Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
bigb
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 8:19 pm

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

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

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


Reroutes aren't strictly a weather issue per say, but reroutes are the result of the amount of traffic can handle. A perfect example is the Northeast corridor in the US. You have PHL, LGA, TEB, JKF, EWR, HPN all major airports in a single airspace with specific departure/arrival corridors to feed traffic into and out of. When a thunderstorm pops up and shuts a corridor or multiple corridors down, now all that traffic has to be rerouted into other corridors which results a decrease traffic than can be properly handled by ATC. Hence is why I know it will be a stressful day when I see SWAP on the D-ATIS at PHL, JFK, or LGA. I have plenty of experiences where I've pushed taxi, got a reroute, then had to return to the gate for additional fuel and get a amended flight release from our dispatchers.

This is when delays into the NE starts to stack up on bad weather days and airline planners start to delay and cancel flights starting with RJs (they have less people to rebook). You don't see crazy reroutes in the midwest unless a major airport like ORD, DFW, IAH, have arriving/departure corridor affected but its easier to work with in the midwest because there is lot more space to put planes and space them out.

The issue with turboprops in the US is mainly weight restrictions passengers being allergic to turboprops. I believe they need to come back to the US and remain strictly for short regional flights like CLT-OAJ, CLT-EWN, CLT-GSP as examples.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 8:56 pm

Gotcha. So it's not so much a technological limit, but rather that carriers and ATC choose to give priority to larger and faster aircraft in times of restricted capacity. Which happens rather frequently in parts of the US, I guess, yet not that common in other places. Not because they hate props, but because they're the smallest, slowest aircraft in the network and thus affect the least amount of passengers.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 9:27 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:

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

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

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


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


Read GalaxyFlyers post.

Not only weather conditions but ATC flow control delays also play into the equation. Turboprops are also notorious for weight restrictions. Weather it’s passenger capacity or passenger bags loaded on the aircraft. Turboprops are a pain to deal with during irrops conditions that’s one of the reasons why we got rid of them.



Except the work perfectly fine in other more challenging places. Yes, other planes are more capable but we are talking about 90min REGIONAL flights
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 9:28 pm

bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
bkmbr wrote:

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


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


Apparently my crystal ball is not just as powerful as yours since you can see this clearly what will happen in the next 20 years. I`m sure that Boeing is willing to pay a good money for your services.


I appreciate you agreeing I was correct.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 9:35 pm

Dmoney wrote:
I appreciate you agreeing I was correct.


Only time will prove whether your assumptions of how companies, consumers, unions, pilots and manufacturers will behave in the next quarter century are right or not. Based on everything we've seen in the aviation market for the past 30 years I have a hard time believing in the feasibility and reliability of your "predictions" not only because they represent a 180 degree turn in everything that has happened in this market since the 90's and because it seems they are only supported by your personal desire of how things should happen in the ideal world but not supported by any kind of factual evidence in the real world.
 
User avatar
dennypayne
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 9:36 pm

bkmbr wrote:
The problem in the US is not just de technical capabilities of the turboprops. In the US market turboprops have a long standing bad reputation among the customers and some operators and a lot of people are afraid to fly on them because of the alleged "poor reputation" that turboprops developed in the US since the 70s and 80s due to several crashes. Here most of us know that a turboprop is a perfectly fine plane to fly regardless of climate, but for most people turboprop is synonymous to deathtrap, especially in winter.


I'd really like to see an updated survey on this, rather than just a repeat of a.net lore that keeps getting asserted as fact. The 70s and 80s was 40 years ago now, and the public has a short memory. Like I mentioned, I flew Silver's ATR42-600 the other day, and it was a quieter, more comfortable ride than any 737 I've been on lately, much more comfortable than a CRJ-200, and at least as nice as the E-jets. I think if that's the experience today's flyers get, that's what will drive reputation moreso than people's perceptions from the 80s.
A300/310/319/320/321/332/333/343/380 AN24/28/38/148 ARJ AT6/7 B190
B717/722/732/3/4/5/7/8/9 741/744/752/753/762/763/764/772/773/788/789
CR1/2/7/9 D8S D93/4/5 DHC2/3/7/8 D28/38 EMB/EM2/ER3/D/4/E70/75/90
F50/100 J31 L10 L4T M11/80/87/90 SF3 SU9 TU3/TU5 YK2
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 10:01 pm

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


I don't have any updated survey but Silver Airways bet in using an all turboprop fleet (340B and ATR-72) and most recently the company stated that won't survive without federal aid. I believe that most passengers still vividly remember the turboprops as longer-shaky-uncomfortable flights with loud engines and cramped spaces. It also doesn't help that often they associate any kind of propeller-driven planes with small-plane crashes he sees on the local news regularly.
I know that this may just be a case of anecdotal evidence but most people I know in general prefer to be on a jet over a turboprop because for them a jet seems "safer" (and to be honest, as far as I know the average safety record for jets are a lot better that of the turboprops). Outside the US many companies still love the turboprops but in the US I believe that turboprops are a lost cause for the simple reason they will be seen as an unwanted downgrade from the current jets. No one is willing to downgrade it's travel experience without a significant reduction in the cost of the fares, which we all know is completely unfeasible, at least for the moment.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 10:01 pm

Dmoney wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:

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


Read GalaxyFlyers post.

Not only weather conditions but ATC flow control delays also play into the equation. Turboprops are also notorious for weight restrictions. Weather it’s passenger capacity or passenger bags loaded on the aircraft. Turboprops are a pain to deal with during irrops conditions that’s one of the reasons why we got rid of them.



Except the work perfectly fine in other more challenging places. Yes, other planes are more capable but we are talking about 90min REGIONAL flights


I’ve had weight restrictions on 45 minute hops from JFK - IAD. I doubt airline ops centers in the US would allow any turboprop to take off in irrops until the situation is cleared at both stations.

Let’s not forget you’re dealing with:

ATC Flow control
Gate returns for fuel
Gate returns to remove bags
Gate returns to remove passengers
DOT 3hr rules
Pilot duty times
Flight attendant duty times.

If props were good Commutair, Republic, and all of the other carriers would still be operating them. The US system is a different animal.
 
User avatar
dennypayne
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 10:48 pm

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


bkmbr wrote:
Silver Airways bet in using an all turboprop fleet (340B and ATR-72) and most recently the company stated that won't survive without federal aid.

Covid-related problems are hurting all airlines - that doesn't really have anything to do with whether a given airline flies turboprops or not. :roll:

bkmbr wrote:
I believe that most passengers still vividly remember the turboprops as longer-shaky-uncomfortable flights with loud engines and cramped spaces. It also doesn't help that often they associate any kind of propeller-driven planes with small-plane crashes he sees on the local news regularly.

Interesting - while looking for stats, I just found almost the exact same quote here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/im-flying- ... 1549277255
Did you write that article?

bkmbr wrote:
I don't have any updated survey

bkmbr wrote:
I know that this may just be a case of anecdotal evidence

bkmbr wrote:
as far as I know

Exactly. Assertions. Let's see some facts.
A300/310/319/320/321/332/333/343/380 AN24/28/38/148 ARJ AT6/7 B190
B717/722/732/3/4/5/7/8/9 741/744/752/753/762/763/764/772/773/788/789
CR1/2/7/9 D8S D93/4/5 DHC2/3/7/8 D28/38 EMB/EM2/ER3/D/4/E70/75/90
F50/100 J31 L10 L4T M11/80/87/90 SF3 SU9 TU3/TU5 YK2
 
bigb
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 11:17 pm

Dmoney wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:

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


Read GalaxyFlyers post.

Not only weather conditions but ATC flow control delays also play into the equation. Turboprops are also notorious for weight restrictions. Weather it’s passenger capacity or passenger bags loaded on the aircraft. Turboprops are a pain to deal with during irrops conditions that’s one of the reasons why we got rid of them.



Except the work perfectly fine in other more challenging places. Yes, other planes are more capable but we are talking about 90min REGIONAL flights


There are CRJ200s flying 90 min flights weight restricted in the US.

All it takes is the need for fuel and light weight
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 11:21 pm

dennypayne wrote:
Interesting - while looking for stats, I just found almost the exact same quote here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/im-flying- ... 1549277255
Did you write that article?


No, but I did read this article last year (march 2019 I believe) on on a subreddit I`m part of and I still remember some parts of it. It was this time I heard about Silver Airways and I went to look for the fate of the company.

dennypayne wrote:
Exactly. Assertions. Let's see some facts.


I'd love to see this data too, but as I said, may just be a case of anecdotal evidence but I don't see a chance of the turboprops making a comeback in the US anytime soon, but who knows? 6 years ago if someone asked be about a Trump presidency I would politely suggest him to go to a mental hospital ASAP.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 11:25 pm

bigb wrote:
There are CRJ200s flying 90 min flights weight restricted in the US.


But a 90 min flight in the turboprop would probably be a sub-60 minutes flight in a CRJ since the cruise speed of and ATR is under 0.5 mach and the CRJ is around 0.7
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 11:36 pm

bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
I appreciate you agreeing I was correct.


Only time will prove whether your assumptions of how companies, consumers, unions, pilots and manufacturers will behave in the next quarter century are right or not. Based on everything we've seen in the aviation market for the past 30 years I have a hard time believing in the feasibility and reliability of your "predictions" not only because they represent a 180 degree turn in everything that has happened in this market since the 90's and because it seems they are only supported by your personal desire of how things should happen in the ideal world but not supported by any kind of factual evidence in the real world.



Lad, I'm not the one claiming scope is going away just "because".
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 11:38 pm

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


I don't have any updated survey but Silver Airways bet in using an all turboprop fleet (340B and ATR-72) and most recently the company stated that won't survive without federal aid. I believe that most passengers still vividly remember the turboprops as longer-shaky-uncomfortable flights with loud engines and cramped spaces. It also doesn't help that often they associate any kind of propeller-driven planes with small-plane crashes he sees on the local news regularly.
I know that this may just be a case of anecdotal evidence but most people I know in general prefer to be on a jet over a turboprop because for them a jet seems "safer" (and to be honest, as far as I know the average safety record for jets are a lot better that of the turboprops). Outside the US many companies still love the turboprops but in the US I believe that turboprops are a lost cause for the simple reason they will be seen as an unwanted downgrade from the current jets. No one is willing to downgrade it's travel experience without a significant reduction in the cost of the fares, which we all know is completely unfeasible, at least for the moment.



I mean lol at the argument here. Really making it with a straight face. ?

Imagine an airline asking for state aid in 2020! Unheard of!!!!
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 11:40 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:

Read GalaxyFlyers post.

Not only weather conditions but ATC flow control delays also play into the equation. Turboprops are also notorious for weight restrictions. Weather it’s passenger capacity or passenger bags loaded on the aircraft. Turboprops are a pain to deal with during irrops conditions that’s one of the reasons why we got rid of them.



Except the work perfectly fine in other more challenging places. Yes, other planes are more capable but we are talking about 90min REGIONAL flights


I’ve had weight restrictions on 45 minute hops from JFK - IAD. I doubt airline ops centers in the US would allow any turboprop to take off in irrops until the situation is cleared at both stations.

Let’s not forget you’re dealing with:

ATC Flow control
Gate returns for fuel
Gate returns to remove bags
Gate returns to remove passengers
DOT 3hr rules
Pilot duty times
Flight attendant duty times.

If props were good Commutair, Republic, and all of the other carriers would still be operating them. The US system is a different animal.



I get Americans are over weight but that blows my mind tbh. I've got a packed props full of big burly oil workers heading up North with enough gear for weeks. I'm not denying your experience at all but kinda hard to get my head around. And they were long enough flights for props. How heavy where these people?
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 11:48 pm

Jetport wrote:
EssentialBusDC wrote:
ethernal wrote:

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



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

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


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


But that doesn’t mean you friend is a part time pilot.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Wed May 27, 2020 11:57 pm

Dmoney wrote:

Lad, I'm not the one claiming scope is going away just "because".


Everytime at the negotiation cycle resulted in larger RJ been operated by the regionals, not once, not twice but every single time, why would be different now that many mainlines could face another chapter 11 on the horizon?
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 12:07 am

Dmoney wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:


Except the work perfectly fine in other more challenging places. Yes, other planes are more capable but we are talking about 90min REGIONAL flights


I’ve had weight restrictions on 45 minute hops from JFK - IAD. I doubt airline ops centers in the US would allow any turboprop to take off in irrops until the situation is cleared at both stations.

Let’s not forget you’re dealing with:

ATC Flow control
Gate returns for fuel
Gate returns to remove bags
Gate returns to remove passengers
DOT 3hr rules
Pilot duty times
Flight attendant duty times.

If props were good Commutair, Republic, and all of the other carriers would still be operating them. The US system is a different animal.



I get Americans are over weight but that blows my mind tbh. I've got a packed props full of big burly oil workers heading up North with enough gear for weeks. I'm not denying your experience at all but kinda hard to get my head around. And they were long enough flights for props. How heavy where these people?


Lol

Let’s have a ramp crew chief lesson. Your flight is LGA-DCA on a CRJ-200. 45 minute flight, 50 passengers booked, 100 checked bags, bad weather along the East coast.

You’ll get a call from the captain or the operations center telling you your flight is weight restricted. Now you gotta make a decision.

All 50 passengers can board the aircraft but with today’s fuel load and route of flight, you can only load 40 bags.

Or

You can load all 100 bags but due to the flight characteristics, only 25 passengers can board the flight.

Either 60 bags are held off or 25 passengers are not leaving.

Once you made your decision you dispatch the flight hoping the weather improves, hoping clearance delivery gives him a reroute he can accept, etc.

The problem with turboprops is the fact that the FAA and the different airlines are more cautious with these planes during non standard events.

Today’s regional flights can push over two hours. EWR-JAX was an E-145 XLR years ago. It all depends on the mission profile.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4855
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 12:09 am

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

How much would you BET? as Long as the pilots know their chances of getting to the Majors might be delayed in giving the scope clause relief?
I'll be good money they won't!!
 
bigb
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 12:12 am

Dmoney wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:


Except the work perfectly fine in other more challenging places. Yes, other planes are more capable but we are talking about 90min REGIONAL flights


I’ve had weight restrictions on 45 minute hops from JFK - IAD. I doubt airline ops centers in the US would allow any turboprop to take off in irrops until the situation is cleared at both stations.

Let’s not forget you’re dealing with:

ATC Flow control
Gate returns for fuel
Gate returns to remove bags
Gate returns to remove passengers
DOT 3hr rules
Pilot duty times
Flight attendant duty times.

If props were good Commutair, Republic, and all of the other carriers would still be operating them. The US system is a different animal.



I get Americans are over weight but that blows my mind tbh. I've got a packed props full of big burly oil workers heading up North with enough gear for weeks. I'm not denying your experience at all but kinda hard to get my head around. And they were long enough flights for props. How heavy where these people?


I don’t know what kind of operations you fly in or type of airplane. But sometimes when alternates are required in the US, you have to carry 45 mins of reserve fuel plus fuel for fuel to fly to to your furtherest alternate. Also gotta add fuel for contingency and air delays and then any extra fuel for sitting on the ground and the weight restriction only gets worst if a Takeoff Alternate is required. These are Part 121 requirements when the weather drops.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4855
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 12:27 am

dstblj52 wrote:
ADent wrote:
I think United would still be interested in 50 seaters since they have a pretty low cap (255) on 70 & 76 seaters.

In fact they are (were) making 50 seaters out of 70 seaters.

I think united is eventually going to take advantage of the same clause delta did and pickup some used E195 or extort a screaming deal out of Embraer or airbus for E195-E2 or A220's


As long as the weights fall in line with the Scope clause? UA ALPA could care Less. Especially? Since they were the main Authors OF the scope clause.
If United can convince them to relax the scope clause limits? It would be interesting to see what they might offer that isn't control of the company...
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4855
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 12:59 am

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

And? Exactly what would the Govt. Do for passengers ? The FAA is there for their safety, So what would the FAA gain in making Business decisions for any airline?
Who can't start their OWN airline? Dave Neeleman has said he plans to start an airline and Not use Boeing nor Airbus right out the Box. And as I understood it?
He pans to use Embraer 175's and 190's. So? We'll SEE if his airline is supported by the masses as he intends to fly to secondary cities the Majors seem to avoid,
I cut my airline teeth in the Regionals and still have a love for them. It would be good to see a regional sized airline do well in this age to Branded flying. I think the biggest mistake the Majors made was to take regional flying in house rather than to let it Be, I know why United did it, But it doesn't mean I think it needs to be that way still. I think Air Wisconsin has seen the error of their ways by now.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23722
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 1:00 am

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

It also seems the ones who are most confident scope is not going away ever are the ones who need to assert that fact, which seems to suggest they aren't all that confident after all. It seems to be a "third rail" / "wedge" kind of issue.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
bigb
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 1:13 am

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

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


I agree with you, the only thing I would suggest is everyone sit back watch and see how things will play out in regards to what will come to the market. I think we will see something come sooner that will be within scope clauses sooner than a lot of folks think or are suggesting here.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 1:46 am

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

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


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

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

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

I personally do not see what could the pilots and the unions could gain from not renegotiated the scope clauses to allow these heavier aircraft like the ERJ-175E2 or M90 in a 76 passenger configuration (or what irreversible loss would this represent based on what the already have) even if the go a few tons over the current MTOW clause to be honest, and to see the situation escalating the point where unions and pilots are apparently actively betting against their employer's survival in the long run at a point in time where the number of unemployed pilots available on the market will clearly be greater than the number of available seats for, at least, a couple of years doesn't sound like the smartest thing to do in my opinion.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 3:36 am

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

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


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

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

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

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

I'm not at all sure that contract 2012 for delta can fairly be scene as a relaxation of scope, yes the number of 76 seaters increases but the number of seats flown by DCI carriers was cut by more than a third and started real movement at a mainline that had not existed in years
 
Sokes
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 6:22 am

JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
I’ve had weight restrictions on 45 minute hops from JFK - IAD. I doubt airline ops centers in the US would allow any turboprop to take off in irrops until the situation is cleared at both stations.

I've got a packed props full of big burly oil workers heading up North with enough gear for weeks.

Let’s have a ramp crew chief lesson. Your flight is LGA-DCA on a CRJ-200. 45 minute flight, 50 passengers booked, 100 checked bags, bad weather along the East coast.
You’ll get a call from the captain or the operations center telling you your flight is weight restricted.

Why should 50 passengers have 100 checked bags?
From Wiki:
range Q400: 1,100 nmi / 2,040 km
range ART 72: 825 nmi/ 1,528 km, 70 [email protected]
range CRJ-200, 50 pass.: ER : 1345 nm/ 2491 km, LR: 1,700 nmi /3,148 km.
LGA to DCA : 186 nm/ 345 km

Can you expand?
CRJ-200 can take 10 t fuel and payload. Why 100 checked bags? How much range at bad weather is required for the 186 nm? How much extra way to fly around bad weather? How far is the alternate airport?


Q400 has a MTOW of 30,5 t with a wing of 28,4 m. That's 8,5 t from scope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havill ... ifications

ATR 72 has a MTOW of 23 t with 27 m wing. That's 16 t from scope.
One A400 engine is just 1,9 t. Propellers have a diameter of 5,3 m instead of 3,9 m of the ATR. It would have to be fixed with some funny arrangement on top of the ATR, but pickup would be excellent.

Image
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop

The A400 has an initial cruise altitude of 29.000 feet / 9000 m and a cruise speed at 31.000 ft of 781 km/ h.
Image
source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M
It's not classical swept wing, it's not straight wing. Was this ever tried on a commercial airliner?

Alaska Airlines states 667 km/ h as typical cruise speed and 25.000 ft as max. altitude for Q400.
https://www.alaskaair.com/content/trave ... craft/q400
Let's assume a new to be developed turboprop with 32 - 35 m carbon wing and flaperons should be able to fly 76 passengers in 27.000 ft close to scope compliant 39 t MTOW with 416 mph = 670 km/ h. As the plane gets lighter, it reduces speed. (Is it possible/ allowed?)
How much range would it have?

Now we just need a new engine.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 7:16 am

JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:

I’ve had weight restrictions on 45 minute hops from JFK - IAD. I doubt airline ops centers in the US would allow any turboprop to take off in irrops until the situation is cleared at both stations.

Let’s not forget you’re dealing with:

ATC Flow control
Gate returns for fuel
Gate returns to remove bags
Gate returns to remove passengers
DOT 3hr rules
Pilot duty times
Flight attendant duty times.

If props were good Commutair, Republic, and all of the other carriers would still be operating them. The US system is a different animal.



I get Americans are over weight but that blows my mind tbh. I've got a packed props full of big burly oil workers heading up North with enough gear for weeks. I'm not denying your experience at all but kinda hard to get my head around. And they were long enough flights for props. How heavy where these people?


Lol

Let’s have a ramp crew chief lesson. Your flight is LGA-DCA on a CRJ-200. 45 minute flight, 50 passengers booked, 100 checked bags, bad weather along the East coast.

You’ll get a call from the captain or the operations center telling you your flight is weight restricted. Now you gotta make a decision.

All 50 passengers can board the aircraft but with today’s fuel load and route of flight, you can only load 40 bags.

Or

You can load all 100 bags but due to the flight characteristics, only 25 passengers can board the flight.

Either 60 bags are held off or 25 passengers are not leaving.

Once you made your decision you dispatch the flight hoping the weather improves, hoping clearance delivery gives him a reroute he can accept, etc.

The problem with turboprops is the fact that the FAA and the different airlines are more cautious with these planes during non standard events.

Today’s regional flights can push over two hours. EWR-JAX was an E-145 XLR years ago. It all depends on the mission profile.



Two hours is a mainline flight.....
 
Dmoney
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 7:19 am

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

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


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

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

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

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



Ah long way of saying, I want scope to change so it should. Pilots have no incentive to make capital richer by paying themselves less.
 
reltney
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 7:29 am

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

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



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

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

I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 9:18 am

Sokes wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
I've got a packed props full of big burly oil workers heading up North with enough gear for weeks.

Let’s have a ramp crew chief lesson. Your flight is LGA-DCA on a CRJ-200. 45 minute flight, 50 passengers booked, 100 checked bags, bad weather along the East coast.
You’ll get a call from the captain or the operations center telling you your flight is weight restricted.

Why should 50 passengers have 100 checked bags?
From Wiki:
range Q400: 1,100 nmi / 2,040 km
range ART 72: 825 nmi/ 1,528 km, 70 [email protected]
range CRJ-200, 50 pass.: ER : 1345 nm/ 2491 km, LR: 1,700 nmi /3,148 km.
LGA to DCA : 186 nm/ 345 km

Can you expand?
CRJ-200 can take 10 t fuel and payload. Why 100 checked bags? How much range at bad weather is required for the 186 nm? How much extra way to fly around bad weather? How far is the alternate airport?


Q400 has a MTOW of 30,5 t with a wing of 28,4 m. That's 8,5 t from scope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havill ... ifications

ATR 72 has a MTOW of 23 t with 27 m wing. That's 16 t from scope.
One A400 engine is just 1,9 t. Propellers have a diameter of 5,3 m instead of 3,9 m of the ATR. It would have to be fixed with some funny arrangement on top of the ATR, but pickup would be excellent.

Image
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop

The A400 has an initial cruise altitude of 29.000 feet / 9000 m and a cruise speed at 31.000 ft of 781 km/ h.
Image
source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M
It's not classical swept wing, it's not straight wing. Was this ever tried on a commercial airliner?

Alaska Airlines states 667 km/ h as typical cruise speed and 25.000 ft as max. altitude for Q400.
https://www.alaskaair.com/content/trave ... craft/q400
Let's assume a new to be developed turboprop with 32 - 35 m carbon wing and flaperons should be able to fly 76 passengers in 27.000 ft close to scope compliant 39 t MTOW with 416 mph = 670 km/ h. As the plane gets lighter, it reduces speed. (Is it possible/ allowed?)
How much range would it have?

Now we just need a new engine.


The TP400 is the newer TP on the market. But it is way too powerfull & bulletproof for this requirement.

Theoretically it could power a much larger, non US scope compliant twin prop. https://live.staticflickr.com/4277/3491 ... a3b4_b.jpg

Engine makers RR, GE and Pratt were looking into that, for larger regional props and probably C130 replacements, but have gone quiet.

Embraer also paused their turboprop plans to sit out Covid-19. .

Image
Leehamnews.com
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Sokes
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 10:20 am

keesje wrote:
The TP400 is the newer TP on the market. But it is way too powerfull & bulletproof for this requirement.

"Nice pickup" for an ATR was meant as a joke.
I brought the A400M into the discussion to show that turboprops don't need to fly low and slow. Medium speed is less efficient, but gives a lot of advantages over slow turboprops.
One should assume that Germany with it's dense population, short distances and rather continental climate uses a lot of turboprops. But they don't. Is the ATR really selling so much better than Q400 because of fuel savings or because of maintenance?

keesje wrote:
Theoretically it could power a much larger, non US scope compliant twin prop. https://live.staticflickr.com/4277/3491 ... a3b4_b.jpg

Yes, it's powerful.

keesje wrote:
Engine makers RR, GE and Pratt were looking into that, for larger regional props and probably C130 replacements, but have gone quiet.

Embraer also paused their turboprop plans to sit out Covid-19. .

Image
Leehamnews.com

The link to your Leeham article: https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/24/pw-ca ... certainty/

PW Canada speak of 4500-6000 shaft horse power. A400 has 11.000 shp engines.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 10:33 am

Sokes wrote:
One should assume that Germany with it's dense population, short distances and rather continental climate uses a lot of turboprops. But they don't. Is the ATR really selling so much better than Q400 because of fuel savings or because of maintenance?

Germany doesn't operate any CRJ-200, -700, ERJ or E-170/175 either. There's a very small number of small props in operation (DHC-6, BAe 31, Do-328). There is no market for small aircraft precisely because of the dense population. AB, and later EW, operated a number of Q400s but their CASM is way too high for a LCC operation. The smallest commonly found aircraft is the CRJ-900 at LH, but the E-195 and A220 (or larger) are clearly preferred by airlines.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 11:40 am

mxaxai wrote:
Sokes wrote:
One should assume that Germany with it's dense population, short distances and rather continental climate uses a lot of turboprops. But they don't. Is the ATR really selling so much better than Q400 because of fuel savings or because of maintenance?

Germany doesn't operate any CRJ-200, -700, ERJ or E-170/175 either. ...There is no market for small aircraft precisely because of the dense population. ... The smallest commonly found aircraft is the CRJ-900 at LH, but the E-195 and A220 (or larger) are clearly preferred by airlines.

I believe the lack of small planes may rather be explained with the railway network. If railways are available, why to use flights with very high CASM (few seats and short distance)?
That apart good point.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 12:03 pm

Sokes wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
I've got a packed props full of big burly oil workers heading up North with enough gear for weeks.

Let’s have a ramp crew chief lesson. Your flight is LGA-DCA on a CRJ-200. 45 minute flight, 50 passengers booked, 100 checked bags, bad weather along the East coast.
You’ll get a call from the captain or the operations center telling you your flight is weight restricted.

Why should 50 passengers have 100 checked bags?
From Wiki:
range Q400: 1,100 nmi / 2,040 km
range ART 72: 825 nmi/ 1,528 km, 70 [email protected]
range CRJ-200, 50 pass.: ER : 1345 nm/ 2491 km, LR: 1,700 nmi /3,148 km.
LGA to DCA : 186 nm/ 345 km

Can you expand?
CRJ-200 can take 10 t fuel and payload. Why 100 checked bags? How much range at bad weather is required for the 186 nm? How much extra way to fly around bad weather? How far is the alternate airport?


Q400 has a MTOW of 30,5 t with a wing of 28,4 m. That's 8,5 t from scope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havill ... ifications

ATR 72 has a MTOW of 23 t with 27 m wing. That's 16 t from scope.
One A400 engine is just 1,9 t. Propellers have a diameter of 5,3 m instead of 3,9 m of the ATR. It would have to be fixed with some funny arrangement on top of the ATR, but pickup would be excellent.

Image
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop

The A400 has an initial cruise altitude of 29.000 feet / 9000 m and a cruise speed at 31.000 ft of 781 km/ h.
Image
source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M
It's not classical swept wing, it's not straight wing. Was this ever tried on a commercial airliner?

Alaska Airlines states 667 km/ h as typical cruise speed and 25.000 ft as max. altitude for Q400.
https://www.alaskaair.com/content/trave ... craft/q400
Let's assume a new to be developed turboprop with 32 - 35 m carbon wing and flaperons should be able to fly 76 passengers in 27.000 ft close to scope compliant 39 t MTOW with 416 mph = 670 km/ h. As the plane gets lighter, it reduces speed. (Is it possible/ allowed?)
How much range would it have?

Now we just need a new engine.


First, never trust wiki as a good source.

Second, 100 bags for a CRJ-200 or even a E-145 is quite normal especially in the summer time when you have connection traffic from Interline partners.

As mentioned earlier, a short flight such as LGA - DCA must operate under FAA Part 121 regulations.

If LGA is operating in irrops, you may need 90 minutes of fuel just sitting on the ground in line waiting to takeoff.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 12:10 pm

Dmoney wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:


I get Americans are over weight but that blows my mind tbh. I've got a packed props full of big burly oil workers heading up North with enough gear for weeks. I'm not denying your experience at all but kinda hard to get my head around. And they were long enough flights for props. How heavy where these people?


Lol

Let’s have a ramp crew chief lesson. Your flight is LGA-DCA on a CRJ-200. 45 minute flight, 50 passengers booked, 100 checked bags, bad weather along the East coast.

You’ll get a call from the captain or the operations center telling you your flight is weight restricted. Now you gotta make a decision.

All 50 passengers can board the aircraft but with today’s fuel load and route of flight, you can only load 40 bags.

Or

You can load all 100 bags but due to the flight characteristics, only 25 passengers can board the flight.

Either 60 bags are held off or 25 passengers are not leaving.

Once you made your decision you dispatch the flight hoping the weather improves, hoping clearance delivery gives him a reroute he can accept, etc.

The problem with turboprops is the fact that the FAA and the different airlines are more cautious with these planes during non standard events.

Today’s regional flights can push over two hours. EWR-JAX was an E-145 XLR years ago. It all depends on the mission profile.



Two hours is a mainline flight.....


Not really.

There was flights from LGA - IAH using Mesa E-175’s during the weekends. That’s way more than two hours
 
bigb
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 12:17 pm

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

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



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

Nuff said.


Umm, I am already aware of the regional pay and lifestyle as I am a Captain on a RJ myself.
 
bigb
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 12:25 pm

Sokes wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
I've got a packed props full of big burly oil workers heading up North with enough gear for weeks.

Let’s have a ramp crew chief lesson. Your flight is LGA-DCA on a CRJ-200. 45 minute flight, 50 passengers booked, 100 checked bags, bad weather along the East coast.
You’ll get a call from the captain or the operations center telling you your flight is weight restricted.

Why should 50 passengers have 100 checked bags?
From Wiki:
range Q400: 1,100 nmi / 2,040 km
range ART 72: 825 nmi/ 1,528 km, 70 [email protected]
range CRJ-200, 50 pass.: ER : 1345 nm/ 2491 km, LR: 1,700 nmi /3,148 km.
LGA to DCA : 186 nm/ 345 km

Can you expand?
CRJ-200 can take 10 t fuel and payload. Why 100 checked bags? How much range at bad weather is required for the 186 nm? How much extra way to fly around bad weather? How far is the alternate airport?


Q400 has a MTOW of 30,5 t with a wing of 28,4 m. That's 8,5 t from scope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havill ... ifications

ATR 72 has a MTOW of 23 t with 27 m wing. That's 16 t from scope.
One A400 engine is just 1,9 t. Propellers have a diameter of 5,3 m instead of 3,9 m of the ATR. It would have to be fixed with some funny arrangement on top of the ATR, but pickup would be excellent.

Image
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop

The A400 has an initial cruise altitude of 29.000 feet / 9000 m and a cruise speed at 31.000 ft of 781 km/ h.
Image
source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M
It's not classical swept wing, it's not straight wing. Was this ever tried on a commercial airliner?

Alaska Airlines states 667 km/ h as typical cruise speed and 25.000 ft as max. altitude for Q400.
https://www.alaskaair.com/content/trave ... craft/q400
Let's assume a new to be developed turboprop with 32 - 35 m carbon wing and flaperons should be able to fly 76 passengers in 27.000 ft close to scope compliant 39 t MTOW with 416 mph = 670 km/ h. As the plane gets lighter, it reduces speed. (Is it possible/ allowed?)
How much range would it have?

Now we just need a new engine.



Again, weight restrictions isn’t due to the aircraft of performance but it’s a fuel requirement in Part 121 operations and how additional fuel will affect Part 121 Takeoff and landing performance dispatch numbers. Turboprops and RJs see weight restriction problems (main 50 seaters) when Alternates are required to dispatch.

Also there are days where in Summer on the east coast with hot and high humidity. I’ve seen turboprop flights become weight restricted in order to meet their performance dispatch numbers.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 12:33 pm

bigb wrote:
Sokes wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
Let’s have a ramp crew chief lesson. Your flight is LGA-DCA on a CRJ-200. 45 minute flight, 50 passengers booked, 100 checked bags, bad weather along the East coast.
You’ll get a call from the captain or the operations center telling you your flight is weight restricted.

Why should 50 passengers have 100 checked bags?
From Wiki:
range Q400: 1,100 nmi / 2,040 km
range ART 72: 825 nmi/ 1,528 km, 70 [email protected]
range CRJ-200, 50 pass.: ER : 1345 nm/ 2491 km, LR: 1,700 nmi /3,148 km.
LGA to DCA : 186 nm/ 345 km

Can you expand?
CRJ-200 can take 10 t fuel and payload. Why 100 checked bags? How much range at bad weather is required for the 186 nm? How much extra way to fly around bad weather? How far is the alternate airport?


Q400 has a MTOW of 30,5 t with a wing of 28,4 m. That's 8,5 t from scope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havill ... ifications

ATR 72 has a MTOW of 23 t with 27 m wing. That's 16 t from scope.
One A400 engine is just 1,9 t. Propellers have a diameter of 5,3 m instead of 3,9 m of the ATR. It would have to be fixed with some funny arrangement on top of the ATR, but pickup would be excellent.

Image
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop

The A400 has an initial cruise altitude of 29.000 feet / 9000 m and a cruise speed at 31.000 ft of 781 km/ h.
Image
source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M
It's not classical swept wing, it's not straight wing. Was this ever tried on a commercial airliner?

Alaska Airlines states 667 km/ h as typical cruise speed and 25.000 ft as max. altitude for Q400.
https://www.alaskaair.com/content/trave ... craft/q400
Let's assume a new to be developed turboprop with 32 - 35 m carbon wing and flaperons should be able to fly 76 passengers in 27.000 ft close to scope compliant 39 t MTOW with 416 mph = 670 km/ h. As the plane gets lighter, it reduces speed. (Is it possible/ allowed?)
How much range would it have?

Now we just need a new engine.



Again, weight restrictions isn’t due to the aircraft of performance but it’s a fuel requirement in Part 121 operations and how additional fuel will affect Part 121 Takeoff and landing performance dispatch numbers. Turboprops and RJs see weight restriction problems (main 50 seaters) when Alternates are required to dispatch.

Also there are days where in Summer on the east coast with hot and high humidity. I’ve seen turboprop flights become weight restricted in order to meet their performance dispatch numbers.


Exactly

Even at LGA on a good day, you try taxiing down Alpha, Echo, Bravo to the runway without burning a significant amount of fuel on the ground.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 1:39 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
As mentioned earlier, a short flight such as LGA - DCA must operate under FAA Part 121 regulations.

If LGA is operating in irrops, you may need 90 minutes of fuel just sitting on the ground in line waiting to takeoff.

How much fuel is that in 90 minutes? If the weather is so bad that one can't start for one hour, the tower doesn't advise to put the engines of?
I'm not a pilot. I don't understand what you mean with FAA Part 121.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23722
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 1:41 pm

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

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

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

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

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

I think we should stick to the assumption that scope rules will not change. We just had statements from various US3 CEOs saying they do not see bankruptcy as likely. I think a.net in general thinks BK is an easy way for airlines to shed cost, but there's nothing easy about it. It wipes out the share holders, and given the executives are largely paid in stock and options, it wipes out the executives too. It also causes great career damage since being a senior executive of a failed enterprise is a strong negative in most cases. For everyone involved, it's a last resort. So, as much as an executive might want to get rid of RJ scope rules, they want to keep the value of all those shares they own from plunging to near zero and want to remain employable. Once they are in BK even then they have to get a judge to allow amendments, and they aren't likely to allow sweeping scope changes because they know it will undermine the solvent airlines.
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
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 1:55 pm

Dmoney wrote:
Ah long way of saying, I want scope to change so it should. Pilots have no incentive to make capital richer by paying themselves less.


Yes, pilots don't have any incentive to make capital richer by paying themselves less, but in the end they could incentive the capital to make them unemployed in the long run. Do the benefits outweigh the risk of doing so? Well, it's up to the unions and time to answer that.
Last edited by bkmbr on Thu May 28, 2020 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
bigb
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 2:04 pm

Sokes wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
As mentioned earlier, a short flight such as LGA - DCA must operate under FAA Part 121 regulations.

If LGA is operating in irrops, you may need 90 minutes of fuel just sitting on the ground in line waiting to takeoff.

How much fuel is that in 90 minutes? If the weather is so bad that one can't start for one hour, the tower doesn't advise to put the engines of?
I'm not a pilot. I don't understand what you mean with FAA Part 121.


Part 121 are the rules and regulations that airlines in the US must follow.

There isn't a requirement for 90 mins of fuel on the ground per say. But there is a requirement that you can't dispatch over your MFPTOW (Max flight plan take off weight), the max weight where you can depart that you will allow you to land at your destination at your Max Landing Weight. May not always be the structure limit either, that number can be decreased for performance reasons as well (short runways, contaminated runways). Your MFPTOW is the limiting issue where you the balance between the required fuel and payload.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 2:13 pm

Sokes wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
As mentioned earlier, a short flight such as LGA - DCA must operate under FAA Part 121 regulations.

If LGA is operating in irrops, you may need 90 minutes of fuel just sitting on the ground in line waiting to takeoff.

How much fuel is that in 90 minutes? If the weather is so bad that one can't start for one hour, the tower doesn't advise to put the engines of?
I'm not a pilot. I don't understand what you mean with FAA Part 121.


Bigb explained it best.

The regional airline flight dispatch office will create a route of flight. Depending on conditions, your flight plan may have an alternate airport assigned in case of bad weather at your destination, maintenance issue, medical, etc.

JFK - IAD

20 minute taxi fuel burn
45 flight fuel burn
45 minute hold fuel burn
30 minute reserve.

Alternate Allentown PA

During bad weather this flight plan doesn’t go as planned. Clearance delivery may gave you a longer route of flight to your destination. Now you have to recalculate everything to make sure you have enough fuel to complete that flight, aircraft will arrive inside designated landing weight, etc
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 2:17 pm

bigb wrote:
Sokes wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
As mentioned earlier, a short flight such as LGA - DCA must operate under FAA Part 121 regulations.

If LGA is operating in irrops, you may need 90 minutes of fuel just sitting on the ground in line waiting to takeoff.

How much fuel is that in 90 minutes? If the weather is so bad that one can't start for one hour, the tower doesn't advise to put the engines of?
I'm not a pilot. I don't understand what you mean with FAA Part 121.


Part 121 are the rules and regulations that airlines in the US must follow.

There isn't a requirement for 90 mins of fuel on the ground per say. But there is a requirement that you can't dispatch over your MFPTOW (Max flight plan take off weight), the max weight where you can depart that you will allow you to land at your destination at your Max Landing Weight. May not always be the structure limit either, that number can be decreased for performance reasons as well (short runways, contaminated runways). Your MFPTOW is the limiting issue where you the balance between the required fuel and payload.


Yeah you’re right. I was using LGA as an example of how flights must carry extra fuel on the ground at heavily congested airports just to get in line for takeoff.
 
bigb
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 2:28 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
bigb wrote:
Sokes wrote:
How much fuel is that in 90 minutes? If the weather is so bad that one can't start for one hour, the tower doesn't advise to put the engines of?
I'm not a pilot. I don't understand what you mean with FAA Part 121.


Part 121 are the rules and regulations that airlines in the US must follow.

There isn't a requirement for 90 mins of fuel on the ground per say. But there is a requirement that you can't dispatch over your MFPTOW (Max flight plan take off weight), the max weight where you can depart that you will allow you to land at your destination at your Max Landing Weight. May not always be the structure limit either, that number can be decreased for performance reasons as well (short runways, contaminated runways). Your MFPTOW is the limiting issue where you the balance between the required fuel and payload.


Yeah you’re right. I was using LGA as an example of how flights must carry extra fuel on the ground at heavily congested airports just to get in line for takeoff.


I am not saying you are wrong either, you are correct, most shops will add additional fuel onboard to account for ground delays. However that fuel number will not be taking account to you minimum takeoff fuel but more tanker/taxi fuel column based based on historical taxi/ground burn.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5488
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 2:38 pm

bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
Ah long way of saying, I want scope to change so it should. Pilots have no incentive to make capital richer by paying themselves less.


Yes, pilots don't have any incentive to make capital richer by paying themselves less, but in the end they could incentive the capital to make them unemployed in the long run. Do the benefits outweigh the risk of doing so? Well, it's up to the unions and time to answer that.


You have a point, but you have to account for the elasticity of supply for pilots. Until COVID, the supply was looking less elastic than many expected. Rules like the FAA ATP rule, cost of training, other more attractive careers made pilot supply limited.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 2:40 pm

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

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


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


I still personally believe that if scope rules don't change even for minor questions like the MTOW clause most unions will be actively putting the employment of their union members at risk in the long run, not only because will decrease the profitability of the mainliners in the long run but by giving the opportunity of new players that are not limited by the scope clauses to establish in the market (like Breeze from example). The BK is just a natural consequence of all this. The unions and the pilots sure have the right to do so, but they should be aware of possible consequences of their choices and accept them. I personally would not put my job in the long run at risk because of such clause.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 2:45 pm

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


Yes, but thanks to COVID Delta alone is about to furlough 7k pilots, who knows how many the AA and United will furlough. Let's forget how the world was before COVID, we will never go back to that.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: Development paths for new scope compliant aircraft.

Thu May 28, 2020 2:47 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall agreed with this, some great points.

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

While this is a hiatus of pilot hiring and stop to the shortage, there’s still going to be thousands retiring every year for the next decade+. Just as Age 65 was only a stay of execution, this too will slow it down, but we will be right back to where we started.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Who is online

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