The earlier thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1438131&p=21894865&hilit=Dornier#p21894865

has been locked with no further news over the past 11 months - but now there is some news following a press event today:

- aircraft will be stretched b 2.1m to accommodate 43 pax
- new props and PW127S engines
- 600 km/h speed
- 30.000ft altitude
- 1.000m runway capable
- gravel kit for unpaved runways
- 2.6l/100km SFC pax
- EIS 2025

https://www.deutscheaircraft.com/news
https://www.deutscheaircraft.com/products

Is any major US customer behind the stretch?

When I used to catch a flight on these on the old US Air to PIT, they were forever in an overweight condition and asked 2 people to get off in exchange for free tickets. I hope the new engines resolves that issue for the new model.

ILNFlyer wrote:

When I used to catch a flight on these on the old US Air to PIT, they were forever in an overweight condition and asked 2 people to get off in exchange for free tickets. I hope the new engines resolves that issue for the new model.

LOL, it happened the same to me in one of my very first flights , but at the time was a Do 228. Very shaky experience, strong wind and clouds out of Nürnberg. I will never forget it.

I think we need some plane in the Do 328/JET category again. COVID has only made regional flying more popular.

Boeing757100 wrote:

I think we need some plane in the Do 328/JET category again. COVID has only made regional flying more popular.

That's still my favorite regional jet I've ever flown on...CMH-MKE back in '04 on Midwest Express. Thing took off like a rocket.

I struggle to see how just a 2.1mtr stretch can accommodate 43 pax when the present 328 is a 31-seater.
43 pax would mean 4 extra rows which will need more than an extra 2.1 mtrs !

Dornier Oasis: Believe

Missed opportunity to name company Reinrod and partner with Rekkof.

TC957 wrote:

I struggle to see how just a 2.1mtr stretch can accommodate 43 pax when the present 328 is a 31-seater.
43 pax would mean 4 extra rows which will need more than an extra 2.1 mtrs !

Agree. And I struggle with why on earth they wouldn’t aim for 50pax single FA design. And how they think their offering would be anything specially eco.

Well, I believe it when I see one flying.

The aircraft is offered for a variety of roles, including military applications (hence why I included the link to this picture: https://www.deutscheaircraft.com/products). My guess is that in an airliner configuration it will be able to accommodate an additional two rows, which would mean 37/38 seats (the current Dornier 328 offers 31/32 seats at 31 inch pitch) Not sure if going down to an 28/29 inch pitch would add another row (ie. 40/41 seats) - there is a high-density configuration available for regional aircraft in certain markets (mostly targeting Asian operators) such as the Q400 and ATR72 when cramming in additional rows does not result in the need for another flight attendant (although there was even a 56seat Fokker 50 version if I am not mistaken). If that would be an option for the Dornier 328, doing away with the galley could indeed push capacity to 43 seats .

AWACSooner wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

I think we need some plane in the Do 328/JET category again. COVID has only made regional flying more popular.

That's still my favorite regional jet I've ever flown on...CMH-MKE back in '04 on Midwest Express. Thing took off like a rocket.

I have to agree my favorite regional Jet as well.

Who is fronting the money for this? How patient are they? How deep are their pockets? (How dumb are they?)

Will it able to.compete against ATR42?

OMG why? Tossing euros into a firepit just doesn't generate an attractive/hot enough flame?

The global market segment was maybe 100 units annually pre-Covid and that includes the much larger ATR-72. New-build will be too costly for most of the developing world and in wealthier countries, these aircraft are only useful for connecting places of maybe 10-25 thousand people where geography makes connection by road/rail difficult or impossible -- i.e. Scottish islands, Norway, Western Australia, the Caribbean, northern Canada etc. If you need a significant amount of freight capacity larger aircraft might be more suitable. The market niche is just tiny.

I just do not see the point.

The manufacturer sees a large potential outside the airliner market, e.g. for ambulance, military or surveillance aircraft (where the Dornier 328ceo has carved out a niche as well). As for the airliner market, there will be nothing on offer in the 30-50 seat segment other than the ATR42-600 when it comes to replacing hundreds of DHC8-100/200, Saab 340, Embraer 120/135/140 etc.

PS: Worth noting that in 2019 an EIS of 2023 was promised. Now 2025 is mentioned.

vfw614 wrote:

PS: Worth noting that in 2019 an EIS of 2023 was promised. Now 2025 is mentioned.

It’s also worth noting that before Sierra Nevada Cooperation snookered Germany into this they were going to build this (as the TRJet) in Turkey, before Turkey canceled the project in 2017 due to poor cost and sales projections.

However, the TRJ project was somewhat different as it was a simple rehash of the D328-100/300 (which, IIRC, aimed at building capacity and knowledge for the Turkish aviation industry for building the TRJ628).

I am not convinced tha the D328neo will ever take-off, but unless we want to fly in ATRs for the rest of our lives, we should be thankful for all OEMs to give new projects a try.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Who is fronting the money for this? How patient are they? How deep are their pockets? (How dumb are they?)

The tooling for the 328 and 328j still exists, I believe, with one of the predecessor companies.

The 328 was considered a maint monster at BixEx/Comair, but that was because of the lack of available parts, not the aircraft itself. And the speed let get at least two extra segments a day on the Northest/Midwest routes. Much lower turn times.

Noshow wrote:

Is any major US customer behind the stretch?

At the moment, no. But I imagine if one did it would probably be UA for use on EAS regional routes from DEN/ORD/IAD.

TC957 wrote:

I struggle to see how just a 2.1mtr stretch can accommodate 43 pax when the present 328 is a 31-seater.
43 pax would mean 4 extra rows which will need more than an extra 2.1 mtrs !

Sounds like someone dusted of the old plans for the proposed 428Jet, which was supposed to hit 44 passenger capacity.

FlyingElvii wrote:

The 328 was considered a maint monster at BixEx/Comair, but that was because of the lack of available parts, not the aircraft itself. And the speed let get at least two extra segments a day on the Northest/Midwest routes. Much lower turn times.

Are you sure you're not thinking about the Saab 340? I don't think OH or HQ ever had the 328.

AWACSooner wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

I think we need some plane in the Do 328/JET category again. COVID has only made regional flying more popular.

That's still my favorite regional jet I've ever flown on...CMH-MKE back in '04 on Midwest Express. Thing took off like a rocket.

I flew on the DO328 Jet on Atlantic Coast/Delta Connection from CVG-SBN and from CVG-CMI. Great little airplane. Comfortable and a great view from the windows.

freakyrat wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

I think we need some plane in the Do 328/JET category again. COVID has only made regional flying more popular.

That's still my favorite regional jet I've ever flown on...CMH-MKE back in '04 on Midwest Express. Thing took off like a rocket.

I flew on the DO328 Jet on Atlantic Coast/Delta Connection from CVG-SBN and from CVG-CMI. Great little airplane. Comfortable and a great view from the windows.

I wasn't alive back then, but did the 328Jets for DL connection ever fly into ATL?

Would love to fly in a new D328 to MPH.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 97.article

ScottB wrote:

OMG why? Tossing euros into a firepit just doesn't generate an attractive/hot enough flame?

The global market segment was maybe 100 units annually pre-Covid and that includes the much larger ATR-72. New-build will be too costly for most of the developing world and in wealthier countries, these aircraft are only useful for connecting places of maybe 10-25 thousand people where geography makes connection by road/rail difficult or impossible -- i.e. Scottish islands, Norway, Western Australia, the Caribbean, northern Canada etc. If you need a significant amount of freight capacity larger aircraft might be more suitable. The market niche is just tiny.

I just do not see the point.

Makes perfect sense.

However if all aircraft manufacturers went by this logic, we might not have seen this competitive market that we have today. If Airbus had sat back and thought, oh the 150 seat market is crowded with McD, Boeing and BAC slugging it out, so we should stay away! But they did not! They did launch the A320 which went on to beat the pants off the 737 in the next 35 years. Same way, would Embraer launch the E135/145 and later the E170/190 if they followed the same logic?

The Dornier 328 has solid potential, even more so with this stretch. It is very competitive in the market it is designed for. The higher speeds allow operators to squeeze in an extra DEL-IXC-DEL rotation every day.

What Dornier needs focus on is improving their supply chain. The major problem in the original series was severe shortage of spare parts leading to expensive replacement parts during checks.

The 428 was cancelled because to have basic performance it needed a new wing. The cost killed the project.

The law of aerodynamics have not changed since, it explains the measured stretch, which will be insufficient to compete with the ATR 42.

This is going nowhere, exactly like the Rekkof scam, but such projects allow a few people to live a good life.

By what logic has there been a market for 34-37 seats and for 48-50 seats for 40 years, but not a reasonable market for 43 seats? Particularly not for a faster turboprop with less runway requirements and at a time where there are not 6-7 OEMs competing in the 30-50 seat market, but we are faced with an ATR monopoly offering a product that covers one end of that market?

As BawliBooch said, with all those naysayers around here we will be stuck with just one turboprop aircraft family for anything between 30 and 100 seats for the next 100 years. Soemone has to offer another regional turboprop at some point in the future unless we want to revert to horse-drawn carriages and steam engines....

Does the military C-146A fleet need replacement?

BawliBooch wrote:

if all aircraft manufacturers went by this logic, we might not have seen this competitive market that we have today. If Airbus had sat back and thought, oh the 150 seat market is crowded with McD, Boeing and BAC slugging it out, so we should stay away! But they did not! They did launch the A320 which went on to beat the pants off the 737 in the next 35 years. Same way, would Embraer launch the E135/145 and later the E170/190 if they followed the same logic?

BAC was already an also-ran in the 150-seat space by the time the A320 was launched. From the brisk sales of the 737 and MD-80, it was obvious the market segment was large and growing. The 30-to-40-seat turboprop market segment is not large, and it's not likely to grow. That's not to say that there is ZERO demand, but there's probably not enough for two profitable players.

The E145 (like the CRJ) was an attempt to address a new market segment, not an existing segment for which it is already known that demand is weak. And it was fairly clear that customers were expressing interest. The same can be said of the E170/190 project. We can even see the converse of this in the nonexistent order book for the E175-E2 -- despite the obvious gains in efficiency from new engines, the U.S. customers which had ordered hundreds of E175s will not order the E2 due to their pilot scope clauses.

vfw614 wrote:

The aircraft is offered for a variety of roles, including military applications (hence why I included the link to this picture: https://www.deutscheaircraft.com/products). My guess is that in an airliner configuration it will be able to accommodate an additional two rows, which would mean 37/38 seats (the current Dornier 328 offers 31/32 seats at 31 inch pitch) Not sure if going down to an 28/29 inch pitch would add another row (ie. 40/41 seats) - there is a high-density configuration available for regional aircraft in certain markets (mostly targeting Asian operators) such as the Q400 and ATR72 when cramming in additional rows does not result in the need for another flight attendant (although there was even a 56seat Fokker 50 version if I am not mistaken). If that would be an option for the Dornier 328, doing away with the galley could indeed push capacity to 43 seats .

If Ryanair were to order it, they would give you 28" pitch and add another whole row of seats.

UA owns one EAS contract: IAD-PQI (previously EWR-PQI, may return to EWR post-COVID). They fly it with a Commutair E-145.

Every other EAS city flown as a UAX branded flight the contract is held by Skywest. So you're suggesting Skywest would be interested in replacing their paid off fully depreciated CRJ-200's that are operating these flights (keep in mind that they have a huge stockpile of CRJ-100/200 parts and frames since they basically inherited the entire Comair and ASA fleets in addition to the frames delivered to OO directly) with new-build unproven 43 seat props? Skywest gets these contracts on a significant basis on the fact that they're bringing in jet service.

These would've been nice turboprop replacements for both PDT & OO.

BawliBooch wrote:

ScottB wrote:

OMG why? Tossing euros into a firepit just doesn't generate an attractive/hot enough flame?

The global market segment was maybe 100 units annually pre-Covid and that includes the much larger ATR-72. New-build will be too costly for most of the developing world and in wealthier countries, these aircraft are only useful for connecting places of maybe 10-25 thousand people where geography makes connection by road/rail difficult or impossible -- i.e. Scottish islands, Norway, Western Australia, the Caribbean, northern Canada etc. If you need a significant amount of freight capacity larger aircraft might be more suitable. The market niche is just tiny.

I just do not see the point.

Makes perfect sense.

However if all aircraft manufacturers went by this logic, we might not have seen this competitive market that we have today. If Airbus had sat back and thought, oh the 150 seat market is crowded with McD, Boeing and BAC slugging it out, so we should stay away! But they did not! They did launch the A320 which went on to beat the pants off the 737 in the next 35 years. Same way, would Embraer launch the E135/145 and later the E170/190 if they followed the same logic?

The Dornier 328 has solid potential, even more so with this stretch. It is very competitive in the market it is designed for. The higher speeds allow operators to squeeze in an extra DEL-IXC-DEL rotation every day.

What Dornier needs focus on is improving their supply chain. The major problem in the original series was severe shortage of spare parts leading to expensive replacement parts during checks.

Airbus went with a whole new design, using cutting-edge technology, when launching the A320; this is rehashing a 30+ year old design. So, where the A320 was to be (and, to a certain way, remains) ahead of its time, the relaunched Do-328 is already old tech.
This has about as many chances as the Rekkof project.

WayexTDI wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

ScottB wrote:

OMG why? Tossing euros into a firepit just doesn't generate an attractive/hot enough flame?

The global market segment was maybe 100 units annually pre-Covid and that includes the much larger ATR-72. New-build will be too costly for most of the developing world and in wealthier countries, these aircraft are only useful for connecting places of maybe 10-25 thousand people where geography makes connection by road/rail difficult or impossible -- i.e. Scottish islands, Norway, Western Australia, the Caribbean, northern Canada etc. If you need a significant amount of freight capacity larger aircraft might be more suitable. The market niche is just tiny.

I just do not see the point.

Makes perfect sense.

However if all aircraft manufacturers went by this logic, we might not have seen this competitive market that we have today. If Airbus had sat back and thought, oh the 150 seat market is crowded with McD, Boeing and BAC slugging it out, so we should stay away! But they did not! They did launch the A320 which went on to beat the pants off the 737 in the next 35 years. Same way, would Embraer launch the E135/145 and later the E170/190 if they followed the same logic?

The Dornier 328 has solid potential, even more so with this stretch. It is very competitive in the market it is designed for. The higher speeds allow operators to squeeze in an extra DEL-IXC-DEL rotation every day.

What Dornier needs focus on is improving their supply chain. The major problem in the original series was severe shortage of spare parts leading to expensive replacement parts during checks.

Airbus went with a whole new design, using cutting-edge technology, when launching the A320; this is rehashing a 30+ year old design. So, where the A320 was to be (and, to a certain way, remains) ahead of its time, the relaunched Do-328 is already old tech.
This has about as many chances as the Rekkof project.

I wonder if they are using the buzz off the Embraer turboprop to try and solicit investors?

There is too much tech to backtrack to such an okd design.

Lightsaber

Boeing757100 wrote:

I wasn't alive back then, but did the 328Jets for DL connection ever fly into ATL?

My memory had this fleet CVG-centric, with LGA & BOS P2P also operated. The flying went away when ACA decided to shift to LCC flying as Independence Air.

With regard to the proposed capacity, I just looked up the figures of the ill-fated Dornier 428. It would have been 3m longer than the Dornier 328ceo, accommodating up to 44 pax (instead of 32 pax). The Dornier 328neo will be 2.1m longer. So apparently both designs require some sort of interior redesign, giving the increase of 11/12 seats with a relatively modest stretch.

WayexTDI wrote:

Airbus went with a whole new design, using cutting-edge technology, when launching the A320; this is rehashing a 30+ year old design. So, where the A320 was to be (and, to a certain way, remains) ahead of its time, the relaunched Do-328 is already old tech.
This has about as many chances as the Rekkof project.

What exactly is newer tech about the only competing aircraft in production, the ATR42 (which is, btw, a design 10 years older than the Dornier 328)? And if we talk about the cutting edge Airbus A320, its development did not exactly wipe out the Boeing 737.

If "old tech" can deliver seat mile costs as promised, why shouldn't it find a market? It will have relatively low development costs, so it does not need to sell massive numbers to be a success.The manufacturer apparently expects, based on the success of the Dornier 328ceo in these market segments, a large chunk of orders coming not from airlines, but from the military, paramilitary organizations, the medevac world and from charter/VIP carriers,

What I also find interesting is the argument that the shift away from VLA and the growth of Airbus 321XLR long-haul operations will lead to increasing popularity of smaller regional aircraft as a result of less hub-centric airline operations. Not sure if I buy into that train of thought, but it is an interesting argument.

lightsaber wrote:

I wonder if they are using the buzz off the Embraer turboprop to try and solicit investors?
There is too much tech to backtrack to such an okd design.
Lightsaber

There can be allot of success in failure... depending on what seat you occupy at the table...

The Dornier 328neo will be 2.1m longer.

The proposed Dornier 328ECO is NOT a 328NEO - the PWC127S is just a minor evolution of the current 127, offering nothing like the SFC jump that came with the PW GTF or Leap that characterise the NEO or Max. SAF fuels are good, but will be available to anybody, from the JT3D to the GE90.

What exactly is newer tech about the only competing aircraft in production, the ATR42 (which is, btw, a design 10 years older than the Dornier 328)?

The ATR and Dornier 328 tech are broadly similar, and probably more than adequate for the job. Not sure Embraer or any new (re)entrant on ther turboprop market will offer a lot more. FBW has a cost. Some composite primary structure might be more relevant - it is a big success for the ATR 72 wing - but it has to be done properly. Besides, the ATR 42 has evolved over the years, new avionics etc; a shorter field variant is being certified allowing operation on 800m runways.

And if we talk about the cutting edge Airbus A320, its development did not exactly wipe out the Boeing 737.

Boeing had to launch the NG.

The 328 is not a bad design (nothing like the VFW614, if I may ). It is just a bit too small, lacking the possibility to evolve, issues which were identified early in the program life. Not sure there is real business case to relaunch it as even with some pre-existing tooling setting up a complete production line and supply chain will be costly. This is looking at the recently released Embraer market study (which BTW challenges IMOO Embraer own ambitions).

vfw614 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Airbus went with a whole new design, using cutting-edge technology, when launching the A320; this is rehashing a 30+ year old design. So, where the A320 was to be (and, to a certain way, remains) ahead of its time, the relaunched Do-328 is already old tech.
This has about as many chances as the Rekkof project.

What exactly is newer tech about the only competing aircraft in production, the ATR42 (which is, btw, a design 10 years older than the Dornier 328)? And if we talk about the cutting edge Airbus A320, its development did not exactly wipe out the Boeing 737.

The A320 did not wipe out the 737 (and I never said it did), but it seriously encroached into its market to end up with a 50/50 market.
The A320 "forced" Boeing to create the 737NG, and the A320neo forced them to create the 737 MAX.

vfw614 wrote:

If "old tech" can deliver seat mile costs as promised, why shouldn't it find a market? It will have relatively low development costs, so it does not need to sell massive numbers to be a success.The manufacturer apparently expects, based on the success of the Dornier 328ceo in these market segments, a large chunk of orders coming not from airlines, but from the military, paramilitary organizations, the medevac world and from charter/VIP carriers,

Relatively low development costs? I'm sure most OEMs have stopped the manufacturing of parts for the Do328, and will be very reluctant to restart it; so, that means, at best convincing them to restart production (with a lot of problems to do parts obsolescence, etc), at worst finding a new supplier and going through the certification process. That's not an easy task and certainly not cheap.
Also, if the Do328 design certified to current standards? Can it be? If not, how much of a redesign is needed?

The market has spoken: 217 Do328s and 110 Do328JETs were built, around 50 of each are still in service (including 20 for the US Air Force).

Good luck to the investors; but I think this venture is extremely risky with a potential of very low return.

armagnac2010 wrote:

The proposed Dornier 328ECO is NOT a 328NEO - the PWC127S is just a minor evolution of the current 127, offering nothing like the SFC jump that came with the PW GTF or Leap that characterise the NEO or Max. SAF fuels are good, but will be available to anybody, from the JT3D to the GE90.

The project was launched as the Dornier 328NEU, which is German for "new", and it has a "new engine option" as the "ceo" has PW119s. Hence my use of the words "neo" and "ceo". Only recently it was rebranded to "ECO"

armagnac2010 wrote:

The ATR and Dornier 328 tech are broadly similar, and probably more than adequate for the job. Not sure Embraer or any new (re)entrant on ther turboprop market will offer a lot more. FBW has a cost. Some composite primary structure might be more relevant - it is a big success for the ATR 72 wing - but it has to be done properly. Besides, the ATR 42 has evolved over the years, new avionics etc; a shorter field variant is being certified allowing operation on 800m runways.

Sure. But why is this a market segment where an ATR monopoly is the only way forward? Unless we assume that all applications where currently Saab 340s, Embraer 120, Fokker 50, Saab 2000, DHC8-100, DHC8-300, Dornier 328, Embraer 135, Embraer 140, Embraer 145, CanRJ200 are used will in the future use ATR42-600s or upgrade to 80seat props/jets, there should be room for at least another competitor - which would also be desirable to keep ATR's pricing honest.

armagnac2010 wrote:

And if we talk about the cutting edge Airbus A320, its development did not exactly wipe out the Boeing 737.

Boeing had to launch the NG.

The Dornier 328ECO also offers improvements. How you achieve efficiency and costs savings probably interests engineers and avgeeks, but does not really matter for airline CEOs and accountants.

armagnac2010 wrote:

The 328 is not a bad design (nothing like the VFW614, if I may ). It is just a bit too small, lacking the possibility to evolve, issues which were identified early in the program life. Not sure there is real business case to relaunch it as even with some pre-existing tooling setting up a complete production line and supply chain will be costly.

I think it is well positioned to be attractive for the 28-37 seat replacement market (E120, SF3, DH1, D38) for which the ATR42 may be a little bit too big.

WayexTDI wrote:

The A320 did not wipe out the 737 (and I never said it did), but it seriously encroached into its market to end up with a 50/50 market.
The A320 "forced" Boeing to create the 737NG, and the A320neo forced them to create the 737 MAX.

As I said above, currently we are looking at an ATR monopoly for anything between 20 and 70 seats, in which ATR is only catering for the higher capacity end of that market. At some point, there has to be another offering particularly for the lower capacity end. Of course the market has changed since the 1980/90s, but it does not mean that when the last E120, DHC8-100/200, Saab 340s have been turned into coke cans the regional turboprop market will disappear. While of course some clean sheet approach would be more exciting, this is not how OEM work nowadays. Realistically, what new aircraft types have we seen over the past 20 years? The 787, the Airbus A350 and the Airbus A220. That's it. The rest - and by far the majority - have been further developments of 1960 to 1990s designs - the 747-8, the A330-900, the 777-8/9, the A32Xneo, the 737MAX, the ATR42/72-600. So OEMs are playing it safe, and obviously they can in a market with very limited competition.

I would also take issue with the notion that the Airbus 320 encroached into the market of Boeing. To some extent it did, but it mainly created a duopoly by eliminating McDonnell Douglas and finishing off the British airline industry with which Boeing in the past shared the market.

And as I have said repeatedly, the aircraft is seen as a multi role aircraft, not just as a regional turboprop airliner.

WayexTDI wrote:

Relatively low development costs? I'm sure most OEMs have stopped the manufacturing of parts for the Do328, and will be very reluctant to restart it; so, that means, at best convincing them to restart production (with a lot of problems to do parts obsolescence, etc), at worst finding a new supplier and going through the certification process.

Relative as in relation to a clean sheet approach. Plus 328 Support Services GmbH (328SSG) and SNC have been around for years.

WayexTDI wrote:

The market has spoken: 217 Do328s and 110 Do328JETs were built, around 50 of each are still in service (including 20 for the US Air Force).

I think we need to move away from the idea that an aircraft programme has to sell 5.000 frames to be not considered a failure. There were 459 Saab 340s built, 354 Embraer 120s, 404 DHC8-100/200s, 327 Dornier 328, 100 Jetstream 41. Given that the high speed of the Dornier 328 also makes it an option as a replacement for stuff like Embraer 135, all in all we are talking about approx. 1.700 aircraft in the 28-37 seat category produced in the 1980 and 1990s. Then we have 50 Saab 2000, 213 Fokker 50, ca. 400 ATR42-300/500, 267 DHC8-300 and 65 ATPs, so another 1.000 50-seater turboprops. If there is a need for replacement for only a quarter of them, we are talking about more than 700 frames, not all of which will be ATR42-600s. So I can really see why this project is taking shape (and has already taken on board some prominent executives, e.g. the long term head of Airbus' alternative propulsion systems and technologies unit and a senior Embraer sales executive))

You have to look beyond the number of 20-40 seaters out there and ask yourself how many of those operators can afford to purchase a brand new plane, at prices profitable for the OEM, and still make money off of it.

So what is your vision for that market? Back to trains and cars? At some point new built aircraft have to come on scene or there will simply be no more flying.

vfw614 wrote:

So what is your vision for that market? Back to trains and cars? At some point new built aircraft have to come on scene or there will simply be no more flying.

Bingo. The segment is dying thanks to increased security and environmental regulations.

The manufacturer begs to differ:

Deutsche Aircraft anticipates that travelling habits and demands on airlines will change. Traditional large-scale hub and spoke operations will be restructured as the demand for short-haul, point-to-point, low-emission transport grows. Airlines will resize their fleets to accommodate smaller, more efficient and more eco-friendly aircraft, and seek to open underserved routes with direct services through “right sizing” operations.

It will be interesting to see how the Norwegians will built railways to replace DHC8-100 flights in the arctic or how remote destinations in Australia currently served by REX and their Saab 340s will be linked to the outside world in the future. Or Alaska and Canadian communities relying on RAVN or Air Creebec Dash 8 and First Air ATR42 remain on the map. Just to name a few.

Polot wrote:

You have to look beyond the number of 20-40 seaters out there and ask yourself how many of those operators can afford to purchase a brand new plane, at prices profitable for the OEM, and still make money off of it.

This argument is upheld frequently, though I fail to understand why, really.

While cost of capital might be higher for new aircraft, a lot of operating expenses like fuel, maintenance, noise related fees, etc. are significantly lower for new aircraft. The amount of effort needed to keep older, heavily used aircraft reliable is not to underestimate.

If the argumentation goes that it is hard for an OEM to close the case, fair enough, I might buy that. But the operators will find ways to exploit lower operating cost and high reliability if the design of the plane is sound. For example by using seven new built aircraft, operating a highly reliable tight schedule vs. nine to ten mediocre reliable planes with slack in the schedule for AOG reasons.

I wouldn’t expect the manufacturer to say anything less, not exactly a non-bias source. There are still plenty of young ATR42s out there that will be in service for decades for where planes are absolutely needed.

vfw614 wrote:

The manufacturer begs to differ:

Deutsche Aircraft anticipates that travelling habits and demands on airlines will change. Traditional large-scale hub and spoke operations will be restructured as the demand for short-haul, point-to-point, low-emission transport grows. Airlines will resize their fleets to accommodate smaller, more efficient and more eco-friendly aircraft, and seek to open underserved routes with direct services through “right sizing” operations.

It will be interesting to see how the Norwegians will built railways to replace DHC8-100 flights in the arctic or how remote destinations in Australia currently served by REX and their Saab 340s will be linked to the outside world in the future. Or Alaska and Canadian communities relying on RAVN or Air Creebec Dash 8 and First Air ATR42 remain on the map. Just to name a few.

Well, for what it's worth, I believe the OEMs explanation is well...not sound, to put it mildly. But the market you have carved out for such a model (remote area, low infrastructure, low capacity) seems reasonably large.

vfw614 wrote:

T

It will be interesting to see how the Norwegians will built railways to replace DHC8-100 flights in the arctic or how remote destinations in Australia currently served by REX and their Saab 340s will be linked to the outside world in the future. Or Alaska and Canadian communities relying on RAVN or Air Creebec Dash 8 and First Air ATR42 remain on the map. Just to name a few.

ATR launched the ATR42S with such markets in mind.

Mid-term; Norwegians are looking at pushing sustainable aviation, electric and so on (not SAF fuel). They are using subsidies of public services for that purpose, aiming at replicating what they did for electric cars (through tax incentives Norway has one of the world highest proportions of electric cars).

TC957 wrote:

I struggle to see how just a 2.1mtr stretch can accommodate 43 pax when the present 328 is a 31-seater.
43 pax would mean 4 extra rows which will need more than an extra 2.1 mtrs !

My guess is no galley and probably no lav, and very tight seat pitch (28") with very thin profile seats. Think very short run routes in Europe.

More likely config would be 37-38 seats.