Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14668
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:22 am

The "green new deal" or whatever it ends up being might have something to say about buying new inefficient jets because of "scope closes" that don't make sense (I'm not advocating against them, but just put a seat limit, not a weight one).
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:22 am

graceintheair wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
flyinggoat wrote:
Personally, I’d love to see the CRJ2, CRJ7, and maybe the CRJ9 reworked with a new wing and pusher props in place of the turbofans. I think it would do really well, and most passengers wouldn’t notice the props at the rear.



I agree with the pusher props - no one would look at a Starship or Avanti II and say they were old fashion prop planes. Maybe the public would finally accept them in the States


Would those types of turboprops cruise at the same speed and altitude of jets? I was terrified more than a few times flying on the Jetsreams to commute. An airline pilot told me they weren't as good as jets since they can't climb above the bad weather and the slower speeds make them easier to accumulate ice. I've read of way too many accidents of turboprops crashing due to icing. No thanks.



If they put a big enough engine on it, it should climb well and probably have the same service ceiling. The Avanti II has a 41,000 ceiling which is the same as the CRJ.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:40 am

MohawkWeekend wrote:
graceintheair wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:


I agree with the pusher props - no one would look at a Starship or Avanti II and say they were old fashion prop planes. Maybe the public would finally accept them in the States


Would those types of turboprops cruise at the same speed and altitude of jets? I was terrified more than a few times flying on the Jetsreams to commute. An airline pilot told me they weren't as good as jets since they can't climb above the bad weather and the slower speeds make them easier to accumulate ice. I've read of way too many accidents of turboprops crashing due to icing. No thanks.



If they put a big enough engine on it, it should climb well and probably have the same service ceiling. The Avanti II has a 41,000 ceiling which is the same as the CRJ.


Anyone who would take either to 410 ought to have his head examined. That's assuming the poor Avanti doesn't break on the taxi out.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15709
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:56 am

FlapOperator wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
graceintheair wrote:

Would those types of turboprops cruise at the same speed and altitude of jets? I was terrified more than a few times flying on the Jetsreams to commute. An airline pilot told me they weren't as good as jets since they can't climb above the bad weather and the slower speeds make them easier to accumulate ice. I've read of way too many accidents of turboprops crashing due to icing. No thanks.



If they put a big enough engine on it, it should climb well and probably have the same service ceiling. The Avanti II has a 41,000 ceiling which is the same as the CRJ.


Anyone who would take either to 410 ought to have his head examined. That's assuming the poor Avanti doesn't break on the taxi out.


:lol: And there goes my beer....fortunately it found the floor and not my keyboard.
 
NLINK
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:20 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Wed Jul 07, 2021 1:27 am

Aesma wrote:
The "green new deal" or whatever it ends up being might have something to say about buying new inefficient jets because of "scope closes" that don't make sense (I'm not advocating against them, but just put a seat limit, not a weight one).



Nothing is stopping the airlines now from buying the E2. They just can’t sub it out to the lowest bidder, they have to fly it at mainline.
 
User avatar
intrance
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 6:35 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:14 am

FlapOperator wrote:
Anyone who would take either to 410 ought to have his head examined. That's assuming the poor Avanti doesn't break on the taxi out.


I've taken the CRJ700 and 900 up to FL410 plenty of times, no problems as long as you don't try to get there with too much weight :P.
 
bluecrew
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:13 am

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:20 am

Naincompetent wrote:
As always, I'm baffled by the fact that no-one in the US wants to have anything to do with (rather) large turboprops like ATRs...

Yes more efficient, but passengers in the US have always hated them.

ATRs and DH8D's run into the same problem with scope as the CRJ7 and E170 (most contracts consider them large enough regional aircraft). And, the mission an E170 or CRJ7 can do is more flexible than any ATR out there on its best day.

AA tried their ATR experiment well into the 2000s, but at least at the end, they were restricted to just short hops out of DFW barely out of the TRACON. Most RJ stage lengths in the US aren't actually that short, commonly 400+ nm, where an ATR might work but would be tangibly slower and wouldn't save enough fuel to be worth it.
 
NLINK
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:20 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:50 am

Naincompetent wrote:
As always, I'm baffled by the fact that no-one in the US wants to have anything to do with (rather) large turboprops like ATRs...



They have the perception from a lot of Americans of lower quality pilot training and or experience , aka Colgan air. Then quite a few years ago American Eagle had the ATR crash due to icing. A lot of it is lack of real, accurate news coverage in the US.

It would take all 3 big carriers in the US to add a prop which will never happen. If only 1 adds a prop they will be at a major competitive disadvantage.
 
Speedy752
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:13 am

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:04 am

graceintheair wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
flyinggoat wrote:
Personally, I’d love to see the CRJ2, CRJ7, and maybe the CRJ9 reworked with a new wing and pusher props in place of the turbofans. I think it would do really well, and most passengers wouldn’t notice the props at the rear.



I agree with the pusher props - no one would look at a Starship or Avanti II and say they were old fashion prop planes. Maybe the public would finally accept them in the States


Would those types of turboprops cruise at the same speed and altitude of jets? I was terrified more than a few times flying on the Jetsreams to commute. An airline pilot told me they weren't as good as jets since they can't climb above the bad weather and the slower speeds make them easier to accumulate ice. I've read of way too many accidents of turboprops crashing due to icing. No thanks.


An ATR would cruise slower, a Q400 would faster but it’s going the way of the MRJ. Unless Embraer did launch a turboprop it would be just ATRs which did in fact crash due to icing problems way back when. Clearly they’re used elsewhere without prop aversion but it would open such a user up to competitors flying an E175 and gaining all the market share. Or Southwest flying in a 737
 
sldispatcher
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:55 am

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:10 am

UAL was rather emphatic that they were headed towards retiring 200 50 seat SINGLE CLASS airliners in the next 2 or 3 years. That can lead to a wide interpretation, but to me, it means exactly what they say. Doesn't mean they will be down 200 50 seat jets, just that they no longer want SINGLE class 50 seat jets.

Someone woke Mitsubishi up with a "what if"...I would think even a 100 plane order would get their attention..and United would get brand new 50 seaters (convertible to more seats if ever possible) at what would probably be a very good price. It's possible.
 
Jetport
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:56 pm

Naincompetent wrote:
As always, I'm baffled by the fact that no-one in the US wants to have anything to do with (rather) large turboprops like ATRs...


I have flown on large Turboprops far too many times (mostly Dash 8's and the "improved" :lol: Q400). I want nothing to do with them ever again. Large turboprops are NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) hell. Dentists probably miss the large turboprops in the US though, since they got to replace fillings more often.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Thu Jul 15, 2021 5:03 pm

The CV-580, YS-11 and FH-227 rode a lot better then the SAAB 340's and Dash 8's. They were roomy inside and if you sat in the back reasonably quiet.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Thu Jul 15, 2021 5:03 pm

Jetport wrote:
Naincompetent wrote:
As always, I'm baffled by the fact that no-one in the US wants to have anything to do with (rather) large turboprops like ATRs...

I have flown on large Turboprops far too many times (mostly Dash 8's and the "improved" :lol: Q400). I want nothing to do with them ever again. Large turboprops are NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) hell. Dentists probably miss the large turboprops in the US though, since they got to replace fillings more often.

On the other hand, chiropractors and massage therapists are thankful for the CRJs...
 
Jetport
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Thu Jul 15, 2021 5:08 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
LDRA wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

I imagine it’s a few years away, but I wouldn’t rule it out. IMO the small regional market will see significant changes as the CRJ/ERJs phase out. Whether it’s more at-risk flying with props or airlines like Silver filling in a gap, no idea.


A lot of times, RJs are competing against personal automotives, and driving assistance automation features on cars are getting better and better. People will be more tolerable driving say three hours to hub. It's simply more comfortable and relaxing sitting in private space of your personal car too


I think this is far more rare than you suggest (when we are talking about 50 seaters, not longer range 76 seaters). Someone taking an RJ is likely connecting through a hub; the cost and time of flying an RJ to a hub isn’t worth it non-stop. A 3 hour drive before getting to a hub airport to take another flight is very undesirable.


I totally agree, even a 2 hour drive to a busy hub with poor parking and unpredictable traffic is very undesirable. I am a real life version of your example. I live 9 miles from PWM and can leave my house 1 hour before my flight and have zero risk of missing my plane. BOS is 2 hours with no traffic, but since traffic is unpredictable in Boston and parking at BOS sucks, you have to give yourself at least 3 hours for the drive. A CRJ200 ride and extra connection is almost always preferable than going to BOS. Luckily PWM has grown enough that we have mostly E175/CRJ900/mainline now. We even have some of the new CRJ550's, which are wonderful!
Last edited by Jetport on Thu Jul 15, 2021 5:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
Jetport
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Thu Jul 15, 2021 5:08 pm

Looks like there is a problem when you edit a post, it reposts as a duplicate and as a quote. Appears if you preview first it solves the double post problem.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Fri Jul 16, 2021 4:21 am

rbavfan wrote:
Covid did not kill the spaceJet, unflexible scope clause killed it. It also makes it impossible for US airlines to get the E175-E2 as it has a weight as well as a seat limit. So they are both to heavy for scope.


The more regional pilots hired at Legacies, the more likely Scope will be defended like a dog.

Ultimately, what killed the MRJ wasn’t scope or any contract language, but ballooning costs on an poorly managed aircraft development project that was decades old and going no where fast.

It’s too bad, but it’s a warning that reconstituting abandoned complex integrated engineering is really really tough once you let it go. This is Mitsubishi we are talking about, who knows engineering and manufacturing.

Maybe Kawasaki can take a P-1, put the wing on top like a BaE-146 and make an airliner. Probably more comfortable than a 737.
 
User avatar
Leovinus
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:57 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Fri Jul 16, 2021 8:02 am

FlapOperator wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
Covid did not kill the spaceJet, unflexible scope clause killed it. It also makes it impossible for US airlines to get the E175-E2 as it has a weight as well as a seat limit. So they are both to heavy for scope.


The more regional pilots hired at Legacies, the more likely Scope will be defended like a dog.

Ultimately, what killed the MRJ wasn’t scope or any contract language, but ballooning costs on an poorly managed aircraft development project that was decades old and going no where fast.

It’s too bad, but it’s a warning that reconstituting abandoned complex integrated engineering is really really tough once you let it go. This is Mitsubishi we are talking about, who knows engineering and manufacturing.

Maybe Kawasaki can take a P-1, put the wing on top like a BaE-146 and make an airliner. Probably more comfortable than a 737.


Kawasaki did propose the Kawasaki YPX. A twin engined P-1 derived airliner, but it never left the proposal stage. I know too little about the project, and some googling doesn't result in much either. At least not in English. So who knows why it was cancelled? Though I wonder if its due to the ~90-140 seats that set it up to compete with the A220, MC-21, E-jets and proposed stretches of the SSJ100. A crowded space for a company with little experience, or presence, in the civilian aviation industry. Making customers cautious and the boardroom overly pragmatic perhaps? From a visibility standpoint Mitsubishi was certainly out in force by comparison in order to assuage any such fears.

Too bad though, it would have been very interesting.
 
DartHerald
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:08 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Fri Jul 16, 2021 1:20 pm

NLINK wrote:
Naincompetent wrote:
As always, I'm baffled by the fact that no-one in the US wants to have anything to do with (rather) large turboprops like ATRs...



They have the perception from a lot of Americans of lower quality pilot training and or experience , aka Colgan air. Then quite a few years ago American Eagle had the ATR crash due to icing. A lot of it is lack of real, accurate news coverage in the US.

It would take all 3 big carriers in the US to add a prop which will never happen. If only 1 adds a prop they will be at a major competitive disadvantage.


It is interesting if that is the case, the accidents were a long time ago - so why do people think that the 737Max will not have an image problem after two recently highly publicised fatal accidents?
 
bigb
Posts: 1417
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Fri Jul 16, 2021 2:51 pm

DartHerald wrote:
NLINK wrote:
Naincompetent wrote:
As always, I'm baffled by the fact that no-one in the US wants to have anything to do with (rather) large turboprops like ATRs...



They have the perception from a lot of Americans of lower quality pilot training and or experience , aka Colgan air. Then quite a few years ago American Eagle had the ATR crash due to icing. A lot of it is lack of real, accurate news coverage in the US.

It would take all 3 big carriers in the US to add a prop which will never happen. If only 1 adds a prop they will be at a major competitive disadvantage.


It is interesting if that is the case, the accidents were a long time ago - so why do people think that the 737Max will not have an image problem after two recently highly publicised fatal accidents?


That’s because the max isn’t a turbo prop. Your average passenger can’t tell a Max from a Airbus or 757. But they can tell difference from a jet to a turboprop.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Fri Jul 16, 2021 3:12 pm

DartHerald wrote:
It is interesting if that is the case, the accidents were a long time ago - so why do people think that the 737Max will not have an image problem after two recently highly publicised fatal accidents?

Because we already have a few months of data, very few people are taking up offers to book away from the MAX. The vast majority show up and get on the plane without knowing or caring if it is a MAX or a NG or an Airbus product.
 
IADCA
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Fri Jul 16, 2021 3:54 pm

Jetport wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
LDRA wrote:

A lot of times, RJs are competing against personal automotives, and driving assistance automation features on cars are getting better and better. People will be more tolerable driving say three hours to hub. It's simply more comfortable and relaxing sitting in private space of your personal car too


I think this is far more rare than you suggest (when we are talking about 50 seaters, not longer range 76 seaters). Someone taking an RJ is likely connecting through a hub; the cost and time of flying an RJ to a hub isn’t worth it non-stop. A 3 hour drive before getting to a hub airport to take another flight is very undesirable.


I totally agree, even a 2 hour drive to a busy hub with poor parking and unpredictable traffic is very undesirable. I am a real life version of your example. I live 9 miles from PWM and can leave my house 1 hour before my flight and have zero risk of missing my plane. BOS is 2 hours with no traffic, but since traffic is unpredictable in Boston and parking at BOS sucks, you have to give yourself at least 3 hours for the drive. A CRJ200 ride and extra connection is almost always preferable than going to BOS. Luckily PWM has grown enough that we have mostly E175/CRJ900/mainline now. We even have some of the new CRJ550's, which are wonderful!


I agree here. I'm afraid I don't understand why people are talking about 3 hour drives. Those are drives that - almost regardless of congestion - are sub-200 miles. If you're an O&D passenger on that, you're likely driving (unless you're in the Northeast, in which case the train is more likely). And if you're connecting, yes, you are likely taking the RJ.

But RJ flights don't just exist to feed hubs. They also take passengers from hubs, often connecting onto other RJs. Something like 80% of my domestic flying is on RJ-to-RJ connections or on spoke to hub O&D (or vice versa). Thus I'm frequently bridging things like CHA-xxx-PIT or similar. That's going to be 2 RJ flights rather than a 10-hour drive. Sure, I could drive between 2 or 3 hours to Atlanta or Nashville to do that, but...why? And even moreso, why would someone who has to rent a car (someone coming to an RJ-only city, as opposed to from it) do it? The D part of O&D matters.

And, most importantly, that hypothetical stage length of a 3-hour drive is ridiculously short. Yes, there are such flights. But those are hops that are 30 minutes in the air, and often they avoid impossible or exceedingly unpleasant drives. When they don't, people drive them. Really, these should be turboprop flights. They are where the airspeed and economics of props work. But, alas Americans seem to think they know better than everyone else. But despite this, even nearly 20 years ago, the average stage length for RJs (and this was before the 170/190 and CR9) was around 400 miles. It shot up to around 450 in the 2003-2005 window. By the middle of the 2010s and despite the near-total disappearance of props in the US, both E145s and CR2s still had average stage lengths well over 300 miles at every carrier operating them, and the larger RJs were around or over 500 miles at almost every carrier having taken the longer flights.

Put succinctly: the idea of someone taking an RJ instead of a 3-hour drive to a hub is more of an edge case than people think. That's the type of flight that used to exist with turboprops and largely fell out of existence with RJs, even 50-seaters.
 
travaz
Posts: 1125
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 1:03 am

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Fri Jul 16, 2021 4:58 pm

Driving ease has a lot to do with where you live. I live in the PHX area (West Side) and driving to FLG or PRC is 2 hours and 1hour 45 Minutes to PRC. Its a good 40 min with good traffic to PHX. Las Vegas is 4 Hours and 30 Minutes. If you live in the Southwest you are used to driving longer distances at higher speeds. I endured turbo props out of FLG for 30 Years. B-1900 to Dash 8's. It was always a turbulent ride going over the Mogollon Rim off the plateau into the desert. I was never afraid but it made it damn hard to read a book!
 
flyfresno
Posts: 1363
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:18 am

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Fri Jul 16, 2021 5:44 pm

freakyrat wrote:
I think this is a good idea becuse the majors are getting rid of the 50-seaters even for the short runs. For example SBN-DTW Endeavor using a 76-seat CRJ900 as Delta Connection for the morning flight. United Express occasionally using Skywest E170's for the short run of SBN-ORD.


I know everyone loves jets and upguaging, but I'm still surprised that we aren't seeing someone develop a 40ish seat turboprop (that can carry full passengers with updated weights + bags + alternate fuel). With ORD's runway reconfiguration significantly improving their departure and arrival rates, such an aircraft would seem to make sense for smaller markets from O'hare and a lot of other hubs - potentially even to markets as big as SBN that are really close. The alternative for some extremely small markets could actually be losing service entirely (or EAS service using who-knows-what type of aircraft).
 
flyfresno
Posts: 1363
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:18 am

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Fri Jul 16, 2021 5:50 pm

NLINK wrote:
Naincompetent wrote:
As always, I'm baffled by the fact that no-one in the US wants to have anything to do with (rather) large turboprops like ATRs...



They have the perception from a lot of Americans of lower quality pilot training and or experience , aka Colgan air. Then quite a few years ago American Eagle had the ATR crash due to icing. A lot of it is lack of real, accurate news coverage in the US.

It would take all 3 big carriers in the US to add a prop which will never happen. If only 1 adds a prop they will be at a major competitive disadvantage.


Exactly...turboprops tend to be flown by the least experienced pilots (not always, but a lot of the time) with the worst work rules - unfortunately two factors that contribute to more incidents. Additionally, with advances in technology, a completely newly designed turboprop aircraft would likely be leaps ahead of its predecessors technologically - the majority of which were designed in the 80's and before - and probably have a much better passenger experience too.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Fri Jul 16, 2021 6:19 pm

airlineworker wrote:
The CRJ-700 and 900 are still in service and seem to be liked by passengers. New engines might also make them more attractive..


From a customer perspective, I've only enjoyed flying in them under two circumstances: 1. Flight less than 1 hour... or 2. I've been upgraded to 1st class.

Engines are tough because all of the candidates weigh entirely too much or are not designed for quick turn arounds/ rapid cycles....
 
LDRA
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Fri Jul 16, 2021 6:54 pm

flyfresno wrote:
NLINK wrote:
Naincompetent wrote:
As always, I'm baffled by the fact that no-one in the US wants to have anything to do with (rather) large turboprops like ATRs...



They have the perception from a lot of Americans of lower quality pilot training and or experience , aka Colgan air. Then quite a few years ago American Eagle had the ATR crash due to icing. A lot of it is lack of real, accurate news coverage in the US.

It would take all 3 big carriers in the US to add a prop which will never happen. If only 1 adds a prop they will be at a major competitive disadvantage.


Exactly...turboprops tend to be flown by the least experienced pilots (not always, but a lot of the time) with the worst work rules - unfortunately two factors that contribute to more incidents. Additionally, with advances in technology, a completely newly designed turboprop aircraft would likely be leaps ahead of its predecessors technologically - the majority of which were designed in the 80's and before - and probably have a much better passenger experience too.

Pratt is working on hybrid turboprop propulsion, per other thread. They are targeting 30% fuel saving. With CO2 emissions being hot topic now and into future, perhaps turbo prop regional aircraft will make a comeback!
 
freakyrat
Posts: 2341
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:04 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Fri Jul 16, 2021 7:11 pm

flyfresno wrote:
freakyrat wrote:
I think this is a good idea becuse the majors are getting rid of the 50-seaters even for the short runs. For example SBN-DTW Endeavor using a 76-seat CRJ900 as Delta Connection for the morning flight. United Express occasionally using Skywest E170's for the short run of SBN-ORD.


I know everyone loves jets and upguaging, but I'm still surprised that we aren't seeing someone develop a 40ish seat turboprop (that can carry full passengers with updated weights + bags + alternate fuel). With ORD's runway reconfiguration significantly improving their departure and arrival rates, such an aircraft would seem to make sense for smaller markets from O'hare and a lot of other hubs - potentially even to markets as big as SBN that are really close. The alternative for some extremely small markets could actually be losing service entirely (or EAS service using who-knows-what type of aircraft).


SBN-ORD would actually benefit from a high speed turboprop as the time difference between the turboprop and a jet is negligible. The CRJ900 is more appropriate for SBN-ATL and SBN-MSP. If and when the local traffic returns to 2019 levels Delta mainline jets to Atlanta for the morning and late afternoon flight will be more appropriate.
 
eugdjinn
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 5:58 pm

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Fri Jul 16, 2021 7:12 pm

Actually, the 700 is a fantastic aircraft, and within the AA scope clause, can replace every 'small' RJ - so every 145 in the Piedmont and Envoy fleet, one for one. Granted, Envoy handed theirs off to PSA and Piedmont doesn't have them on their certificate, but it is likely the only way forward for Piedmont, and really, it makes a whole lot of sense going forward for small city service. It's a robust aircraft, able to operate off small fields, with built in stairs, and really pretty great economics. With the wing-spar life limitation eliminated, and the Atmosphere cabin with its larger bins, I think AA would buy them to replace the long in the tooth 145s. And if UA could get its unions to match the AA scope it would let them move to a far more reasonable fleet. The 550 is goofy, and I think the first time one has to be evacuated, we'll learn that all those bins are an issue and it needs two FAs.
 
JohanTally
Topic Author
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Fri Jul 16, 2021 7:31 pm

eugdjinn wrote:
Actually, the 700 is a fantastic aircraft, and within the AA scope clause, can replace every 'small' RJ - so every 145 in the Piedmont and Envoy fleet, one for one. Granted, Envoy handed theirs off to PSA and Piedmont doesn't have them on their certificate, but it is likely the only way forward for Piedmont, and really, it makes a whole lot of sense going forward for small city service. It's a robust aircraft, able to operate off small fields, with built in stairs, and really pretty great economics. With the wing-spar life limitation eliminated, and the Atmosphere cabin with its larger bins, I think AA would buy them to replace the long in the tooth 145s. And if UA could get its unions to match the AA scope it would let them move to a far more reasonable fleet. The 550 is goofy, and I think the first time one has to be evacuated, we'll learn that all those bins are an issue and it needs two FAs.

AA is definitely the CR7 sweet spot in regards to scope. I really hope PT can acquire another RJ such as CR7s because the 145s realistically only have 5-7 years left if that.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 2345
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: MHI mulling restarting CRJ production

Sat Jul 17, 2021 9:11 am

This thread went off topic and will be locked.

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