Money seems not to be a problem. The Japan initial subsides alone surpassed 50% of development cost of all E1 family (E170/175/190/195).
Lazy Godzilla goes now to the Dodo way...

DenverTed wrote:

Is the core diameter the same on all the GTF engines on the A320, A220, and M90?

I know lightsaber already replied to this question twice, but I wanted to share this FlighGlobal article (found via wiki)
P&WC on track with Falcon 6X engine testing

The PW800 programme has benefited from the service experience of Pratt & Whitney's geared turbofans, which power several commercial aircraft. PW814s and PW815s share the core of the Airbus A220's PW1500G geared turbofan.

The Embraer E190/E195 E2 use the PW1900G, that's simular to the PW1500G.

The PW812D shares the same core as the Mitsubishi Aircraft MRJ's PW1200G.

And the Embraer E175 E2 uses the PW1700G that's simular to the PW1200G.

I think this part of lightsabers post is the reason why both the E175E2 and the MRJ projects failed.

lightsaber wrote:

...
The high spool, gearbox, and many accessories are straight from the PW1500G on the PW1200G.

The high spool is also shared by the PW814/5 on the G500/600 and PW812D on the 6X.

The downside for the MRJ is a high spool with a high flow number. This means the low spool must intentionally underfeed the high spool. This means a low pressure ratio and a reduction in efficiency.

The large gearbox interferes with flow into the low spool (small efficiency hit). But mostly a low bypass ratio of 9:1 as there isn't the pressure ratio for the PW1100G of 12.5:1, or PW1500G of 12:1.

The original MRJ was to have a more dedicated engine with a PW810 for the Cessna Columbus business jet. When Cessna cancelled the Columbus and the C-series was launched, the MRJ received a PW1500G derived engine.

Lightsaber

Now possibly the solution for both these projects is to move from the GTF to the non geared PW814/815. For the E2-jet the additional benefit is that the same core is used on the E175 E2 and E190/E195 E2.

But on the other hand. The whole scope clause is in very deep trouble. AFAIK scope clause is a percentage of main narrow-body flights. But because of Covid-19 flight demand is down a lot. The US3 see air travel demand that matches scope clause planes, but they must shut down those flights because main line flight is down a lot. This might actually result in termination of scope clauses, because the main airlines arrange pay-scales for smaller aircraft with their pilot unions. The whole weight limit trouble might be gone if this happens.
So though unfortunate, pausing the M90 development might be a very smart move given the current situation.

keesje wrote:

If the improvement program of 2016-2019 was successfully implemented MHI is now probably looking for a aerospace conglomerate to take a share, restore market confidence, rationalize the aircraft specification and move on. MHI accepting write-offs would have to be part of the deal. The amount of potential partners is limited of course, Boeing, Airbus/ATR, Raytheon-Collins, AVIC Xi'An, Comac, Saab, HAL. CSeries showed it can work, despite doubts, some even assuring us, Airbus were out solely to kill a competitor. (which Boeing tried a little later).

We have a definitive source saying Airbus launched A320neo to kill A220, former Airbus COO Tom Williams:

“I like to remind Tom [Enders] when we’re celebrating that we’ve now got the A220 that we launched the A320neo with the express purpose of killing the CSeries,” says Williams.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-at- ... 17.article

Time to put away your doubts on that one...

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

If the improvement program of 2016-2019 was successfully implemented MHI is now probably looking for a aerospace conglomerate to take a share, restore market confidence, rationalize the aircraft specification and move on. MHI accepting write-offs would have to be part of the deal. The amount of potential partners is limited of course, Boeing, Airbus/ATR, Raytheon-Collins, AVIC Xi'An, Comac, Saab, HAL. CSeries showed it can work, despite doubts, some even assuring us, Airbus were out solely to kill a competitor. (which Boeing tried a little later).

We have a definitive source saying Airbus launched A320neo to kill A220, former Airbus COO Tom Williams:

“I like to remind Tom [Enders] when we’re celebrating that we’ve now got the A220 that we launched the A320neo with the express purpose of killing the CSeries,” says Williams.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-at- ... 17.article

Time to put away your doubts on that one...

One small detail: they didn't. They invested lots, build a new FAL and sold hundreds.. But hey, someone digged up a qoute from an (unaccesible) old page, that's better proof I guess. Reality is fake news these days..

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

CSeries showed it can work, despite doubts, some even assuring us, Airbus were out solely to kill a competitor. (which Boeing tried a little later).

We have a definitive source saying Airbus launched A320neo to kill A220, former Airbus COO Tom Williams:

“I like to remind Tom [Enders] when we’re celebrating that we’ve now got the A220 that we launched the A320neo with the express purpose of killing the CSeries,” says Williams.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-at- ... 17.article

One small detail: they didn't. They invested lots, build a new FAL and sold hundreds.. But hey, someone digged up a qoute from an (unaccesible) old page, that's better proof I guess. Reality is fake news these days..

The point you raised was "some even assuring us, Airbus were out solely to kill a competitor" i.e. what Airbus set out to do, not what transpired later. There is nothing fake about that reality, we're getting it from someone who was there at the time. I'm not sure why there is a need to do revisionist history. If A or B could find a way to kill C919 I'm sure they'd do it. As Lightsaber said, no one fights fair, they play to win.

PS: The page loads fine for me, that's how I was able to copy the quote, and I am not a subscriber. Maybe clean your cookies from time to time, it makes for a better Internet experience IMO.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

But on the other hand. The whole scope clause is in very deep trouble. AFAIK scope clause is a percentage of main narrow-body flights. But because of Covid-19 flight demand is down a lot. The US3 see air travel demand that matches scope clause planes, but they must shut down those flights because main line flight is down a lot. This might actually result in termination of scope clauses, because the main airlines arrange pay-scales for smaller aircraft with their pilot unions. The whole weight limit trouble might be gone if this happens.
So though unfortunate, pausing the M90 development might be a very smart move given the current situation.

Mitsu's initial customers are JAL and ANA with no such scope clauses in effect. If they really wanted to get a product out on the market and get through the initial teething issues they have no excuse not to.

Revelation wrote:

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

But on the other hand. The whole scope clause is in very deep trouble. AFAIK scope clause is a percentage of main narrow-body flights. But because of Covid-19 flight demand is down a lot. The US3 see air travel demand that matches scope clause planes, but they must shut down those flights because main line flight is down a lot. This might actually result in termination of scope clauses, because the main airlines arrange pay-scales for smaller aircraft with their pilot unions. The whole weight limit trouble might be gone if this happens.
So though unfortunate, pausing the M90 development might be a very smart move given the current situation.

Mitsu's initial customers are JAL and ANA with no such scope clauses in effect. If they really wanted to get a product out on the market and get through the initial teething issues they have no excuse not to.

Agreed, except ANA and JAL have no demand. Interesting times...

Lightsaber

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

But on the other hand. The whole scope clause is in very deep trouble. AFAIK scope clause is a percentage of main narrow-body flights. But because of Covid-19 flight demand is down a lot. The US3 see air travel demand that matches scope clause planes, but they must shut down those flights because main line flight is down a lot. This might actually result in termination of scope clauses, because the main airlines arrange pay-scales for smaller aircraft with their pilot unions.

I will bet against that for U.S. carriers. B6, AA and AC didn't even want mainline E90s - AA/DL/UA won't want mainline wages and work rules for E75/CR9s. AA hasn't bought mainline smaller than A319 since the merger. UA hasn't bought new mainline smaller than 738s. DL converted orders for thirty A220-100s to -300s. IMHO, they will just decrease the count of 'big' RJs to maintain compliance.

My hunch is that the pandemic is a convenient excuse for not having to admit that they’ve failed once again.

767333ER wrote:

My hunch is that the pandemic is a convenient excuse for not having to admit that they’ve failed once again.

The last delay already say the delivery date will be "2021 or beyond", with the beyond part being emphasized so they didn't really have any public deadline to meet even before this announcement

Revelation wrote:

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

But on the other hand. The whole scope clause is in very deep trouble. AFAIK scope clause is a percentage of main narrow-body flights. But because of Covid-19 flight demand is down a lot. The US3 see air travel demand that matches scope clause planes, but they must shut down those flights because main line flight is down a lot. This might actually result in termination of scope clauses, because the main airlines arrange pay-scales for smaller aircraft with their pilot unions. The whole weight limit trouble might be gone if this happens.
So though unfortunate, pausing the M90 development might be a very smart move given the current situation.

Mitsu's initial customers are JAL and ANA with no such scope clauses in effect. If they really wanted to get a product out on the market and get through the initial teething issues they have no excuse not to.

I've been wondering, are JAL and ANA buying the SpaceJet because they genuinely believe it's an impressive aircraft, or are they being "compelled" to purchase a domestic product ?

And now their operation in Moses Lake is to be closed. I presume this will make any hypothetical future restart even more difficult.

Ref: https://twitter.com/jetcitystar/status/ ... 7130179586

Revelation wrote:

And now their operation in Moses Lake is to be closed. I presume this will make any hypothetical future restart even more difficult.

Indeed!

Now (if that program is ever to retart again) I'm wondering if switching to the BBD's Wichita Flight Test Center would end up more cost effective - since BBD and Mitsu are now on better terms.

Just my two Canadian cents here. (About 1.5 US cent)

Can someone please explain the usefulness of CRJ acquisition without the SpaceJet program?

Thank you.

VV wrote:

Can someone please explain the usefulness of CRJ acquisition without the SpaceJet program?

Thank you.

None. The cash flow from spares management did not justify the sales price.

If the MRJ is done, completing the purchase if the CRJ was wasted money.

If the MRJ goes forward, it is a service distribution network well setup in at least 75% of the markets.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

VV wrote:

Can someone please explain the usefulness of CRJ acquisition without the SpaceJet program?

Thank you.

None. The cash flow from spares management did not justify the sales price.

If you wanted to play investment banker for a day, what do you think the next five years of CRJ spares sales might be?

MIflyer12 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

VV wrote:

Can someone please explain the usefulness of CRJ acquisition without the SpaceJet program?

Thank you.

None. The cash flow from spares management did not justify the sales price.

If you wanted to play investment banker for a day, what do you think the next five years of CRJ spares sales might be?

Well, the metric is profit and ROI on that profit in a declining market. While CRJs will fly after 2025, a simple value is the profit of 5 (or 6 years). Now Mitsubishi paid $550 million plus took over liabilities of $200 million, or approximate $750 million purchase price:
https://www.aerotime.aero/aerotime.team ... s-for-550m

Airfleet has 1447 active CRJs, but some large number are now done (e.g., DL is retiring the CRJ-200 type by 2023)
https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-crj.htm
https://renespoints.boardingarea.com/20 ... ng-crj200/

Let us say 1,000 flying over 5 years. That should be perhaps $1,000 billion in revenue to $2 B. Profit should be 30% to 40% of revenue (as this is the high profit support) so $400 to $800 million. So maybe, just maybe if flying gets back to higher utilization, Mitsubishi breaks even. More than likely, a few hundred million dollar loss, which was OK for the value of the distribution network and support expertise. There also would have been probably $1B to $1.25 B more revenue without Covid19.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Let us say 1,000 flying over 5 years. That should be perhaps $1,000 billion in revenue to $2 B. Profit should be 30% to 40% of revenue (as this is the high profit support) so $400 to $800 million. So maybe, just maybe if flying gets back to higher utilization, Mitsubishi breaks even. More than likely, a few hundred million dollar loss, which was OK for the value of the distribution network and support expertise. There also would have been probably $1B to $1.25 B more revenue without Covid19.

Think you may be optimistic, when bears are all around. USD2b revenue from 1,000 aircraft fleet, diminishing year on year, with plenty of parted aircraft. Over USD400k per aircraft per annum for sole source parts.

In your opinion, why did MHI close the CRJ acquisition in June 2020?

At that date it should have been obvious for MHI that the SpaceJet program was not going anywhere.

There were probably clauses regarding cancelation penalties for backing out of the CRJ deal that they didn't want to pay. And as evidenced by other Japanese companies like Toyota and their accelerator pedals they don't seem to like to admit they made an error. Which is sort of what backing out of a deal would be.

battlegroup62 wrote:

There were probably clauses regarding cancelation penalties for backing out of the CRJ deal that they didn't want to pay. And as evidenced by other Japanese companies like Toyota and their accelerator pedals they don't seem to like to admit they made an error. Which is sort of what backing out of a deal would be.

There is a walk away penalty, but I think it is not as much as the price they paid. In addition they paid for something they DO NOT need. I am pretty sure MHI RJ Aviation (CRJ) is bleding cash nowadays.

Very honestly, I really like the way it happened because it helps to maintain Bombardier afloat. I still have a lot of BBD.B shares. If they go under, I can say goodbye to my shares.

So, what would be Embraer's next move without a competitor for next foreseeable future :

1: Milk the cow and keep the S&M team selling E1s ?
2: Invest in their new Turboprop to replace the E1s in the next 5 years ?
3: Re-design the E2-175 as discussed elsewhere to comply with the US market ?
4: All of the above
5: None of the above

It seems we turn this around a thousand times and the result seems to be the same...

docmtl

docmtl wrote:

So, what would be Embraer's next move without a competitor for next foreseeable future :

1: Milk the cow and keep the S&M team selling E1s ?
2: Invest in their new Turboprop to replace the E1s in the next 5 years ?
3: Re-design the E2-175 as discussed elsewhere to comply with the US market ?
4: All of the above
5: None of the above

It seems we turn this around a thousand times and the result seems to be the same...

docmtl

1. Until emissions in 2028 hits. There isn’t going to be an RJ buying or replacement spree for a few years at least, so no need to rush out a new design yet. See what advancements can be made for the next couple of years and launch a design when the replacement cycle gets close to starting (2026 and onwards, the first 76 seat RJs will begin hitting 20 years in service). Until then, bit orders of the E1 will suffice.

docmtl wrote:

So, what would be Embraer's next move without a competitor for next foreseeable future :

1: Milk the cow and keep the S&M team selling E1s ?
2: Invest in their new Turboprop to replace the E1s in the next 5 years ?
3: Re-design the E2-175 as discussed elsewhere to comply with the US market ?
4: All of the above
5: None of the above

It seems we turn this around a thousand times and the result seems to be the same...

docmtl

Why would they change E175-E2? There is no competition anyway. There is none against the E175 (E1) and none for the E175-E2.

If Pratt&Whitney continues to support E175-E2 development then there's absolutely no reason to change course.

https://biz-journal.jp/2020/11/post_189245.html
An aviation commenter in Japan say that the ultimate reason behind the failure is Mitsubishi want to develop a passenger aircraft and attain type certificate from the US using only experience in military aircraft production, and when they realize it's too late and that opinion from foreign experts with experience in getting type certificate is needed, it's already too late in year 2016 which resulted in large amounts of design changes late in the design phase.
It also noted that there are consistently dispute in the use of foreigners while developing the aircraft

VV wrote:

docmtl wrote:

So, what would be Embraer's next move without a competitor for next foreseeable future :

1: Milk the cow and keep the S&M team selling E1s ?
2: Invest in their new Turboprop to replace the E1s in the next 5 years ?
3: Re-design the E2-175 as discussed elsewhere to comply with the US market ?
4: All of the above
5: None of the above

It seems we turn this around a thousand times and the result seems to be the same...

docmtl

Why would they change E175-E2? There is no competition anyway. There is none against the E175 (E1) and none for the E175-E2.

If Pratt&Whitney continues to support E175-E2 development then there's absolutely no reason to change course.

Poor market economics, vs. modern narrowbodies will push airlines to upgauge. At some point the the improved economics overcome the yield reduction of reduced frequency.

Embraer will sell E172. But E275? Without the bulk of the market (US, in scope) to create economics of scale, buyers will continue to hesitate. Since pilots want to preserve jobs at mainline, they will not be inclined to outsource jobs. Outside the scope airlines, most will upgauge which brings the A220 into the competition.

Have you ever done system optimization?

Lightsaber

c933103 wrote:

https://biz-journal.jp/2020/11/post_189245.html
An aviation commenter in Japan say that the ultimate reason behind the failure is Mitsubishi want to develop a passenger aircraft and attain type certificate from the US using only experience in military aircraft production, and when they realize it's too late and that opinion from foreign experts with experience in getting type certificate is needed, it's already too late in year 2016 which resulted in large amounts of design changes late in the design phase.
It also noted that there are consistently dispute in the use of foreigners while developing the aircraft

A lot of good people think that additional money plus extra time are good substitutes for inteligence.It is not.

c933103 wrote:

https://biz-journal.jp/2020/11/post_189245.html
An aviation commenter in Japan say that the ultimate reason behind the failure is Mitsubishi want to develop a passenger aircraft and attain type certificate from the US using only experience in military aircraft production, and when they realize it's too late and that opinion from foreign experts with experience in getting type certificate is needed, it's already too late in year 2016 which resulted in large amounts of design changes late in the design phase.
It also noted that there are consistently dispute in the use of foreigners while developing the aircraft

Very interesting article. And if true, it is a failed project. What they were thinking when they defined the service ceiling as 39 kft and MMO as 0.78M? That’s the ERJ145 specs.

Jungleneer wrote:

What they were thinking when they defined the service ceiling as 39 kft and MMO as 0.78M? That’s the ERJ145 specs.

And A320 and 737 ...

FL390 / M0.78 is perfectly fine for a short haul aircraft.

A320 and 737 has cruise mach of 0.78 and MMO of 0.82. A Mmo of 0.78 means that the cruise Mach is around 0.74. That’s too low for today’s standards.

Jungleneer wrote:

A320 and 737 has cruise mach of 0.78 and MMO of 0.82. A Mmo of 0.78 means that the cruise Mach is around 0.74. That’s too low for today’s standards.

Mach 0.78 cited in the article is cruising speed, according to the text.

c933103 wrote:

https://biz-journal.jp/2020/11/post_189245.html
An aviation commenter in Japan say that the ultimate reason behind the failure is Mitsubishi want to develop a passenger aircraft and attain type certificate from the US using only experience in military aircraft production, and when they realize it's too late and that opinion from foreign experts with experience in getting type certificate is needed, it's already too late in year 2016 which resulted in large amounts of design changes late in the design phase.
It also noted that there are consistently dispute in the use of foreigners while developing the aircraft

Certifying an airplane for commercial use differs from a military project.

Military projects must meet performance and resistance requirements within a flight envelope that are totally different
from a civil certification that, unlike military projects, must meet the requirements of regulatory bodies that act together and in line.

Much has changed since Japan had its last commercial project (YS-11) and the line of learning to try to certify the SpaceJet has been
long and too many design changes.

Time passed for the SpaceJet. It remains to be seen whether the painful process will bear fruit in the future.

For now, I believe "Lazy Godzilla" will rest forever in peace ...

c933103 wrote:

Jungleneer wrote:

A320 and 737 has cruise mach of 0.78 and MMO of 0.82. A Mmo of 0.78 means that the cruise Mach is around 0.74. That’s too low for today’s standards.

Mach 0.78 cited in the article is cruising speed, according to the text.

You are right! I read it too fast.

Another lengthy post-mortem on the SpaceJet.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/ ... t-project/

ordell wrote:

Another lengthy post-mortem on the SpaceJet.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/ ... t-project/

Yep, it seems that "Lazy Godzilla" is "Gone with the Wind" ...

From the article: "Another aircraft industry insider revealed that Mitsubishi Aircraft had to purchase one part for twice the price Boeing had paid to acquire the part for its 737 aircraft..."

To a less degree, BBD also had to pay more to acquire parts for its CSeries. Moving into Airbus's supply chain was a big relief...

ordell wrote:

Another lengthy post-mortem on the SpaceJet.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/ ... t-project/

The most interesting part of the article is about the three budget from April 2021 to March 2023.
The three year budget is ONLY 20 billion Yen or only about US$ 192 million. If we assume a uniform distribution for each year then the annual budget on average is about US$ 65 million.

Basically that's the cost of just keeping a core team doing the administration (overhead) and a relatively small team to do the actual job.

With that very small budget, they can only document WHAT HAS BEEN DONE and there won't be any progress on the certification document.

It will be extremely difficult to restart the program even if they wanted to do so.

In addition, a lot of suppliers will have dropped out by then.

The end may be near.

The acquisition of CRJ program has always been a mystery for me. It continues to be one with the above story about the freezing of the SpaceJet program.

MHI acquired the CRJ program, including more than 800 million US dollars of liability. The total cost is about one billion US dollars.

Today, the only activity for MHI RJ Aviation (the company that deal with CRJ Program) is CRJ customer services. It could potentially be a profitable business, but the acquisition cost PLUS the current size of the company (too big, too heavy) will not allow it to make profit.

They absolutely need to slim down MHI RJ Aviation if they want to stop the bleeding.
Unfortunately it means there will be some layoffs, independently of possible local hiring supported by the local government (state/governor aid) in the US.

VV wrote:

The acquisition of CRJ program has always been a mystery for me. It continues to be one with the above story about the freezing of the SpaceJet program.

MHI acquired the CRJ program, including more than 800 million US dollars of liability. The total cost is about one billion US dollars.

Well, BBD came out quite well as to timing. They could not have sold the Q400 nor Shorts nor the CRJ if the sales happened some 6-9 months later than they did. MHI is probably wondering why in the heck they bought this turkey.

JayinKitsap wrote:

VV wrote:

The acquisition of CRJ program has always been a mystery for me. It continues to be one with the above story about the freezing of the SpaceJet program.

MHI acquired the CRJ program, including more than 800 million US dollars of liability. The total cost is about one billion US dollars.

Well, BBD came out quite well as to timing. They could not have sold the Q400 nor Shorts nor the CRJ if the sales happened some 6-9 months later than they did. MHI is probably wondering why in the heck they bought this turkey.

Unless there us a plan to restart SpaceJet certification, the CRJ purchase is a large loss. The value was the distribution chain and experienced staff.

I find it interesting that Mitsubishi is continuing to fund processing if flight test data. With 3700 hours (going from memory, correct me if wrong), there is a lot if information there. But due to redesigns, at least 400 hours, in my opinion, need to be repeated.

I'm honestly not sure if the program is in stasis with a chance of a restart or not.

Enough vendor talent us being retained to restart... But is there a plan?

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

VV wrote:

The acquisition of CRJ program has always been a mystery for me. It continues to be one with the above story about the freezing of the SpaceJet program.

MHI acquired the CRJ program, including more than 800 million US dollars of liability. The total cost is about one billion US dollars.

Well, BBD came out quite well as to timing. They could not have sold the Q400 nor Shorts nor the CRJ if the sales happened some 6-9 months later than they did. MHI is probably wondering why in the heck they bought this turkey.

Unless there us a plan to restart SpaceJet certification, the CRJ purchase is a large loss. The value was the distribution chain and experienced staff.

I find it interesting that Mitsubishi is continuing to fund processing if flight test data. With 3700 hours (going from memory, correct me if wrong), there is a lot if information there. But due to redesigns, at least 400 hours, in my opinion, need to be repeated.

I'm honestly not sure if the program is in stasis with a chance of a restart or not.

Enough vendor talent us being retained to restart... But is there a plan?

Lightsaber

"But is there a plan" is the prize question. Some items that question if there was a plan

1. Buying the CRJ support network as new units cease makes little sense unless it is to serve the new plane.
2. Designing the Space Jet model that was being certified does not meet the scope clauses that is required to fly half or more of the RJ Market.
3. For the first plane to market, wanting most of the parts to be "in house" sourced verses buying from Collins, etc seems incredibly naive. No current plane manufacturer tries to be in house to such an extent.
4. Having such a high "in house" part count just destroys the economy of scale argument. Using a part that is common on the 737 or A320 means there are thousands of the parts in service and stocked world wide. A part on 250 planes, as we see with the A380, means it costs several times more.
5. Delays to EIS far longer than the original time frame questions competence.
6, Not following a standard certification path, instead using the "we know best" concept is difficult at best to obtain approval.

It is crazy.

JayinKitsap wrote:

It is crazy.

That's what bugs me the most about the MRJ debacle. Japanese companies are usually models of operational efficiency, but MHI got a bad case of the stupids up and down this program.

https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOGD ... 20A2000000
With reduced investment in SpaceJet amd redeployment of fund for growing into development of renewable energy, profit of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is expected to grow from 20 billion Yen in the term of 2021 March to 180 billion Yen in the term of 2024 March

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/202012 ... 71000.html
Mitsubishi will cut the enount of employees working on the SpaceJet down to 5% of original level, starting from 2021 April, with only about 150 staffs continue working on the project. In principle those staff will be reused in rest of the Mitsubishi group.

https://www.asahi.com/sp/articles/ASNDJ ... PE01S.html
Their flight test center in the United States will be closed in the upcoming spring. But there will still be minimal amount of people taking care of the four aircraft staying in the US.

c933103 wrote:

https://www.asahi.com/sp/articles/ASNDJ4W46NDCOIPE01S.html
Their flight test center in the United States will be closed in the upcoming spring. But there will still be minimal amount of people taking care of the four aircraft staying in the US.

I noticed an interesting point in the article.

Flight tests in the United States have been suspended since this spring due to the spread of the new coronavirus. Furthermore, it is not expected to be resumed the next three years

The aircraft will not get its type certificate before 2024 if the program is not abandoned altogether.

In addition it seems any effort to build a proper mass production system has been abandoned.

In other words, the likelihood the program will be abandoned is very high.

The Japanese have their own way of saying goodbye to the dead ...

Can someone please say something about what would happen to the foreigners hired for SpaceJet development?

VV wrote:

Can someone please say something about what would happen to the foreigners hired for SpaceJet development?

c933103 wrote:

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20201216/k10012766271000.html
Mitsubishi will cut the enount of employees working on the SpaceJet down to 5% of original level, starting from 2021 April, with only about 150 staffs continue working on the project. In principle those staff will be reused in rest of the Mitsubishi group.

If they are proper employees, Mitsubishi will offer them to move to other departments / projects.
If they are subcontractors employed by other companies, the contract between Mitsubishi and the other company may be terminated and it's up to them what to do with their employees.