Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:19 am

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Boeing reminds me of the US auto industry in the early 70's. They (and the other large air frame manufacturers Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman) could build a 50 to 70 seat RJ. But their bloated cost structure makes it almost impossible to do so profitably.

The US either needs a disrupter - an upstart like Elon Musk and the other companies developing space launch vehicles who didn't exist 10 years ago. Of existing US companies, IMO only Cessna might be able to develop a competitive and profitable regional airliner .


Keep an eye out on Textron (Cessna, Beechcraft). They may end up buying out the ex-Bombardier regional jet business that Mitsubishi bought, but has made semi-dormant. If that were to happen, Textron would probably set up a new division and move the operations to Wichita.

Textron could re-engine the CRJ900 to make it more competitive in the 76-seat class. They could also come up with a clean sheet design for a smaller, lighter jet in the sub-65,000 pound MTOW/65-70 seat class, again with newer engines. The major North American airlines need regional lift, both to serve smaller markets and to raid each others' hubs.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14428
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:48 am

NCAD95 wrote:
Many markets that had airline service lost their service because of the RJ

You're leaving out the other (obvious) part, which is "...because more destinations got nonstop connections to the major hubs, rather than 1stop milk runs."


NCAD95 wrote:
and when the aircraft was used on mainline trunk routes in favor of mainline it's a real downgrade in service and comfort.

That's called an opinion, not a fact.


NCAD95 wrote:
then yes it was a plus but at the end of the day it was used to replace mainline

Question: why do you assume that just because mainline was previously on a routing, that that was therefore the most adequate/profitable capacity for addressing that route?
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 5:21 am

FLALEFTY wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Boeing reminds me of the US auto industry in the early 70's. They (and the other large air frame manufacturers Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman) could build a 50 to 70 seat RJ. But their bloated cost structure makes it almost impossible to do so profitably.

The US either needs a disrupter - an upstart like Elon Musk and the other companies developing space launch vehicles who didn't exist 10 years ago. Of existing US companies, IMO only Cessna might be able to develop a competitive and profitable regional airliner .


Keep an eye out on Textron (Cessna, Beechcraft). They may end up buying out the ex-Bombardier regional jet business that Mitsubishi bought, but has made semi-dormant. If that were to happen, Textron would probably set up a new division and move the operations to Wichita.

Textron could re-engine the CRJ900 to make it more competitive in the 76-seat class. They could also come up with a clean sheet design for a smaller, lighter jet in the sub-65,000 pound MTOW/65-70 seat class, again with newer engines. The major North American airlines need regional lift, both to serve smaller markets and to raid each others' hubs.


When you say “re-engine” and “newer engines,” what kind of engine do you have in mind? Are you thinking of an engine that currently exists, or one that you’re hoping is designed in the future?

And regarding “making the CRJ900 more competitive” with a new engine...it will never be competitive from a comfort standpoint because of the physics of the smaller tube.
 
miegapele
Topic Author
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:24 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 5:38 am

While looking for information about 737-100 "regional" jet, found interesting sales brochure from 1965 here
5-abreast config, and 737 being called wide body, among other infesting things
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12650
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:05 pm

Mitsubishi bought the CRJ program, which included its engineering and certificate. Textron (or anybody else) can’t just come in and restart/re-engine the CRJ. The most anyone can do without Mitsubishi’s blessing is attempt to re-engine current frames.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7507
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:23 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
FLALEFTY wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Boeing reminds me of the US auto industry in the early 70's. They (and the other large air frame manufacturers Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman) could build a 50 to 70 seat RJ. But their bloated cost structure makes it almost impossible to do so profitably.

The US either needs a disrupter - an upstart like Elon Musk and the other companies developing space launch vehicles who didn't exist 10 years ago. Of existing US companies, IMO only Cessna might be able to develop a competitive and profitable regional airliner .


Keep an eye out on Textron (Cessna, Beechcraft). They may end up buying out the ex-Bombardier regional jet business that Mitsubishi bought, but has made semi-dormant. If that were to happen, Textron would probably set up a new division and move the operations to Wichita.

Textron could re-engine the CRJ900 to make it more competitive in the 76-seat class. They could also come up with a clean sheet design for a smaller, lighter jet in the sub-65,000 pound MTOW/65-70 seat class, again with newer engines. The major North American airlines need regional lift, both to serve smaller markets and to raid each others' hubs.


When you say “re-engine” and “newer engines,” what kind of engine do you have in mind? Are you thinking of an engine that currently exists, or one that you’re hoping is designed in the future?.


PW1200 as fitted to MRJ presumably ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26 ... ifications

56" fan and 15k lb thrust....

Rgds
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8939
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:41 pm

FLALEFTY wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Boeing reminds me of the US auto industry in the early 70's. They (and the other large air frame manufacturers Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman) could build a 50 to 70 seat RJ. But their bloated cost structure makes it almost impossible to do so profitably.

The US either needs a disrupter - an upstart like Elon Musk and the other companies developing space launch vehicles who didn't exist 10 years ago. Of existing US companies, IMO only Cessna might be able to develop a competitive and profitable regional airliner .


Keep an eye out on Textron (Cessna, Beechcraft). They may end up buying out the ex-Bombardier regional jet business that Mitsubishi bought, but has made semi-dormant. If that were to happen, Textron would probably set up a new division and move the operations to Wichita.

Textron could re-engine the CRJ900 to make it more competitive in the 76-seat class. They could also come up with a clean sheet design for a smaller, lighter jet in the sub-65,000 pound MTOW/65-70 seat class, again with newer engines. The major North American airlines need regional lift, both to serve smaller markets and to raid each others' hubs.


A sub-65k MTOW 70-seat jet with new engines won’t happen because physics. The new engined 170 series weighs more than 86k; taking out 20,000 pounds is impossible with anything like current tech and cost.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7507
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:11 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
FLALEFTY wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Boeing reminds me of the US auto industry in the early 70's. They (and the other large air frame manufacturers Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman) could build a 50 to 70 seat RJ. But their bloated cost structure makes it almost impossible to do so profitably.

The US either needs a disrupter - an upstart like Elon Musk and the other companies developing space launch vehicles who didn't exist 10 years ago. Of existing US companies, IMO only Cessna might be able to develop a competitive and profitable regional airliner .


Keep an eye out on Textron (Cessna, Beechcraft). They may end up buying out the ex-Bombardier regional jet business that Mitsubishi bought, but has made semi-dormant. If that were to happen, Textron would probably set up a new division and move the operations to Wichita.

Textron could re-engine the CRJ900 to make it more competitive in the 76-seat class. They could also come up with a clean sheet design for a smaller, lighter jet in the sub-65,000 pound MTOW/65-70 seat class, again with newer engines. The major North American airlines need regional lift, both to serve smaller markets and to raid each others' hubs.


A sub-65k MTOW 70-seat jet with new engines won’t happen because physics. The new engined 170 series weighs more than 86k; taking out 20,000 pounds is impossible with anything like current tech and cost.


Does make me wonder if Mitsubishi would consider re-enginging the CRJ.
Can't see why they would with the Spacejet 1000 around to be honest, but....
Trouble is the PW1200 adds about 1400lb a side to the CF34-8C's on the CRJ700/900.
That would push the CRJ-900 to about 87,300lb, unless they decide to dump c. 2,800lb fuel (out of 19,600lb)

Rgds
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8939
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:33 pm

Balance is a bigger problem than just the weight of the PW1200 and removing fuel from the wings makes it worse.
 
uconn99
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:52 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:25 pm

airlineworker wrote:
TomJoel wrote:
I think regional flying is dying a slow death, honestly. Flying into these markets is becoming harder and harder to justify, especially since COVID. From Boeing's standpoint, R&D on a whole new airframe is expensive, especially for an uncertain market. Boeing made a wise choice to stay out of the regional market. Also, one must consider the types of aircraft these markets require are aging with no real clear replacement. UA is flying CR2s that are not cost-efficient and arguably past their life expectancy. Sooner than later, these aircraft will have to be removed from service, and with no replacement, there will be little choice but to suspend service to these markets.


Many RJ's are still being added to the fleets of the majors and are being used to fill routes at slow travel times replacing mainline planes. Many medium size airports such as BDL, PVD, HPN, ISP, etc have a large percentage of flights on RJ's. RJ's are far from dead although the first gen 50 seat models are being phased out. The 70-90 seat models with 2 class service are well liked by travelers.


Pre pandemic BDL flights were 75% on mainline aircraft, a huge decrease in regional jets since the late 2000's / early 2010's. Today around 60-65% of flights are on mainline aircraft and rising as more flights are added. PVD was a bit lower pre pandemic, today 21 out of 34 flights are mainline, similar to BDL.

Today ISP has 10 out of 12 flights on mainline aircraft.
Last edited by uconn99 on Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5221
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:28 pm

What was once aviation regional territory is getting re-defined, below is a US oriented summary:
The augmented interstate highways now connect most cities of even medium population to the rest of the country.
High speed rail, even kinda high speed is taking some of that space.
Newer cars with all the safety and driver assist features is taking much of the stress out of driving, and with improved highways is practical for ever longer distances.
Airport security has been a killer for regional flights.

Electrification of aviation already is threatening the sub 100 mile hops. Most experts and people on line here suspect it will move into the sub 300 mile range in not all that long. If there were an excellent regional plane, either jet or turboprop it could be competitive for the next 20 years. But every year it is not available eats into that 20 years. My guess is that nothing will be built. Adjustments to these guesses with more technical information is welcome.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8939
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:39 pm

Any trip less than 350 miles is easier and quicker by car, even by your own plane sometimes based on total door-to-door travel time. And that’s in the NE corridor. Not sure what augmented interstates are, but I’m certain I don’t need driving aids that merely enable distracted driving. Sit down, put two hands on the wheel, one for the pedals and drive. I haven’t used cruise control in 30 years in four M-B cars, driving isn’t a spectator sport.
 
sspontak
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:42 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:40 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
I'm not sure any 737-200 operated by a US airline had over 100 seats. The DC-9-10 and BAC 1-11 probably had 70 or so with a F Class cabin and Coach. Heck even all Y DC-9-30's only had 99 seats when the Industry was regulated . You guy's will love the attached link to a brochure from Delta Air Lines announcing their new DC-9-10. Now that was regional flying at it's finest!

http://www.deltamuseum.org/docs/site/ai ... f?sfvrsn=2


The Delta 737-200 was operated in a comfortable 2 class 107 passenger configuration.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 5:04 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Any trip less than 350 miles is easier and quicker by car, even by your own plane sometimes based on total door-to-door travel time. And that’s in the NE corridor. Not sure what augmented interstates are, but I’m certain I don’t need driving aids that merely enable distracted driving. Sit down, put two hands on the wheel, one for the pedals and drive. I haven’t used cruise control in 30 years in four M-B cars, driving isn’t a spectator sport.



But how few people actually just make the 350 mile flight? Aren't a good percentage of the passengers connecting on to another longer leg? RJ's and propjets play a key role in connecting the Peoria's of America with the major business, govt, and leisure centers thru hubs.
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:49 pm

astuteman wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
FLALEFTY wrote:

Keep an eye out on Textron (Cessna, Beechcraft). They may end up buying out the ex-Bombardier regional jet business that Mitsubishi bought, but has made semi-dormant. If that were to happen, Textron would probably set up a new division and move the operations to Wichita.

Textron could re-engine the CRJ900 to make it more competitive in the 76-seat class. They could also come up with a clean sheet design for a smaller, lighter jet in the sub-65,000 pound MTOW/65-70 seat class, again with newer engines. The major North American airlines need regional lift, both to serve smaller markets and to raid each others' hubs.


When you say “re-engine” and “newer engines,” what kind of engine do you have in mind? Are you thinking of an engine that currently exists, or one that you’re hoping is designed in the future?.


PW1200 as fitted to MRJ presumably ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26 ... ifications

56" fan and 15k lb thrust....

Rgds


The PW814 is a derivative of the PW1000 aimed at the biz jet market. It weighs roughly 665 lbs. less than the PW1200G, but a bit more than 700 lbs. more than the existing GE CF34-8C. Could a pair of PW814's work out for a re-engined CRJ900 NextGen?

Polot wrote:
Mitsubishi bought the CRJ program, which included its engineering and certificate. Textron (or anybody else) can’t just come in and restart/re-engine the CRJ. The most anyone can do without Mitsubishi’s blessing is attempt to re-engine current frames.


I think if Textron offered to buy the remains of the CRJ program from Mitsubishi, they would be eager to entertain the offer. Virtually all Mitsubishi has left is MRO support for the CRJ's, which is something Textron is better organized to do on a global level.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
A sub-65k MTOW 70-seat jet with new engines won’t happen because physics. The new engined 170 series weighs more than 86k; taking out 20,000 pounds is impossible with anything like current tech and cost.


The CRJ700 was paper derated to a MTOW of 65,000 lbs. & 1,000 nm range to come up with the CRJ550. Granted, the CRJ550 is only outfitted with a 50 seat cabin. However, an all-new, clean sheet design, using advanced, light weight materials could probably allow for a 70-seat variant to be developed meeting CRJ550-like MTOW and range specs. The mainline pilot unions would probably grumble about accepting such a plane, but ultimately they probably would.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:04 pm

I would love to see Embraer test equip a EMB-145 with pusher turbo props, especially ducted. They did that years ago on a smaller aircraft (sans the ducts).

Aren't there a couple of new generation turbo props being made by the engine manufactures? Perhaps Americans would be more accepting of a turboprop if the engines were in the back and ducted.
 
phlswaflyer
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 9:02 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:12 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Boeing, like Mainline pilots, wrote off regional flying as beneath them in the 1990s.

Mainline pilots have realized their past mistakes and currently hold the line on scope when in negotiations.

Boeing has not realized their mistake. The Embraer deal was a shot gun marriage in response to the Airbus Bombardier deal. It is very indicative of the way Boeing does business today and exposes their greatest corporate problems



Exactly. Another element on a LONG LIST of corporate screw-ups, misreads, and massively mind numbing missed market making by negligent, GE-trained, wall street beholden CEO's and a weak BOD. Boeing is the Xerox of the Airplane world ( not sure who will get this reference), and it makes me crazy.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:24 pm

FLALEFTY wrote:
astuteman wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:

When you say “re-engine” and “newer engines,” what kind of engine do you have in mind? Are you thinking of an engine that currently exists, or one that you’re hoping is designed in the future?.


PW1200 as fitted to MRJ presumably ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26 ... ifications

56" fan and 15k lb thrust....

Rgds


The PW814 is a derivative of the PW1000 aimed at the biz jet market. It weighs roughly 665 lbs. less than the PW1200G, but a bit more than 700 lbs. more than the existing GE CF34-8C. Could a pair of PW814's work out for a re-engined CRJ900 NextGen?

Polot wrote:
Mitsubishi bought the CRJ program, which included its engineering and certificate. Textron (or anybody else) can’t just come in and restart/re-engine the CRJ. The most anyone can do without Mitsubishi’s blessing is attempt to re-engine current frames.


I think if Textron offered to buy the remains of the CRJ program from Mitsubishi, they would be eager to entertain the offer. Virtually all Mitsubishi has left is MRO support for the CRJ's, which is something Textron is better organized to do on a global level.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
A sub-65k MTOW 70-seat jet with new engines won’t happen because physics. The new engined 170 series weighs more than 86k; taking out 20,000 pounds is impossible with anything like current tech and cost.


The CRJ700 was paper derated to a MTOW of 65,000 lbs. & 1,000 nm range to come up with the CRJ550. Granted, the CRJ550 is only outfitted with a 50 seat cabin. However, an all-new, clean sheet design, using advanced, light weight materials could probably allow for a 70-seat variant to be developed meeting CRJ550-like MTOW and range specs. The mainline pilot unions would probably grumble about accepting such a plane, but ultimately they probably would.

The reason I asked what engine you had in mind is because all newer engines similar in power to the CF34s appear to be much heavier...and CRJs are already tail heavy from my experience (at least the -900, I don’t have enough experience in the -700 to have an opinion). We often had to move stuff forward for W/B on -900s. Can’t imagine another 1400+ lbs of motor at the back (plus whatever additional structure needed to support it) will help that. And for what % reduction in fuel burn on regional stage lengths, especially with the added weight? My thoughts are, it just isn’t worth it on a CRJ even if they could make the W/B work. And they are very disliked from a passenger experience anyway compared to E175s.

Regarding the comment about unions, no union will grumble about or not “accept” a plane. A plane either fits within clearly defined scope limits, or it doesn’t. If a manufacturer could make one that is scope compliant that’s more efficient than existing 40-76 seaters, great. They are fair game for airlines to purchase and outsource, and unions can’t/won’t say anything about it. So far, no one has been able to do that. What unions will grumble about is new planes designed outside of scope limits, with management and manufacturers trying to move the scope goalposts, like the E175-E2, for example.

The other thing that is often ignored on here is that mainline pilot unions have always and will continue to welcome e175-E2 aircraft....to mainline. Nothing prevents any airplane like E175-E2, from flying in the US. Scope clauses just prevent them from being outsourced.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8939
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:33 pm

FLALEFTY wrote:
astuteman wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:

When you say “re-engine” and “newer engines,” what kind of engine do you have in mind? Are you thinking of an engine that currently exists, or one that you’re hoping is designed in the future?.


PW1200 as fitted to MRJ presumably ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26 ... ifications

56" fan and 15k lb thrust....

Rgds


The PW814 is a derivative of the PW1000 aimed at the biz jet market. It weighs roughly 665 lbs. less than the PW1200G, but a bit more than 700 lbs. more than the existing GE CF34-8C. Could a pair of PW814's work out for a re-engined CRJ900 NextGen?

Polot wrote:
Mitsubishi bought the CRJ program, which included its engineering and certificate. Textron (or anybody else) can’t just come in and restart/re-engine the CRJ. The most anyone can do without Mitsubishi’s blessing is attempt to re-engine current frames.


I think if Textron offered to buy the remains of the CRJ program from Mitsubishi, they would be eager to entertain the offer. Virtually all Mitsubishi has left is MRO support for the CRJ's, which is something Textron is better organized to do on a global level.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
A sub-65k MTOW 70-seat jet with new engines won’t happen because physics. The new engined 170 series weighs more than 86k; taking out 20,000 pounds is impossible with anything like current tech and cost.


The CRJ700 was paper derated to a MTOW of 65,000 lbs. & 1,000 nm range to come up with the CRJ550. Granted, the CRJ550 is only outfitted with a 50 seat cabin. However, an all-new, clean sheet design, using advanced, light weight materials could probably allow for a 70-seat variant to be developed meeting CRJ550-like MTOW and range specs. The mainline pilot unions would probably grumble about accepting such a plane, but ultimately they probably would.


The PW 800 series is designed for high altitude, high Mach operations hence doing away with the gearing and reduced life cycles, how’d it work on a CRJ is hard to tell. It would need more thrust development, the heaviest G600 weighs at least 15,000# less than your vision. 1400# at the back end of the CRJ airframe might still be a balance problem.

A clean sheet RJ is going to be a tough sell—hard to see the return on $5 billion investment.
 
superjeff
Posts: 1466
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:31 pm

miegapele wrote:
trueblew wrote:
They already do. It's called the 737.

Even smallest 737-100 had 120 seats. Would not fit modern definition of regional with that size. With range probably, but then it's old, a220 has way more range.


No. The 737-200's had about 120 seats, not the 100's (at least the ones I flew on which were at Continental - which acquired them from the PeoplExpress acquisition (where People Express had acquired theirs from Lufthansa). They had about 99 seats, including a small First Class cabin (on the CO configuration).

Some 737-200's had a 2-3 coach configuration initially - Piedmont's initial configuration in the U.S. comes to mind. It was later converted to the more standard 3-3.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5756
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:55 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
I would love to see Embraer test equip a EMB-145 with pusher turbo props, especially ducted. They did that years ago on a smaller aircraft (sans the ducts).

Aren't there a couple of new generation turbo props being made by the engine manufactures? Perhaps Americans would be more accepting of a turboprop if the engines were in the back and ducted.

I believe you’re thinking of this one, the Embraer/FMA CBA 123, a still-born joint programme with Argentina:



I’ve often wondered if a common design allowing for the mounting of either turboprop or turbofan engines with minimal difference between the two might be what the under-70-seat market needs; it would allow development costs to be spread over a wider market, and would put the bit that causes the most passenger complaints (the propellers, or more specifically the noise they generate) behind the passenger cabin. That said, the last time someone tried it, it didn’t exactly revolutionise the market:



Coming back to the actual topic of this thread, the real issues with Boeing getting into regional jets, as have all been covered, is that it is a saturated market-place, with less return than could be achieved investing the same amount of money into a larger aircraft. For the Bombardiers, De Havilland Dorniers, Embraers, Fokkers, Mitsubishis, Sukhois and similars of this world, that larger aircraft market is too difficult to penetrate, hence their focus on the easier-to-enter (but harder to sustain) regional jet market.

V/F
 
CairnterriAIR
Posts: 775
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:39 pm

[/quote]

That's an interesting point - The F-28 was "regional" before regional was a thing. The F-28 was a unique jet airliner designed for operations out of short, even unpaved runways; it had relatively short range & "near-jet" speed (it cruised around 350 kts.); and it offered 20~25% more passenger capacity than the propeller-driven airliners it was replacing (chiefly F-27's, CV-580's and Viscount's). Fokker built 241 F-28's in total over a 20-year production run (1967-1987), though not all saw airline service. It had a frighteningly-bad safety record with 35 hull-loss accidents. The remaining survivors are being operated by various militaries, primarily in South America and Africa.[/quote]


I think the reason the F-28 had such a high hull loss rate was not due to any design issue, but rather it being due to who operated them and where. The aircraft was designed for smaller airlines looking to replace their older prop driven aircraft with a jet in order to improve on efficiency, capacity, and reliability. A starter jet per say. Most of the airlines who bought them were small operators flying into underdeveloped or remote areas. The F-28 was designed for that operation....easy maintain, didn’t need a jetway, had simple operating systems, and rugged landing gear. Upgrading from an F-27 to an F-28 was not hard. Unfortunately of these airlines fell a bit behind on the training curve causing some accidents, as well as pilots having issues flying these faster jets into remote areas with weather issues. A Canadian airline used to operating slower props on multi-leg trips through outlying stations got into a deicing issue during a hastily executed turnaround. Several Indonesian crews miscalculated speed and position and flew into mountains in bad weather. So pretty much the crashes were caused by inexperienced pilots.
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:38 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
FLALEFTY wrote:
astuteman wrote:

PW1200 as fitted to MRJ presumably ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26 ... ifications

56" fan and 15k lb thrust....

Rgds


The PW814 is a derivative of the PW1000 aimed at the biz jet market. It weighs roughly 665 lbs. less than the PW1200G, but a bit more than 700 lbs. more than the existing GE CF34-8C. Could a pair of PW814's work out for a re-engined CRJ900 NextGen?

Polot wrote:
Mitsubishi bought the CRJ program, which included its engineering and certificate. Textron (or anybody else) can’t just come in and restart/re-engine the CRJ. The most anyone can do without Mitsubishi’s blessing is attempt to re-engine current frames.


I think if Textron offered to buy the remains of the CRJ program from Mitsubishi, they would be eager to entertain the offer. Virtually all Mitsubishi has left is MRO support for the CRJ's, which is something Textron is better organized to do on a global level.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
A sub-65k MTOW 70-seat jet with new engines won’t happen because physics. The new engined 170 series weighs more than 86k; taking out 20,000 pounds is impossible with anything like current tech and cost.


The CRJ700 was paper derated to a MTOW of 65,000 lbs. & 1,000 nm range to come up with the CRJ550. Granted, the CRJ550 is only outfitted with a 50 seat cabin. However, an all-new, clean sheet design, using advanced, light weight materials could probably allow for a 70-seat variant to be developed meeting CRJ550-like MTOW and range specs. The mainline pilot unions would probably grumble about accepting such a plane, but ultimately they probably would.


The reason I asked what engine you had in mind is because all newer engines similar in power to the CF34s appear to be much heavier...and CRJs are already tail heavy from my experience (at least the -900, I don’t have enough experience in the -700 to have an opinion). We often had to move stuff forward for W/B on -900s. Can’t imagine another 1400+ lbs of motor at the back (plus whatever additional structure needed to support it) will help that. And for what % reduction in fuel burn on regional stage lengths, especially with the added weight? My thoughts are, it just isn’t worth it on a CRJ even if they could make the W/B work. And they are very disliked from a passenger experience anyway compared to E175s.

Regarding the comment about unions, no union will grumble about or not “accept” a plane. A plane either fits within clearly defined scope limits, or it doesn’t. If a manufacturer could make one that is scope compliant that’s more efficient than existing 40-76 seaters, great. They are fair game for airlines to purchase and outsource, and unions can’t/won’t say anything about it. So far, no one has been able to do that. What unions will grumble about is new planes designed outside of scope limits, with management and manufacturers trying to move the scope goalposts, like the E175-E2, for example.

The other thing that is often ignored on here is that mainline pilot unions have always and will continue to welcome e175-E2 aircraft....to mainline. Nothing prevents any airplane like E175-E2, from flying in the US. Scope clauses just prevent them from being outsourced.


My thoughts on re-engining the CRJ900 are purely hypothetical. The last CRJ900 has been built and delivered and it appears that the entire CRJ production program has reached the end of the line. The same goes for the possibility of Textron buying out Mitsubishi's interest in the CRJ program, it is purely hypothetical and unlikely to happen. I put these thoughts out there to stimulate conversation. However, it is interesting that no new >= 76 seat regional jet (that is scope-compliant) is available. Will the regional airlines simply be starved of appropriate equipment as the current fleets they operate age out?

Also, I think the E175E2 will never see service with airlines in North America. The improved economics (over the E1) promised by Embraer only work to offset the higher capital cost if the plane is operated at 80 seats, rather than at the 76 seat limit, which as we both know is a "no-go". I think Delta has set the lower limit for what mainline will operate when they put the 109-passenger A221 in their fleet, so it is highly unlikely they would entertain adding the E175E2. I imagine both AA and UA will be taking a hard look at the A220 in a couple of years (after the pandemic ends) to compete with Delta in this market niche.

As for Boeing entering the regional market, they are currently so financially crippled that it will be years before they start making steady profits on their current offerings. I don't see them pursuing the self-limited regional airline market.
Last edited by FLALEFTY on Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
JBo
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:23 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:44 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Boeing reminds me of the US auto industry in the early 70's. They (and the other large air frame manufacturers Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman) could build a 50 to 70 seat RJ. But their bloated cost structure makes it almost impossible to do so profitably.

The US either needs a disrupter - an upstart like Elon Musk and the other companies developing space launch vehicles who didn't exist 10 years ago. Of existing US companies, IMO only Cessna might be able to develop a competitive and profitable regional airliner .


Textron is pretty much the only US aircraft manufacturer with any degree of likelihood of entering the regional jet market.
 
Nean1
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:59 pm

FLALEFTY wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
FLALEFTY wrote:

The PW814 is a derivative of the PW1000 aimed at the biz jet market. It weighs roughly 665 lbs. less than the PW1200G, but a bit more than 700 lbs. more than the existing GE CF34-8C. Could a pair of PW814's work out for a re-engined CRJ900 NextGen?



I think if Textron offered to buy the remains of the CRJ program from Mitsubishi, they would be eager to entertain the offer. Virtually all Mitsubishi has left is MRO support for the CRJ's, which is something Textron is better organized to do on a global level.



The CRJ700 was paper derated to a MTOW of 65,000 lbs. & 1,000 nm range to come up with the CRJ550. Granted, the CRJ550 is only outfitted with a 50 seat cabin. However, an all-new, clean sheet design, using advanced, light weight materials could probably allow for a 70-seat variant to be developed meeting CRJ550-like MTOW and range specs. The mainline pilot unions would probably grumble about accepting such a plane, but ultimately they probably would.


The reason I asked what engine you had in mind is because all newer engines similar in power to the CF34s appear to be much heavier...and CRJs are already tail heavy from my experience (at least the -900, I don’t have enough experience in the -700 to have an opinion). We often had to move stuff forward for W/B on -900s. Can’t imagine another 1400+ lbs of motor at the back (plus whatever additional structure needed to support it) will help that. And for what % reduction in fuel burn on regional stage lengths, especially with the added weight? My thoughts are, it just isn’t worth it on a CRJ even if they could make the W/B work. And they are very disliked from a passenger experience anyway compared to E175s.

Regarding the comment about unions, no union will grumble about or not “accept” a plane. A plane either fits within clearly defined scope limits, or it doesn’t. If a manufacturer could make one that is scope compliant that’s more efficient than existing 40-76 seaters, great. They are fair game for airlines to purchase and outsource, and unions can’t/won’t say anything about it. So far, no one has been able to do that. What unions will grumble about is new planes designed outside of scope limits, with management and manufacturers trying to move the scope goalposts, like the E175-E2, for example.

The other thing that is often ignored on here is that mainline pilot unions have always and will continue to welcome e175-E2 aircraft....to mainline. Nothing prevents any airplane like E175-E2, from flying in the US. Scope clauses just prevent them from being outsourced.


My thoughts on re-engining the CRJ900 are purely hypothetical. The last CRJ900 has been built and delivered and it appears that the entire CRJ production program has reached the end of the line. The same goes for the possibility of Textron buying out Mitsubishi's interest in the CRJ program, it is purely hypothetical and unlikely to happen. I put these thoughts out there to stimulate conversation. However, it is interesting that no new >= 76 seat regional jet (that is scope-compliant) is available. Will the regional airlines simply be starved of appropriate equipment as the current fleets they operate age out?

Also, I think the E175E2 will never see service with airlines in North America. The improved economics (over the E1) promised by Embraer only work to offset the higher capital cost if the plane is operated at 80 seats, rather than at the 76 seat limit, which as we both know is a "no-go". I think Delta has set the lower limit for what mainline will operate when they put the 109-passenger A221 in their fleet, so it is highly unlikely they would entertain adding the E175E2. I imagine both AA and UA will be taking a hard look at the A220 in a couple of years (after the pandemic ends) to compete with Delta in this market niche.

As for Boeing entering the regional market, they are currently so financially crippled that it will be years before they start making steady profits on their current offerings. I don't see them pursuing the self-limited regional airline market.



https://airinsight.com/what-is-mitsubis ... o-do-next/

The Airinsight website honors the name and offers an imaginative proposal. For my part, I think that it is not in the DNA of Japanese companies to have a share in the regional aviation market. It seems to me that there is a mental block from them to participate in something so volatile with the aggravation of having to open a large part of the control to work with other companies in partnership. I honestly do not believe that Mitsubishi will be able to reinvent itself to that point.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:18 am

I looked up the performance specs for the CBA 123. With my rough calculations of fuel capacity and range, it appears to be a very efficient design compared to contemporary aircraft with near jet speed. The Avanti II has similar speed characteristics.

So instead of re-powering the 50 - 60 seaters with heavier new turbofans, perhaps they should look at the way more efficient aft mounted turbo props.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5756
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:01 am

MohawkWeekend wrote:
I looked up the performance specs for the CBA 123. With my rough calculations of fuel capacity and range, it appears to be a very efficient design compared to contemporary aircraft with near jet speed. The Avanti II has similar speed characteristics.

So instead of re-powering the 50 - 60 seaters with heavier new turbofans, perhaps they should look at the way more efficient aft mounted turbo props.

There will be a cut-over point in terms of weight and airspeed where the aerodynamic benefit of rear-mounted engines (in terms of a clean wing) is outweighed (no pun intended) by the structural benefit of wing-mounted engines (in terms of bending moment relief on the wing). I’m not sure where that point would be, but it seems indicative that Embraer went with wing-mounted engines instead of rear-mounted for the E Jet series, as did Mitsubishi, Sukhoi, and Dornier with the still-born 728. Im even less sure how this would translate to a turboprop, but it is interesting that the CBA 123 is to date the only type I can think of to attempt the rear-mounted podded configuration for a turboprop.

V/F
 
User avatar
eeightning
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:23 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:49 am

“JoseSalazar wrote:

When you say “re-engine” and “newer engines,” what kind of engine do you have in mind? Are you thinking of an engine that currently exists, or one that you’re hoping is designed in the future?.”

GE has, several times, mentioned the possibility of a pip for the cf34.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:32 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
I looked up the performance specs for the CBA 123. With my rough calculations of fuel capacity and range, it appears to be a very efficient design compared to contemporary aircraft with near jet speed. The Avanti II has similar speed characteristics.

So instead of re-powering the 50 - 60 seaters with heavier new turbofans, perhaps they should look at the way more efficient aft mounted turbo props.

There will be a cut-over point in terms of weight and airspeed where the aerodynamic benefit of rear-mounted engines (in terms of a clean wing) is outweighed (no pun intended) by the structural benefit of wing-mounted engines (in terms of bending moment relief on the wing). I’m not sure where that point would be, but it seems indicative that Embraer went with wing-mounted engines instead of rear-mounted for the E Jet series, as did Mitsubishi, Sukhoi, and Dornier with the still-born 728. Im even less sure how this would translate to a turboprop, but it is interesting that the CBA 123 is to date the only type I can think of to attempt the rear-mounted podded configuration for a turboprop.

V/F


The CBA 123 and the MD90 propfan were tested. I'd like to see NASA or the manufactures try a test re-powering one of the CRJ/ERJ to see what the new engines and high tech props of today can do. That should be an incredibly expensive endeavor - you could just do one side. Having a big fan pushing a plane should always be more efficient that a regular jet engine.

The other option is to go with the Avanti II set up but curing the noise issue.
 
citationjet
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:15 pm

miegapele wrote:
Even smallest 737-100 had 120 seats.


Typical single class seating was 100 on the -100.
Lufthansa used two Class seating so total capacity was less than 100.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:28 pm

"That should be an incredibly expensive endeavor - you could just do one side". oops meant to say inexpensive to test on a used air frame. You would think GE/PW/RR would be interested in testing .
 
PHLspecial
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:40 pm

Can't regional trains, buses or cars replaces regional flights under 200 miles? I would think regional flying would continue to grow in stage length and the short flights would be dropped.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:17 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
Can't regional trains, buses or cars replaces regional flights under 200 miles? I would think regional flying would continue to grow in stage length and the short flights would be dropped.


Trains? The high speed train that is stopping in every burg between LAX and SFO is now costing about USD4K/inch. I think I did the math that the state of California could have bought Spirit airlines, and run all 150 A320s on inter-California flying and still been money ahead for at least 3 decades.

The bigger issue is that regional flying post Deregulation was a tremendously directly and indirectly subsidized activity.

That's not bad, per se. There are tons of good macroeconomic reasons to ensure a Cortez, Colorado or Dodge City, Kansas retains airline connectivity.

The problem, like most policies, is who pays for it.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:19 pm

JBo wrote:

Textron is pretty much the only US aircraft manufacturer with any degree of likelihood of entering the regional jet market.


Even then, I can only really imagine a Cape Air type operator buying 19 seaters to run on specific subsidized routings.
 
citationjet
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:40 pm

Wingtips56 wrote:
So yes, US carriers operated probably every 737-200 well over 100 seats.


The original Frontier Airlines had 97 Y seats in their 737-200s.
I have the seat map sticker board used to select seat assignments at the gate. 15 rows of 6, 2 rows of 2, and 1 row of 3.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:42 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
JBo wrote:

Textron is pretty much the only US aircraft manufacturer with any degree of likelihood of entering the regional jet market.


Even then, I can only really imagine a Cape Air type operator buying 19 seaters to run on specific subsidized routings.



I think we are hoping Textron builds the next 50 seater. America has had 30 to 50 seat commercial airliners since the end of WWII. First with DC-3's, Martins and Convairs. Next came turbo prop conversions, FH-227, Saabs and Dash 8's. Then to the current generation of regional jets.

IMO under 20 seaters will come back when single pilot operations are allowed over the 9 passenger limit currently. I also think operators need to become part of the "Amazon trade" supply chain. That extra freight revenue could bring back passenger service to many small cities (Youngstown for example)
 
PHLspecial
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 4:14 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
Can't regional trains, buses or cars replaces regional flights under 200 miles? I would think regional flying would continue to grow in stage length and the short flights would be dropped.


Trains? The high speed train that is stopping in every burg between LAX and SFO is now costing about USD4K/inch. I think I did the math that the state of California could have bought Spirit airlines, and run all 150 A320s on inter-California flying and still been money ahead for at least 3 decades.

The bigger issue is that regional flying post Deregulation was a tremendously directly and indirectly subsidized activity.

That's not bad, per se. There are tons of good macroeconomic reasons to ensure a Cortez, Colorado or Dodge City, Kansas retains airline connectivity.

The problem, like most policies, is who pays for it.

Before you dismiss trains look at Brightline in Florida and Texas Central. Both are building out train lines with success, Texas Central will lay tracks soon. High speed rail is good for short ranges.
My point if a regional jet is going to be built, it should be built with longer stage lengths. Short flights are expensive and not worth it under 200 miles in my opinion.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:31 pm

The problem is no one is flying the 200 mile trip and getting off at that city. They are connecting to a flight to wherever. So unless the train station is at the airport, America is going to need planes flying 100 to 500 miles to a hub.

E.G. there used to be 10 flights a day between CLE and CVG. But once Delta's hub was shut down, there a currently zero. Anyone going from CLE to CVG drives the 225 miles. I used to fly from CIU (Sault Ste, Marie MI) to CLE alot. The flights were full of people connecting in DTW (or MSP) going on to another City.
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 1401
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:41 pm

citationjet wrote:
Wingtips56 wrote:
So yes, US carriers operated probably every 737-200 well over 100 seats.


The original Frontier Airlines had 97 Y seats in their 737-200s.
I have the seat map sticker board used to select seat assignments at the gate. 15 rows of 6, 2 rows of 2, and 1 row of 3.

I guess "eventually" would have been a good word for me to have used. :smile:
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8939
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:01 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
The problem is no one is flying the 200 mile trip and getting off at that city. They are connecting to a flight to wherever. So unless the train station is at the airport, America is going to need planes flying 100 to 500 miles to a hub.

E.G. there used to be 10 flights a day between CLE and CVG. But once Delta's hub was shut down, there a currently zero. Anyone going from CLE to CVG drives the 225 miles. I used to fly from CIU (Sault Ste, Marie MI) to CLE alot. The flights were full of people connecting in DTW (or MSP) going on to another City.


If it’s true that most connect off of RJ flights, then the fares will support the service. I’ve made lots of connections at hubs from RJ, but I’ve flown short routes where flying just didn't make sense with all the security folderol. KBDL to KILG, I beat a colleague flying thru KPHL by driving.
 
9252fly
Posts: 1226
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:09 pm

" Why doesn't Boeing build a regional jet? "

I thought they had with B717, granted it's no longer in production. It could be argued that it was too large to be described as a regional jet.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 553
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:26 pm

Maybe Boeing will team up with Textron.

Build a Citation Longitude based regional jet. It's just a bit narrower than the Embraer 135, 3X16" seats and a 16" aisle, 31" pitch, 19-20 pax capacity, A Longitude is in the $26million dollar category in 2018 dollars..

Or resurrect the Citation Hemisphere program and base a regional jet from that... 4X17" seats, 17" aisle, 31" pitch, 30 pax capacity.Hermisphere was estimated to be in the $35million category in 2018 dollars. It has the same interior width as the CRJ700... for good or bad...

Just kidding. I was trying to cite an example of some US based manufacturer with a biz jet that could follow in the steps to the original Challenger.... just to illustrate how far fetched the idea is today...


Okay.. I edited... I didn't see that there was a second page to this thread..... I see lots of comments on Textron...
Last edited by FiscAutTecGarte on Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2396
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:33 pm

9252fly wrote:
" Why doesn't Boeing build a regional jet? "

I thought they had with B717, granted it's no longer in production. It could be argued that it was too large to be described as a regional jet.


That’s what they called it when the MD-95 was first rebranded as the 717: https://boeing.mediaroom.com/1998-01-08 ... gional-Jet
 
User avatar
JBo
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:23 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:54 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
JBo wrote:

Textron is pretty much the only US aircraft manufacturer with any degree of likelihood of entering the regional jet market.


Even then, I can only really imagine a Cape Air type operator buying 19 seaters to run on specific subsidized routings.


TBH I'd like to see Textron come up with a modernized Beech "1900E" for the 19-seat market. I think there'd be potential without the expense of a clean-sheet design.

MohawkWeekend wrote:
I think we are hoping Textron builds the next 50 seater. America has had 30 to 50 seat commercial airliners since the end of WWII. First with DC-3's, Martins and Convairs. Next came turbo prop conversions, FH-227, Saabs and Dash 8's. Then to the current generation of regional jets.

IMO under 20 seaters will come back when single pilot operations are allowed over the 9 passenger limit currently. I also think operators need to become part of the "Amazon trade" supply chain. That extra freight revenue could bring back passenger service to many small cities (Youngstown for example)


^^ Or if they made adjustments to the experience requirements for Part 121 ops. That was the big thing that hurt the regional industry.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:08 pm

A Hawker Beechcraft salesman told me a long while he could sell 300 1900s "tomorrow."

I agree there is a significant market for what was the best 19 seater ever built.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 553
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:50 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
A Hawker Beechcraft salesman told me a long while he could sell 300 1900s "tomorrow."

I agree there is a significant market for what was the best 19 seater ever built.


Sure he could.... It took 20 years to sell less than 700 of all available versions... I'm sure he could sell 300 in a day... :duck:

Looks like the SkyCourier is Textron's (cessna/beechcraft) future 19pax plane.
 
airlineworker
Posts: 451
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:20 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:13 am

CairnterriAIR wrote:


That's an interesting point - The F-28 was "regional" before regional was a thing. The F-28 was a unique jet airliner designed for operations out of short, even unpaved runways; it had relatively short range & "near-jet" speed (it cruised around 350 kts.); and it offered 20~25% more passenger capacity than the propeller-driven airliners it was replacing (chiefly F-27's, CV-580's and Viscount's). Fokker built 241 F-28's in total over a 20-year production run (1967-1987), though not all saw airline service. It had a frighteningly-bad safety record with 35 hull-loss accidents. The remaining survivors are being operated by various militaries, primarily in South America and Africa.[/quote]


I think the reason the F-28 had such a high hull loss rate was not due to any design issue, but rather it being due to who operated them and where. The aircraft was designed for smaller airlines looking to replace their older prop driven aircraft with a jet in order to improve on efficiency, capacity, and reliability. A starter jet per say. Most of the airlines who bought them were small operators flying into underdeveloped or remote areas. The F-28 was designed for that operation....easy maintain, didn’t need a jetway, had simple operating systems, and rugged landing gear. Upgrading from an F-27 to an F-28 was not hard. Unfortunately of these airlines fell a bit behind on the training curve causing some accidents, as well as pilots having issues flying these faster jets into remote areas with weather issues. A Canadian airline used to operating slower props on multi-leg trips through outlying stations got into a deicing issue during a hastily executed turnaround. Several Indonesian crews miscalculated speed and position and flew into mountains in bad weather. So pretty much the crashes were caused by inexperienced pilots.[/quote]

Don't know if I would call the F-28 an RJ, with 3-2 seating it was more of a small mainline plane. I remember when Allegheny flew them to HVN, the loudest jet apart from the Concorde I have ever heard and that led to some neighbors fighting the airport for years.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:49 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
acecrackshot wrote:
A Hawker Beechcraft salesman told me a long while he could sell 300 1900s "tomorrow."

I agree there is a significant market for what was the best 19 seater ever built.


Sure he could.... It took 20 years to sell less than 700 of all available versions... I'm sure he could sell 300 in a day... :duck:

Looks like the SkyCourier is Textron's (cessna/beechcraft) future 19pax plane.


I would agree on the SkyCourier being the only viable replacement, but there were lots more 19 seaters than the just the 1900. You have to include the Metro and Jball as direct competitors.

Then, you've got the 9-39 seat market for Do-228s/Twotters/D-328s/Dash 8s/etc. that never really got replaced.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:58 pm

If the world is really serious about reducing emissions, a whole new generation of 19, 40, and 50 seaters is needed. The A220 shows it can be done. It's going to take out of the box thinking to get it done profitably. If PWC/GE/RR want to keep selling engines, they should be pushing this too
 
User avatar
JBo
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:23 am

Re: Why doesn't Boeing build regional jet?

Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:01 am

acecrackshot wrote:
I would agree on the SkyCourier being the only viable replacement, but there were lots more 19 seaters than the just the 1900. You have to include the Metro and Jball as direct competitors.

Then, you've got the 9-39 seat market for Do-228s/Twotters/D-328s/Dash 8s/etc. that never really got replaced.


MohawkWeekend wrote:
If the world is really serious about reducing emissions, a whole new generation of 19, 40, and 50 seaters is needed. The A220 shows it can be done. It's going to take out of the box thinking to get it done profitably. If PWC/GE/RR want to keep selling engines, they should be pushing this too


What'd be ideal is to have a family of turboprop aircraft that cover the 19, 30ish, and 50-seat markets, with as much parts commonality as possible to make maintenance affordable, common type ratings, etc.

The SkyCourier is definitely the only viable 19-seat option for now, but the unfortunate drawback is that it's unpressurized and has fixed landing gear, which makes it best suited for super short-hop routes. A modernized 1900 and/or a clean-sheet 19-seater would have a pressurized cabin and retractable gear, giving it a comfort, altitude, and speed advantage.

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