Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
bkmbr
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 1:35 pm

Dmoney wrote:
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.


No, I'm saying that bankruptcy is an option, a kind of last resort nuclear option for the administrators but still a valid and legal option. ALL major airlines around the world resorted to bankruptcy proceedings at least once in their lifetime and the US airline market isn't different. Some of the companies survived (AA, Delta, United), some of them were incorporated into larger companies and somehow had some of their operations survive (TWA, PEOPLExpress, Frontier Airlines, New York Air, America West, Northwest) and some ceased operations (ATA, Braniff, Eastern, Pan Am). LATAM and Avianca are going through it right now. Bankruptcy does NOT necessarily imply the loss of ownership by shareholders, loss of ownership is a possibility mas is NOT the only possible outcome of a bankruptcy filling.
Obviously a company will not go into bankruptcy just to change the scope clauses, but there are a number of other factors that can lead companies to enter a new chapter 11 and then use that to change scope clauses through court. You've said more than once that pilots will prefer to bankrupt their employers before changing scope clauses, maybe that's exactly what it takes to change them.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 2:07 pm

bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
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.


No, I'm saying that bankruptcy is an option, a kind of last resort nuclear option for the administrators but still a valid and legal option. ALL major airlines around the world resorted to bankruptcy proceedings at least once in their lifetime and the US airline market isn't different. Some of the companies survived (AA, Delta, United), some of them were incorporated into larger companies and somehow had some of their operations survive (TWA, PEOPLExpress, Frontier Airlines, New York Air, America West, Northwest) and some ceased operations (ATA, Braniff, Eastern, Pan Am). LATAM and Avianca are going through it right now. Bankruptcy does NOT necessarily imply the loss of ownership by shareholders, loss of ownership is a possibility mas is NOT the only possible outcome of a bankruptcy filling.
Obviously a company will not go into bankruptcy just to change the scope clauses, but there are a number of other factors that can lead companies to enter a new chapter 11 and then use that to change scope clauses through court. You've said more than once that pilots will prefer to bankrupt their employers before changing scope clauses, maybe that's exactly what it takes to change them.



Derp, America is not the world. Yes American airlines have gone bankrupt a lot because they are highly finacialiazed and it's easier to stiff your creditors in the US. But that's not the world.

Anyway just keep changing your story bud.
 
Jetport
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 2:08 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
There are typically the scope limits of:
70 seats and 76,000 lb
76 seats and 86,000 lb

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

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

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

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

Lightsaber


Why the 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)


I believe there are more 76 seat routes in the US over 1000 miles than you think. I know there are quite a few right around 1000 miles. Two routes I do regulary on RJ's are 900 miles, PWM to ORD and RDM to DEN. I have also done MSP to YVR a few times on an E175 and that is 1436 miles.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4000
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 2:52 pm

Most of the above could be summarized that there is no satisfactory engine for a true regional. The economic and engineering solutions proposed for new turbojets or turbo props seem all to be demonstrated economically busted. This has been the point of many threads, that a hybrid electric must be the future for sub 500, even 1000 mile flights. The turbine may or may not directly produce thrust, but always must generate electricity. The electric motors (must be plural) and battery provide thrust and safety backup. For this the future is now. Battery technology is at the cusp of being available. Electric motors are almost trivially available. A historic analogy, the Wright brothers correctly had realized the technical problem for powered flight was aircraft control, the did not worry about motors until the very end, and one of their mechanics build the motor himself.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1763
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 3:22 pm

Jetport wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
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.
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)


I believe there are more 76 seat routes in the US over 1000 miles than you think. I know there are quite a few right around 1000 miles. Two routes I do regulary on RJ's are 900 miles, PWM to ORD and RDM to DEN. I have also done MSP to YVR a few times on an E175 and that is 1436 miles.

Caution with the use of statute miles and nautical miles. There are many routes over 1000 miles but very few over 1000 nmi.

Also remember that the paper range of any aircraft is usually significantly more than their practically usable range. You don't want to make unscheduled fuel stops or offload passengers due to weight restrictions. Extra range also gives the airline flexibility, so even if only 10% of their E175 routes are > 1000 miles, they don't need to maintain two different types for "short" and "long" regional flights.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 3:25 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Most of the above could be summarized that there is no satisfactory engine for a true regional. The economic and engineering solutions proposed for new turbojets or turbo props seem all to be demonstrated economically busted. This has been the point of many threads, that a hybrid electric must be the future for sub 500, even 1000 mile flights. The turbine may or may not directly produce thrust, but always must generate electricity. The electric motors (must be plural) and battery provide thrust and safety backup. For this the future is now. Battery technology is at the cusp of being available. Electric motors are almost trivially available. A historic analogy, the Wright brothers correctly had realized the technical problem for powered flight was aircraft control, the did not worry about motors until the very end, and one of their mechanics build the motor himself.


In a way the Airbus E-Fan X project aimed into that direction but the Covid Crisis killed the project. I think the idea of an electric commercial airliner is fantastic because of the enormous potential it has, but I don't see any technology that is even close to being mature enough to be the base on an entirely new airplane design based in this technology for at least the next 20/30 years.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23712
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 3:33 pm

Dmoney wrote:
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?

I agree that Q400 is acceptable in terms of noise or vibration. I always fly with earphones/earplugs in so it's not a big issue to me. I also find it far more comfortable than CR2. But the slow speed matters to some customers, and the lack of ability to route around some weather does have its impact, and all the other real-life ATC implications matter too.

As for my anecdotal story, one weekend I did BOS-YTZ and back on Porter (not a US airline) on Q400 on a VFR trip and the way out was enjoyable, but the pace was serene. If I was a business person in a hurry instead of VFR I'd find that to be pretty annoying. It seemed like NY State went on forever! The way back was IRROPS due to summer thunderstorms along the entire route. That little Island Airport was overrun with pax from delayed flights. By the end of the evening the food vendors were totally sold out. I was glad I bought stuff earlier in the day. I got to BOS well after midnight. In the end it was fine, but if I were a business traveler I would have gone BOS-YYZ where I probably could have rebooked to an earlier flight on a bigger plane that could get around the tstorms.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
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'm not sure why this wasn't an option. It seems the early family members were available in 2013 when the E2 decisions were being made. Since it's the same core as PW1x00 presumably it should have good time on wing. I would imagine it just doesn't deliver the kind of fuel economy or thrust growth EMB felt they needed.

MIflyer12 wrote:
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.

So either they were delusional, or every other Plan B including waiting for a more appropriate engine or going with something like PW815 did not pencil out. I guess I can see that it is tempting to presume eventually scope will fall, but I'm pretty conservative in my business decisions and I would have not backed the plan to go forward without knowing it would happen. From the tech side, if you build an airframe around something like PW815 it seems there isn't a lot of room to grow upwards, the tech seems to be pretty maxed in thrust and presumably behind the geared turbofan in fuel burn. It'd be pretty tempting to not design yourself into a corner and be exposed if/when scope relief happened.

kitplane01 wrote:
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?

The gear has its own issues such as its weight and its cost and its potential maintenance issues. It enables a more efficient fan, but the benefit of that is more impactful for larger fans rather than small. The engine is designed for bizjets that have some pretty stringent weight and size requirements.
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
 
CFRPwingALbody
Topic Author
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 4:31 pm

I wrote that I didn't care about changes in scope clause to avoid the discussion here. For efficiently light weight small planes are required. The two design attempts E175-E2 and M70 weren't succesful, because scope weight limit hasn't changed.
Today I tried to educate myself a bit more into scope clauses and their history. I found this LinkedIn article from Courtney Miller very informative.
I didn't know scope changed so much. If I understand the current situation in the US correctly, there is a (co-)pilot shortage because the FAA requires 1500 flight hours for an ATP license. Would it be a good idea to introduce a new scope level where first officers and pilots can book their flight hours.
This would require new regulations from the FAA. Or it would be <19seat or regional freighters (Cessna 408). For plane design there are exit door regulations. <19 seats requires a type III exit. For 20 to 40 seats a type II and a type III exit are required. From 41seats a type I exit is required. The type II or I door require a flight attendant. For this new scope I was thinking about a 20 to 40 seater. Most likely turboprop.

About electric/hybrid powered aircraft; I think that's a pipe dream for >19seaters. It will only enter the market after 2050.
 
bigb
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 4:44 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I wrote that I didn't care about changes in scope clause to avoid the discussion here. For efficiently light weight small planes are required. The two design attempts E175-E2 and M70 weren't succesful, because scope weight limit hasn't changed.
Today I tried to educate myself a bit more into scope clauses and their history. I found this LinkedIn article from Courtney Miller very informative.
I didn't know scope changed so much. If I understand the current situation in the US correctly, there is a (co-)pilot shortage because the FAA requires 1500 flight hours for an ATP license. Would it be a good idea to introduce a new scope level where first officers and pilots can book their flight hours.
This would require new regulations from the FAA. Or it would be <19seat or regional freighters (Cessna 408). For plane design there are exit door regulations. <19 seats requires a type III exit. For 20 to 40 seats a type II and a type III exit are required. From 41seats a type I exit is required. The type II or I door require a flight attendant. For this new scope I was thinking about a 20 to 40 seater. Most likely turboprop.

About electric/hybrid powered aircraft; I think that's a pipe dream for >19seaters. It will only enter the market after 2050.


Number one, the 1500 rule is a law enacted by Congress, want that changed, you going to have to get past the Colgan families and ALPA lobbyists. That’s not the fight that Congress is interested in the moment. What you are suggesting is how we ended up with the 1500 hour rule in the first place.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 5:14 pm

I wonder what optimizations could have been made in the CRJ-900 as hypothetical update. The -1000 changed enough that it merited a new type rating from the FAA, but gained things such as a fly by wire rudder. I believe RTM flaps on the -1000 allowed some weight savings that weren’t able to be realized on the -700/900. Perhaps add in a Challenger 300 or Global 6000 based cockpit up front, and a variation of the PW800 in the back?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5473
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 5:23 pm

TonyClifton wrote:
I wonder what optimizations could have been made in the CRJ-900 as hypothetical update. The -1000 changed enough that it merited a new type rating from the FAA, but gained things such as a fly by wire rudder. I believe RTM flaps on the -1000 allowed some weight savings that weren’t able to be realized on the -700/900. Perhaps add in a Challenger 300 or Global 6000 based cockpit up front, and a variation of the PW800 in the back?


Problem is an updated Collins cockpit will take 500# out of the front while the PW800 engines will add 1200# at the back end. Not good!
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 5:26 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
I wonder what optimizations could have been made in the CRJ-900 as hypothetical update. The -1000 changed enough that it merited a new type rating from the FAA, but gained things such as a fly by wire rudder. I believe RTM flaps on the -1000 allowed some weight savings that weren’t able to be realized on the -700/900. Perhaps add in a Challenger 300 or Global 6000 based cockpit up front, and a variation of the PW800 in the back?


Problem is an updated Collins cockpit will take 500# out of the front while the PW800 engines will add 1200# at the back end. Not good!

T tail problems... Wasn’t really a good path forward for it, was there?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5473
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 7:35 pm

BBD looked into revamped cockpit when the 605 was done but nobody wanted it at the price. The 605 required moving components around to offset the reduced weight of avionics forward. Nextant has a STC for putting Fusion cockpit in 604s but BBD didn’t want to support it for the 605 while the 650 was still in production, sadly. The T-tail design can be very limiting.

The Passport came in heavier than planned which caused some challenges in the 7500 program.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 7:40 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
BBD looked into revamped cockpit when the 605 was done but nobody wanted it at the price. The 605 required moving components around to offset the reduced weight of avionics forward. Nextant has a STC for putting Fusion cockpit in 604s but BBD didn’t want to support it for the 605 while the 650 was still in production, sadly. The T-tail design can be very limiting.

The Passport came in heavier than planned which caused some challenges in the 7500 program.

Any new 900 would need the deuces trailing link gear. Saved many a blush from me as newbie...

The 900 always struck me as too long and perhaps heavy? It’s longer than the 319, ERJ, etc. Wonder if you could have shaved a few inches off the back... I feel overall the 900 gets a bad rap for being a CRJ. It’s perfectly comfortable for legitimate regional flying. Naturally the ERJ is bigger, but the weight always comes at a cost.
 
AUxyz
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 7:44 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
I wonder what optimizations could have been made in the CRJ-900 as hypothetical update. The -1000 changed enough that it merited a new type rating from the FAA, but gained things such as a fly by wire rudder. I believe RTM flaps on the -1000 allowed some weight savings that weren’t able to be realized on the -700/900. Perhaps add in a Challenger 300 or Global 6000 based cockpit up front, and a variation of the PW800 in the back?


Problem is an updated Collins cockpit will take 500# out of the front while the PW800 engines will add 1200# at the back end. Not good!
A pity there wasn't a need for that new cockpit.

Only once have I had a problem that was solved by just finding ways to add mass. Low-grade steel is cheap!

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4671
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 7:50 pm

Instead of limiting scope on MTOW why don’t the pilots base it on sets and route length. This ain’t rocket science. You can’t just make the regionals fly decrepit airplanes for the next hundred years.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Topic Author
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 8:10 pm

bigb wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
....
If I understand the current situation in the US correctly, there is a (co-)pilot shortage because the FAA requires 1500 flight hours for an ATP license. Would it be a good idea to introduce a new scope level where first officers and pilots can book their flight hours.
This would require new regulations from the FAA. Or it would be <19seat or regional freighters (Cessna 408). For plane design there are exit door regulations. <19 seats requires a type III exit. For 20 to 40 seats a type II and a type III exit are required. From 41seats a type I exit is required. The type II or I door require a flight attendant. For this new scope I was thinking about a 20 to 40 seater. Most likely turboprop.
...


Number one, the 1500 rule is a law enacted by Congress, want that changed, you going to have to get past the Colgan families and ALPA lobbyists. That’s not the fight that Congress is interested in the moment. What you are suggesting is how we ended up with the 1500 hour rule in the first place.


Okee I've looked more into it. This already exists, it's Part 135 operation. It's for <9 seat single engine or <19seat dual engine turbo prop / cargo operation. Still I think there might be demand for smaller than 50seat multiple class aircraft. The CRJ550 is the first example, the CRJ200 and ERJ145 could only seat 50 passengers in all economy. A Do328NEU will be in the 20-40 seat catagory, I think it can seat 30 in a multiple class layout. Or are these aircraft to small to provide different seat classes?.

I think that ceramic brisks and CFRP fan blades and casings will allow airplane engines with ~1:50 compression ratio to become light enough for scope clause weight limitations. The CFM LEAP has 1:50 compression ratio and is used on both the A320 and 737MAX. GE Passport is the smaller scale of this technology. I think it requires some running hours on business jets before an regional jet optimized version can be created.
The PW1200/PW1700 are AFAIK 200-300kg to heavy. Possibly the increase in wingspan also doesn't work.
Is there also some increased safety margin regulation that causes the airplanes to get heavier? The increase in engine mass is roughly 1100kg, this also causes increased wing structure mass. But I can't phantom why the aircraft get roughly 5mT heavier.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 8:22 pm

32andBelow wrote:
Instead of limiting scope on MTOW why don’t the pilots base it on sets and route length. This ain’t rocket science. You can’t just make the regionals fly decrepit airplanes for the next hundred years.

No decrepit airplanes flying. The ERJ is a far newer design than any 737 or A320 flying out there. Now I won’t say nice things about the ERJ auto throttle, but it’s something.
 
AUxyz
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 8:44 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
bigb wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
....
If I understand the current situation in the US correctly, there is a (co-)pilot shortage because the FAA requires 1500 flight hours for an ATP license. Would it be a good idea to introduce a new scope level where first officers and pilots can book their flight hours.
This would require new regulations from the FAA. Or it would be <19seat or regional freighters (Cessna 408). For plane design there are exit door regulations. <19 seats requires a type III exit. For 20 to 40 seats a type II and a type III exit are required. From 41seats a type I exit is required. The type II or I door require a flight attendant. For this new scope I was thinking about a 20 to 40 seater. Most likely turboprop.
...


Number one, the 1500 rule is a law enacted by Congress, want that changed, you going to have to get past the Colgan families and ALPA lobbyists. That’s not the fight that Congress is interested in the moment. What you are suggesting is how we ended up with the 1500 hour rule in the first place.


Okee I've looked more into it. This already exists, it's Part 135 operation. It's for <9 seat single engine or <19seat dual engine turbo prop / cargo operation. Still I think there might be demand for smaller than 50seat multiple class aircraft. The CRJ550 is the first example, the CRJ200 and ERJ145 could only seat 50 passengers in all economy. A Do328NEU will be in the 20-40 seat catagory, I think it can seat 30 in a multiple class layout. Or are these aircraft to small to provide different seat classes?.

I think that ceramic brisks and CFRP fan blades and casings will allow airplane engines with ~1:50 compression ratio to become light enough for scope clause weight limitations. The CFM LEAP has 1:50 compression ratio and is used on both the A320 and 737MAX. GE Passport is the smaller scale of this technology. I think it requires some running hours on business jets before an regional jet optimized version can be created.
The PW1200/PW1700 are AFAIK 200-300kg to heavy. Possibly the increase in wingspan also doesn't work.
Is there also some increased safety margin regulation that causes the airplanes to get heavier? The increase in engine mass is roughly 1100kg, this also causes increased wing structure mass. But I can't phantom why the aircraft get roughly 5mT heavier.
Two factors that could help explain the weight growth: Bigger fans mean the center of thrust is further from the pylon mounting point, which requires more structure. The nacelles are bigger, but still have to absorb the energy of a blade failure. Lots of little things add up quickly.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
 
CFRPwingALbody
Topic Author
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 8:47 pm

Regionals fly feeder routes and bypass routes. If I understand it correctly, the scope clause basically allows the mayors to outsource the smaller aircraft. The mayors start with roughly 100seat aircraft, the routes that don't sustain this are subcontracted to regional airlines. As passenger direct flights are preferable, as well as multiple flights per day. I think there are plenty of routes thin routes. Why should passengers suffer from indirect flights on longer thin routes. Only because pilot unions want a range limit.
I think the position of pilot unions has weakned because of COVID-19. I don't expect scope changes, at the most extreme a slight MTOW increase. But I think it should be possible to develop new scope compliant aircraft, a successor for the 50seat scope is most urgent. COVID-19 will result in smaller main line operations thus also the scope clause size will shrink. The CRJ550 (modification of CRJ700) might get more orders. But both M100 and E175-E2 are for the 76seat scope clause. There isn't a new build option other than turboprops for the 50 and 70 seat scope clause. I think that really is required.
For the network feeding work the turboprops could work, but for the long thin routes jets are required. Besides the turboprop reputation remains a problem.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5473
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 8:58 pm

It’s not “urgent” in the least. By definition, 50-seat planes generate poor RASM unless the outlying city has fairly significant premium traffic or it’s a monopoly route where even normally fare-sensitive customers will pay for service. For example, it’s hard to justify BDL, HVN to LGA, JFK, EWR when a car service is cheaper and more reliable.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3330
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 9:19 pm

32andBelow wrote:
Instead of limiting scope on MTOW why don’t the pilots base it on sets and route length. This ain’t rocket science. You can’t just make the regionals fly decrepit airplanes for the next hundred years.


Nothing is stopping the major carriers from operating whatever regional jet they want to operate.
From my cold, dead hands
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4671
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 9:29 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Instead of limiting scope on MTOW why don’t the pilots base it on sets and route length. This ain’t rocket science. You can’t just make the regionals fly decrepit airplanes for the next hundred years.


Nothing is stopping the major carriers from operating whatever regional jet they want to operate.

Nothing is stopping delta from going chapter 7 and starting delta 2. If your worries about routes than make your scope on routes.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 9:33 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
Regionals fly feeder routes and bypass routes. If I understand it correctly, the scope clause basically allows the mayors to outsource the smaller aircraft. The mayors start with roughly 100seat aircraft, the routes that don't sustain this are subcontracted to regional airlines. As passenger direct flights are preferable, as well as multiple flights per day. I think there are plenty of routes thin routes. Why should passengers suffer from indirect flights on longer thin routes. Only because pilot unions want a range limit.
I think the position of pilot unions has weakned because of COVID-19. I don't expect scope changes, at the most extreme a slight MTOW increase. But I think it should be possible to develop new scope compliant aircraft, a successor for the 50seat scope is most urgent. COVID-19 will result in smaller main line operations thus also the scope clause size will shrink. The CRJ550 (modification of CRJ700) might get more orders. But both M100 and E175-E2 are for the 76seat scope clause. There isn't a new build option other than turboprops for the 50 and 70 seat scope clause. I think that really is required.
For the network feeding work the turboprops could work, but for the long thin routes jets are required. Besides the turboprop reputation remains a problem.

Welcome to the A220. Fuel burn lower than an ERJ, and 30 more seats.

I’d like to see how an ATR72 with a reasonable first class arrangement would do. Looks like 70 seats normally, maybe 62-64 with a 2+1 seating up front? Could be perfect for the routes under 350NM. NYC area to upstate. Midwest from ORD.
Last edited by TonyClifton on Fri May 29, 2020 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3330
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 9:38 pm

32andBelow wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Instead of limiting scope on MTOW why don’t the pilots base it on sets and route length. This ain’t rocket science. You can’t just make the regionals fly decrepit airplanes for the next hundred years.


Nothing is stopping the major carriers from operating whatever regional jet they want to operate.

Nothing is stopping delta from going chapter 7 and starting delta 2. If your worries about routes than make your scope on routes.


Scope on routes makes no sense, I'm not sure why you don't understand that.
From my cold, dead hands
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5473
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 9:56 pm

32andBelow wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Instead of limiting scope on MTOW why don’t the pilots base it on sets and route length. This ain’t rocket science. You can’t just make the regionals fly decrepit airplanes for the next hundred years.


Nothing is stopping the major carriers from operating whatever regional jet they want to operate.

Nothing is stopping delta from going chapter 7 and starting delta 2. If your worries about routes than make your scope on routes.


Scope clauses used to, can’t say know, all kinds of words like successors, mergers, alter egos that made that option void.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 11:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
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?

I agree that Q400 is acceptable in terms of noise or vibration. I always fly with earphones/earplugs in so it's not a big issue to me. I also find it far more comfortable than CR2. But the slow speed matters to some customers, and the lack of ability to route around some weather does have its impact, and all the other real-life ATC implications matter too.

As for my anecdotal story, one weekend I did BOS-YTZ and back on Porter (not a US airline) on Q400 on a VFR trip and the way out was enjoyable, but the pace was serene. If I was a business person in a hurry instead of VFR I'd find that to be pretty annoying. It seemed like NY State went on forever! The way back was IRROPS due to summer thunderstorms along the entire route. That little Island Airport was overrun with pax from delayed flights. By the end of the evening the food vendors were totally sold out. I was glad I bought stuff earlier in the day. I got to BOS well after midnight. In the end it was fine, but if I were a business traveler I would have gone BOS-YYZ where I probably could have rebooked to an earlier flight on a bigger plane that could get around the tstorms.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
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'm not sure why this wasn't an option. It seems the early family members were available in 2013 when the E2 decisions were being made. Since it's the same core as PW1x00 presumably it should have good time on wing. I would imagine it just doesn't deliver the kind of fuel economy or thrust growth EMB felt they needed.

MIflyer12 wrote:
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.

So either they were delusional, or every other Plan B including waiting for a more appropriate engine or going with something like PW815 did not pencil out. I guess I can see that it is tempting to presume eventually scope will fall, but I'm pretty conservative in my business decisions and I would have not backed the plan to go forward without knowing it would happen. From the tech side, if you build an airframe around something like PW815 it seems there isn't a lot of room to grow upwards, the tech seems to be pretty maxed in thrust and presumably behind the geared turbofan in fuel burn. It'd be pretty tempting to not design yourself into a corner and be exposed if/when scope relief happened.

kitplane01 wrote:
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?

The gear has its own issues such as its weight and its cost and its potential maintenance issues. It enables a more efficient fan, but the benefit of that is more impactful for larger fans rather than small. The engine is designed for bizjets that have some pretty stringent weight and size requirements.



Turboprops are regional planes, on regional distances they aren't any slower. Dublin to London city or London city to Brussels or Kelowna to Vancouver it makes no difference whether it's a a RJ or turboprop. Some people here are saying loosen scope of regional flying will die and then talk about flights longer than 90 min. 90 min is will get you from any bumtown USA place to a local hub. Beyond that it's mainline flying and pay proper wages. If I fly from Dublin to Frankfurt it's a normal flight. Pay the workers proper wages. That's all I'm saying.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 11:28 pm

TonyClifton wrote:
Welcome to the A220. Fuel burn lower than an ERJ, and 30 more seats.


And higher costs of operation in general since the costs in personnel are also higher and not all routes have the ability to maintaining a 100+ pax. aircraft in profitable operations terms.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 11:30 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
Nothing is stopping the major carriers from operating whatever regional jet they want to operate.


Never underestimate the power of the bean counters.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 11:34 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
Regionals fly feeder routes and bypass routes. If I understand it correctly, the scope clause basically allows the mayors to outsource the smaller aircraft. The mayors start with roughly 100seat aircraft, the routes that don't sustain this are subcontracted to regional airlines. As passenger direct flights are preferable, as well as multiple flights per day. I think there are plenty of routes thin routes. Why should passengers suffer from indirect flights on longer thin routes. Only because pilot unions want a range limit.
I think the position of pilot unions has weakned because of COVID-19. I don't expect scope changes, at the most extreme a slight MTOW increase. But I think it should be possible to develop new scope compliant aircraft, a successor for the 50seat scope is most urgent. COVID-19 will result in smaller main line operations thus also the scope clause size will shrink. The CRJ550 (modification of CRJ700) might get more orders. But both M100 and E175-E2 are for the 76seat scope clause. There isn't a new build option other than turboprops for the 50 and 70 seat scope clause. I think that really is required.
For the network feeding work the turboprops could work, but for the long thin routes jets are required. Besides the turboprop reputation remains a problem.



Since we are talking about things which will never happen. I'd like to paid a billion dollars an hour? The inanity here is hilarious. Pilots should be paid less, because something.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1763
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 11:37 pm

Dmoney wrote:
90 min is will get you from any bumtown USA place to a local hub... Pay the workers proper wages. That's all I'm saying.

Or, you know, you could not pay them at all. Do legacies really need to serve every bumtown? Isn't 2x weekly to Florida on Spirit enough service? Passengers could just drive to a larger airport if they need a proper route network, and you'd easily fill mainline-sized aircraft. I mean, that's the reason why most other countries don't even bother with such small jets.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 11:44 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
90 min is will get you from any bumtown USA place to a local hub... Pay the workers proper wages. That's all I'm saying.

Or, you know, you could not pay them at all. Do legacies really need to serve every bumtown? Isn't 2x weekly to Florida on Spirit enough service? Passengers could just drive to a larger airport if they need a proper route network, and you'd easily fill mainline-sized aircraft. I mean, that's the reason why most other countries don't even bother with such small jets.



Nah other countries spend more on infrastructure. They've decent rail and road networks. In fairness regional flying is cheaper, if crap.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Fri May 29, 2020 11:59 pm

Dmoney wrote:
Other than people here being aerosexuals why would anyone design a new plane? The ATR 72 is cheap and capable of all regional flights. Regional flying is there to provide important air links. Either take a modern turboprop or don't fly at all. Mainline aircraft do everything above.

There is nothing to justify any investment and their are no good arguments for it. "Oh Americans don't like props!" Well they can take a mainline or if they live in podunk America they can take a turboprop to the nearest hub.


A potential market of about 800-900 frames is not justifying an investment? Major markets include: the USA, Canada, Mexico, Central America, Australasia, Papua New Guinea, and the South Pacific. You have the issue also of: missions longer than the AT76's range, but for where a larger jet, like the E290 or the BCS1, is not economical. In addition to the E170 and E175, one will also need replacements for the B712, F70 and F100.

Remember, the BCS1 and BCS3 would be what the A318 (a complete flop) and the A319 (sold well, but can be replaced by the A20N in hot and high or short-field performance) are now. AV is using the A320neo on routes where only the A319 could work.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Sat May 30, 2020 1:23 am

bkmbr wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
Nothing is stopping the major carriers from operating whatever regional jet they want to operate.


Never underestimate the power of the bean counters.


Exactly.

The bean counters already killed the A380, Q200, Q300, Q400 and many other types of aircraft in order to keep the budgets balanced.

Operational costs play a big role in these decisions. Not the love for the A380 or turboprops or other fantasies
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4671
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Sat May 30, 2020 2:02 am

mxaxai wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
90 min is will get you from any bumtown USA place to a local hub... Pay the workers proper wages. That's all I'm saying.

Or, you know, you could not pay them at all. Do legacies really need to serve every bumtown? Isn't 2x weekly to Florida on Spirit enough service? Passengers could just drive to a larger airport if they need a proper route network, and you'd easily fill mainline-sized aircraft. I mean, that's the reason why most other countries don't even bother with such small jets.

What do you think fills all these big jets out of Denver and Dallas and Atlanta and anchorage etc etc.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4844
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Sat May 30, 2020 3:56 am

Dmoney wrote:
strfyr51 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.

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.


If I responded to you?? then I stand corrected, I was responding to the guys who thinks CH-11 is
NO Big Deal. He has no freakin' Idea what He's talking about. You can't go CH-11 Just because you can't get your Way. And it's a negotiated part of the ALPA contract at Many Carriers. So? What does he espouse? United, Delta and American all going CH-11 Just so the E190,and E195 E2 can get in?
Maybe you can explain what his point is in case I misunderstood the point of his Rant.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1099
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Sat May 30, 2020 4:23 am

kitplane01 wrote:

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)

Looking at United for next year (4/13):
DEN-ATL is 1,042 nm
DEN-CLT is 1,162 nm
DEN-GSP is 1,111 nm
DEN-RIC is 1,288 nm
IAH-PHL is 1,151 nm
ORD-TUS is 1,249 nm

DEN-CLE is 1,043 nm - I flew this years ago on CR7, but 737 now

So I would guess less than 98%. But probably in the 90s.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Sat May 30, 2020 4:34 am

ADent wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

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)

Looking at United for next year (4/13):
DEN-ATL is 1,042 nm
DEN-CLT is 1,162 nm
DEN-GSP is 1,111 nm
DEN-RIC is 1,288 nm
IAH-PHL is 1,151 nm
ORD-TUS is 1,249 nm

DEN-CLE is 1,043 nm - I flew this years ago on CR7, but 737 now

So I would guess less than 98%. But probably in the 90s.


So you fly routes like that with old metal or you upgrade to a mainline plane (175-E2, 190-E2, 195-E2, A220-100, A220-300, 737MAX, 738MAX, A319NEO, A320NEO).

For the other 90%+ of the routes you develop a scope compliant E170-E2 with the idea that there will be many E170-E1/E175-E1/CRJ700/CRJ900/Fokker70 planes to replace... and some upgrading of CRJ200/ERJ145 routes to higher capacity.... that can utilize a 170-E2 as well. Again, I know I'm a bit of a broken record, but why isn't Embraer addressing it? E175-E2 is a non starter.... they won't buy it in other parts of the world if there is no resale market in the US where something like 2/3 of the current 175s operate...
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Sat May 30, 2020 5:20 am

strfyr51 wrote:
So? What does he espouse? United, Delta and American all going CH-11 Just so the E190,and E195 E2 can get in?


No, United, Delta and American are not going into CH-11 just so the E175E2 can get in, but today there's many other factor that can make them forced to go into a bankruptcy filing as consequence and with that increase the possibility of a forced renegotiation of the scope clause. Boeing's CEO already speculated that a major airline could go out of business this year and there's been a strong speculation in the market that AA will seek bankruptcy protection again. If this by any chance really materializes, one of the possible consequences is the possible change of scope clauses applicable to AA, it is only natural that the other two seek to try to balance her scope clauses with a possible new scope contract of AA creating a chain effect.
What I think is childish is to ignore that ask for Chapter 11 protection is a valid resource for a company in need and. In the past airlines have used bankruptcy to escape expensive labor contracts with various degrees of success, or I`m wrong in this regard? The currently airline industry’s has been built over many bankruptcy request in the last few decades, all major airlines in the US had already had, at least, one bankruptcy filing in their history and had benefits in the restructuring process allowed by it, so why the bankruptcy route has to be discarded right away like a dirty word?
Furthermore, in the case AA it would not be the first time that Doug Parker would use this resource.The market going forward will change a lot and it will change very quickly as things unfold in the coming months, there is no guarantee that anything that was treated as a golden rule in the recent past will continue like this going forward. Furloughs and layoffs will become commonplace in the coming months as was commonplace in a not so distant past, and to be honest using bankruptcy as a financial tool would not be something completely unheard of the industry either.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Sat May 30, 2020 7:02 am

mxaxai wrote:
Jetport wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
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)


I believe there are more 76 seat routes in the US over 1000 miles than you think. I know there are quite a few right around 1000 miles. Two routes I do regulary on RJ's are 900 miles, PWM to ORD and RDM to DEN. I have also done MSP to YVR a few times on an E175 and that is 1436 miles.

Caution with the use of statute miles and nautical miles. There are many routes over 1000 miles but very few over 1000 nmi.

Also remember that the paper range of any aircraft is usually significantly more than their practically usable range. You don't want to make unscheduled fuel stops or offload passengers due to weight restrictions. Extra range also gives the airline flexibility, so even if only 10% of their E175 routes are > 1000 miles, they don't need to maintain two different types for "short" and "long" regional flights.


I know longer ranges give flexibility. But it also adds cost to every route, including most routes that don't use the long range.

I understood 1,000 miles to mean 1,000 miles with legal IFR reserves (including flying to an alternate and such).

Caution with the use of statute miles and nautical miles. There are many routes over 1000 miles but very few over 1000 nmi.

The difference is only 17%.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Sat May 30, 2020 7:06 am

DiamondFlyer wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:

Nothing is stopping the major carriers from operating whatever regional jet they want to operate.

Nothing is stopping delta from going chapter 7 and starting delta 2. If your worries about routes than make your scope on routes.


Scope on routes makes no sense, I'm not sure why you don't understand that.


Explain it to me?

One might have said "regionals can only fly routes under 500 miles between cities where one of them has less than 500,000 people". It's not the system we have, but it's a viable system to reserve much flying for mainline pilots, and some flying for regionals.

I think this system might have advantages and disadvantages over the current system. It would not allow a regional to fly from Tulsa to Chicago for example, but still allow a regional to fly Lansing to Chicago. I'm sure you can find disadvantages, but the current system also has disadvantages.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1763
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Sat May 30, 2020 8:50 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I know longer ranges give flexibility. But it also adds cost to every route, including most routes that don't use the long range.

I understood 1,000 miles to mean 1,000 miles with legal IFR reserves (including flying to an alternate and such).

Caution with the use of statute miles and nautical miles. There are many routes over 1000 miles but very few over 1000 nmi.

The difference is only 17%.

You are correct, but most airlines in recent times have clearly preferred to use aircraft with long range on all sorts of routes, rather than specialized aircraft for each mission. For example, SQ operates the A350 on both regional and ULH routes. Same for ANA and the 787. The A320 and 737 have TATL capabilities but 95% of their daily flights are <2000 nm, and some airlines only operate a single type. If airlines wanted to perfectly match each route to the aircraft's ability, we would see far more diverse fleets.

One reason for this is that range has become cheap. Fuel efficient designs only require a little bit of extra fuel to gain significantly more range, at least compared to older models.


With regards to the miles problem, yes it's only 17% but there are plenty of routes in the 1000 - 1200 mi range (e. g. XNA-LGA) but only few that are actually > 1000 nmi. So this could create confusion.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Sat May 30, 2020 9:50 am

32andBelow wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
90 min is will get you from any bumtown USA place to a local hub... Pay the workers proper wages. That's all I'm saying.

Or, you know, you could not pay them at all. Do legacies really need to serve every bumtown? Isn't 2x weekly to Florida on Spirit enough service? Passengers could just drive to a larger airport if they need a proper route network, and you'd easily fill mainline-sized aircraft. I mean, that's the reason why most other countries don't even bother with such small jets.

What do you think fills all these big jets out of Denver and Dallas and Atlanta and anchorage etc etc.

Atlanta is 80.7% mainline by departures by seats it's 95%+ mainline if anything reducing regional jets would only strengthen the Atlanta hub because it would weaken CLT and IAH the only two viable competitor hubs. so in Atlanta its mostly older cheaper jets traditional MD-88, in the future whatever is cheap on the used market will feed Atlanta.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1099
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Sun May 31, 2020 12:25 am

Conversely at United (Summer 2019)
ORD 637 flights 44% mainline
IAH 533 45%
DEN 504 45%
EWR 432 55%
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4844
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Sun May 31, 2020 1:29 am

bkmbr wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
So? What does he espouse? United, Delta and American all going CH-11 Just so the E190,and E195 E2 can get in?


No, United, Delta and American are not going into CH-11 just so the E175E2 can get in, but today there's many other factor that can make them forced to go into a bankruptcy filing as consequence and with that increase the possibility of a forced renegotiation of the scope clause. Boeing's CEO already speculated that a major airline could go out of business this year and there's been a strong speculation in the market that AA will seek bankruptcy protection again. If this by any chance really materializes, one of the possible consequences is the possible change of scope clauses applicable to AA, it is only natural that the other two seek to try to balance her scope clauses with a possible new scope contract of AA creating a chain effect.
What I think is childish is to ignore that ask for Chapter 11 protection is a valid resource for a company in need and. In the past airlines have used bankruptcy to escape expensive labor contracts with various degrees of success, or I`m wrong in this regard? The currently airline industry’s has been built over many bankruptcy request in the last few decades, all major airlines in the US had already had, at least, one bankruptcy filing in their history and had benefits in the restructuring process allowed by it, so why the bankruptcy route has to be discarded right away like a dirty word?
Furthermore, in the case AA it would not be the first time that Doug Parker would use this resource.The market going forward will change a lot and it will change very quickly as things unfold in the coming months, there is no guarantee that anything that was treated as a golden rule in the recent past will continue like this going forward. Furloughs andlayoffs will become commonplace in the coming months as was commonplace in a not so distant past, and to be honest using bankruptcy as a financial tool would not be something completely unheard of the industry either.



IN the event you haven't been reading? American, USAir and AM west as now part of AMERICAN Have ALL been in CH-11. A second CH-11 if not absolutely Necessary? would render them possibly out of business. And you expect them to do that and force in the E2 for American Eagle?
The Eagle companies are Not all American Owned. So? Exactly HOW would you force cuts on American Pilots and enrich American Eagle with Larger planes?
That's like telling GM workers?
"We're going to Lay you off unless you let us outsource your jobs to SUBARU". Are you kidding? Here's the reality.
I give this example because I was doing a little reading on line at www.Airlinepilotcentral.com and Just the regional and Major Profiles.
check this out. United Flies 794 mainline airplanes of it's own, with 13.300 Pilots. United Express? Flies 474 airplanes with 4700 Pilots with the majority of those airplanes Bought and OWNED By United. So? Why exactly would United ALPA even think about relaxing scope when United OWNED Airplanes are being flown outside of United? Were United to absorb all of those 474 airplanes and the 4700+ Pilots? I'm sure they could buy and fly any damn thing they pleased? Anywhere they pleased! I would have done the same for American and Delta but it was late and I got sleepy. But? I told you where the information Was so you can get your Own eyes Tired looking it up. Depending on how "Airline Geeky" you are? You can find your answer. and Extrapolate your OWN conclusions,
It's a damn sight more complicated than you make it out to be. . Having lived through a CH-11 at United? It ain't no walk in the Park nor Picnic. I lost my Pension and over $100K in ESOP stock for my retirement. in the 15 remaining years? I had to save 19% of my pay to even Have any money at retirement. So? What you're talking Is Nonsense! Nobody would cut their throat for an airplane Not even built in the USA no Less. We have no skin in the game. and as it was said in a movie I once saw? What's in it for Us to Do that? Why would you even wish this turmoil to befall someone for this trivial reason?
If the USA majors want or need a scope compliant airplane? You can damn sure BET it would et Built! Embraer Can, has, and still Does build scope compliant airplanes they're not out of Business are they?
You just want them to compete with Airbus and Boeing. Well? It might happen Later? But it Ain't happening NOW! and I just told you WHY.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Sun May 31, 2020 4:24 am

strfyr51 wrote:
IN the event you haven't been reading? American, USAir and AM west as now part of AMERICAN Have ALL been in CH-11. A second CH-11 if not absolutely Necessary? would render them possibly out of business. And you expect them to do that and force in the E2 for American Eagle?


No, just I said before, United, Delta and American are not going into CH-11 just so the E175E2 can get in, but today there are too many other factors that can make the companies being forced to go into a bankruptcy filing again and as consequence increasing the possibility of a forced renegotiation of the scope clause. The post-covid world will be radically different from the world we all knew before and judging the situations that we will live from now on using the 2019 mindset will not solve anything, moreover, at the heart of "modern capitalism" outsourcing work is common thing, and not even the strongest unions never managed to prevent it (in fact it is just the opposite, the stronger the union the greater are the incentive to the company's management to outsource its operation as much as possible, look for UAW for example). Sure, the unions don't have to comply with the renegotiation attempts, but keep in mind that the more difficult things are for mainliners the more you encourage their management into outsourcing those positions anyway, and welcome to Modern American Capitalism 101, now with union busting techniques. Enjoy the ride.

I am not the owner of a single share of the mainliners or Embraer itself, I`m just not naive enough to think that a "pilot revolution" against outsourcing will have any chance of success. Those 400+ RJs will never be flown by pilots from the mainliners receiving salaries as determined by the unions.Ultimately, the big capital ALWAYS wins, and whoever opposes this it will be crushed by them, as usual. Wall street doesn't give a sh*t about your pension or retirement unless it benefits them directly in some way. To tell you the truth if it depended only on their will the best thing that could happen with you would be the day after your retirement you died and so they would be saved them from having to pay a dime. You should also thank all those nice politicians who, over the years, have eliminated the "communist shadow" in America because thanks to this that today the capital drive over the workers just as a large trench roller. To be honest, the ERJ-175E2 and scope clauses should be the least of your worries at this point in time, you may not even have your job tomorrow depending on how things are going to from now on.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Sun May 31, 2020 11:14 pm

bkmbr wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
IN the event you haven't been reading? American, USAir and AM west as now part of AMERICAN Have ALL been in CH-11. A second CH-11 if not absolutely Necessary? would render them possibly out of business. And you expect them to do that and force in the E2 for American Eagle?


No, just I said before, United, Delta and American are not going into CH-11 just so the E175E2 can get in, but today there are too many other factors that can make the companies being forced to go into a bankruptcy filing again and as consequence increasing the possibility of a forced renegotiation of the scope clause. The post-covid world will be radically different from the world we all knew before and judging the situations that we will live from now on using the 2019 mindset will not solve anything, moreover, at the heart of "modern capitalism" outsourcing work is common thing, and not even the strongest unions never managed to prevent it (in fact it is just the opposite, the stronger the union the greater are the incentive to the company's management to outsource its operation as much as possible, look for UAW for example). Sure, the unions don't have to comply with the renegotiation attempts, but keep in mind that the more difficult things are for mainliners the more you encourage their management into outsourcing those positions anyway, and welcome to Modern American Capitalism 101, now with union busting techniques. Enjoy the ride.

I am not the owner of a single share of the mainliners or Embraer itself, I`m just not naive enough to think that a "pilot revolution" against outsourcing will have any chance of success. Those 400+ RJs will never be flown by pilots from the mainliners receiving salaries as determined by the unions.Ultimately, the big capital ALWAYS wins, and whoever opposes this it will be crushed by them, as usual. Wall street doesn't give a sh*t about your pension or retirement unless it benefits them directly in some way. To tell you the truth if it depended only on their will the best thing that could happen with you would be the day after your retirement you died and so they would be saved them from having to pay a dime. You should also thank all those nice politicians who, over the years, have eliminated the "communist shadow" in America because thanks to this that today the capital drive over the workers just as a large trench roller. To be honest, the ERJ-175E2 and scope clauses should be the least of your worries at this point in time, you may not even have your job tomorrow depending on how things are going to from now on.



This is ahistorical and stupid. You should really read a smidge of history. Even in America labour has triumphed over capital on many occasions. What do you think the US Post war economic boom was? Income tax above 70%, corporation tax at 40% and broad economic prosperity for white people.

No matter what you want, Pilots aren't going to give away scope, ever. If an airline goes bankrupt and someone can convince a bankruptcy judge to abrogate their contract they will cross that bridge when they get to it. But no matter how bad you want it, they aren't going to pay themselves less today just "because".

Take a chill pill bud with the rants.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5473
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:12 am

More recently, the UAW after the Big 3 automakers went bust completely bypassing the law giving debtors priority.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4844
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:33 am

alasizon wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
It's not just the pilots.

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


Not to mention less division of labor. In Mainline maintenance , you may have a structures person, an avionics person, an airframe person and so-on. Regional side is usually just generic AMTs and avionics techs and occasionally a few interior techs in the bigger bases.



AND? What Major airline only has specialized Line Mechanics? There's an AMT an R&E on the line unless you're in Overhaul. As an AMT on the line I might also do some avionics work if the need called for it up to and including CAT3 checks when needed. I don't think many majors can afford to specialize line Maintenance anymore with mechanics commanding up to $46.00/Hr.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4844
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:45 am

bkmbr wrote:
And for that the US RJ market will be "condemned" to keep flying an outdated aircraft for the next 20 to 25 years due the absolute lack of airplanes in this segment unless Mitsubishi manages to develop, certify, manufacture and put the M100 in service record time.


If and when the E170's and E-175's start falling out of the skies? Then the USA Airlines might well be forced to order the E2 series and advocate for change from the Pilots Union. But that's IF and When. Should the airplane become uneconomical to repair? Then that might also trigger change, But if it happens?
They more than likely would NOT again order Embraer as it would be considered a "Tin Can" with limited life and use. Especially if it can't last to the 17-20 year mark.
since we already KNOW the Engines WILL be supported.
  • 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