Welcome to the Embraer E2 Production and News thread - 2022 edition. Please continue to post your news and discussions below.

Link to the locked 2021 edition:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1455939

Azorra orders 20 E2s

https://newsroom.aviator.aero/azorra-pl ... -aircraft/

I’m excited to see this airplane get some love. I think it’s an amazing aircraft

Embraer delays the development of E175E2 by 3-years.

Its unfortunate the updated version is not compliant with U.S. scope restrictions, making it an unviable option for airlines.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FL7H5iZWQAY ... ame=medium

LAXintl wrote:

Embraer delays the development of E175E2 by 3-years.

Its unfortunate the updated version is not compliant with U.S. scope restrictions, making it an unviable option for airlines.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FL7H5iZWQAY ... ame=medium

In this market, pilots have no reason to budge on scope. Either market a plane under 86,000lb or there is no E2-175. In my opinion, that market needs a much lower variable cost aircraft or it will go fractional daily flying (ULCCs or majors switching to less than daily service).

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Embraer delays the development of E175E2 by 3-years.

Its unfortunate the updated version is not compliant with U.S. scope restrictions, making it an unviable option for airlines.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FL7H5iZWQAY ... ame=medium

In this market, pilots have no reason to budge on scope. Either market a plane under 86,000lb or there is no E2-175. In my opinion, that market needs a much lower variable cost aircraft or it will go fractional daily flying (ULCCs or majors switching to less than daily service).

Lightsaber

Now that the E2-175 is delayed until 5-6 years from now, do you think Embraer will use the time to redesign the aircraft to fit the scope clause? It seems Embraer thought unions would be willing to change the scope to fit the aircraft, but now realises it must be the other way around. So I'm thinking of going back to the original E175 E1 length, perhaps lighter smaller engines and/or wings, but I'm no expert at all - what are your thoughts about the possibilities if I may ask?

Between launch and EIS of the E2-190 there was 5 years, so I think Embraer can do quite a lot with the E2-175 design between now and 2027/2028.

Yes, the new TP which might be announced in the end of this year. I believe that they shifted focus.

frigatebird wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Embraer delays the development of E175E2 by 3-years.

Its unfortunate the updated version is not compliant with U.S. scope restrictions, making it an unviable option for airlines.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FL7H5iZWQAY ... ame=medium

In this market, pilots have no reason to budge on scope. Either market a plane under 86,000lb or there is no E2-175. In my opinion, that market needs a much lower variable cost aircraft or it will go fractional daily flying (ULCCs or majors switching to less than daily service).

Lightsaber

Now that the E2-175 is delayed until 5-6 years from now, do you think Embraer will use the time to redesign the aircraft to fit the scope clause? It seems Embraer thought unions would be willing to change the scope to fit the aircraft, but now realises it must be the other way around. So I'm thinking of going back to the original E175 E1 length, perhaps lighter smaller engines and/or wings, but I'm no expert at all - what are your thoughts about the possibilities if I may ask?

Between launch and EIS of the E2-190 there was 5 years, so I think Embraer can do quite a lot with the E2-175 design between now and 2027/2028.

In my opinion, the E2-175 could easily be made scope compliant.
1. Reduce the wingspan back to the later E1-175 wingspan. This gives up some efficiency for weight (there is good weight in an aircraft).
2. Reduce the body length back towards the E1-175 body length.
3. Investigate the use of new aluminum alloys to save weight.

However, I expect a 76 seat turboprop to be offered instead.

Lightsaber

“ With the launch of the 70 to 90 seater turboprop expected later this year or early 2023, Embraer is developing a new aircraft that would easily eat into the E175-E2’s market. Vice President of Marketing and Product Development, Rodrigo Silva e Souza, told AirInsight in August ast year that these are two totally different aircraft that could co-exist alongside each other, but the turboprop could offer unmatched economics that makes the turbofan aircraft even less attractive. Keep in mind that Embraer hopes to enter the turboprop into service in 2027-2028, exactly the same timeframe it now sees for the E175-E2.”

https://airinsight.com/embraer-e175-e2- ... ntil-2027/

Embraer is going to sell just as many 70-90 turboprops for DL/AA/UA (their largest big-E customers worldwide thru their regional partners) as they would out-of-scope E2s: zero. lightsaber's redesign might save it. U.S. passengers are not going to pay the RASM premium of Big 3 regional ops to fly a prop. Many will adjust their schedules to fly jets, particularly LCC/ULCC 737-700 and up.

Beating current E1 (new wing tip version) economics under current scope is very hard. The M100 would not be able to match it and neither would a smaller version of the E175 E2. Maybe only for maintenance costs. But not fuel burn. Unless significant changes in new materials, which is very expensive in terms of manufacturing costs.

I personally know many who avoid turboprop aircraft, while I do not consider the avoidance rational, that has been an inhibition to yield. Embraer will try, I do not know if they can succeed. I hope large orders prove me wrong.

Jungleneer wrote:

Beating current E1 (new wing tip version) economics under current scope is very hard. The M100 would not be able to match it and neither would a smaller version of the E175 E2. Maybe only for maintenance costs. But not fuel burn. Unless significant changes in new materials, which is very expensive in terms of manufacturing costs.

The engines have significantly lower fuel burn.

MESA had a conditional order for 50+ options.

Warning, simpleflying, open in incognito tab:
https://simpleflying.com/mesa-airlines- ... -spacejet/


The E1-175 economics is hitting the reality of A220/NEO/MAX economics improvements over the prior generation plus pricier pilots. Because efficiency is relative and that relative efficiency is becoming worse vs. mainline (partially due to retirement of MD-80s and other less efficient aircraft), I do not expect many going forward E1-175 sales.

My opinion is Embraer needs a scope compliant E2-175. We shall see.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

The engines have significantly lower fuel burn.

From what I heard, that’s only on paper. If it was that simple to create the E2 scope compliant, I believe that Embraer would have done it already. And I heard from people from MITAC that the E1 was unbeatable under current scope. And I believe that this has much to do with pricing and that fuel burn advantage is not bigger than single digit.

But I agree that people avoid TP. Embraer Will have to address this somehow.

There hasn't been a turboprop quite like what Embraer has proposed. The negative attributes people tend to associate with turboprops has as much to do with cramped cabins, no first class, no amenities, lavatories without sinks, and noise from the engines on the wings.

With an E2-width cabin and amenities, and engines in the aft, it's a game-changer for turboprops in the US, IMO.

Are turboprops exempt from the scope clauses or treated differently? In terms of acceptance if the cabin is as comfortable and quiet of a jet, hang a "I'm green" tag on it I think it would be accepted, the only part that makes it less equal is the slower speed, that can't be fixed.

I recall the PW engines for the E2-175 have larger cores compared to optimum for this thrust. Is there a lighter latest generation engine that is available at this thrust? The PW1700G is 3,800 lb for 15,000 lb thrust, the E1 has GE CF34-8E which weigh 2,600 lb for 14,500 lb thrust. My look thru RR, PW, and GE saw a couple at 3,200 lb but with more thrust - looks to be a void space for new engine types.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Are turboprops exempt from the scope clauses or treated differently?

They have the same 86,000lb limit on weight. That said, the engines are far lighter.

Lightsaber

JayinKitsap wrote:

I recall the PW engines for the E2-175 have larger cores compared to optimum for this thrust. Is there a lighter latest generation engine that is available at this thrust? The PW1700G is 3,800 lb for 15,000 lb thrust, the E1 has GE CF34-8E which weigh 2,600 lb for 14,500 lb thrust. My look thru RR, PW, and GE saw a couple at 3,200 lb but with more thrust - looks to be a void space for new engine types.

Not at this time. The Passport is heavy. 2065kg or 700lb more than the Pratt.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... e%2002.pdf

There isn't a business case to spend $3 to $4 billion usd to develop a custom engine. Any custom engine would have to have a lower pressure ratio high spool to cut costs in my opinion.

The higher the pressure the engine, the heavier the casing. So one must give up efficiency for weight.

80% or so of the engine cost is the core. Developing a new one requires some compatible use.

Pratt has the PW1500G core in the PW1700G, PW816, and PW812. RR has 2 sizes of Pearl engines (The prior generation of BR700 had three.) The CF34 was the original high bypass turbofan (why it is a gas hog), but is in more variations than I know off the top of my head.

What variations do you propose to close the business case?

Lightsaber

Embraer has announced a further delay of the entry into service of its E175-E2. Last year it planned to pause the programme until at least 2024, now it has announced it will do so until at least 2027-2028.

https://newsroom.aviator.aero/material- ... t-program/

https://www.scramble.nl/civil-news/embr ... -programme

Cheers!

Scope clauses notwithstanding, how does E175-E2 stand, vs. the fuel efficiency/emissions rules of ICAO, that kick in in 2027-2028?

lightsaber wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I recall the PW engines for the E2-175 have larger cores compared to optimum for this thrust. Is there a lighter latest generation engine that is available at this thrust? The PW1700G is 3,800 lb for 15,000 lb thrust, the E1 has GE CF34-8E which weigh 2,600 lb for 14,500 lb thrust. My look thru RR, PW, and GE saw a couple at 3,200 lb but with more thrust - looks to be a void space for new engine types.

Not at this time. The Passport is heavy. 2065kg or 700lb more than the Pratt.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... e%2002.pdf

There isn't a business case to spend $3 to $4 billion usd to develop a custom engine. Any custom engine would have to have a lower pressure ratio high spool to cut costs in my opinion.

The higher the pressure the engine, the heavier the casing. So one must give up efficiency for weight.

80% or so of the engine cost is the core. Developing a new one requires some compatible use.

Pratt has the PW1500G core in the PW1700G, PW816, and PW812. RR has 2 sizes of Pearl engines (The prior generation of BR700 had three.) The CF34 was the original high bypass turbofan (why it is a gas hog), but is in more variations than I know off the top of my head.

What variations do you propose to close the business case?

Lightsaber

I see only one option for Embraer, shrink the E2-175 more to the size of the E-170 vs E-175, as the engines are 2,400# more for the pair, that much must come out of elsewhere. It seems beyond me that any OEM that this labor clause would change, quite unlikely.

For the E3 turboprop, I wonder if they are talking to Safran and their open rotor RISE engine. I really like how the static blades have such positive effect, no need to contra rotate.

Saw a beautiful black E2 coming in for landing here in Yellowknife (YZF) this week. Certainly up here for cold weather testing!

lightsaber wrote:

Pratt has the PW1500G core in the PW1700G, PW816, and PW812. RR has 2 sizes of Pearl engines (The prior generation of BR700 had three.) The CF34 was the original high bypass turbofan (why it is a gas hog), but is in more variations than I know off the top of my head.

What variations do you propose to close the business case?

Lightsaber

The core of the PW1500G is used in the PW1900g and the PW814/815 (there is no PW816). The PW812 uses the same, smaller, core than the PW1200G and the PW1700G. The PW1200G is dead, the PW1700G "paused" though...

heathrow wrote:

Saw a beautiful black E2 coming in for landing here in Yellowknife (YZF) this week. Certainly up here for cold weather testing!

https://aeroin.net/embraer-colocou-o-av ... boratorio/

"...Embraer reports today that it completed testing for the E195-E2 last week in Yellowknife and Iqaluit, Canada. The environment was ideal for measuring the effect of prolonged cold on aircraft operations and systems.
...
The E195-E2 has already passed the cold immersion test during its original certification years ago with EASA (European Union Aviation Regulatory Agency) and other regulators. This test was carried out inside a hangar that simulated ultra-low temperature conditions outside.

Transport Canada, however, requires that the E195-E2 be tested in a natural environment, rather than in a laboratory resembling a huge refrigerator, before the first aircraft can be delivered to Canada's Porter Airlines later this year. ..."

Embraer has announced that it is suspending testing and certification of the E175-E2 for three years. IMHO, this probably means it will never enter service.

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/embr ... hree-years

Embraer has decided to pause flight testing and certification of the Embraer 175-E2 for three years in a move that raises further doubts about the future viability of the program.

The manufacturer said in a regulatory filing that “as in previous years, the re-programming of activities is associated with the ongoing U.S. mainline scope clause discussions with the pilot unions regarding the maximum take-off weight (MTOW) limitation for aircraft with up to 76 seats, together with current global market conditions for commercial aviation and the continuing interest in the current E175 jet in the U.S. market.”

No surprise here, Scope Clauses will not move and if EMB cant make it lighter it is dead.

Maybe the E3 can fill the market.

scbriml wrote:

Embraer has announced that it is suspending testing and certification of the E175-E2 for three years. IMHO, this probably means it will never enter service.

Not in its current form, no.

FluidFlow wrote:

No surprise here, Scope Clauses will not move and if EMB cant make it lighter it is dead.

Maybe the E3 can fill the market.

Either the E3, but if this aircraft will be launched this will happen not earlier than end of the year (according to sources in the E3 thread).
Or Embraer will indeed have to make the E2-175 scope compliant. Not easy, IMO they will have go back to the E1-175 length, maybe smaller/lighter wings. Not sure if it's possible to reduce enough weight to make it scope compliant, the new engines are quite heavy compared to the E1.

Were some interesting inputs about this subject in the E2 testing/production thread.

That sucks. I'm really hoping to fly an E175-E2 one day. It would be the most logical progression (from the "classic" E175). Hopefully things can be worked out.

As it stands now, the E2-175 is an airplane without an engine... Since Dec 2021, P&W and MTU Aero have put on ice for 3 years the engine development for the E2-175:

https://leehamnews.com/2021/12/21/p-mtu ... in-future/

MTU Aero engines expects no revenue from it and has written off its investment.

docmtl

So if I got this right the current version of E2-175 has a MTOW at 99000 lb. That is 13000lb more than the scope clause. From reading Wikipedia, scope clause expired in 2020 and had been negotiated since. Embraer must have received info from airlines that they believed the scope clause would change, otherwise I cannot understand how they made it 13000 lb more than the current agreement that last until it’s renegotiated. Please correct me if the negotiations are done. I do not understand how they can reduce the weight by 13000lb. It seems impossible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause

From what I understand, the CRJ700/900/1000 (or is it Mitsubishi now?) is not being manufactured anymore, so what other "next-gen" regional jets are there (or will be available) to accommodate the Scope Clause of US and Canadian carries? I don't see North American carriers go for any Russian / Chinese made aircraft. That leaves very little in terms of new aircraft acquisition. Eventually the current RJs flying around will have to be retired and new aircraft purchased.

(As a side note, probably not relevant to this thread too much)
Turboprops are also in short supply in terms of "new designs". The ATR42/72 is the only one that has been upgraded to meet a number of markets. Sure, the Q400 is good, but there is no "next gen" -100 or -300. There will be a point when the likes of Perimeter, PAL, Canadian North/First Air, Air Inuit, etc. will have to retire their old birds.

Oykie wrote:

So if I got this right the current version of E2-175 has a MTOW at 99000 lb. That is 13000lb more than the scope clause. From reading Wikipedia, scope clause expired in 2020 and had been negotiated since. Embraer must have received info from airlines that they believed the scope clause would change, otherwise I cannot understand how they made it 13000 lb more than the current agreement that last until it’s renegotiated. Please correct me if the negotiations are done. I do not understand how they can reduce the weight by 13000lb. It seems impossible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause

That Wikipedia information gets one big thing wrong. Labor contracts at airlines do not “expire”. They become “amendable”, and stay in effect until a new contract is negotiated.

Oykie wrote:

So if I got this right the current version of E2-175 has a MTOW at 99000 lb. That is 13000lb more than the scope clause. From reading Wikipedia, scope clause expired in 2020 and had been negotiated since. Embraer must have received info from airlines that they believed the scope clause would change, otherwise I cannot understand how they made it 13000 lb more than the current agreement that last until it’s renegotiated. Please correct me if the negotiations are done.

Labor contracts in the U.S. airline industry don't expire; they only become amendable. Under U.S. law, unionized airline workers (or any workers covered by the Railway Labor Act) can't strike until their contract becomes amendable and a determination has been made that the employer and union have reached an impasse in negotiations. The scope clauses are part of the agreements each unionized group of pilots has with its employer; AA pilots are in a different union than UA and DL pilots.

The real problem for the E175-E2 is that the potential concession each airline would have to make (to its pilots) to allow these aircraft to be outsourced to regional operators is just far too costly. I'm not even sure the pilots would agree at all outside another cycle of airline bankruptcies.

Vio wrote:

I don't see North American carriers go for any Russian / Chinese made aircraft. That leaves very little in terms of new aircraft acquisition. Eventually the current RJs flying around will have to be retired and new aircraft purchased.

The plan for now is new E175-E1s. Or upgauging to A221s like DL has done. There's a bigger problem looming for now, and that's availability of pilots.

Vio wrote:

From what I understand, the CRJ700/900/1000 (or is it Mitsubishi now?) is not being manufactured anymore, so what other "next-gen" regional jets are there (or will be available) to accommodate the Scope Clause of US and Canadian carries? I don't see North American carriers go for any Russian / Chinese made aircraft. That leaves very little in terms of new aircraft acquisition. Eventually the current RJs flying around will have to be retired and new aircraft purchased.

There is no “next gen” regional jet available (The CRJ was not “next gen” btw). The Spacejet M100 (launched when Mitsubishi revamped/renamed the MRJ) was to be scope compliant, but obviously that program has been shelved.

The E175-E1 is still available, that is the only scope compliant regional jet available to purchase at the moment.

Vio wrote:

From what I understand, the CRJ700/900/1000 (or is it Mitsubishi now?) is not being manufactured anymore, so what other "next-gen" regional jets are there (or will be available) to accommodate the Scope Clause of US and Canadian carries? I don't see North American carriers go for any Russian / Chinese made aircraft. That leaves very little in terms of new aircraft acquisition. Eventually the current RJs flying around will have to be retired and new aircraft purchased.

Maybe Mitsubishi will resume development of the SpaceJet? It'd be a shame to see the SpaceJet cancelled like the Fairchild Dornier 728.

Vio wrote:

From what I understand, the CRJ700/900/1000 (or is it Mitsubishi now?) is not being manufactured anymore, so what other "next-gen" regional jets are there (or will be available) to accommodate the Scope Clause of US and Canadian carries? I don't see North American carriers go for any Russian / Chinese made aircraft. That leaves very little in terms of new aircraft acquisition. Eventually the current RJs flying around will have to be retired and new aircraft purchased.

They don't have to be replaced with RJs. Southwest has ~730 aircraft and not one is an RJ. WN does well on ROI. It would mean service drops and massive route restructuring but private businesses don't owe service to a community. If EAS funding won't expand to include mainline jets, let the military fly it.

L0VE2FLY wrote:

Vio wrote:

From what I understand, the CRJ700/900/1000 (or is it Mitsubishi now?) is not being manufactured anymore, so what other "next-gen" regional jets are there (or will be available) to accommodate the Scope Clause of US and Canadian carries? I don't see North American carriers go for any Russian / Chinese made aircraft. That leaves very little in terms of new aircraft acquisition. Eventually the current RJs flying around will have to be retired and new aircraft purchased.

Maybe Mitsubishi will resume development of the SpaceJet? It'd be a shame to see the SpaceJet cancelled like the Fairchild Dornier 728.

There are no human resources left for such development. They're all gone.

ScottB wrote:

... There's a bigger problem looming for now, and that's availability of pilots.

That's an easy fix (for the USA). Allow Canadian pilots to get work visas. Problem (or part of it) solved.

Vio wrote:

That sucks. I'm really hoping to fly an E175-E2 one day. It would be the most logical progression (from the "classic" E175). Hopefully things can be worked out.

There is nothing stopping any major US Airline from ordering and flying the E175-E2. They just have to operate and maintain the planes using their own employees and not an outsourced subcontractor.

N353SK wrote:

Vio wrote:

That sucks. I'm really hoping to fly an E175-E2 one day. It would be the most logical progression (from the "classic" E175). Hopefully things can be worked out.

There is nothing stopping any major US Airline from ordering and flying the E175-E2. They just have to operate and maintain the planes using their own employees and not an outsourced subcontractor.

Of course there's something stopping it.

Airlines don't fly aircraft just because they like to do it. Their operations must be profitable. And the truth is that an aircraft like the E175 is extremely important to feed all narrowbody flights, however not profitable under a mainline cost structure. But it can be profitably operated via outsourcing.

SA280 wrote:

N353SK wrote:

Vio wrote:

That sucks. I'm really hoping to fly an E175-E2 one day. It would be the most logical progression (from the "classic" E175). Hopefully things can be worked out.

There is nothing stopping any major US Airline from ordering and flying the E175-E2. They just have to operate and maintain the planes using their own employees and not an outsourced subcontractor.

Of course there's something stopping it.

Airlines don't fly aircraft just because they like to do it. Their operations must be profitable. And the truth is that an aircraft like the E175 is extremely important to feed all narrowbody flights, however not profitable under a mainline cost structure. But it can be profitably operated via outsourcing.

So, you're saying it's only profitable for the main airlines to fly the E175-E2 if it is flown at slave-like wages??? Capitalism at its best...

Vio wrote:

ScottB wrote:

... There's a bigger problem looming for now, and that's availability of pilots.

That's an easy fix (for the USA). Allow Canadian pilots to get work visas. Problem (or part of it) solved.

Honestly that would be a drop in the bucket even if it were politically feasible. Canadian pilots on work visas would still be subject to the higher minimum hours for an ATP which have led, in part, to the current shortage of pilots willing to work for regional carrier wages.

The real fix is for wages to go up and for the carriers to bear some of the pilots' costs to build hours through apprenticeship programs. Or for travelers to accept that fares will go up while smaller markets will lose some service.

ScottB wrote:

Oykie wrote:

So if I got this right the current version of E2-175 has a MTOW at 99000 lb. That is 13000lb more than the scope clause. From reading Wikipedia, scope clause expired in 2020 and had been negotiated since. Embraer must have received info from airlines that they believed the scope clause would change, otherwise I cannot understand how they made it 13000 lb more than the current agreement that last until it’s renegotiated. Please correct me if the negotiations are done.

Labor contracts in the U.S. airline industry don't expire; they only become amendable. Under U.S. law, unionized airline workers (or any workers covered by the Railway Labor Act) can't strike until their contract becomes amendable and a determination has been made that the employer and union have reached an impasse in negotiations. The scope clauses are part of the agreements each unionized group of pilots has with its employer; AA pilots are in a different union than UA and DL pilots.

The real problem for the E175-E2 is that the potential concession each airline would have to make (to its pilots) to allow these aircraft to be outsourced to regional operators is just far too costly. I'm not even sure the pilots would agree at all outside another cycle of airline bankruptcies.

Vio wrote:

I don't see North American carriers go for any Russian / Chinese made aircraft. That leaves very little in terms of new aircraft acquisition. Eventually the current RJs flying around will have to be retired and new aircraft purchased.

The plan for now is new E175-E1s. Or upgauging to A221s like DL has done. There's a bigger problem looming for now, and that's availability of pilots.

Thank you fo educating me on scope close and the differences between expiring and becoming amendable. My main point bringing up that the contract became amendable in 2020 was that Embraer must have received some kind of information from airlines that they believed the scope clause would increase MTOW to 99000lb by 2020. And I believe Mitsubishi must have received the same info. It does not make sense if both manufacturers got this wrong.

Oykie wrote:

Thank you fo educating me on scope close and the differences between expiring and becoming amendable. My main point bringing up that the contract became amendable in 2020 was that Embraer must have received some kind of information from airlines that they believed the scope clause would increase MTOW to 99000lb by 2020. And I believe Mitsubishi must have received the same info. It does not make sense if both manufacturers got this wrong.

I think Embraer looked at the history of airline-union negotiations in the U.S. from ~2000 to ~2010 -- a period when the airlines achieved unprecedented levels of concessions on scope from their pilots -- without understanding well where the industry was headed. These concessions were largely achieved by the airlines in bankruptcy by either imposing labor contracts through the bankruptcy process or threatening to do so. Keep in mind that initially US Airways had to fly the E170 with mainline pilots even though they branded those flights as US Airways Express. IMO Embraer assumed that the airlines would be able to achieve further concessions on scope for the E175-E2 and that the pilots would go along because it was "just another E175." A tight market for pilots and a very prosperous period for the airlines pre-Covid meant those concessions just weren't going to happen.

Mitsubishi understood the situation better; the MRJ/SpaceJet was supposed to be scope-compliant in some form.

ScottB wrote:

Vio wrote:

ScottB wrote:

... There's a bigger problem looming for now, and that's availability of pilots.

That's an easy fix (for the USA). Allow Canadian pilots to get work visas. Problem (or part of it) solved.

Honestly that would be a drop in the bucket even if it were politically feasible. Canadian pilots on work visas would still be subject to the higher minimum hours for an ATP which have led, in part, to the current shortage of pilots willing to work for regional carrier wages.

The real fix is for wages to go up and for the carriers to bear some of the pilots' costs to build hours through apprenticeship programs. Or for travelers to accept that fares will go up while smaller markets will lose some service.

Australian pilots can work in the US (given they have an FAA license). Canadians are a lot closer, in culture, to Americans. We're practically the same in 90% of our daily life.

I would seriously consider moving, given the right circumstances and pay, anywhere in Southern USA. (Georgia, Texas, Arizona, etc.), since it's harder and harder for me to tolerate Canadian winters. I would bring a lot more than minimum requirements... Of course, this would not be okay at the expense of qualified and able American pilots.

ScottB wrote:

Oykie wrote:

Thank you fo educating me on scope close and the differences between expiring and becoming amendable. My main point bringing up that the contract became amendable in 2020 was that Embraer must have received some kind of information from airlines that they believed the scope clause would increase MTOW to 99000lb by 2020. And I believe Mitsubishi must have received the same info. It does not make sense if both manufacturers got this wrong.

I think Embraer looked at the history of airline-union negotiations in the U.S. from ~2000 to ~2010 -- a period when the airlines achieved unprecedented levels of concessions on scope from their pilots -- without understanding well where the industry was headed. These concessions were largely achieved by the airlines in bankruptcy by either imposing labor contracts through the bankruptcy process or threatening to do so. Keep in mind that initially US Airways had to fly the E170 with mainline pilots even though they branded those flights as US Airways Express. IMO Embraer assumed that the airlines would be able to achieve further concessions on scope for the E175-E2 and that the pilots would go along because it was "just another E175." A tight market for pilots and a very prosperous period for the airlines pre-Covid meant those concessions just weren't going to happen.

Mitsubishi understood the situation better; the MRJ/SpaceJet was supposed to be scope-compliant in some form.

The later M100, using a modified MRJ-700 with reduced wingspan was to have versions scope compliant. There would be enough MTOW to allow higher density seating and more fuel; the US version would not be the ER variant, to say the least. However, the MRJ program wasn't well managed.

Both bet wrong. Pilots will be incredibly unlikely to expand scope. So the only solution to accommodate the weight of modern engines it to remove weight from the airframe via lighter alumininums, CFRP (in particular the wings), or titanium.

Lightsaber

WayexTDI wrote:

SA280 wrote:

N353SK wrote:

There is nothing stopping any major US Airline from ordering and flying the E175-E2. They just have to operate and maintain the planes using their own employees and not an outsourced subcontractor.

Of course there's something stopping it.

Airlines don't fly aircraft just because they like to do it. Their operations must be profitable. And the truth is that an aircraft like the E175 is extremely important to feed all narrowbody flights, however not profitable under a mainline cost structure. But it can be profitably operated via outsourcing.

So, you're saying it's only profitable for the main airlines to fly the E175-E2 if it is flown at slave-like wages??? Capitalism at its best...

That's the system we live in... So, should we all aplly for jobs in Aeroflot instead? Oh, wait, they're no longer communist...

SA280 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

SA280 wrote:

Of course there's something stopping it.

Airlines don't fly aircraft just because they like to do it. Their operations must be profitable. And the truth is that an aircraft like the E175 is extremely important to feed all narrowbody flights, however not profitable under a mainline cost structure. But it can be profitably operated via outsourcing.

So, you're saying it's only profitable for the main airlines to fly the E175-E2 if it is flown at slave-like wages??? Capitalism at its best...

That's the system we live in... So, should we all aplly for jobs in Aeroflot instead? Oh, wait, they're no longer communist...

Except now the employees are fighting back; so, it's time to stop those numerous flights between city pairs using uneconomical planes and consolidate/upgauge. Or cancel service altogether.

WayexTDI wrote:

SA280 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

So, you're saying it's only profitable for the main airlines to fly the E175-E2 if it is flown at slave-like wages??? Capitalism at its best...

That's the system we live in... So, should we all aplly for jobs in Aeroflot instead? Oh, wait, they're no longer communist...

Except now the employees are fighting back; so, it's time to stop those numerous flights between city pairs using uneconomical planes and consolidate/upgauge. Or cancel service altogether.

But they are economical... under the current rules. If United hires Republic to fly multiple daily flights between their hubs and smaller cities, that's because this system is much more efficient (and profitable!) than having mainline flying every flight, but with less frequencies.

Beyond being more profitable (otherwise, the big three would be doing differently), this multiple itinerary system with huge connectivity is actually the only kind of product advantage FSCs have over LCCs.

American could fly only A321s they would still have a unit cost higher than Spirit's. And, at the same time, they would lose all the scheduling advantages they have nowadays, offering many unique connected city-pairs and so many itinerary choices, for which their customers are willing to pay a premium for.

When the day this system becomes uneconomical, be sure that airlines will make their upgauging decisions well before pilots have a word. While this day does not come, it's not accurate to say it's an uneconomical system.

ScottB wrote:

Vio wrote:

ScottB wrote:

... There's a bigger problem looming for now, and that's availability of pilots.

That's an easy fix (for the USA). Allow Canadian pilots to get work visas. Problem (or part of it) solved.

Honestly that would be a drop in the bucket even if it were politically feasible. Canadian pilots on work visas would still be subject to the higher minimum hours for an ATP which have led, in part, to the current shortage of pilots willing to work for regional carrier wages.

The real fix is for wages to go up and for the carriers to bear some of the pilots' costs to build hours through apprenticeship programs. Or for travelers to accept that fares will go up while smaller markets will lose some service.

There is a ready supply of Canadian pilots that far exceed US ATP mins that would move at the drop of a hat. When US wages are often double or more compared their Canadian counterparts, it wouldn't be very difficultnto entice highly experienced Canadian pilots.

WayexTDI wrote:

SA280 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

So, you're saying it's only profitable for the main airlines to fly the E175-E2 if it is flown at slave-like wages??? Capitalism at its best...

That's the system we live in... So, should we all aplly for jobs in Aeroflot instead? Oh, wait, they're no longer communist...

Except now the employees are fighting back; so, it's time to stop those numerous flights between city pairs using uneconomical planes and consolidate/upgauge. Or cancel service altogether.

That's great for the consumer, just cancel service, especially to small markets with no other option.