Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:23 pm

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.


To me is kinda difficult to believe that Embraer would be this wrong based on a "false" information that the a.net users would know and they don't.
It is even possible that they had access to some information that we do not know here but that was later modified, but to think that they would develop an entire airplane without thinking about this aspect is somewhat naive.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:26 pm

bkmbr wrote:
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.


To me is kinda difficult to believe that Embraer would be this wrong based on a "false" information that the a.net users would know and they don't.
It is even possible that they had access to some information that we do not know here but that was later modified, but to think that they would develop an entire airplane without thinking about this aspect is somewhat naive.


They gambled and lost.
"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..
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1780
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:33 pm

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.

"Everywhere" is a bit much, don't you think? The 86,400 lbs rule really only applies to the US. Yet, nobody else wants the E2-175 either. But yes, we would have likely seen an order from a US major.

Though, if they pushed it to 86,400 lbs MTOW by a paper derate, the aircraft would lose a lot of range. Probably only 900-1100 nm remaining at MZFW. Which should be perfectly fine for 99% of routes the E1-175 gets used on. But stubborn Embraer is having none of that. Their loss I guess...
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:44 pm

The companies and customers also loss in the end. The E2 is a significant improvement over the E1 and no company will get any of this advantage based on arbitrary created limit. Apart from the 175E2, there is no other product capable of serving this market at least in the next decade (and yes, I don't believe that the M90 ​​can get certified and go into operation before 2030).
 
CaptainObvious1
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:22 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 7:56 pm

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


This is not an arbitrary limit, this is a contractual agreement which Embraer knew about but yet designed an aircraft without taking it into account. If it is such an improvement over the E1 then they should be selling that to the airlines so they can bring it in-house and fly by mainline pilots.

No one changed the limits on Embraer, they got arrogant and moved forward with a product which was outside of known scope limits in the USA where 75% of E175 aircraft are used today.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:07 pm

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.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:16 pm

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.

There is always bring it to mainline if that's such a problem, scope was taken by the court and will be returned by physics
 
ethernal
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:17 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
ethernal wrote:
they would have already have done it on the base model already.


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


More likely they just got it dead wrong.

Had they built it under 86,400lbs it would be flying everywhere for years at this point.


I think they were just rationally optimistic. Designing a plane that met their other design objectives (fuel efficiency, cost, time-to-deliver, frame scalability, etc) while simultaneously meeting the US airline scope requirements was likely deemed to be impractical.

I say this because we're talking about 6 tons of excess weight here. The engines themselves are combined nearly 2 tons heavier than the original E-Jet family. The wing is 15 feet longer. A longer wing carrying heavier engines means a much heavier wing. Some of this is balanced by improved fuel efficiency (= less fuel required to fly the same distance = less weight for fuel) but these are major structural changes that require weight.

Taking the E175-E2 and tying to slim it down to a scope-compliant 76-seater will require either (a) a major redesign to optimize around this size, (b) tighter cabins to squeeze 76 seats into a smaller airframe than the current E170s, (c) de-rating that limits range when full of passengers (or some combination of a, b, and c).
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:21 pm

dstblj52 wrote:
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.

There is always bring it to mainline if that's such a problem, scope was taken by the court and will be returned by physics


I don't believe that the shareholders will allow this increase in costs and reduction in profits to happen. Most likely the airplanes will fly until the are allowed and when the frames at the regional airlines reach the end of their life the routes outside the essential air service subsidy will be closed for good.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:26 pm

Revelation 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to the real world.



Pilots are rational. They shouldn't give up anything.

If I was exploitative management I'd try to get them to give up scope so I get more money. It's rational from my perspective then, but from the pilots they should never concede.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:29 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
bkmbr wrote:

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


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


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



Boo hoo, cry me a river. What ever happened to Yanks believing in the free market. You've no natural entitlement to fly in a RJ over a turboprop.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:30 pm

Because of the scope rules outlined in the pilot’s contract, it’s safe to say that we will see more airline experiments such as the Jazz CRJ-705 or the UA CRJ-550. The unions will not budge on scope. It’s probably better to acquire more CRJ 700’s and convert them to 550’s while removing the outdated E145’s (United) and taking CRJ-900’s and converting them into 76 seaters to obtain cost savings without fighting the unions over the 175-E2
 
battlegroup62
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:05 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:34 pm

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


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


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

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


I think Embraer is working on a diet for the E275. I was looking at the brochures from 2017 and it had an mtow of 99k, and if you go their website it now has a mtow of 91400 with the same range, and fuel load. Granted that does not specify which configuation it is listed for, but if they managed to cut close to 8000 pounds they may be able to do more if it is configured with the same cabin capacity as current 175's.
We have to keep planes airworthy. That doesn't mean they have to fly.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4026
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:35 pm

Purpose for corporation privileges is benefit to the economy. There is no natural right or free market right to corporate ownership. There is a lot of corporate buying of lawmakers. Also constitution protects property rights, not corporate law.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:35 pm

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



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

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

Get on a turboprop. Regional flying is short, hence the name. It's podunk America to a hub.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:35 pm

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


Downgrading the CRJs is a shot term solution for a long term problem, and why the regional companies would pay to convert used CRJ-900 to 76 standard if the ERJ-175SC offers a lot more than a bunch of second hand CRJs?
Embraer will keep selling the 175SC until 2028 when the ICAO regulations kill it, after that the only option for regional airlines to replace the 175SC will be move to the even older ATR72 turboprop designs or just dropout the routes operated by those ERJs altogether.
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:39 pm

There is so much RJ flying they have to do something it would cut off a lot of feeder traffic and a lot of RJ to RJ (ie switching RJs at a hub) flying.that is available to passengers now. For what is a worse customer experience compared to say a 737 or 320 its not cheaper to buy tickets, suggesting those that do are doing it because they need to. The alternative I suppose is to have fewer airports and we have to drive further to concentrate up the numbers to get a plane loads worth of people.If the choice comes down to prop or not we will end up with props.

Its this weird technological achievement we have created were things that were once done affordably suddenly become too expensive to develop, not because of a shortage of a resource but the old is too inefficient to carry on. The strange dynamics of the market I guess.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:40 pm

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


Welcome to the real life of finance in the 21st Century, pull your chair up to the table and join us.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:41 pm

Has anyone provided a rational to build a new plane? I can't see one.

The ATR-72 will continue to sell. The RJ will continue to disappear unless someone goes back to making scope compliant planes.

With live in an energy abundant age. Renewable energy is getting dirt cheap and oil will remain cheap. With cheap oil you can justify the investment in a new high tech plane that can be recovered in higher sales price that is economic in fuel savings.

Fly the cheap turboprop from rural America to a hub. Problem solved. It's a 90 minute flight.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:43 pm

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


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


The main line carriers will pay for the conversion just as UA did. The regional carriers will bid for the contract same as always. Mesa, Air Wisconsin, Expressjet, Endeavor, Gojet and others have plenty of experience with CRJ’s and the problem with the scope is not going away anytime soon. If turboprops were a solution then Republic would still have the Q400 contract with UA.
 
mrbots
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:31 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:45 pm

Bombardier sold the Q400 to what is now DHC and they lack capital to further develop it and the CRJ to MHI who admitted they didn't want the plane but the established infrastructure from it to help the MRJ/SpaceJet which they're peddling back on anyways and abandoning the NA market in the process. Embraer isn't doing great as they spent a ton of money developing the E2 that few are buying and their influx of cash, marketing, and infrastructure from Boeing collapsed. Also, the last new smallish plane development almost killed the parent company and only survived after government bailouts and selling control of the frame ending up with them completely leaving commercial aviation. RJs had a foot in the grave before the current world conditions, now they're waist deep. The only possible savior of RJs I can see at this point would possibly be coming form China to try to break into worldwide aviation markets.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:51 pm

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


Welcome to the real life of finance in the 21st Century, pull your chair up to the table and join us.



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

There are plenty of other solutions. Namely a turboprop....
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 657
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 8:59 pm

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


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

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

Covid is not changing what Mitsubishi is buying and what they have to do if they want to alter it. Probably does change any hope of Mitsubishi trying to sell/build new builds though.


It's the end of the line for the CRJ family, no matter how many derivative projects can be produced in a PowerPoint design ...
 
NLINK
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:20 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 9:04 pm

Currently the airlines can operate the E2 with no restrictions provided they use the airline employees of the operating carrier and not contractors.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 9:05 pm

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

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


I never said I'm proud of this situation, but the things are the way they are and my particular opinion as to whether this is fair or unfair will not change that reality. I recognize that what pilots defend is fair, but if there is one thing that history has already proven, it is that when big capital faces the worker it is always the worker who loses in the long run. I am not going to bet against something that has been proven thousands of times in the history of mankind that it is those who have money always impose their wills on those who do not. This is precisely the case in point, shareholders versus workers. And I don't really believe in the turboprops solution, the SAAB 340 and 2000 are proof that even a high-tech turboprop don't stand a chance in this market today. ATRs only work in other markets because they are proportionately cheap and there is no other realistic option for them as the Q400 is a zombie that is more dead than alive since the 90s
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 9:39 pm

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

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


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



I mean that's just ahistorical. Whether it's the progressive era in the US, the new deal, post war Europe, Russian revolution or many other periods that workers have taken on a beaten capital. Your preaching a learned helplessness which is wholly untrue.

Of course the ATR 72 stands a chance. The other planes aren't scope compliant so it's either a turboprop or mainline. That's the base case.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 9:57 pm

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


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


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

It is often just as easy to drive than fly if its up to 7hrs away because the slide to larger planes has meant less favorable flight times and takes much longer. I only get to sit in the back of the plane and when I am travelling I am not working.


Exactly! Your company needs to start costing out your non-productivity while traveling, how many do those trips, how much could be saved by not spending on travel and living expenses. Doesn’t always work, but it can.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 10:06 pm

Dmoney wrote:
Of course the ATR 72 stands a chance. The other planes aren't scope compliant so it's either a turboprop or mainline. That's the base case.


The million dollar question is that the customer will agree to have the ERJs replaced by ATRs and still fly with them. After 20+ years getting used to fly on RJs I believe the regional companies will have a lot of trouble convincing the customers to take the "downgrade" route (and I'm saying this with the mentality of a customer) from a jet to a turboprop without any trade off (a significant reduction in the fare for example) that we all know that's not possible (at least for the moment).
Last edited by bkmbr on Tue May 26, 2020 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5610
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 10:06 pm

Dmoney wrote:

Of course the ATR 72 stands a chance. The other planes aren't scope compliant so it's either a turboprop or mainline. That's the base case.


Yep, Back to the future on props. The legacies pushed the 50 seat RJ's WAY beyond their intended purpose and now they either lose feed or go back to props, at least for shorter ranged missions. Embraer should certainly look at the 50-70 seat turboprop segment at this point. 90 minute segments and below are just fine in a next gen prop.
"True, I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain." -Mercutio
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5610
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 10:09 pm

bkmbr wrote:

The million dollar question is that the customer will agree to have the ERJs replaced by ATRs and still fly with them. After 20+ years getting used to fly on RJs I believe the regional companies will have a lot of trouble convincing the customers to take the "downgrade" route (and I'm saying this with the mentality of a customer) from a jet to a turboprop without any trade off (a significant reduction in the fare por example) that we all know that's not possible (at least for the moment).


More like a billion dollar question but driving over 2 hours just to catch a jet may be beyond the toleration of many people. We still have the Cape Airs of the world flying EAS routes and non-EAS routes on 9 seaters, beats driving, at least to me.
"True, I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain." -Mercutio
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 10:16 pm

bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
Of course the ATR 72 stands a chance. The other planes aren't scope compliant so it's either a turboprop or mainline. That's the base case.


The million dollar question is that the customer will agree to have the ERJs replaced by ATRs and still fly with them. After 20+ years getting used to fly on RJs I believe the regional companies will have a lot of trouble convincing the customers to take the "downgrade" route (and I'm saying this with the mentality of a customer) from a jet to a turboprop without any trade off (a significant reduction in the fare for example) that we all know that's not possible (at least for the moment).


I can tell you the answer from experience: NO

I worked the Jazz contract at JFK. I’ve seen many passengers walked down on to the ramp at gate C11 and C12 to board the Q400 and immediately start to freak out. Same way people here have reservations about the 737 max, people have fears regarding turboprops. Passengers may stay away depending on the equipment.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4864
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 10:17 pm

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

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

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

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

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

Lightsaber


Why the weight limit?

Because the weight limit is what the limiting factor IS. if they built a 100 seater under the weight limits? You still couldn't put 100 people on it. the scope has them coming and going!! The only way the US Major airlines can get any Leeway? Bring the regional flying in House!! Then they can fly whatever they please, and it won't cost them anything. "Branded" flying cost them this, so this is the price to pay.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 10:28 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
Rookie87 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
There are typically the scope limits of:
70 seats and 76,000 lb
76 seats and 86,000 lb

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

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

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

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

Lightsaber


Why the weight limit?

Because the weight limit is what the limiting factor IS. if they built a 100 seater under the weight limits? You still couldn't put 100 people on it. the scope has them coming and going!! The only way the US Major airlines can get any Leeway? Bring the regional flying in House!! Then they can fly whatever they please, and it won't cost them anything. "Branded" flying cost them this, so this is the price to pay.


Absolutely !!!

There’s plenty of main line pilots who would love to fly the RJ’s in-house and be closer to home.

Win for pilots and needed flexibility for the company.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 11:33 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Rookie87 wrote:
Why the weight limit?

Because the weight limit is what the limiting factor IS. if they built a 100 seater under the weight limits? You still couldn't put 100 people on it. the scope has them coming and going!! The only way the US Major airlines can get any Leeway? Bring the regional flying in House!! Then they can fly whatever they please, and it won't cost them anything. "Branded" flying cost them this, so this is the price to pay.

Absolutely !!!

There’s plenty of main line pilots who would love to fly the RJ’s in-house and be closer to home.

Win for pilots and needed flexibility for the company.

And according to this thread, they also like making $250k (mainline narrowbody captains at least) per year for the minimum guaranteed hours. Something will have to give. A rational process would have the pilots giving up something like lower wages for new entrants to get something they want like more trips closer to home, more new entrants paying union dues, etc. Yet I don't see that happening, the gap is too far to close.
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
 
ethernal
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 11:33 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Rookie87 wrote:

Why the weight limit?

Because the weight limit is what the limiting factor IS. if they built a 100 seater under the weight limits? You still couldn't put 100 people on it. the scope has them coming and going!! The only way the US Major airlines can get any Leeway? Bring the regional flying in House!! Then they can fly whatever they please, and it won't cost them anything. "Branded" flying cost them this, so this is the price to pay.


Absolutely !!!

There’s plenty of main line pilots who would love to fly the RJ’s in-house and be closer to home.

Win for pilots and needed flexibility for the company.


I am 100% confident that the majors would absolutely support that arrangement. At the rates competitive with regional crews. Oh... wait.. that's not what you meant, was it?

There is no point in debating why there is a difference in mainline versus regional crew salary, or whether there should be one at all. But - just like the scope requirement is fact - the wage differential is a fact too. So long as those two things are both facts, the US4 mainline pilots will not fly regional jets or any plane below ~100 seats. This is just an economic reality driven by incentives present in the marketplace.

If it is cheaper to fly around last-generation regional jets (Embraer is still producing E175s after all) then that is what will happen. If Embraer can make a scope-compliant E170-E2 that performs well enough? Then those will be bought. If Embraer stops production of the old E-jet series and they can't make a scope-compliant E275? Then airlines will run their existing regional jet fleets into the ground and consider turboprop options. Any other alternative would require those two aforementioned facts to change which is unlikely unless the entire industry is truly reshaped and adjusted in courts due to COVID-19.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 11:44 pm

ethernal wrote:
I think they were just rationally optimistic. Designing a plane that met their other design objectives (fuel efficiency, cost, time-to-deliver, frame scalability, etc) while simultaneously meeting the US airline scope requirements was likely deemed to be impractical.

I say this because we're talking about 6 tons of excess weight here. The engines themselves are combined nearly 2 tons heavier than the original E-Jet family. The wing is 15 feet longer. A longer wing carrying heavier engines means a much heavier wing. Some of this is balanced by improved fuel efficiency (= less fuel required to fly the same distance = less weight for fuel) but these are major structural changes that require weight.

Taking the E175-E2 and tying to slim it down to a scope-compliant 76-seater will require either (a) a major redesign to optimize around this size, (b) tighter cabins to squeeze 76 seats into a smaller airframe than the current E170s, (c) de-rating that limits range when full of passengers (or some combination of a, b, and c).

I was hoping someone in this thread would address the extent of the impractical nature of the E2.

What would EMB have done differently if they knew scope would *never* change and had to build a scope compliant airplane?

Wiki ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family ) says:

Built on the first generation E-Jet, its wing is redesigned, and it introduces new pylons, landing gear, horizontal stabilizers, cabin, cabin air system, air cycle machine, bleed air system, and a new fly-by-wire system.[38] The switch to a composite wing was not yet justified economically for a similar shape, the less draggy flaps are single-slotted instead of the more complex double-slotted on the E1, and the engine pylon is shorter.[22] The raised, 11:1 aspect ratio gull-wing partially accommodate the 2.01m (79 in) diameter GTF, larger than the CF34 by 66 cm (26 in), while the trailing arm landing gear is taller for 23–25 cm (9.1–9.8 in) higher door sills, giving a 5 cm (2.0 in) lower nacelles than the E1.[35]

GE Aviation, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls-Royce were all possible engine suppliers.[39] In January 2013, Embraer selected the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G Geared Turbofan engine as the exclusive powerplant.[40]

What if they decided to do the simplest possible engine upgrade, was there no suitable powerplant available? We can see "the 2.01m (79 in) diameter GTF (is) larger than the CF34 by 66 cm (26 in)". Seems that's where they lost any chance of staying in scope.
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
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 11:46 pm

bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
Of course the ATR 72 stands a chance. The other planes aren't scope compliant so it's either a turboprop or mainline. That's the base case.


The million dollar question is that the customer will agree to have the ERJs replaced by ATRs and still fly with them. After 20+ years getting used to fly on RJs I believe the regional companies will have a lot of trouble convincing the customers to take the "downgrade" route (and I'm saying this with the mentality of a customer) from a jet to a turboprop without any trade off (a significant reduction in the fare for example) that we all know that's not possible (at least for the moment).



They don't have to convince them of anything. If they can't fly a regional jet and it's not small for a mainline they can get on a turboprop or not fly....
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4700
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Tue May 26, 2020 11:55 pm

Dmoney wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
Of course the ATR 72 stands a chance. The other planes aren't scope compliant so it's either a turboprop or mainline. That's the base case.


The million dollar question is that the customer will agree to have the ERJs replaced by ATRs and still fly with them. After 20+ years getting used to fly on RJs I believe the regional companies will have a lot of trouble convincing the customers to take the "downgrade" route (and I'm saying this with the mentality of a customer) from a jet to a turboprop without any trade off (a significant reduction in the fare for example) that we all know that's not possible (at least for the moment).


Maybe they’re airline will go out of business if they can never tech a technology advancement t.
They don't have to convince them of anything. If they can't fly a regional jet and it's not small for a mainline they can get on a turboprop or not fly....
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 1:45 am

Revelation wrote:
I was hoping someone in this thread would address the extent of the impractical nature of the E2.


This isn't a problem just for Embraer. Bombardier never even tried to make a competitor for the scope market while developing the C-Series, Mitsubishi would need to extensive rework the M90 project to fit at the scope requirements and we clearly see that the chances of the M100 one day getting off the ground are remote and getting smaller each passing day and even ignoring the political problems that this would represent the Sukhoi SSJ75 project had been scraped so what else is left in the market? A custom scope compliance version of the ARJ21-700? Not very likely.
If no other company in the world, including the market leader in this segment, are willing to put money and time do develop a new generation RJ for the scope market maybe its because is not a feasible project to begin with just as ethernal said before, and if the clients are not willing to move back to turboprops I don't see any other option besides changing the cause of this "problem" to begin with, the scope clauses itself, either amicably through negotiations between the parties or in the worst possible way with a battle in the courts..
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 2:05 am

Dmoney wrote:
They don't have to convince them of anything. If they can't fly a regional jet and it's not small for a mainline they can get on a turboprop or not fly....


I increasingly believe that they will choose the second option.It is not like turboprops had the improvement of reputations in this segment over time, and it is not for lack of trying, look at the result of the Saab 340B Plus and 2000 program, even though it was excellent planes, they ended up becoming a huge commercial failure.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 2:19 am

bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
They don't have to convince them of anything. If they can't fly a regional jet and it's not small for a mainline they can get on a turboprop or not fly....


I increasingly believe that they will choose the second option.It is not like turboprops had the improvement of reputations in this segment over time, and it is not for lack of trying, look at the result of the Saab 340B Plus and 2000 program, even though it was excellent planes, they ended up becoming a huge commercial failure.

I think if you went straight from jets to props you're going to get killed but if you go from jets to no service to props your likely to get a better result, otherwise allegiant like schedules seem like the only viable option
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 2:22 am

bkmbr wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I was hoping someone in this thread would address the extent of the impractical nature of the E2.


This isn't a problem just for Embraer. Bombardier never even tried to make a competitor for the scope market while developing the C-Series, Mitsubishi would need to extensive rework the M90 project to fit at the scope requirements and we clearly see that the chances of the M100 one day getting off the ground are remote and getting smaller each passing day and even ignoring the political problems that this would represent the Sukhoi SSJ75 project had been scraped so what else is left in the market? A custom scope compliance version of the ARJ21-700? Not very likely.
If no other company in the world, including the market leader in this segment, are willing to put money and time do develop a new generation RJ for the scope market maybe its because is not a feasible project to begin with just as ethernal said before, and if the clients are not willing to move back to turboprops I don't see any other option besides changing the cause of this "problem" to begin with, the scope clauses itself, either amicably through negotiations between the parties or in the worst possible way with a battle in the courts..


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

GF
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4700
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 2:31 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I was hoping someone in this thread would address the extent of the impractical nature of the E2.


This isn't a problem just for Embraer. Bombardier never even tried to make a competitor for the scope market while developing the C-Series, Mitsubishi would need to extensive rework the M90 project to fit at the scope requirements and we clearly see that the chances of the M100 one day getting off the ground are remote and getting smaller each passing day and even ignoring the political problems that this would represent the Sukhoi SSJ75 project had been scraped so what else is left in the market? A custom scope compliance version of the ARJ21-700? Not very likely.
If no other company in the world, including the market leader in this segment, are willing to put money and time do develop a new generation RJ for the scope market maybe its because is not a feasible project to begin with just as ethernal said before, and if the clients are not willing to move back to turboprops I don't see any other option besides changing the cause of this "problem" to begin with, the scope clauses itself, either amicably through negotiations between the parties or in the worst possible way with a battle in the courts..


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

GF

Just breeze and allegiant and spirit and southwest are going to come in and smoke you
 
Jetport
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 2:32 am

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


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


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


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

I am surprised that the post 9/11 airline bankruptcies didn’t’ teach pilots unions a litter more about capitalism and economics. I am all for paying pilots (and everyone else) a fair and reasonable wage, but very highly compensated part time Airbus drivers are not sustainable in the long term.
 
Jetport
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 2:38 am

dennypayne wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
Canuck600 wrote:
What if the choice is turboprop or no service would that make American flyers change there tune? That's the choice for a large portion of Canada. I live 40 miles from the Canada-US border & that's my choice unless I want to drive.a hour north & that airport is combination of jet & turbo-prop service.

Possibly but there is fairly good data from both delta and AA (piedmont) that when they changed from props to jets ridership jumped but that stigma may be weakened with time and they may well succeed especially in airports where there was no service before but I think a downgrade to props is not going to go over well unless there is a period of no service until props are being brought in.


I think if enough people ride a modern ATR or Q400 they will no longer consider that a downgrade. It's not like airlines are still out there flying Metroliners. I just flew on Silver Airways today and their AT6 was far quieter than the Southwest 737 I took on the previous leg, and just as comfortable if not more so with the 2-2 seating. Beats the hell out of a CR2 as well.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with 50-seat flying, but with most of it on CR2's, it's no wonder it has a bad reputation. I know I'm not the only one that actively booked away from those.


I have taken plenty of flights on Q400's, they still suck. NVH (Noise Vibration Harshness) is better than most previous turboprops, but still far worse than ANY jet. The only turboprop I ever liked was the Dornier 328. I will pick a CRJ200 100% of the time over any turboprop. For one thing the faster jets get you off the plane faster.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 2:39 am

32andBelow wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
bkmbr wrote:

This isn't a problem just for Embraer. Bombardier never even tried to make a competitor for the scope market while developing the C-Series, Mitsubishi would need to extensive rework the M90 project to fit at the scope requirements and we clearly see that the chances of the M100 one day getting off the ground are remote and getting smaller each passing day and even ignoring the political problems that this would represent the Sukhoi SSJ75 project had been scraped so what else is left in the market? A custom scope compliance version of the ARJ21-700? Not very likely.
If no other company in the world, including the market leader in this segment, are willing to put money and time do develop a new generation RJ for the scope market maybe its because is not a feasible project to begin with just as ethernal said before, and if the clients are not willing to move back to turboprops I don't see any other option besides changing the cause of this "problem" to begin with, the scope clauses itself, either amicably through negotiations between the parties or in the worst possible way with a battle in the courts..


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

GF

Just breeze and allegiant and spirit and southwest are going to come in and smoke you


You might note none of those carriers offer network services as DL, AA or UA do, so hard to serve business travel. Second, none of them operate RJ size planes, so their interest in stations that generate 50-seat loads, there times daily is low to non-existant.
 
Jetport
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 2:50 am

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

These solution is right there,


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

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

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

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


The most likely outcome is actually (e) E175 E1-V2, (the current E175) will stay in production for another decade and dominate US regional flying. It is already a very efficient aircraft and now the only game in town.
 
Jetport
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 3:03 am

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



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

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

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


Many CRJ900's and E175's are flying long flights, these are not just short hops. One of my most memorable flights was MSP to YVR on an E175 in first class. FA's on 76 seaters usually have better attitudes than FA's on mainline domestic flights.
 
CowAnon
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:03 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 3:07 am

NameOmitted wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
The highest efficiently potential is with unducted fan engines. I think this only works with tail mounted engines.
I wonder if US public will view these engines as unsafe, like turboprop engines.


Are unduucted fans lighter per lb. of thrust produced? It seems logical that they world be without the cowling. If so, they might be a way to get more out of the weight limits of the scope clause, assuming you don't lose any gains by needing the more substantial fuselage tail-mounted engines require.

The American aversion to props will be countered entirely by our micro-focus in the lowest online price, should it ever find to that.

No. Open rotor engines are a bit heavier per thrust produced (i.e., they have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio). A NASA study from 2012 calculated that for an engine sized to a 737-8, the OR's total weight would be 9,220 lbs vs. 6,630 for a GTF and 6,100 for a classic direct-drive turbofan.

Image

Another 2012 NASA study found that for the same class of engine, the OR still beats the GTF on fuel burn by 18% on 500 nautical-mile routes and 12% on 3,250 nautical-mile routes.

Image

You'll have to reduce the absolute engine/fuel weights to apply it to a scope-compliant turboprop. With the Q400 listed at 67,200 lbs MTOW and the ATR72 at 50,706 lbs MTOW (Wikipedia), there seems to be a lot of wiggle room for that type of aircraft before you reach the scope weight limit, even with the increased engine weights.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 3:33 am

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


Embraer will need to stop producing the E175E1 in 2028 like it or not because of the ICAO rules for CO2 emissions.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos