

    ATR 72:
    Max take-off weight (basic) 22,800 kg - 50,265 lb
    Max take-off weight (option) 23,000 kg - 50,705 lb
    Max landing weight (basic) 22,350 kg - 49,272 lb
    http://www.atraircraft.com/products_app ... n-2014.pdf

    What was Bombardier thinking?

    Thanks to both of you for the explanation.

    Limitations with the movement from Challenger to CRJ200. The 700/900 has a totally different MLG, and while I’ve never gotten close enough to a Challengers gear, I’d assume it’s 99% identical to a 200s. Winter, full boat, and an alternate and you’re sitting on the ground on the 200 burning some gas before you can get airborne, especially on the 30 minute hops. Conversely the 900 I had never run into a MLW issue. I’d always been curious what the proposed CRJ500 would have been like. Might have gained some efficiencies learned from the 700 series expansion.


    The 601 (progenitor of the original CRJ) had a gear from the 600 and was always limiting from strength, brakes and wheel-tire limits. The gear is an easy tell of the 601, skinny tires. The CRJ-200 improved that gear a good deal and that gear was then used on the 604. Massively overbuilt for the 604, at CRJ weights it was probably adequate. The 700/900 got new gears again.

    What people forget about the CRJ-200 is that the design brief was as a “commuter” jet, accent on commuters flying day trips carrying a brief case and a small bag. The carriers then treated like a cheap DC-9.

    I didn’t fly the 850, but from guys that flew it and the 604/605, the CRJ was a complete dog. As long as temps aloft are reasonable, the 604 is a nice 8-hour plane with the last 4 at F400/410.
     
    TonyClifton
    Posts: 233
    Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 5:13 pm

    GalaxyFlyer wrote:
    TonyClifton wrote:
    Sokes wrote:
    So the destination is too close, not too far. Now that's a funny problem to have.

    CRJ-200:
    Maximum take-off weight (CRJ200 ER) 51,000 lb 23,134 kg
    Maximum landing weight 47,000 lb 21,319 kg
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

    ATR 72:
    Max take-off weight (basic) 22,800 kg - 50,265 lb
    Max take-off weight (option) 23,000 kg - 50,705 lb
    Max landing weight (basic) 22,350 kg - 49,272 lb
    http://www.atraircraft.com/products_app ... n-2014.pdf

    What was Bombardier thinking?

    Thanks to both of you for the explanation.

    Limitations with the movement from Challenger to CRJ200. The 700/900 has a totally different MLG, and while I’ve never gotten close enough to a Challengers gear, I’d assume it’s 99% identical to a 200s. Winter, full boat, and an alternate and you’re sitting on the ground on the 200 burning some gas before you can get airborne, especially on the 30 minute hops. Conversely the 900 I had never run into a MLW issue. I’d always been curious what the proposed CRJ500 would have been like. Might have gained some efficiencies learned from the 700 series expansion.


    The 601 (progenitor of the original CRJ) had a gear from the 600 and was always limiting from strength, brakes and wheel-tire limits. The gear is an easy tell of the 601, skinny tires. The CRJ-200 improved that gear a good deal and that gear was then used on the 604. Massively overbuilt for the 604, at CRJ weights it was probably adequate. The 700/900 got new gears again.

    What people forget about the CRJ-200 is that the design brief was as a “commuter” jet, accent on commuters flying day trips carrying a brief case and a small bag. The carriers then treated like a cheap DC-9.

    I didn’t fly the 850, but from guys that flew it and the 604/605, the CRJ was a complete dog. As long as temps aloft are reasonable, the 604 is a nice 8-hour plane with the last 4 at F400/410.

    Always wanted to try out the 604. The 200 was fun enough when light and low, but anything above the 20s got old, fast. I quite enjoyed the 900. Could almost always get to 350 right out of the box. 200 on actual commuter routes it’s a fine aircraft, nothing world beating, but it gets the job done reliably when taken care of. Spent more hours riding in the back of the 200 than most folks have in any plane, and it bothered me far less than middle seat on a 737.
     
    bkmbr
    Posts: 267
    Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 5:40 pm

    Dmoney wrote:
    This is dramatically understating it. Management works for the owners and the owners loose everything in bankruptcy. If management could have avoided bankruptcy but didn't then they've left themselves open to being personally sued for everything they are worth. Hope your professional insurance holds up.


    No, the bankruptcy is just another possible business decision just like any other, if the benefits for filing for bankruptcy are greater than the inherent costs (such as increasing rates on interest on loans) absolutely nothing prevents the administrator from doing so, in fact it is precisely what any business school teaches its students to do in the first place.The bankruptcy filing can be voluntary or not, if the company understands that it is necessary to restructure itself and that the costs of filing for bankruptcy are acceptable absolutely nothing prevents it from doing so, quite the contrary, if it does not do so then the administrators will answer for negligence. That's exactly what LATAM did this week.
    Owners and shareholders may momentarily lose their assets during the process, but if it is understood that this is essential for the continuity of the company, the decision to file for bankruptcy must override the momentary interest. In many ways that's exactly what AA did in 2011, and among the things that changed during that period were the scope clauses applicable to AA.
    Bankruptcy is just another business option for the company, nothing more, nothing less.
    Last edited by bkmbr on Thu May 28, 2020 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
     
    Jetport
    Posts: 138
    Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 5:44 pm

    dennypayne wrote:
    bkmbr wrote:
    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.


    I'd really like to see an updated survey on this, rather than just a repeat of a.net lore that keeps getting asserted as fact. The 70s and 80s was 40 years ago now, and the public has a short memory. Like I mentioned, I flew Silver's ATR42-600 the other day, and it was a quieter, more comfortable ride than any 737 I've been on lately, much more comfortable than a CRJ-200, and at least as nice as the E-jets. I think if that's the experience today's flyers get, that's what will drive reputation moreso than people's perceptions from the 80s.


    I call BS on this. The best turboprop I remember (Dornier 328) was far worse on NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) than any jet. Smaller turboprops were generally better than the bigger ones, I assume due to smaller props. Even the best turboprops require ear plugs, rattle your fillings and every interior panel rattles and buzzes. I remember how we were told active noise cancellation and other improvements would reduce NVH on the Q400 vs. the Dash 8. What a disappointment, I could hardly tell the difference. I will take a CRJ200 100% of the time over any turboprop. The only good thing about turboprops is that you get better views since you fly lower. I remember B1900D flights from PWM to BOS, those were fun since we stayed low.

    The other problem with turboprops is the crappy de-icing boots vs. heated leading edges on jets. People are terrified to fly turboprops in icing condition due to a poor crash history.
     
    DiamondFlyer
    Posts: 3383
    Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 5:45 pm

    bigb wrote:
    Sokes wrote:
    bigb wrote:
    There isn't a requirement for 90 mins of fuel on the ground per say. But there is a requirement that you can't dispatch over your MFPTOW (Max flight plan take off weight), the max weight where you can depart that you will allow you to land at your destination at your Max Landing Weight.

    So the destination is too close, not too far. Now that's a funny problem to have.

    CRJ-200:
    Maximum take-off weight (CRJ200 ER) 51,000 lb 23,134 kg
    Maximum landing weight 47,000 lb 21,319 kg
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

    ATR 72:
    Max take-off weight (basic) 22,800 kg - 50,265 lb
    Max take-off weight (option) 23,000 kg - 50,705 lb
    Max landing weight (basic) 22,350 kg - 49,272 lb
    http://www.atraircraft.com/products_app ... n-2014.pdf

    What was Bombardier thinking?

    Thanks to both of you for the explanation.


    Exactly unless you need a Takeoff Alternate in the CRJ-200, then you need to load up more fuel for the FAA flaps AD which equals to about an additional 5,500 lbs of fuel.


    Two things. Most 200's these days have a MTOW of 53000 lbs. And in terms of the flaps AD, you don't need an additional 5500 lbs of fuel, but you might need 5500 lbs of fuel, depending on the situation.
    From my cold, dead hands
     
    DiamondFlyer
    Posts: 3383
    Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 5:47 pm

    GalaxyFlyer wrote:
    TonyClifton wrote:
    Sokes wrote:
    So the destination is too close, not too far. Now that's a funny problem to have.

    CRJ-200:
    Maximum take-off weight (CRJ200 ER) 51,000 lb 23,134 kg
    Maximum landing weight 47,000 lb 21,319 kg
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

    ATR 72:
    Max take-off weight (basic) 22,800 kg - 50,265 lb
    Max take-off weight (option) 23,000 kg - 50,705 lb
    Max landing weight (basic) 22,350 kg - 49,272 lb
    http://www.atraircraft.com/products_app ... n-2014.pdf

    What was Bombardier thinking?

    Thanks to both of you for the explanation.

    Limitations with the movement from Challenger to CRJ200. The 700/900 has a totally different MLG, and while I’ve never gotten close enough to a Challengers gear, I’d assume it’s 99% identical to a 200s. Winter, full boat, and an alternate and you’re sitting on the ground on the 200 burning some gas before you can get airborne, especially on the 30 minute hops. Conversely the 900 I had never run into a MLW issue. I’d always been curious what the proposed CRJ500 would have been like. Might have gained some efficiencies learned from the 700 series expansion.


    The 601 (progenitor of the original CRJ) had a gear from the 600 and was always limiting from strength, brakes and wheel-tire limits. The gear is an easy tell of the 601, skinny tires. The CRJ-200 improved that gear a good deal and that gear was then used on the 604. Massively overbuilt for the 604, at CRJ weights it was probably adequate. The 700/900 got new gears again.

    What people forget about the CRJ-200 is that the design brief was as a “commuter” jet, accent on commuters flying day trips carrying a brief case and a small bag. The carriers then treated like a cheap DC-9.

    I didn’t fly the 850, but from guys that flew it and the 604/605, the CRJ was a complete dog. As long as temps aloft are reasonable, the 604 is a nice 8-hour plane with the last 4 at F400/410.


    Temps above ISA aboslutely kill the 200. But if you climb at 250 knots, it will usually make FL300, even in the hot summer time. Above that, it's a dog, no matter what, I agree.
    From my cold, dead hands
     
    User avatar
    Revelation
    Posts: 24396
    Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 6:12 pm

    bkmbr wrote:
    No, the bankruptcy is just another possible business decision just like any other, if the benefits for filing for bankruptcy are greater than the inherent costs (such as increasing rates on interest on loans) absolutely nothing prevents the administrator from doing so, in fact it is precisely what any business school teaches its students to do in the first place.The bankruptcy filing can be voluntary or not, if the company understands that it is necessary to restructure itself and that the costs of filing for bankruptcy are acceptable absolutely nothing prevents it from doing so, quite the contrary, if it does not do so then the administrators will answer for negligence. That's exactly what LATAM did this week.
    Owners and shareholders may momentarily lose their assets during the process, but if it is understood that this is essential for the continuity of the company, the decision to file for bankruptcy must override the momentary interest. In many ways that's exactly what AA did in 2011, and among the things that changed during that period were the scope clauses applicable to AA.
    Bankruptcy is just another business option for the company, nothing more, nothing less.

    Hmm, to me this is akin to saying "suicide is just another lifestyle choice"...
    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
     
    bigb
    Posts: 1127
    Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 6:15 pm

    DiamondFlyer wrote:
    bigb wrote:
    Sokes wrote:
    So the destination is too close, not too far. Now that's a funny problem to have.

    CRJ-200:
    Maximum take-off weight (CRJ200 ER) 51,000 lb 23,134 kg
    Maximum landing weight 47,000 lb 21,319 kg
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

    ATR 72:
    Max take-off weight (basic) 22,800 kg - 50,265 lb
    Max take-off weight (option) 23,000 kg - 50,705 lb
    Max landing weight (basic) 22,350 kg - 49,272 lb
    http://www.atraircraft.com/products_app ... n-2014.pdf

    What was Bombardier thinking?

    Thanks to both of you for the explanation.


    Exactly unless you need a Takeoff Alternate in the CRJ-200, then you need to load up more fuel for the FAA flaps AD which equals to about an additional 5,500 lbs of fuel.


    Two things. Most 200's these days have a MTOW of 53000 lbs. And in terms of the flaps AD, you don't need an additional 5500 lbs of fuel, but you might need 5500 lbs of fuel, depending on the situation.


    Your right, it does depends, my 5,500 lbs is a bit high for the flaps AD. I know my shop plans for 4,600lbs after doing the calculations to comply with the flaps AD. Been awhile since I’ve flown the 200.
     
    User avatar
    FiscAutTecGarte
    Posts: 136
    Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 6:17 pm

    SkyLife wrote:
    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.


    Thank you for your posts from a Pilot's perspective.

    The 175-E2 seats from 80 to 88 seats... it's way too big for the Scope role. It's MTOW is 12k lbs too much.

    What if weight were relaxed just a little, but hard limits were put on range. Airlines can fly the plane, but no routes over 1600km (about 850nm)? That way it stays a 'regional' aircraft.

    A modified E175-E2 could be shortened a little (none are selling anyway, so why not revisit it) to still yield 76 single class pax at 31" pitch. (Maybe it could go one row of J 4*36 and Y 18*31 for 76pax to keep a little premium seating.) Call it an Embraer 170-E2.

    Cut fuel capacity (halve the fuel weight by 9400lbs) to cut additonal weight which also cuts range (around 1800km). Gets you to 89,4k MTOW. The shortened frame could cut some weight, but not the 3.4k lbs needed. (Although with the E1 family the weight between 170 and 175 was 3.9k lbs.). So you might not be able to get to 86K MTOW, but you'd cut off it's legs enough from a range perspective so that it wouldn't quite be the same threat to Mainline from a Pilot's standpoint.

    Would airlines buy it? Sure this proposed E170-E2, would probably have similar trip costs (fuel) as the E175-E2, but no matter as you can't use the extra range/capacity of the 175-E2 anyway in a regional scenario.

    The step-up from the E170E1/E175E1/E170E2 to 175E2/190/195 would be huge... You'd truly be moving from Regional to MainLine flying. Airlines that had both planes could benefit from a lot of commonality, but once they wanted to fly just a little bit further.... they step up capacity significantly... and pilot pay significantly. It would give pilots a career path right in the same family of planes....

    How many present CRJ700/CRJ900/E170-E1/E175-E1 routes are over 1600km? Those would either continue to fly old metal, or upgrade to Mainline (175E2/190E2/195Es).

    So sure, no one would buy the E175-E2 in my scenario... which is no great loss as they aren't buying it anyway.

    All of this said, if it were as easy as I've stated and as acceptable to airlines as I've stated.. Embraer would have just done it already.
    Last edited by FiscAutTecGarte on Thu May 28, 2020 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    learning never stops...

    FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
     
    Varsity1
    Posts: 2223
    Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 6:28 pm

    Airlines don't want to buy another airplane like the 175E2 and open another parts/maintenance footprint for minimal gain.

    Even with the commonality to E1, the engines, avionics, and systems are different. The efficiencies don't offset the cost. AA thought the 190 could be operated with some 175 commonality at Eagle on the maintenance side. It didn't work out.
    "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..
     
    User avatar
    FiscAutTecGarte
    Posts: 136
    Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 6:31 pm

    Varsity1 wrote:
    Airlines don't want to buy another airplane like the 175E2 and open another parts/maintenance footprint for minimal gain.
    Even with the commonality to E1, the engines, avionics, and systems are different. The efficiencies don't offset the cost. AA thought the 190 could be operated with some 175 commonality at Eagle on the maintenance side. It didn't work out.


    Is that because the 8 and 10 versions of the engines were EXTREMELY different?
    Is there the same level of difference between a PW1715G and PW19XXG?

    Previously you said about the 175E2:

    Varsity1 wrote:
    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.


    So a 76pax 86,400k lbs compliant 170-E2, will they all buy it and have it flying everywhere or will all airlines be afraid to introduce another type...

    No sure of your stand.
    learning never stops...

    FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
     
    bkmbr
    Posts: 267
    Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 6:50 pm

    Revelation wrote:
    Hmm, to me this is akin to saying "suicide is just another lifestyle choice"...


    Filing a bankruptcy filing (using Chapter 11) is different from asking for the liquidation of the company (Chapter 7).
    https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer ... hapter-11/

    Suicide would be ask for the Chapter 7, asking for Chapter 11 would be more of a voluntary admission to a drug detoxification center.
     
    User avatar
    dennypayne
    Posts: 320
    Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 7:20 pm

    Jetport wrote:
    dennypayne wrote:
    I'd really like to see an updated survey on this, rather than just a repeat of a.net lore that keeps getting asserted as fact. The 70s and 80s was 40 years ago now, and the public has a short memory. Like I mentioned, I flew Silver's ATR42-600 the other day, and it was a quieter, more comfortable ride than any 737 I've been on lately, much more comfortable than a CRJ-200, and at least as nice as the E-jets. I think if that's the experience today's flyers get, that's what will drive reputation moreso than people's perceptions from the 80s.


    I call BS on this. The best turboprop I remember (Dornier 328) was far worse on NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) than any jet. Smaller turboprops were generally better than the bigger ones, I assume due to smaller props. Even the best turboprops require ear plugs, rattle your fillings and every interior panel rattles and buzzes. I remember how we were told active noise cancellation and other improvements would reduce NVH on the Q400 vs. the Dash 8. What a disappointment, I could hardly tell the difference. I will take a CRJ200 100% of the time over any turboprop. The only good thing about turboprops is that you get better views since you fly lower. I remember B1900D flights from PWM to BOS, those were fun since we stayed low.

    If you want to believe your narrative versus actual experience that's your call, but if you haven't flown the latest generation ATR then you don't know. I've only had one Q400 flight and it was a while back, but the ATR was definitely quieter than even that. I literally flew the 737 and the ATR back-to-back on similar stage lengths, and the noise on the 737 was very fatiguing. I'm 6'4" and the seats were a quantum leap more comfortable than any CR2, plus I could actually see out of the window without contorting my neck at an odd angle. The ATR also has regular size overhead bins (non-rattling) so you don't have to waste a bunch of time waiting in the jetway to get your carryon back. As I said, certainly equal comfort overall as any E170/190.

    Jetport wrote:
    People are terrified to fly turboprops in icing condition due to a poor crash history.

    And I'll call BS on this - most passengers don't have the foggiest clue what "icing conditions" might be, and like I said - that crash was 25 years ago.

    I have no dog in this fight - just reporting my experience, and trying to get people to question "conventional wisdom."
    A300/310/319/320/321/332/333/343/380 AN24/28/38/148 ARJ AT6/7 B190
    B717/722/732/3/4/5/7/8/9 741/744/752/753/762/763/764/772/773/788/789
    CR1/2/7/9 D8S D93/4/5 DHC2/3/7/8 D28/38 EMB/EM2/ER3/D/4/E70/75/90
    F50/100 J31 L10 L4T M11/80/87/90 SF3 SU9 TU3/TU5 YK2
     
    GalaxyFlyer
    Posts: 6112
    Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 8:37 pm

    DiamondFlyer wrote:
    GalaxyFlyer wrote:
    TonyClifton wrote:
    Limitations with the movement from Challenger to CRJ200. The 700/900 has a totally different MLG, and while I’ve never gotten close enough to a Challengers gear, I’d assume it’s 99% identical to a 200s. Winter, full boat, and an alternate and you’re sitting on the ground on the 200 burning some gas before you can get airborne, especially on the 30 minute hops. Conversely the 900 I had never run into a MLW issue. I’d always been curious what the proposed CRJ500 would have been like. Might have gained some efficiencies learned from the 700 series expansion.


    The 601 (progenitor of the original CRJ) had a gear from the 600 and was always limiting from strength, brakes and wheel-tire limits. The gear is an easy tell of the 601, skinny tires. The CRJ-200 improved that gear a good deal and that gear was then used on the 604. Massively overbuilt for the 604, at CRJ weights it was probably adequate. The 700/900 got new gears again.

    What people forget about the CRJ-200 is that the design brief was as a “commuter” jet, accent on commuters flying day trips carrying a brief case and a small bag. The carriers then treated like a cheap DC-9.

    I didn’t fly the 850, but from guys that flew it and the 604/605, the CRJ was a complete dog. As long as temps aloft are reasonable, the 604 is a nice 8-hour plane with the last 4 at F400/410.


    Temps above ISA aboslutely kill the 200. But if you climb at 250 knots, it will usually make FL300, even in the hot summer time. Above that, it's a dog, no matter what, I agree.


    Try ISA+15 or 20 out of Abu Dhabi to Rome with six pax in a 605. F290 was it.
     
    strfyr51
    Posts: 4989
    Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 9:57 pm

    bkmbr wrote:
    Revelation wrote:
    It's kinda funny we have a thread where we're allegedly discussing how we might get a new scope compliant aircraft, but have lots of posts of people arguing if scope is or is not going away. Seems to be a major disconnect.

    It also seems the ones who are most confident scope is not going away ever are the ones who need to assert that fact, which seems to suggest they aren't all that confident after all. It seems to be a "third rail" / "wedge" kind of issue.


    I believe the main point of contention is, there's any possible viable (technical and economical) to have an aircraft able to keep the scope clauses in the long run?

    From the point of view of the manufacturers apparently is hard (maybe impossible) to develop a 76 passenger new generation of airplane within the current MTOW limits without significant limitations on the performance and/or range of the airplane due the natural process of evolution of the engines (just look for the 777x engine compared to the 777-200 engines). If it was really possible what is preventing Embraer, Mitsubishi, Bombardier/Airbus, Boeing, COMAC and Sukhoi/Leonardo or any other company from doing it in the first place? With the market that exists in the USA now due the actual scope clauses would be a crazy proposition for a company with the technical and financial capability to not make a product that would virtually have no competitors in the market for the next 20 to 25 years.

    From the point of view from the mainliners, with the bankruptcy filings in the horizon in the post-covid world, I personally don't see a point to insist on not negotiating at all costs at least the MTOW clause to allow the 175E2 and M90 to operate in the market, To me seems idiotic seeing pilots and unions willing to chance of the unions being forced into labor contract renegotiation through the chapter 11 process because of the MTOW clause and, in the end, get a even worst deal (like not only increasing the MTOW clause but also the max passenger within the scope from 76 to 100 for example). In a way this is exactly what Delta/Northwest did in 2011 to force the renegotiation of their agreement and they succeeded in that in a general aviation scenario that was nowhere near as bad as it is now.

    I personally do not see what could the pilots and the unions could gain from not renegotiated the scope clauses to allow these heavier aircraft like the ERJ-175E2 or M90 in a 76 passenger configuration (or what irreversible loss would this represent based on what the already have) even if the go a few tons over the current MTOW clause to be honest, and to see the situation escalating the point where unions and pilots are apparently actively betting against their employer's survival in the long run at a point in time where the number of unemployed pilots available on the market will clearly be greater than the number of available seats for, at least, a couple of years doesn't sound like the smartest thing to do in my opinion.

    you don't see any of this because it's Not YOUR job they're negotiating FOR!! you propose the pilots allow regionals to fly the same or near the same airplanes they're flying at the Majors? In the same colors as the Majors? That's like some guy sleeping in your bed and wearing your clothes, and sleeping With Your Wife!! There's no economic imperative for them to even Talk about it! Hell! I can't blame them Especially ? Since many of those airplanes were and are OWNED by the major airlines. I'd bet 90% of the E170's-175's flying in the USA were bought and Paid for BY United, American and Delta. The Pilots have every Right to protect their jobs and they know good and damn well? They can fly them at the Majors? just as good as the guys in the "minors" !
     
    Dmoney
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 10:06 pm

    bkmbr wrote:
    Dmoney wrote:
    This is dramatically understating it. Management works for the owners and the owners loose everything in bankruptcy. If management could have avoided bankruptcy but didn't then they've left themselves open to being personally sued for everything they are worth. Hope your professional insurance holds up.


    No, the bankruptcy is just another possible business decision just like any other, if the benefits for filing for bankruptcy are greater than the inherent costs (such as increasing rates on interest on loa ans) absolutely nothing prevents the administrator from doing so, in fact it is precisely what any business school teaches its students to do in the first place.The bankruptcy filing can be voluntary or not, if the company understands that it is necessary to restructure itself and that the costs of filing for bankruptcy are acceptable absolutely nothing prevents it from doing so, quite the contrary, if it does not do so then the administrators will answer for negligence. That's exactly what LATAM did this week.
    Owners and shareholders may momentarily lose their assets during the process, but if it is understood that this is essential for the continuity of the company, the decision to file for bankruptcy must override the momentary interest. In many ways that's exactly what AA did in 2011, and among the things that changed during that period were the scope clauses applicable to AA.
    Bankruptcy is just another business option for the company, nothing more, nothing less.



    You don't seem to understand the point at all. Yes, bankruptcy is useful for the company but it's catastrophic for the owners and therefore a last last last resort. Management works for the owners, not the suppliers or workers or anyone else. You only declare bankruptcy when you've absolutely no choice and then the company is handed over to the creditors. Then for the creditors it's whether the company is worth more operating than liquidated.

    Shareholders don't momentarily lost control of the assets. It's permanent. The shareholders of GM got nothing. NGMCO is completely different company.

    If management decides, oh we just want a lower cost base so let's get rid of our debt burden through bankruptcy. They get sued into oblivion for not doing their fiduciary duties and probably go to jail if it's a public company.
     
    Dmoney
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 10:10 pm

    Jetport wrote:
    dennypayne wrote:
    bkmbr wrote:
    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.


    I'd really like to see an updated survey on this, rather than just a repeat of a.net lore that keeps getting asserted as fact. The 70s and 80s was 40 years ago now, and the public has a short memory. Like I mentioned, I flew Silver's ATR42-600 the other day, and it was a quieter, more comfortable ride than any 737 I've been on lately, much more comfortable than a CRJ-200, and at least as nice as the E-jets. I think if that's the experience today's flyers get, that's what will drive reputation moreso than people's perceptions from the 80s.


    I call BS on this. The best turboprop I remember (Dornier 328) was far worse on NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) than any jet. Smaller turboprops were generally better than the bigger ones, I assume due to smaller props. Even the best turboprops require ear plugs, rattle your fillings and every interior panel rattles and buzzes. I remember how we were told active noise cancellation and other improvements would reduce NVH on the Q400 vs. the Dash 8. What a disappointment, I could hardly tell the difference. I will take a CRJ200 100% of the time over any turboprop. The only good thing about turboprops is that you get better views since you fly lower. I remember B1900D flights from PWM to BOS, those were fun since we stayed low.

    The other problem with turboprops is the crappy de-icing boots vs. heated leading edges on jets. People are terrified to fly turboprops in icing condition due to a poor crash history.



    This is a lie. I've fallen asleep on a Q400 numerous times. I'd prefer it a 10 abreast 777 aft the engines. Ear plugs? Fillings? What are you talking about? A US airlines this shit?
     
    reltney
    Posts: 638
    Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 10:40 pm

    bkmbr wrote:
    GalaxyFlyer wrote:
    You have a point, but you have to account for the elasticity of supply for pilots. Until COVID, the supply was looking less elastic than many expected. Rules like the FAA ATP rule, cost of training, other more attractive careers made pilot supply limited.


    Yes, but thanks to COVID Delta alone is about to furlough 7k pilots, who knows how many the AA and United will furlough. Let's forget how the world was before COVID, we will never go back to that.




    Interesting and funny.
    I never seen received anything from alpa or delta suggesting 7000 and I work there. Are you upper level management? How do you know stuff the airline and alpa do not know....mmmm. Stop being an armchair CEO. If you worked in the industry you would know the issue and EVERY airline is 2/3 over staffed with pilots because of the lack of flying. It takes a year to furlough 1500 pilots and they need to be off the property 9 months to make it worth it to the airline because of all the training as people flow back. Check facts first. It confusing and changing daily. I just went and flew 2 jets back from storage last week that were slated for deep storage. Every thing is fluid!

    Cheers!
    Knives don't kill people. People with knives kill people.
    OUTLAW KNIVES.

    I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
     
    reltney
    Posts: 638
    Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 10:45 pm

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



    Over my dead body. No..no. No relief. If they want relief, put all the pilots on one seniority list and eliminate the scope crap.... Imagine how much more efficient the airline would become... Look up captain pay on a regional jet, then look at the bottom pay at a mainline jet. The regional jet with pilots at mainline pay is about 300 dollars an hour different to operate for both pilots plus the F/As. The margins are not that close to make having the regionals on a separate more economical. It’s frickin Idiotic. One list .... .

    Nuff said.


    Umm, I am already aware of the regional pay and lifestyle as I am a Captain on a RJ myself.


    I was on too 22 years ago at eagle. Hopefully you will be around and see these scope crap go away. One list. You start in the right seat and move up continually ...none of this mainline regional crap. One airline...

    Cheers
    Knives don't kill people. People with knives kill people.
    OUTLAW KNIVES.

    I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
     
    CFRPwingALbody
    Topic Author
    Posts: 373
    Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 11:05 pm

    If I understand the working principle of jet engines (with Geared Turbo Fan) correctly, the difference between the PW1500G and the PW814 are:
    Different fan size; with/without GTF and high RPM/ low RPM running Low Pressure Turbine. As a result of the change in RPM of the LP shaft, the low pressure compressor most likely also has to be redesigned. Another theory, is that the bypass ratio can be increased by increasing the fan size, or by shrinking the core size.
    I think that a reason the demand in the A32XNEO family shifted to the A321, is because the fan is large and heavy for the A320NEO.
    This same applies to the E175E2 and M90, besides the fact that they are at least one seat row to long and they have to much range

    I think US scope clause planes use three class regional layout. With regional Business class (F) at 20" wide, 36" pitch, Economy plus (Y+) ~18" wide ~34" pitch and economy (Y) ~18" wide 30-31" pitch. The rule of thumb I use is full economy layout (30-31" pitch) minus a seat row to provide additional pitch in F & Y+. And the first two to four rows minus a seat for the wider business class seats. So a 4ab 21 row @ 30-31" pitch (84pax Y), changes to 3-4 rows 3ab 36" pitch (9-12 F) , 3-5 rows 4ab (12-20)Y+ and 11-13 rows 4ab (44-52)Y. With a 5ab cabin the penalty to provide business class seats is less lost seats. There 2-3 rows 4ab provide 8-12F.
    But I think a 55-65 seat 5ab (11-13 rows) for 50seat scope becomes to thick and short (length/width <3)
    I think it's not possible to develop a new regional jet for both the 70seat and 76seat scope capacity, this will be the same size aircraft.
    For 70seats possibly it can work with 6F, 8-Y+, 56Y that would be 72 or 76seats in 4ab Y. That's only a 2 or 3 row difference, or 62-93" (1,5-2.4m).
     
    GalaxyFlyer
    Posts: 6112
    Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Thu May 28, 2020 11:25 pm

    reltney wrote:
    bigb wrote:
    reltney wrote:


    Over my dead body. No..no. No relief. If they want relief, put all the pilots on one seniority list and eliminate the scope crap.... Imagine how much more efficient the airline would become... Look up captain pay on a regional jet, then look at the bottom pay at a mainline jet. The regional jet with pilots at mainline pay is about 300 dollars an hour different to operate for both pilots plus the F/As. The margins are not that close to make having the regionals on a separate more economical. It’s frickin Idiotic. One list .... .

    Nuff said.


    Umm, I am already aware of the regional pay and lifestyle as I am a Captain on a RJ myself.


    I was on too 22 years ago at eagle. Hopefully you will be around and see these scope crap go away. One list. You start in the right seat and move up continually ...none of this mainline regional crap. One airline...

    Cheers


    Fine in theory and I’m all behind except it would virtually double the crew cost at DL, AA or UA from senior CRJ 900 captain to most junior 717, 737 captain and down the line for all labor costs. That’s a hard sell.
     
    bkmbr
    Posts: 267
    Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Fri May 29, 2020 12:13 am

    Dmoney wrote:
    You don't seem to understand the point at all. Yes, bankruptcy is useful for the company but it's catastrophic for the owners and therefore a last last last resort. Management works for the owners, not the suppliers or workers or anyone else. You only declare bankruptcy when you've absolutely no choice and then the company is handed over to the creditors. Then for the creditors it's whether the company is worth more operating than liquidated.
    Shareholders don't momentarily lost control of the assets. It's permanent. The shareholders of GM got nothing. NGMCO is completely different company.


    Bankruptcy is only catastrophic for the owners when the company goes into liquidation. Opening a bankruptcy process to reorganize the company does not necessarily imply loss of ownership by the owners and shareholders. The request is a totally legal form of restructuring the company in agreement with its debtors. The various times the mainliners resorted to this option that the chapter 11 are proof of this.

    Dmoney wrote:
    If management decides, oh we just want a lower cost base so let's get rid of our debt burden through bankruptcy. They get sued into oblivion for not doing their fiduciary duties and probably go to jail if it's a public company.


    This kind of thing is never a black or white situation, there are numerous shades of gray between a decision to apply for a chapter 11 order or not by a company. Scope clauses would be just another shade of gray.
     
    MIflyer12
    Posts: 8099
    Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Fri May 29, 2020 12:55 am

    Revelation wrote:
    It seems we want to say "dumb EMB, everyone knew scope wouldn't change yet you built a non compliant airplane" whereas they probably could not have built a scope compliant airplane given the engines on the drawing board at the time.


    If you accept those points, the right investment decision would have been to delay the E2. Spending big bucks in hopes of expanding scope, and eliminating your largest current customers if scope wasn't expanded, was, indeed, dumb. They've put themselves in the position of not gaining enough volume to justify the investment.
     
    MIflyer12
    Posts: 8099
    Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Fri May 29, 2020 1:13 am

    bkmbr wrote:
    Owners and shareholders may momentarily lose their assets during the process...


    I don't think you understand bankruptcy. It's not a momentary loss of assets - they are GONE if assets don't exceed renegotiated liabilities. Cancelling the common stock is not an uncommon move in Chapter 11.

    June 11, 2003
    UAL Corp., parent of United Airlines, confirmed Tuesday what many of its investors already knew: The company's stock will be worthless when it emerges from bankruptcy.

    The airline said that after paying its creditors it will not have enough assets to allow any meaningful distribution to shareholders, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    The company added that it is "highly likely" that the shares will be canceled under a bankruptcy reorganization plan.


    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct- ... story.html

    As part of Monday's move, existing shares of Delta stock will be cancelled and current shareholders will not receive any compensation for their positions, the airline said. Shares of the new stock will start trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday under the DAL symbol and be issued to creditors and some employees. A new logo will appear on more than 900 Delta and Delta Connection aircraft by the end of the year.
    emphasis mine

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/delta ... bankruptcy

    Bankruptcy is a useful tool in eliminating debt. U.S. carriers will be carrying a lot of debt. Several are already having difficulty adding new (even secured) debt.
     
    AUxyz
    Posts: 12
    Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:27 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Fri May 29, 2020 1:56 am

    The benefit of the legacy carriers is the number of options. If mid size cities lose flights to connecting hubd because there isn't an aircraft in scope, there will be knock-on effects as fewer planess fly trunk routes. A city that goes from 10 flights a day on one airline to many fewer is in a downward spiral.

    If passengers fly more flights on frontier and Spirit, and an environment makes breeze viable is a formula for mainline carriers to shrink or stagnate.

    There doesn't seem to be much room for an aircraft that fits without Jeff Bezos deciding he wants to burn a few billion.

    Hopefully, an electric regional is on paper now. If it don't, the industry may be signing up to die.


    Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
     
    TonyClifton
    Posts: 233
    Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Fri May 29, 2020 2:02 am

    The vast majority of the 76 seat RJs have 15-20 years of life left in them, once we emerge from the other side of COVID there will be plenty of time to design and produce a suitable replacement, tailored to the mid to late-2020s market. The ones that have to go between now and then can be suitably replaced by the ERJ-175 or -175SC. Not to mention that prior to this we saw smaller mainline planes at Delta like the A220 parachute into the larger RJ routes. LGA-ORD shuttle went from all RJs to all 717s IIRC. I think we see that happen on the backside, and the two class jets slowly replace the 50 seaters.
     
    strfyr51
    Posts: 4989
    Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Fri May 29, 2020 4:31 am

    Dmoney wrote:
    bkmbr wrote:
    Dmoney wrote:
    This is dramatically understating it. Management works for the owners and the owners loose everything in bankruptcy. If management could have avoided bankruptcy but didn't then they've left themselves open to being personally sued for everything they are worth. Hope your professional insurance holds up.


    No, the bankruptcy is just another possible business decision just like any other, if the benefits for filing for bankruptcy are greater than the inherent costs (such as increasing rates on interest on loa ans) absolutely nothing prevents the administrator from doing so, in fact it is precisely what any business school teaches its students to do in the first place.The bankruptcy filing can be voluntary or not, if the company understands that it is necessary to restructure itself and that the costs of filing for bankruptcy are acceptable absolutely nothing prevents it from doing so, quite the contrary, if it does not do so then the administrators will answer for negligence. That's exactly what LATAM did this week.
    Owners and shareholders may momentarily lose their assets during the process, but if it is understood that this is essential for the continuity of the company, the decision to file for bankruptcy must override the momentary interest. In many ways that's exactly what AA did in 2011, and among the things that changed during that period were the scope clauses applicable to AA.
    Bankruptcy is just another business option for the company, nothing more, nothing less.



    You don't seem to understand the point at all. Yes, bankruptcy is useful for the company but it's catastrophic for the owners and therefore a last last last resort. Management works for the owners, not the suppliers or workers or anyone else. You only declare bankruptcy when you've absolutely no choice and then the company is handed over to the creditors. Then for the creditors it's whether the company is worth more operating than liquidated.

    Shareholders don't momentarily lost control of the assets. It's permanent. The shareholders of GM got nothing. NGMCO is completely different company.

    If management decides, oh we just want a lower cost base so let's get rid of our debt burden through bankruptcy. They get sued into oblivion for not doing their fiduciary duties and probably go to jail if it's a public company.

    Frank Lorenzo used the bankruptcy tactic and it got him banned from running an Airline completely. The DOT and DOJ said you do not use CH-11 as a negotiating tool to break your contracts. It was bad faith bargaining and that's why he's no longer in the Airline Business and can't be again. Now YOU want to advocate what he fumbled? Maybe you'd better check your Airline History before you wind up eating one of your shoes. Been there? Seen it! (also done it.) what you espouse could get senior management in a real Jam.
     
    strfyr51
    Posts: 4989
    Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Fri May 29, 2020 4:37 am

    strfyr51 wrote:
    Dmoney wrote:
    bkmbr wrote:

    No, the bankruptcy is just another possible business decision just like any other, if the benefits for filing for bankruptcy are greater than the inherent costs (such as increasing rates on interest on loa ans) absolutely nothing prevents the administrator from doing so, in fact it is precisely what any business school teaches its students to do in the first place.The bankruptcy filing can be voluntary or not, if the company understands that it is necessary to restructure itself and that the costs of filing for bankruptcy are acceptable absolutely nothing prevents it from doing so, quite the contrary, if it does not do so then the administrators will answer for negligence. That's exactly what LATAM did this week.
    Owners and shareholders may momentarily lose their assets during the process, but if it is understood that this is essential for the continuity of the company, the decision to file for bankruptcy must override the momentary interest. In many ways that's exactly what AA did in 2011, and among the things that changed during that period were the scope clauses applicable to AA.
    Bankruptcy is just another business option for the company, nothing more, nothing less.



    You don't seem to understand the point at all. Yes, bankruptcy is useful for the company but it's catastrophic for the owners and therefore a last last last resort. Management works for the owners, not the suppliers or workers or anyone else. You only declare bankruptcy when you've absolutely no choice and then the company is handed over to the creditors. Then for the creditors it's whether the company is worth more operating than liquidated.

    Shareholders don't momentarily lost control of the assets. It's permanent. The shareholders of GM got nothing. NGMCO is completely different company.

    If management decides, oh we just want a lower cost base so let's get rid of our debt burden through bankruptcy. They get sued into oblivion for not doing their fiduciary duties and probably go to jail if it's a public company.

    Frank Lorenzo used the bankruptcy tactic and it got him banned from running an Airline completely. The DOT and DOJ said you do not use CH-11 as a negotiating tool to break your contracts. It was bad faith bargaining and that's why he's no longer in the Airline Business and can't be again. Now YOU want to advocate what he fumbled? Maybe you'd better check your Airline History before you wind up eating one of your shoes. Been there? Seen it! (also done it.) what you espouse could get senior management in a real Jam.

    By the way? Frank Lorenzo was CEO of NY Air Texas Air and Continental via of Jet Capital. Google it!
     
    User avatar
    kitplane01
    Posts: 1489
    Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Fri May 29, 2020 6:10 am

    CFRPwingALbody wrote:
    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.

    This is true for the Passport 20 the 20k lbf version, EASA certificate stated it weighs 2065,7kg (4554lb), and provides 79 - 84 kN (17744 - 18920 lbf).
    But of coarse the engines need to be optimized for the regional jet purpose.
    The E170/E175 and CRJ-700/900/1000 use GE CF-34-8 engines they weight 1100-1200kg (2400-2650lb) and provide 61 - 64 kN (13,7k - 14.4k lbf)
    The PW1200G and PW1700G used on the SpaceJets and E175-E2 weigh 1724kg (3800lb) and provide 67-76kN (15k-17k lbf).
    So the Passport 20 is over powered and thus over weight. I think it could work with a 1500kg (3300lb) engine providing 67kN (15k lbf) .
    I can't imagine GE isn't capable of developing a Passport 15 with these specs.

    But most likely a, PW814/815 (non geared version of the PW1900G) might work better for a scope compliant E170/E175, That's capable of providing 14k-15k lbf (62-67kN) while weight is 3135,7 lb (1422kg).


    Question about this engine: I thought the advantage of the PW1900G *was* the gearing. Doesn't a non-geared version of the PW1900 give up some fuel efficiency?
     
    User avatar
    kitplane01
    Posts: 1489
    Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Fri May 29, 2020 6:12 am

    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 long range? I would think the vast majority of 76 seat routes are well under 1,000 miles, and the cost of lifting extra structure to gain the possible (but rarely needed) extra range would be not worth the benefit.

    Would you surmise that 98% of routes for 76 seaters are under 1000 miles? (I'm guessing)
     
    strfyr51
    Posts: 4989
    Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Fri May 29, 2020 6:19 am

    kitplane01 wrote:
    CFRPwingALbody wrote:
    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.

    This is true for the Passport 20 the 20k lbf version, EASA certificate stated it weighs 2065,7kg (4554lb), and provides 79 - 84 kN (17744 - 18920 lbf).
    But of coarse the engines need to be optimized for the regional jet purpose.
    The E170/E175 and CRJ-700/900/1000 use GE CF-34-8 engines they weight 1100-1200kg (2400-2650lb) and provide 61 - 64 kN (13,7k - 14.4k lbf)
    The PW1200G and PW1700G used on the SpaceJets and E175-E2 weigh 1724kg (3800lb) and provide 67-76kN (15k-17k lbf).
    So the Passport 20 is over powered and thus over weight. I think it could work with a 1500kg (3300lb) engine providing 67kN (15k lbf) .
    I can't imagine GE isn't capable of developing a Passport 15 with these specs.

    But most likely a, PW814/815 (non geared version of the PW1900G) might work better for a scope compliant E170/E175, That's capable of providing 14k-15k lbf (62-67kN) while weight is 3135,7 lb (1422kg).


    Question about this engine: I thought the advantage of the PW1900G *was* the gearing. Doesn't a non-geared version of the PW1900 give up some fuel efficiency?

    I have a question also? were they to go back to the E1 fuselage length of the E-170 and the E-175? regardless[/i] of the Engine choice?
    Would the airplanes again be scope Compliant? the system differences would be an advancement as is any update.
     
    Dmoney
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Fri May 29, 2020 10:36 am

    bkmbr wrote:
    Dmoney wrote:
    You don't seem to understand the point at all. Yes, bankruptcy is useful for the company but it's catastrophic for the owners and therefore a last last last resort. Management works for the owners, not the suppliers or workers or anyone else. You only declare bankruptcy when you've absolutely no choice and then the company is handed over to the creditors. Then for the creditors it's whether the company is worth more operating than liquidated.
    Shareholders don't momentarily lost control of the assets. It's permanent. The shareholders of GM got nothing. NGMCO is completely different company.

    See
    Bankruptcy is only catastrophic for the owners when the company goes into liquidation. Opening a bankruptcy process to reorganize the company does not necessarily imply loss of ownership by the owners and shareholders. The request is a totally legal form of restructuring the company in agreement with its debtors. The various times the mainliners resorted to this option that the chapter 11 are proof of this.

    Dmoney wrote:
    If management decides, oh we just want a lower cost base so let's get rid of our debt burden through bankruptcy. They get sued into oblivion for not doing their fiduciary duties and probably go to jail if it's a public company.


    This kind of thing is never a black or white situation, there are numerous shades of gray between a decision to apply for a chapter 11 order or not by a company. Scope clauses would be just another shade of gray.



    Bankruptcy does imply the loss of ownership by shareholders. You are wrong
     
    Dmoney
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Fri May 29, 2020 10:44 am

    strfyr51 wrote:
    Dmoney wrote:
    bkmbr wrote:

    No, the bankruptcy is just another possible business decision just like any other, if the benefits for filing for bankruptcy are greater than the inherent costs (such as increasing rates on interest on loa ans) absolutely nothing prevents the administrator from doing so, in fact it is precisely what any business school teaches its students to do in the first place.The bankruptcy filing can be voluntary or not, if the company understands that it is necessary to restructure itself and that the costs of filing for bankruptcy are acceptable absolutely nothing prevents it from doing so, quite the contrary, if it does not do so then the administrators will answer for negligence. That's exactly what LATAM did this week.
    Owners and shareholders may momentarily lose their assets during the process, but if it is understood that this is essential for the continuity of the company, the decision to file for bankruptcy must override the momentary interest. In many ways that's exactly what AA did in 2011, and among the things that changed during that period were the scope clauses applicable to AA.
    Bankruptcy is just another business option for the company, nothing more, nothing less.



    You don't seem to understand the point at all. Yes, bankruptcy is useful for the company but it's catastrophic for the owners and therefore a last last last resort. Management works for the owners, not the suppliers or workers or anyone else. You only declare bankruptcy when you've absolutely no choice and then the company is handed over to the creditors. Then for the creditors it's whether the company is worth more operating than liquidated.

    Shareholders don't momentarily lost control of the assets. It's permanent. The shareholders of GM got nothing. NGMCO is completely different company.

    If management decides, oh we just want a lower cost base so let's get rid of our debt burden through bankruptcy. They get sued into oblivion for not doing their fiduciary duties and probably go to jail if it's a public company.

    Frank Lorenzo used the bankruptcy tactic and it got him banned from running an Airline completely. The DOT and DOJ said you do not use CH-11 as a negotiating tool to break your contracts. It was bad faith bargaining and that's why he's no longer in the Airline Business and can't be again. Now YOU want to advocate what he fumbled? Maybe you'd better check your Airline History before you wind up eating one of your shoes. Been there? Seen it! (also done it.) what you espouse could get senior management in a real Jam.



    Are you able to read? Im arguing that bankruptcy is catastrophic and not something you do. Bkmbr is arguing it's not a big deal. He thinks management can just go through chapter 11 and the company springs forth reborn. I'm arguing that's wrong and stupid.
     
    Exeiowa
    Posts: 343
    Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Fri May 29, 2020 12:38 pm

    MIflyer12 wrote:
    bkmbr wrote:
    Owners and shareholders may momentarily lose their assets during the process...


    I don't think you understand bankruptcy. It's not a momentary loss of assets - they are GONE if assets don't exceed renegotiated liabilities. Cancelling the common stock is not an uncommon move in Chapter 11.

    June 11, 2003
    UAL Corp., parent of United Airlines, confirmed Tuesday what many of its investors already knew: The company's stock will be worthless when it emerges from bankruptcy.

    The airline said that after paying its creditors it will not have enough assets to allow any meaningful distribution to shareholders, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    The company added that it is "highly likely" that the shares will be canceled under a bankruptcy reorganization plan.


    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct- ... story.html

    As part of Monday's move, existing shares of Delta stock will be cancelled and current shareholders will not receive any compensation for their positions, the airline said. Shares of the new stock will start trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday under the DAL symbol and be issued to creditors and some employees. A new logo will appear on more than 900 Delta and Delta Connection aircraft by the end of the year.
    emphasis mine

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/delta ... bankruptcy

    Bankruptcy is a useful tool in eliminating debt. U.S. carriers will be carrying a lot of debt. Several are already having difficulty adding new (even secured) debt.


    Knowing the usefulness of eliminating debt I suspect that the people who lend money are aware of this too, and therefore a greater portion of money loaned to airlines is probably backed by an asset than in other sectors, due to prior history.
     
    mxaxai
    Posts: 1912
    Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

    Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

    Fri May 29, 2020 12:56 pm

    Exeiowa wrote:
    Knowing the usefulness of eliminating debt I suspect that the people who lend money are aware of this too, and therefore a greater portion of money loaned to airlines is probably backed by an asset than in other sectors, due to prior history.

    I don't think that's true. When BE and AB went bankrupt, it was an almost complete loss for investors. AB just barely managed to repay the 150 million € government loan (that had priority over other creditors), when they were 1.2 billion € in regular debt at the time of their bankruptcy.
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
    • 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