Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26035
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:01 pm

Noshow wrote:
Mitsubishi is no aviation "newcomer" for sure.

They are newcomers at developing certified commercial airliners and they surely went about it as if they were newcomers.

Ref: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/ ... t-project/
Ref: https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economic ... ms-tatters

petertenthije wrote:
Maybe Boeing might be interested to counter the Airbus A220? That would depend on how easy the Spacejet can be modified to fit scope-clauses (or how easy scope-clauses can be changed to fit the Spacejet).

The issue is the GTF engines weigh 50% more than the CF34s so it's probably not feasible to come up with a scope compliant RJ using GTF that also doesn't get its butt kicked by non-scope-compliant aircraft using the same engines.

This is why EMB is able to sell E1 (scope compliant with CF34) and E2 (not scope compliant with GTF) families at the same time.

In theory BBD could have been able to do the same thing, but they also took on some ill fated bizjet projects at the same time and spent themselves into ruin.

It seems Mitsu made so many mistakes it was no longer feasible to continue further development even after investing $billions.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4794
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:27 pm

GE and Safran Aircraft have a joint venture and sell perhaps the most engines for the whole world. They seem to do it without drama. It would be fun to read about the thrown elbows and et cetera on how various costs are 'costed' and shared - after which they just go home and make more engines. I am surprised that Boeing did not do something similar for both Mitsubishi and Embraer.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Jetport
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:36 pm

If you have $7 billion or $10 billion US you want to get rid of, just try to make a 100 seat commercial jet. Just ask Mitsubishi and Bombardier if you need and help getting started. :smile:
 
Noshow
Posts: 2380
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:20 pm

Or BAE Systems, Dornier, Fokker, SAAB, Antonov and Suchoi. COMAC's ARJ doesn't exactly sell like hot cake as well.
 
petertenthije
Posts: 4160
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:17 pm

Revelation wrote:
The issue is the GTF engines weigh 50% more than the CF34s so it's probably not feasible to come up with a scope compliant RJ using GTF that also doesn't get its butt kicked by non-scope-compliant aircraft using the same engines.

This is why EMB is able to sell E1 (scope compliant with CF34) and E2 (not scope compliant with GTF) families at the same time.

Could mitsubishi do the same?
Offer a spacejet with CF34s for the US market, and GTF engines for the rest?
The first thing to remember is always treat your kite like you treat your woman.
Get inside her five times a day and take her to heaven and back!
Lord Flashheart, 1989
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26035
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:23 pm

petertenthije wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The issue is the GTF engines weigh 50% more than the CF34s so it's probably not feasible to come up with a scope compliant RJ using GTF that also doesn't get its butt kicked by non-scope-compliant aircraft using the same engines.

This is why EMB is able to sell E1 (scope compliant with CF34) and E2 (not scope compliant with GTF) families at the same time.

Could mitsubishi do the same?
Offer a spacejet with CF34s for the US market, and GTF engines for the rest?

I would think if they wanted something like that they would have just bought the CRJ production rights when they bought the CRJ support network.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2550
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:10 pm

500 million yen is ~ US$ 5 million. Peanuts for an aircraft program, virtually nothing.
 
Nean1
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Wed May 05, 2021 12:58 pm

It seems to me Japan has realized that the chances of penetrating the regional aviation market are low at the same time that the aerospace segment is returning to an urgent need to assure national defense, in the face of the enormous challenge represented by a totalitarian and expansionist China. I do not believe that this movement can be reversed in less than 20 years.

It also indicates little hope of changing the Scope Clauses in US aviation. Free way for TP E3?
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1181
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Thu May 06, 2021 7:34 am

mxaxai wrote:
500 million yen is ~ US$ 5 million. Peanuts for an aircraft program, virtually nothing.


This references a now deleted (at least it is not showing up for me) post that linked/quoted a news article that Mitsubishi cut the program capital from 135 billion yen to 0.5 billion yen and cut the capital reserve from 270 billion yen to 0.
 
Nean1
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Thu May 06, 2021 1:33 pm

Revelation wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Mitsubishi is no aviation "newcomer" for sure.

They are newcomers at developing certified commercial airliners and they surely went about it as if they were newcomers.

Ref: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/ ... t-project/
Ref: https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economic ... ms-tatters

petertenthije wrote:
Maybe Boeing might be interested to counter the Airbus A220? That would depend on how easy the Spacejet can be modified to fit scope-clauses (or how easy scope-clauses can be changed to fit the Spacejet).

The issue is the GTF engines weigh 50% more than the CF34s so it's probably not feasible to come up with a scope compliant RJ using GTF that also doesn't get its butt kicked by non-scope-compliant aircraft using the same engines.

This is why EMB is able to sell E1 (scope compliant with CF34) and E2 (not scope compliant with GTF) families at the same time.

In theory BBD could have been able to do the same thing, but they also took on some ill fated bizjet projects at the same time and spent themselves into ruin.

It seems Mitsu made so many mistakes it was no longer feasible to continue further development even after investing $billions.


I wonder if the llighter Safran Silvercrest turbofan would not be a more promising bet for the propulsion of a modernized RJ, respectful of the Scope Clauses and the new ICAO standards for 2028.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26035
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Thu May 06, 2021 2:01 pm

Nean1 wrote:
I wonder if the llighter Safran Silvercrest turbofan would not be a more promising bet for the propulsion of a modernized RJ, respectful of the Scope Clauses and the new ICAO standards for 2028.

Seems a bit under-sized:

It was originally designed as an 8,500–10,500 lbf (38–47 kN) thrust turbofan.[26] It should power super mid-size to large cabin business jets or 40 to 60-seat regional jets with a Maximum Takeoff Weight of 45,000 to 60,000 lb (20,000 to 27,000 kg).[27] In 2016 the thrust range was quoted as 10,000–12,000 lbf (44–53 kN).[28]

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safran_Silvercrest

Contrast to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_E ... ifications which suggests the need is for 14,000 lbf or so.

Also, it is a bizjet engine, and often these are not designed to the same durability standards (time between overhaul) as airliner engines are.

The industry got lucky with CF-34, it was designed from the start for long anti-submarine patrols from aircraft carriers so it was given a lot of durability with R&D paid for by the taxpayers.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 21983
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Thu May 06, 2021 2:16 pm

Revelation wrote:
Nean1 wrote:
I wonder if the llighter Safran Silvercrest turbofan would not be a more promising bet for the propulsion of a modernized RJ, respectful of the Scope Clauses and the new ICAO standards for 2028.

Seems a bit under-sized:

It was originally designed as an 8,500–10,500 lbf (38–47 kN) thrust turbofan.[26] It should power super mid-size to large cabin business jets or 40 to 60-seat regional jets with a Maximum Takeoff Weight of 45,000 to 60,000 lb (20,000 to 27,000 kg).[27] In 2016 the thrust range was quoted as 10,000–12,000 lbf (44–53 kN).[28]

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safran_Silvercrest

Contrast to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_E ... ifications which suggests the need is for 14,000 lbf or so.

Also, it is a bizjet engine, and often these are not designed to the same durability standards (time between overhaul) as airliner engines are.

The industry got lucky with CF-34, it was designed from the start for long anti-submarine patrols from aircraft carriers so it was given a lot of durability with R&D paid for by the taxpayers.

Silvercrest has a centrifugal compressor. That is why the engine is so light. Efficiency is intentionally given up for cost and weight. On a per flight bases, the weight saved should, in my opinion, allow the same range misdion. However, in commercial duty, the added 4% or so more fuel burn quickly is an issue.

Airframers always want light engines. The designs are optimized as best as possible with very conservative margins. Margin adds weight...

Higher pressure ratio engines will be heavy. Building for durability saves weight. For example, I consulted on the turbine clearance control valve on the Silvercrest. An incredibly cheap, light, and simple unit. At the same time I was consulting on the C-series turbine clearance control which I believe also was put on the PW800 (no need to pay me for that change, so I am not certain). The turbine clearance control valve alone was cutting the expected overhaul interval on the Silvercrest below the PW812. :wideeyed:

For the market, the correct design decision. IMHO, the Silvercrest should cost $500,000 less to make than a PW812. :wideeyed: It is a very advanced engine of simple design. If you will, technology used to create a simpler engine instead of a more efficient engine (there is always that design trade).

What is needed is a CFRP wing and an appropriate length body.

Lightsaber
6 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
rsgolfpunk
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:21 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Thu May 06, 2021 2:30 pm

Mitsu sells the program to Airbus for $1. The A120 is born. Boom.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26035
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Thu May 06, 2021 2:36 pm

rsgolfpunk wrote:
Mitsu sells the program to Airbus for $1. The A120 is born. Boom.

I think Airbus could set up a beer tent in the parking lot and have a giant piss up then give their engineers crayons to draw on the table cloths and come out with a more cohesive program than what we've seen from Mitsu. Save the $1, spend it on beer instead.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 21983
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Thu May 06, 2021 2:52 pm

rsgolfpunk wrote:
Mitsu sells the program to Airbus for $1. The A120 is born. Boom.

The smallest version is worth saving of the MRJ. There needs to be a scope compliant RJ that is efficient. IMHO, the relative variable costs of a RJ vs. A223, MAX, or NEO are too high. ULCCs, such as Allegiant, Breeze, Frontier, and Spirit will use 2x to 5x weekly frequency to eat up too much of the RJ market if given a large variable cost advantage. See the European ULCC market with Ryanair, Easyjet, AirBaltic, Wizz, and Volotea.

It is my opinion that every high yield RJ destinations will be the natural target for competition. While business travel pays a premium for frequency, if enough traffic is "taken" by ULCCs, the RJ market shrinks.

Lightsaber
6 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
Nean1
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Thu May 06, 2021 3:13 pm

If (1) we consider that the current 175E1 is still quite competitive in the current air transport landscape in the USA (2) the regulatory issues are already in place and will not be changed and (3) there is little willingness to make huge investments and take risks then the question of remotorising the 175E1 with a modern and relatively light turbofan should go on the radar. Even if it means a reduction in the range of the revamped regional jet.
 
rsgolfpunk
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:21 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Thu May 06, 2021 3:26 pm

Lightsaber raises great points. An issue larger than Mitsu’s blunder is that the regional model is alive, for now. The changing airline landscape could see regional flying wind down. Time frame unknown.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14256
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Thu May 06, 2021 4:46 pm

lightsaber wrote:
rsgolfpunk wrote:
Mitsu sells the program to Airbus for $1. The A120 is born. Boom.

The smallest version is worth saving of the MRJ. There needs to be a scope compliant RJ that is efficient. IMHO, the relative variable costs of a RJ vs. A223, MAX, or NEO are too high. ULCCs, such as Allegiant, Breeze, Frontier, and Spirit will use 2x to 5x weekly frequency to eat up too much of the RJ market if given a large variable cost advantage. See the European ULCC market with Ryanair, Easyjet, AirBaltic, Wizz, and Volotea.

It is my opinion that every high yield RJ destinations will be the natural target for competition. While business travel pays a premium for frequency, if enough traffic is "taken" by ULCCs, the RJ market shrinks.

Lightsaber


I've considered that scenario, this aircraft falling in between ATR and A220 series.

The biggest question for me is, is the Spacejet a viable program?

Apparently Airbus did their due diligence on the CSeries, struck a deal with stakeholders, knowing the CSeries was a sound aircraft, meeting all requirements.

Early on, big mistakes were made. The Spacejet looks good from the specs, but how is the paperwork (Japanese?), supply chain? cost structure?..

Image
https://www.airway1.com/mitsubishi-airc ... r-15-m100/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Nean1
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Thu May 06, 2021 4:48 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Nean1 wrote:
I wonder if the llighter Safran Silvercrest turbofan would not be a more promising bet for the propulsion of a modernized RJ, respectful of the Scope Clauses and the new ICAO standards for 2028.

Seems a bit under-sized:

It was originally designed as an 8,500–10,500 lbf (38–47 kN) thrust turbofan.[26] It should power super mid-size to large cabin business jets or 40 to 60-seat regional jets with a Maximum Takeoff Weight of 45,000 to 60,000 lb (20,000 to 27,000 kg).[27] In 2016 the thrust range was quoted as 10,000–12,000 lbf (44–53 kN).[28]

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safran_Silvercrest

Contrast to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_E ... ifications which suggests the need is for 14,000 lbf or so.

Also, it is a bizjet engine, and often these are not designed to the same durability standards (time between overhaul) as airliner engines are.

The industry got lucky with CF-34, it was designed from the start for long anti-submarine patrols from aircraft carriers so it was given a lot of durability with R&D paid for by the taxpayers.

Silvercrest has a centrifugal compressor. That is why the engine is so light. Efficiency is intentionally given up for cost and weight. On a per flight bases, the weight saved should, in my opinion, allow the same range misdion. However, in commercial duty, the added 4% or so more fuel burn quickly is an issue.

Airframers always want light engines. The designs are optimized as best as possible with very conservative margins. Margin adds weight...

Higher pressure ratio engines will be heavy. Building for durability saves weight. For example, I consulted on the turbine clearance control valve on the Silvercrest. An incredibly cheap, light, and simple unit. At the same time I was consulting on the C-series turbine clearance control which I believe also was put on the PW800 (no need to pay me for that change, so I am not certain). The turbine clearance control valve alone was cutting the expected overhaul interval on the Silvercrest below the PW812. :wideeyed:

For the market, the correct design decision. IMHO, the Silvercrest should cost $500,000 less to make than a PW812. :wideeyed: It is a very advanced engine of simple design. If you will, technology used to create a simpler engine instead of a more efficient engine (there is always that design trade).

What is needed is a CFRP wing and an appropriate length body.

Lightsaber


I, and apparently the entire aviation industry, have a hard time understanding how composite material wings can bring competitiveness in the regional aviation segment. Embraer preferred to build totally new wings for the E2 and keep them metallic. MHI gave up during the project and also sought conventional materials. I see a great difficulty for the CSeries / A220, which until today has a production rate of no more than 3 aircraft per month. The efficiency of the in-flight solution must be contrasted with the prospect of investment and production cost.

Finally, who still believes that the crude oil will return to 100 USD/bbp?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 21983
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Thu May 06, 2021 5:25 pm

Nean1 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Seems a bit under-sized:


Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safran_Silvercrest

Contrast to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_E ... ifications which suggests the need is for 14,000 lbf or so.

Also, it is a bizjet engine, and often these are not designed to the same durability standards (time between overhaul) as airliner engines are.

The industry got lucky with CF-34, it was designed from the start for long anti-submarine patrols from aircraft carriers so it was given a lot of durability with R&D paid for by the taxpayers.

Silvercrest has a centrifugal compressor. That is why the engine is so light. Efficiency is intentionally given up for cost and weight. On a per flight bases, the weight saved should, in my opinion, allow the same range misdion. However, in commercial duty, the added 4% or so more fuel burn quickly is an issue.

Airframers always want light engines. The designs are optimized as best as possible with very conservative margins. Margin adds weight...

Higher pressure ratio engines will be heavy. Building for durability saves weight. For example, I consulted on the turbine clearance control valve on the Silvercrest. An incredibly cheap, light, and simple unit. At the same time I was consulting on the C-series turbine clearance control which I believe also was put on the PW800 (no need to pay me for that change, so I am not certain). The turbine clearance control valve alone was cutting the expected overhaul interval on the Silvercrest below the PW812. :wideeyed:

For the market, the correct design decision. IMHO, the Silvercrest should cost $500,000 less to make than a PW812. :wideeyed: It is a very advanced engine of simple design. If you will, technology used to create a simpler engine instead of a more efficient engine (there is always that design trade).

What is needed is a CFRP wing and an appropriate length body.

Lightsaber


I, and apparently the entire aviation industry, have a hard time understanding how composite material wings can bring competitiveness in the regional aviation segment. Embraer preferred to build totally new wings for the E2 and keep them metallic. MHI gave up during the project and also sought conventional materials. I see a great difficulty for the CSeries / A220, which until today has a production rate of no more than 3 aircraft per month. The efficiency of the in-flight solution must be contrasted with the prospect of investment and production cost.

Finally, who still believes that the crude oil will return to 100 USD/bbp?

weight. I've done projects with CFRP saving weight down to MTOW of 15,000 lb. The cost of design is low. We had a single engineer design the wing.

So the entire aviation industry agreeing isn't correct. The companies that have completely converted over will never do a metal wing again. Instead, we are looking at new CFRP manufacturing to cut costs and weight (my employer has two competing manufacturing techniques going forward for wings, one cuts cost more, one weight more).

The fact the E2 and MRJ with metal wings blows past scope weight highlights the issues. Bombardier had issues, they are being worked out.

I don't understand all the CFRP issues companies are having. Perhaps I work for a company that just has a better CFRP design and manufacturing process. As our employees jump ship, as they always will, the CFRP know how is seeding the industry.

e.g., using a pressure dependent manufacturing process on the Lear 85 and moving manufacturing to high altitude didn't invalidate the tech, it showed a disconnected management.

The MC-21 has amazing CFRP tech quite applicable to regional jets.

I work aerospace technology. My job is to undertestand the cost to develop, manufacture, and how to repair (another team works those costs). This is why I really thought the Silvercrest was going to dominate the mid range business jet market as it just gas what is needed on manufacturing costs below the $45 million dollar aircraft. With SAFRAN messing up on what, in my opinion, was basic casing design and cooling, the other good tech won't help.

There is, in my opinion, an opening for a more efficient RJ. The majority of the market is 76 seats under 86,000 lb. Whomever develops the first aircraft for that market has 1st mover advantage.

So far customers prefer jets, but I really think that is due to jet bridge use at the hubs. Busy airports are loud! I love walking out to aircraft, but not when a nearby turbine is running (and this is from someone with flightline access for aircraft testing).

Despite the metal wing, the Spacejet 100 is a good option for that market. Mitsubishi just wouldn't listen to consultants (in my opinion), but the design can be saved.

Either a much more efficient aircraft joins the market or the size segment will be so inefficient that pricing will shift the market. ULCCs are here. There market share will grow, that isn't in doubt, in my opinion. What us the question is the future size of the RJ market. If RJ fares must rise relative to narrow bodies due to high variable costs, that gives the ULCCs more opportunities. Aviation is an elastic market.

Regional markets seem to have the greatest orice elasticity. In my opinion the CF-34-8 has a finite sales life remaining on new aircraft. The 2028 rule might not really effect E175 sales. I understand using aircraft already in the fleet, or buying used (Breeze). But it is Allegiant, Breeze, Frontier, and Spirit that will pilfer the regional market in the coming years. A 5X per week Breeze E190 flight has lower costs than 7X E175 and 8 more seats (but fractionally lower yield should be expected). Or lower frequency vs the 186 seat Allegiant A320 (phasing out A319s, in my opinion, over many years).

Link on elasticity of aviation:
https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository ... tervistas/

Efficiency is relative. Pilot unions are not likely to outsource their jobs again, so I expect no scope relief. Of my regional jet flights, half are too long for a turboprop. I would book another option. My most common regional flight allows me to avoid the hub during the summer as Allegiant started a direct flight on days that work for me.

This is why I remain excited about the MRJ design. It is the only thing out there for certain niches. The E3 has potential, but I know people, including smart relatives of mine, who very much irrationally dislike turboprops.

New engines cut larger Aircraft fuel burn and maintenance. Price elasticity will shift demand up-gauge as relative efficiency improved for one part of the aircraft market, but not RJs.

I propsed my solution for the RJ weight cap. The design studies I participated in show CFRP wings would remove tons if weight.

The A220 shows there is sufficient demand for smaller aircraft with CFRP wings.

Lightsaber
6 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
Nean1
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Mitsubishi SpaceJet — Development & Production Thread

Thu May 06, 2021 6:35 pm

keesje wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
rsgolfpunk wrote:
Mitsu sells the program to Airbus for $1. The A120 is born. Boom.

The smallest version is worth saving of the MRJ. There needs to be a scope compliant RJ that is efficient. IMHO, the relative variable costs of a RJ vs. A223, MAX, or NEO are too high. ULCCs, such as Allegiant, Breeze, Frontier, and Spirit will use 2x to 5x weekly frequency to eat up too much of the RJ market if given a large variable cost advantage. See the European ULCC market with Ryanair, Easyjet, AirBaltic, Wizz, and Volotea.

It is my opinion that every high yield RJ destinations will be the natural target for competition. While business travel pays a premium for frequency, if enough traffic is "taken" by ULCCs, the RJ market shrinks.

Lightsaber


I've considered that scenario, this aircraft falling in between ATR and A220 series.

The biggest question for me is, is the Spacejet a viable program?

Apparently Airbus did their due diligence on the CSeries, struck a deal with stakeholders, knowing the CSeries was a sound aircraft, meeting all requirements.

Early on, big mistakes were made. The Spacejet looks good from the specs, but how is the paperwork (Japanese?), supply chain? cost structure?..

Image
https://www.airway1.com/mitsubishi-airc ... r-15-m100/


After observing the Japanese courts' treatment of Carlos Ghosn, I am not so sure that French executives will be eager to take control of Japanese strategic industrial assets.

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