triple3driver
Topic Author
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:24 pm

Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 1:42 pm

It seems that, based on a combination of the failure of the Embraer E2 to meet scope clauses, the general failure of the Bombardier commercial aircraft division, COMAC's and Sukhoi's failures to penetrate the market, and even Mitsubishi's own delays, it's possible that the that Mitsubishi might be able to secure a leading position in a market that's seemingly devoid of any real contenders.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/13/ponti ... rj-player/
If you can walk away from it intact, it was a good landing!
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 1:57 pm

Yes Bombardier is leaving the RJ market.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
c933103
Posts: 3822
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 2:06 pm

The problem is is the market itself also devoided
When no other countries around the world is going to militarily stop China and its subordinate fom abusing its citizens within its national boundary, it is unreasonable to expect those abuse can be countered with purely peaceful means.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2220
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 2:29 pm

I think it's worth while having a discussion about the viability of scope clauses. They direcly impact the airline industry, sometimes leading to inefficient aircraft. It's not good for the economy or the enviroment.

That being said, I hope the MRJ will be a success.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3676
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 2:36 pm

They ain’t going away, so it’ll be a short discussion, at least.

GF
 
anshabhi
Posts: 2110
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 2:39 pm

Lol! How many MRJ are in operation currently: 0
 
UnitedTristar
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:45 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 2:43 pm

and they are SLOW AF....

not as slow as the 328jet but still slow enough...

not to mention lots of weight and balance issues with all the bags in the back....
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 2:43 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
I think it's worth while having a discussion about the viability of scope clauses. They direcly impact the airline industry, sometimes leading to inefficient aircraft. It's not good for the economy or the enviroment.

That being said, I hope the MRJ will be a success.

I agree. How about scope clauses eliminate anything larger than a 50 seater and limit flight distances to 500nm so they can again become “regional” or “commuter” flights, not cheaply outsourced mainline flights in what should be a mainline plane.

You want 80 seat E175 E2s? Great. Nothing prohibiting them being used at the US3, so long as Express, Connection, or Eagle isn’t painted on the side of them.

Outsourcing to regionals puts less experienced and less vetted pilots at the controls of more and bigger planes. It’s time for that to go away and brings job back that we’re sold to the lowest bidder using bankruptcy and mainline jobs as leverage in the darkest time of aviation history in the US for pilots.

Don’t blame scope clauses. All those “scope non-compliant” planes that the likes of Kirby, Parker, and Bastian want have no restrictions flying at mainline. They are just too cheap to bring them in house and instead rely on cheap labor to subsidize their massive profits.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 2:43 pm

So no Passport engines on the CRJ-700 and -900?

That's a shame.

Image

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3884
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 2:47 pm

So presumably the plan is to put the MRJ70 on a diet and make it scope compliant?
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9620
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 2:49 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
I think it's worth while having a discussion about the viability of scope clauses. They direcly impact the airline industry, sometimes leading to inefficient aircraft. It's not good for the economy or the enviroment.

That being said, I hope the MRJ will be a success.

The problem is that the smaller the aircraft, the more important pilot costs become since there are basically two pilots from a Cessna 402 all the way up to an A380. In order to keep the unions from driving up salaries on new hires, the legacies decided to use subcontracting as a solution, really on all lower wage jobs. Baggage handlers are pretty much universally in the same boat as well. Heavy maintenance has also gone to off-shore sub-contractors. So, the airlines can't really bring RJs in-house from a cost perspective. JetBlue, Air Canada, and AA/US all found that out with the E190 and decided it was a bad idea going forward.

If they are going to be subbed out you have to have a scope clause. Changing the scope clause in terms of seating is also problematic. Right now they are mostly divided at 80 seats or so, at least in the USA. The airlines would love to see that increased. The unions would love to see it decreased.

So, sure, the E190 and E2 were basically killed by these scope clauses. OTOH, maybe they shouldn't have built them knowing that scope clauses weren't going to change easily. If you can only have 2 casinos in the State of Nebraska due to existing regulations, you don't just start building a third one hoping it somehow becomes allowed. That's basically what Embraer did. It is what it is, but certainly you are right that scope doomed the aircraft. I just don't see anything changing with it. You'd have to have a dramatic weakening of the unions to see a change and that's unlikely.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18128
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 3:00 pm

I do not believe scope clauses will change either way. So that leaves the MR7...

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
TUSDawg23
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:43 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 3:02 pm

The MRJ looks great on paper, but how it will actually operate in commercial service are two different things. I hope Mitsubishi has learned from the lessons that Sukhoi has had to suffer through.
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2258
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 3:25 pm

enilria wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
I think it's worth while having a discussion about the viability of scope clauses. They direcly impact the airline industry, sometimes leading to inefficient aircraft. It's not good for the economy or the enviroment.

That being said, I hope the MRJ will be a success.

The problem is that the smaller the aircraft, the more important pilot costs become since there are basically two pilots from a Cessna 402 all the way up to an A380. In order to keep the unions from driving up salaries on new hires, the legacies decided to use subcontracting as a solution, really on all lower wage jobs. Baggage handlers are pretty much universally in the same boat as well. Heavy maintenance has also gone to off-shore sub-contractors. So, the airlines can't really bring RJs in-house from a cost perspective. JetBlue, Air Canada, and AA/US all found that out with the E190 and decided it was a bad idea going forward.

If they are going to be subbed out you have to have a scope clause. Changing the scope clause in terms of seating is also problematic. Right now they are mostly divided at 80 seats or so, at least in the USA. The airlines would love to see that increased. The unions would love to see it decreased.

So, sure, the E190 and E2 were basically killed by these scope clauses. OTOH, maybe they shouldn't have built them knowing that scope clauses weren't going to change easily. If you can only have 2 casinos in the State of Nebraska due to existing regulations, you don't just start building a third one hoping it somehow becomes allowed. That's basically what Embraer did. It is what it is, but certainly you are right that scope doomed the aircraft. I just don't see anything changing with it. You'd have to have a dramatic weakening of the unions to see a change and that's unlikely.


Remember way back when at Air Canada the CRJs were mainline aircraft and then later the E75s were mainline.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3037
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 3:29 pm

Misleading title. Should specify that the reasons are relevant to the US market only, not the rest of the world.


enilria wrote:
So, sure, the E190 and E2 were basically killed by these scope clauses. OTOH, maybe they shouldn't have built them knowing that scope clauses weren't going to change easily.


Contrary to what many think, there is a world outside the US. Embraer still sold just shy of 740 E190s and E195s. It was only about a year ago that the smaller E170 and E175 took the lead in sales over the E190 and E195.
 
sagechan
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 3:38 pm

impilot wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
I think it's worth while having a discussion about the viability of scope clauses. They direcly impact the airline industry, sometimes leading to inefficient aircraft. It's not good for the economy or the enviroment.

That being said, I hope the MRJ will be a success.

I agree. How about scope clauses eliminate anything larger than a 50 seater and limit flight distances to 500nm so they can again become “regional” or “commuter” flights, not cheaply outsourced mainline flights in what should be a mainline plane.

You want 80 seat E175 E2s? Great. Nothing prohibiting them being used at the US3, so long as Express, Connection, or Eagle isn’t painted on the side of them.

Outsourcing to regionals puts less experienced and less vetted pilots at the controls of more and bigger planes. It’s time for that to go away and brings job back that we’re sold to the lowest bidder using bankruptcy and mainline jobs as leverage in the darkest time of aviation history in the US for pilots.

Don’t blame scope clauses. All those “scope non-compliant” planes that the likes of Kirby, Parker, and Bastian want have no restrictions flying at mainline. They are just too cheap to bring them in house and instead rely on cheap labor to subsidize their massive profits.


Nothing prevents the unions from accepting rates on those aircrafts that make them actually flyable at mainline either. In the end everyone but shareholders would be better off bringing everything back to mainline in the US, but that requires union relief on costs in marginal areas (small planes, small outstations, etc)
717, 733, 734, 738, 744, 752, 763, 772, 77W, 789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A359, MD88, CRJ, CR7, CR9, DH1, DH2, DH3, S340, ER4, E170, E175, E190/CO, NW, US, AC, NH, AA, UA, DL, WN, WS, SK, VY, LA, QF, AR, AV, MH, KA
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13988
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 3:42 pm

UnitedTristar wrote:
and they are SLOW AF....


Air France ? :roll:
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 4:17 pm

sagechan wrote:
impilot wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
I think it's worth while having a discussion about the viability of scope clauses. They direcly impact the airline industry, sometimes leading to inefficient aircraft. It's not good for the economy or the enviroment.

That being said, I hope the MRJ will be a success.

I agree. How about scope clauses eliminate anything larger than a 50 seater and limit flight distances to 500nm so they can again become “regional” or “commuter” flights, not cheaply outsourced mainline flights in what should be a mainline plane.

You want 80 seat E175 E2s? Great. Nothing prohibiting them being used at the US3, so long as Express, Connection, or Eagle isn’t painted on the side of them.

Outsourcing to regionals puts less experienced and less vetted pilots at the controls of more and bigger planes. It’s time for that to go away and brings job back that we’re sold to the lowest bidder using bankruptcy and mainline jobs as leverage in the darkest time of aviation history in the US for pilots.

Don’t blame scope clauses. All those “scope non-compliant” planes that the likes of Kirby, Parker, and Bastian want have no restrictions flying at mainline. They are just too cheap to bring them in house and instead rely on cheap labor to subsidize their massive profits.


Nothing prevents the unions from accepting rates on those aircrafts that make them actually flyable at mainline either. In the end everyone but shareholders would be better off bringing everything back to mainline in the US, but that requires union relief on costs in marginal areas (small planes, small outstations, etc)


Unions don’t buy planes or prevent buying of planes (to be operated by mainline). If airline mgmt tells a union they are bringing CRJ-900s to mainline, they then negotiate a rate. The union doesn’t “accept a rate” (or not) as you imply, nor can they say “nope we won’t fly them.” They will fly them after a rate is negotiated (or arbitrated depending on their contract stipulations). And they won’t accept rates that are below what an airline pilot should make in this environment and in this country. They can’t accept artificially low rates just to make them “flyable at mainline.” If they aren’t economically viable at the market rate for pilots, that’s not a union’s fault.

In fact, Delta has a CRJ-900 payscale in their mainline pilot contract. Unsure about other US3. But all 3 of the US3 pilot unions would gladly fly CRJs/ERJs owned and operated by mainline...but the airline management won’t allow that to happen. At least not right now. And I’m not holding my breath for that to ever happen.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18128
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 4:31 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Misleading title. Should specify that the reasons are relevant to the US market only, not the rest of the world.


enilria wrote:
So, sure, the E190 and E2 were basically killed by these scope clauses. OTOH, maybe they shouldn't have built them knowing that scope clauses weren't going to change easily.


Contrary to what many think, there is a world outside the US. Embraer still sold just shy of 740 E190s and E195s. It was only about a year ago that the smaller E170 and E175 took the lead in sales over the E190 and E195.

You do realize the only E2-175 order isn't happening due to US scope clauses? At this time, only the MRJ has viable orders.

The US market is about 60% of the sales in this size range and the predominant used buyer. When we discuss larger, we are talking primarily E2-195 vs. A220, a very different market. In that market, Aircastle is struggling to place its orders. You have a case where Embraer has no choice but to compete with the leasing orders. This is a problem; we shall find out how firm the lease orders are.

The E2-175 needs to be relaunched. It needs a series of viable customers. Without the high volume of the US market, how is it proposed to gain a customer base? 40% of 740 is only 296 aircraft over say 15 years. That is not a viable resale market. That isn't a viable launch market. Leasing companies should, today, avoid the E2-175 until it is a viable market. So cut the potential sales in half again. That is in no way a viable market.

Unless the CR7 or CR9 are re-engined, the MRJ has no competition for the size range. That means a large exclusive market that will attract the leasing companies and foreign customers.

Look at who launched the E-jets and bought in quantity. Leasing companies like airlines with a history of buying used to opperate a type. The US airlines thrive on opportunistic used buying. So without US airlines, I ask how one could launch in this size.

My opinion on the E2-195 is different. Once the E2-190/195 sell a few hungry more, the market will thrive. But the big launch E-190 customer (JetBlue) went A220.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1390
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 4:40 pm

Mitsubishi should just buy the CRJ line from BBD and invest the funds to Update it to provide solutions for under the scope clause limits and keep the MRJ for above and grow it.

Brand new state of the art engines on the CRJ would help a lot.

They could do final assembly in Japan and use the existing Worldwide CRJ parts supply lines.
 
c933103
Posts: 3822
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 4:48 pm

TUSDawg23 wrote:
The MRJ looks great on paper, but how it will actually operate in commercial service are two different things. I hope Mitsubishi has learned from the lessons that Sukhoi has had to suffer through.

IIRC supposedly Boeing would help them provide some sort of part or support network around the world?But I don't know how that will carry on with Boeing's Enbraer partnership
When no other countries around the world is going to militarily stop China and its subordinate fom abusing its citizens within its national boundary, it is unreasonable to expect those abuse can be countered with purely peaceful means.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9620
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 4:50 pm

Dominion301 wrote:
Remember way back when at Air Canada the CRJs were mainline aircraft and then later the E75s were mainline.

AC has tried to defy convention on scope. But at the end of the day the cost issues were the same with flying mainline on that size aircraft.
VSMUT wrote:
enilria wrote:
So, sure, the E190 and E2 were basically killed by these scope clauses. OTOH, maybe they shouldn't have built them knowing that scope clauses weren't going to change easily.


Contrary to what many think, there is a world outside the US. Embraer still sold just shy of 740 E190s and E195s. It was only about a year ago that the smaller E170 and E175 took the lead in sales over the E190 and E195.

What % of regional jets were sold new to U.S. carriers since the type came into existence? There's your answer.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 4:51 pm

lightsaber wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Misleading title. Should specify that the reasons are relevant to the US market only, not the rest of the world.


enilria wrote:
So, sure, the E190 and E2 were basically killed by these scope clauses. OTOH, maybe they shouldn't have built them knowing that scope clauses weren't going to change easily.


Contrary to what many think, there is a world outside the US. Embraer still sold just shy of 740 E190s and E195s. It was only about a year ago that the smaller E170 and E175 took the lead in sales over the E190 and E195.

You do realize the only E2-175 order isn't happening due to US scope clauses? At this time, only the MRJ has viable orders.

The US market is about 60% of the sales in this size range and the predominant used buyer. When we discuss larger, we are talking primarily E2-195 vs. A220, a very different market. In that market, Aircastle is struggling to place its orders. You have a case where Embraer has no choice but to compete with the leasing orders. This is a problem; we shall find out how firm the lease orders are.

The E2-175 needs to be relaunched. It needs a series of viable customers. Without the high volume of the US market, how is it proposed to gain a customer base? 40% of 740 is only 296 aircraft over say 15 years. That is not a viable resale market. That isn't a viable launch market. Leasing companies should, today, avoid the E2-175 until it is a viable market. So cut the potential sales in half again. That is in no way a viable market.

Unless the CR7 or CR9 are re-engined, the MRJ has no competition for the size range. That means a large exclusive market that will attract the leasing companies and foreign customers.

Look at who launched the E-jets and bought in quantity. Leasing companies like airlines with a history of buying used to opperate a type. The US airlines thrive on opportunistic used buying. So without US airlines, I ask how one could launch in this size.

My opinion on the E2-195 is different. Once the E2-190/195 sell a few hungry more, the market will thrive. But the big launch E-190 customer (JetBlue) went A220.

Lightsaber


You probably looked too at the 175-E2 specs. https://www.embraercommercialaviation.com/commercial-jets/e175-e2-commercial-jet/ The weight-capacity gab seems too large to bridge. No shrinking / PIP'ing / paper de-rating will work good enough. That's why Embraer seems in a kind of lock position, hoping ALPA moves..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 4:58 pm

keesje wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Misleading title. Should specify that the reasons are relevant to the US market only, not the rest of the world.




Contrary to what many think, there is a world outside the US. Embraer still sold just shy of 740 E190s and E195s. It was only about a year ago that the smaller E170 and E175 took the lead in sales over the E190 and E195.

You do realize the only E2-175 order isn't happening due to US scope clauses? At this time, only the MRJ has viable orders.

The US market is about 60% of the sales in this size range and the predominant used buyer. When we discuss larger, we are talking primarily E2-195 vs. A220, a very different market. In that market, Aircastle is struggling to place its orders. You have a case where Embraer has no choice but to compete with the leasing orders. This is a problem; we shall find out how firm the lease orders are.

The E2-175 needs to be relaunched. It needs a series of viable customers. Without the high volume of the US market, how is it proposed to gain a customer base? 40% of 740 is only 296 aircraft over say 15 years. That is not a viable resale market. That isn't a viable launch market. Leasing companies should, today, avoid the E2-175 until it is a viable market. So cut the potential sales in half again. That is in no way a viable market.

Unless the CR7 or CR9 are re-engined, the MRJ has no competition for the size range. That means a large exclusive market that will attract the leasing companies and foreign customers.

Look at who launched the E-jets and bought in quantity. Leasing companies like airlines with a history of buying used to opperate a type. The US airlines thrive on opportunistic used buying. So without US airlines, I ask how one could launch in this size.

My opinion on the E2-195 is different. Once the E2-190/195 sell a few hungry more, the market will thrive. But the big launch E-190 customer (JetBlue) went A220.

Lightsaber


You probably looked too at the 175-E2 specs. The weight-capacity gab seems too large to bridge. No shrinking / PIP'ing / paper de-rating will work good enough. That's why Embraer seems in a kind of lock position, hoping ALPA moves..

Why does ALPA have to be the one to move? Why is there no one asking the US3 to fly them at mainline, but instead just accepting them as jets to be outsourced to less qualified, less experienced, cheaper crews?

The real push should be for passengers who buy a ticket on Delta who get on a delta branded flight to have delta pilots and FAs working the flight, be it on a 777, 737, or E175.
 
c933103
Posts: 3822
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 5:02 pm

impilot wrote:
sagechan wrote:
impilot wrote:
I agree. How about scope clauses eliminate anything larger than a 50 seater and limit flight distances to 500nm so they can again become “regional” or “commuter” flights, not cheaply outsourced mainline flights in what should be a mainline plane.

You want 80 seat E175 E2s? Great. Nothing prohibiting them being used at the US3, so long as Express, Connection, or Eagle isn’t painted on the side of them.

Outsourcing to regionals puts less experienced and less vetted pilots at the controls of more and bigger planes. It’s time for that to go away and brings job back that we’re sold to the lowest bidder using bankruptcy and mainline jobs as leverage in the darkest time of aviation history in the US for pilots.

Don’t blame scope clauses. All those “scope non-compliant” planes that the likes of Kirby, Parker, and Bastian want have no restrictions flying at mainline. They are just too cheap to bring them in house and instead rely on cheap labor to subsidize their massive profits.


Nothing prevents the unions from accepting rates on those aircrafts that make them actually flyable at mainline either. In the end everyone but shareholders would be better off bringing everything back to mainline in the US, but that requires union relief on costs in marginal areas (small planes, small outstations, etc)


Unions don’t buy planes or prevent buying of planes (to be operated by mainline). If airline mgmt tells a union they are bringing CRJ-900s to mainline, they then negotiate a rate. The union doesn’t “accept a rate” (or not) as you imply, nor can they say “nope we won’t fly them.” They will fly them after a rate is negotiated (or arbitrated depending on their contract stipulations). And they won’t accept rates that are below what an airline pilot should make in this environment and in this country. They can’t accept artificially low rates just to make them “flyable at mainline.” If they aren’t economically viable at the market rate for pilots, that’s not a union’s fault.

In fact, Delta has a CRJ-900 payscale in their mainline pilot contract. Unsure about other US3. But all 3 of the US3 pilot unions would gladly fly CRJs/ERJs owned and operated by mainline...but the airline management won’t allow that to happen. At least not right now. And I’m not holding my breath for that to ever happen.

But the market rate for this sort of flying is the regional airlines rate?
When no other countries around the world is going to militarily stop China and its subordinate fom abusing its citizens within its national boundary, it is unreasonable to expect those abuse can be countered with purely peaceful means.
 
c933103
Posts: 3822
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 5:04 pm

anshabhi wrote:
Lol! How many MRJ are in operation currently: 0

That's the point, like the Saab 340/2000 were a more advanced aircraft than the ATR/Q400 we have now but back then it was not popular because of the situation at the time but the situation could be different if they were here now
When no other countries around the world is going to militarily stop China and its subordinate fom abusing its citizens within its national boundary, it is unreasonable to expect those abuse can be countered with purely peaceful means.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 5:11 pm

impilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
You do realize the only E2-175 order isn't happening due to US scope clauses? At this time, only the MRJ has viable orders.

The US market is about 60% of the sales in this size range and the predominant used buyer. When we discuss larger, we are talking primarily E2-195 vs. A220, a very different market. In that market, Aircastle is struggling to place its orders. You have a case where Embraer has no choice but to compete with the leasing orders. This is a problem; we shall find out how firm the lease orders are.

The E2-175 needs to be relaunched. It needs a series of viable customers. Without the high volume of the US market, how is it proposed to gain a customer base? 40% of 740 is only 296 aircraft over say 15 years. That is not a viable resale market. That isn't a viable launch market. Leasing companies should, today, avoid the E2-175 until it is a viable market. So cut the potential sales in half again. That is in no way a viable market.

Unless the CR7 or CR9 are re-engined, the MRJ has no competition for the size range. That means a large exclusive market that will attract the leasing companies and foreign customers.

Look at who launched the E-jets and bought in quantity. Leasing companies like airlines with a history of buying used to opperate a type. The US airlines thrive on opportunistic used buying. So without US airlines, I ask how one could launch in this size.

My opinion on the E2-195 is different. Once the E2-190/195 sell a few hungry more, the market will thrive. But the big launch E-190 customer (JetBlue) went A220.

Lightsaber


You probably looked too at the 175-E2 specs. The weight-capacity gab seems too large to bridge. No shrinking / PIP'ing / paper de-rating will work good enough. That's why Embraer seems in a kind of lock position, hoping ALPA moves..

Why does ALPA have to be the one to move? Why is there no one asking the US3 to fly them at mainline, but instead just accepting them as jets to be outsourced to less qualified, less experienced, cheaper crews?

The real push should be for passengers who buy a ticket on Delta who get on a delta branded flight to have delta pilots and FAs working the flight, be it on a 777, 737, or E175.


Not sure. It seems to me F1 drivers, fighter pilots and cabin average well below 40 years. Maybe other factors than age should be pulled in. :stirthepot:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
sagechan
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 5:18 pm

impilot wrote:
sagechan wrote:
impilot wrote:
I agree. How about scope clauses eliminate anything larger than a 50 seater and limit flight distances to 500nm so they can again become “regional” or “commuter” flights, not cheaply outsourced mainline flights in what should be a mainline plane.

You want 80 seat E175 E2s? Great. Nothing prohibiting them being used at the US3, so long as Express, Connection, or Eagle isn’t painted on the side of them.

Outsourcing to regionals puts less experienced and less vetted pilots at the controls of more and bigger planes. It’s time for that to go away and brings job back that we’re sold to the lowest bidder using bankruptcy and mainline jobs as leverage in the darkest time of aviation history in the US for pilots.

Don’t blame scope clauses. All those “scope non-compliant” planes that the likes of Kirby, Parker, and Bastian want have no restrictions flying at mainline. They are just too cheap to bring them in house and instead rely on cheap labor to subsidize their massive profits.


Nothing prevents the unions from accepting rates on those aircrafts that make them actually flyable at mainline either. In the end everyone but shareholders would be better off bringing everything back to mainline in the US, but that requires union relief on costs in marginal areas (small planes, small outstations, etc)


Unions don’t buy planes or prevent buying of planes (to be operated by mainline). If airline mgmt tells a union they are bringing CRJ-900s to mainline, they then negotiate a rate. The union doesn’t “accept a rate” (or not) as you imply, nor can they say “nope we won’t fly them.” They will fly them after a rate is negotiated (or arbitrated depending on their contract stipulations). And they won’t accept rates that are below what an airline pilot should make in this environment and in this country. They can’t accept artificially low rates just to make them “flyable at mainline.” If they aren’t economically viable at the market rate for pilots, that’s not a union’s fault.

In fact, Delta has a CRJ-900 payscale in their mainline pilot contract. Unsure about other US3. But all 3 of the US3 pilot unions would gladly fly CRJs/ERJs owned and operated by mainline...but the airline management won’t allow that to happen. At least not right now. And I’m not holding my breath for that to ever happen.


They "accept a rate"through that negotiation and ratification. That doesn't mean what they accept is actually usable to realistically operate smaller frames by the airline. It's a choice in negotiation. I'm not saying either side is right or wrong in where they chose to draw a line, just noting that bringing them in would require lower wages than unions want to accept at this time.
717, 733, 734, 738, 744, 752, 763, 772, 77W, 789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A359, MD88, CRJ, CR7, CR9, DH1, DH2, DH3, S340, ER4, E170, E175, E190/CO, NW, US, AC, NH, AA, UA, DL, WN, WS, SK, VY, LA, QF, AR, AV, MH, KA
 
sagechan
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 5:20 pm

c933103 wrote:
impilot wrote:
sagechan wrote:

Nothing prevents the unions from accepting rates on those aircrafts that make them actually flyable at mainline either. In the end everyone but shareholders would be better off bringing everything back to mainline in the US, but that requires union relief on costs in marginal areas (small planes, small outstations, etc)


Unions don’t buy planes or prevent buying of planes (to be operated by mainline). If airline mgmt tells a union they are bringing CRJ-900s to mainline, they then negotiate a rate. The union doesn’t “accept a rate” (or not) as you imply, nor can they say “nope we won’t fly them.” They will fly them after a rate is negotiated (or arbitrated depending on their contract stipulations). And they won’t accept rates that are below what an airline pilot should make in this environment and in this country. They can’t accept artificially low rates just to make them “flyable at mainline.” If they aren’t economically viable at the market rate for pilots, that’s not a union’s fault.

In fact, Delta has a CRJ-900 payscale in their mainline pilot contract. Unsure about other US3. But all 3 of the US3 pilot unions would gladly fly CRJs/ERJs owned and operated by mainline...but the airline management won’t allow that to happen. At least not right now. And I’m not holding my breath for that to ever happen.

But the market rate for this sort of flying is the regional airlines rate?


My guess is there would be an acceptable rate that would be somewhat higher than current regional rates. But lower than what unions want to accept, therefore you get mainline unions accepting B scale work for smaller subcontractor work in exchange for higher pay on their equipment.
717, 733, 734, 738, 744, 752, 763, 772, 77W, 789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A359, MD88, CRJ, CR7, CR9, DH1, DH2, DH3, S340, ER4, E170, E175, E190/CO, NW, US, AC, NH, AA, UA, DL, WN, WS, SK, VY, LA, QF, AR, AV, MH, KA
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 5:24 pm

c933103 wrote:
impilot wrote:
sagechan wrote:

Nothing prevents the unions from accepting rates on those aircrafts that make them actually flyable at mainline either. In the end everyone but shareholders would be better off bringing everything back to mainline in the US, but that requires union relief on costs in marginal areas (small planes, small outstations, etc)


Unions don’t buy planes or prevent buying of planes (to be operated by mainline). If airline mgmt tells a union they are bringing CRJ-900s to mainline, they then negotiate a rate. The union doesn’t “accept a rate” (or not) as you imply, nor can they say “nope we won’t fly them.” They will fly them after a rate is negotiated (or arbitrated depending on their contract stipulations). And they won’t accept rates that are below what an airline pilot should make in this environment and in this country. They can’t accept artificially low rates just to make them “flyable at mainline.” If they aren’t economically viable at the market rate for pilots, that’s not a union’s fault.

In fact, Delta has a CRJ-900 payscale in their mainline pilot contract. Unsure about other US3. But all 3 of the US3 pilot unions would gladly fly CRJs/ERJs owned and operated by mainline...but the airline management won’t allow that to happen. At least not right now. And I’m not holding my breath for that to ever happen.

But the market rate for this sort of flying is the regional airlines rate?

Regional airline rates are an artificially low “market rate” given the structure of the pilot system in the US. For the current pay scales that currently exist for CRJs at mainline (and I checked, all US3 have CRJs in their scales), despite being lower than other mainline rates, ALPA would be happy to have all outsourced CRJs on mainline property. Guess who doesn’t want to put them there? Management.

Everyone here mentioning scope as a reason for the E175E2, or any other plane for that matter, not being viable, needs to instead blame mainline management for not flying them OR the underlying economics of said jet.

Scope is simply a mechanism to stop the exploitation of cheap, outsourced labor.
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 5:26 pm

sagechan wrote:
impilot wrote:
sagechan wrote:

Nothing prevents the unions from accepting rates on those aircrafts that make them actually flyable at mainline either. In the end everyone but shareholders would be better off bringing everything back to mainline in the US, but that requires union relief on costs in marginal areas (small planes, small outstations, etc)


Unions don’t buy planes or prevent buying of planes (to be operated by mainline). If airline mgmt tells a union they are bringing CRJ-900s to mainline, they then negotiate a rate. The union doesn’t “accept a rate” (or not) as you imply, nor can they say “nope we won’t fly them.” They will fly them after a rate is negotiated (or arbitrated depending on their contract stipulations). And they won’t accept rates that are below what an airline pilot should make in this environment and in this country. They can’t accept artificially low rates just to make them “flyable at mainline.” If they aren’t economically viable at the market rate for pilots, that’s not a union’s fault.

In fact, Delta has a CRJ-900 payscale in their mainline pilot contract. Unsure about other US3. But all 3 of the US3 pilot unions would gladly fly CRJs/ERJs owned and operated by mainline...but the airline management won’t allow that to happen. At least not right now. And I’m not holding my breath for that to ever happen.


They "accept a rate"through that negotiation and ratification. That doesn't mean what they accept is actually usable to realistically operate smaller frames by the airline. It's a choice in negotiation. I'm not saying either side is right or wrong in where they chose to draw a line, just noting that bringing them in would require lower wages than unions want to accept at this time.


As mentioned in my previous post, US3 management and ALPA have mutually agreed upon CRJ rates in their contracts (as well as E190s, but no E175s). Only thing stopping them from flying them, or any other RJ, is the current ability to outsource them. If scope didn’t exist, they’d all be outsourced. If management wasn’t cheap/greedy, they’d bring them all back on property.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18128
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 5:29 pm

impilot wrote:
c933103 wrote:
impilot wrote:

Unions don’t buy planes or prevent buying of planes (to be operated by mainline). If airline mgmt tells a union they are bringing CRJ-900s to mainline, they then negotiate a rate. The union doesn’t “accept a rate” (or not) as you imply, nor can they say “nope we won’t fly them.” They will fly them after a rate is negotiated (or arbitrated depending on their contract stipulations). And they won’t accept rates that are below what an airline pilot should make in this environment and in this country. They can’t accept artificially low rates just to make them “flyable at mainline.” If they aren’t economically viable at the market rate for pilots, that’s not a union’s fault.

In fact, Delta has a CRJ-900 payscale in their mainline pilot contract. Unsure about other US3. But all 3 of the US3 pilot unions would gladly fly CRJs/ERJs owned and operated by mainline...but the airline management won’t allow that to happen. At least not right now. And I’m not holding my breath for that to ever happen.

But the market rate for this sort of flying is the regional airlines rate?

Regional airline rates are an artificially low “market rate” given the structure of the pilot system in the US. For the current pay scales that currently exist for CRJs at mainline (and I checked, all US3 have CRJs in their scales), despite being lower than other mainline rates, ALPA would be happy to have all outsourced CRJs on mainline property. Guess who doesn’t want to put them there? Management.

Everyone here mentioning scope as a reason for the E175E2, or any other plane for that matter, not being viable, needs to instead blame mainline management for not flying them OR the underlying economics of said jet.

Scope is simply a mechanism to stop the exploitation of cheap, outsourced labor.

It isn't just pilots. Regional ground ops are far more flexible. The reality is, the majority of regional stations are not viable if run as a mainline station with the entire required staffing.

It is easy to look at one group, it is the total cost.

We have scope. I really doubt either side will budge. AA couldn't get E-190 to work mainline, there is no way the E2-175 would work for any of the US3. Even JetBlue is upgauging to A220-300 to make costs work.

Trust me, if all the small markets start getting dropped, the current ATP rules would be revised quickly. Do the pilots want the politicians help?

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
FlyHPN
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:15 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 5:33 pm

impilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
You do realize the only E2-175 order isn't happening due to US scope clauses? At this time, only the MRJ has viable orders.

The US market is about 60% of the sales in this size range and the predominant used buyer. When we discuss larger, we are talking primarily E2-195 vs. A220, a very different market. In that market, Aircastle is struggling to place its orders. You have a case where Embraer has no choice but to compete with the leasing orders. This is a problem; we shall find out how firm the lease orders are.

The E2-175 needs to be relaunched. It needs a series of viable customers. Without the high volume of the US market, how is it proposed to gain a customer base? 40% of 740 is only 296 aircraft over say 15 years. That is not a viable resale market. That isn't a viable launch market. Leasing companies should, today, avoid the E2-175 until it is a viable market. So cut the potential sales in half again. That is in no way a viable market.

Unless the CR7 or CR9 are re-engined, the MRJ has no competition for the size range. That means a large exclusive market that will attract the leasing companies and foreign customers.

Look at who launched the E-jets and bought in quantity. Leasing companies like airlines with a history of buying used to opperate a type. The US airlines thrive on opportunistic used buying. So without US airlines, I ask how one could launch in this size.

My opinion on the E2-195 is different. Once the E2-190/195 sell a few hungry more, the market will thrive. But the big launch E-190 customer (JetBlue) went A220.

Lightsaber


You probably looked too at the 175-E2 specs. The weight-capacity gab seems too large to bridge. No shrinking / PIP'ing / paper de-rating will work good enough. That's why Embraer seems in a kind of lock position, hoping ALPA moves..

Why does ALPA have to be the one to move? Why is there no one asking the US3 to fly them at mainline, but instead just accepting them as jets to be outsourced to less qualified, less experienced, cheaper crews?

The real push should be for passengers who buy a ticket on Delta who get on a delta branded flight to have delta pilots and FAs working the flight, be it on a 777, 737, or E175.


At the end of the day it boils down to 2 things.

1) In America, publicaly traded companies care about shareholders, customers, and employees...in that order. The ALPA only represent the later in this case, and the smallest population compared to the other two.

2) It has been proven time and time again that the general US populous ultimately care about price above all. When people board an Endevour or Piedmont or SkyWest flight that is marketed by a mainline, they don’t know the difference.

Not saying I agree with things being that way, but it’s the way things are (as someone in a similar position in a completely separate industry working for a Fortune 500 company).
 
zuckie13
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 5:34 pm

lightsaber wrote:
It isn't just pilots. Regional ground ops are far more flexible. The reality is, the majority of regional stations are not viable if run as a mainline station with the entire required staffing.


This just makes airlines sound plain stupid. If you need to be able to turn a particular plane at a particular airport, it takes the same number of bodies to do the work regardless of who hires them. Basically you are saying that the unions of the mainlines make it cost too much. That's it.
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 5:37 pm

lightsaber wrote:
impilot wrote:
c933103 wrote:
But the market rate for this sort of flying is the regional airlines rate?

Regional airline rates are an artificially low “market rate” given the structure of the pilot system in the US. For the current pay scales that currently exist for CRJs at mainline (and I checked, all US3 have CRJs in their scales), despite being lower than other mainline rates, ALPA would be happy to have all outsourced CRJs on mainline property. Guess who doesn’t want to put them there? Management.

Everyone here mentioning scope as a reason for the E175E2, or any other plane for that matter, not being viable, needs to instead blame mainline management for not flying them OR the underlying economics of said jet.

Scope is simply a mechanism to stop the exploitation of cheap, outsourced labor.

It isn't just pilots. Regional ground ops are far more flexible. The reality is, the majority of regional stations are not viable if run as a mainline station with the entire required staffing.

It is easy to look at one group, it is the total cost.

We have scope. I really doubt either side will budge. AA couldn't get E-190 to work mainline, there is no way the E2-175 would work for any of the US3. Even JetBlue is upgauging to A220-300 to make costs work.

Trust me, if all the small markets start getting dropped, the current ATP rules would be revised quickly. Do the pilots want the politicians help?

Lightsaber



Does scope affect ground ops or any outstation contracting? Don’t think so. As far as I know, scope, as referenced in all scope discussions regarding new RJs, references one thing and that’s pilots (and by association, FAs). And it’s contained in mainline pilot contracts, not in any other corporate document affecting any other work groups. As far as outstations, or even hub GAs, rampers, etc, working for regionals, those jobs already can be outsourced via other means and is a separate outsourcing discussion from pilot scope.

Another option occasionally talked about is to keep 50 seaters and below at regionals and being large RJs to mainline. That would mostly satisfy the smalltown service argument if mainline couldn’t make it work.

Also, if people got to the majors faster, the regional turnover would be faster and more people would be lured into the profession. ATP mins wouldn’t need to be changed.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9620
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 6:14 pm

impilot wrote:
c933103 wrote:
impilot wrote:

Unions don’t buy planes or prevent buying of planes (to be operated by mainline). If airline mgmt tells a union they are bringing CRJ-900s to mainline, they then negotiate a rate. The union doesn’t “accept a rate” (or not) as you imply, nor can they say “nope we won’t fly them.” They will fly them after a rate is negotiated (or arbitrated depending on their contract stipulations). And they won’t accept rates that are below what an airline pilot should make in this environment and in this country. They can’t accept artificially low rates just to make them “flyable at mainline.” If they aren’t economically viable at the market rate for pilots, that’s not a union’s fault.

In fact, Delta has a CRJ-900 payscale in their mainline pilot contract. Unsure about other US3. But all 3 of the US3 pilot unions would gladly fly CRJs/ERJs owned and operated by mainline...but the airline management won’t allow that to happen. At least not right now. And I’m not holding my breath for that to ever happen.

But the market rate for this sort of flying is the regional airlines rate?

Regional airline rates are an artificially low “market rate” given the structure of the pilot system in the US. For the current pay scales that currently exist for CRJs at mainline (and I checked, all US3 have CRJs in their scales), despite being lower than other mainline rates, ALPA would be happy to have all outsourced CRJs on mainline property. Guess who doesn’t want to put them there? Management.

Everyone here mentioning scope as a reason for the E175E2, or any other plane for that matter, not being viable, needs to instead blame mainline management for not flying them OR the underlying economics of said jet.

Scope is simply a mechanism to stop the exploitation of cheap, outsourced labor.

As I said above, the number of pilots on a C402 and an A380 are both 2, but the seats/pilot difference is like 60x. The cost for the pilots per seat can't be 10x higher on small jets and that applies to all the other regional employees too. Otherwise if you don't live in a big city able to justify mainline airplanes you can't afford to fly. So you can blame it all on management if you want, but it's also broad economics. Would you expect somebody who manages a gas station market to get paid the same as managing a Walmart? A Walmart store manager make 175k on average plus bonuses. You are lucky to make $20-25k as manager of a convenience store. The whole economy works like this. This is why RJ pilots aren't going to be mainline and the few that have gone that way in North America have rolled it back or plan to shortly.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 6:20 pm

Just fwiw a C402 uses 1 pilot.
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 6:30 pm

enilria wrote:
impilot wrote:
c933103 wrote:
But the market rate for this sort of flying is the regional airlines rate?

Regional airline rates are an artificially low “market rate” given the structure of the pilot system in the US. For the current pay scales that currently exist for CRJs at mainline (and I checked, all US3 have CRJs in their scales), despite being lower than other mainline rates, ALPA would be happy to have all outsourced CRJs on mainline property. Guess who doesn’t want to put them there? Management.

Everyone here mentioning scope as a reason for the E175E2, or any other plane for that matter, not being viable, needs to instead blame mainline management for not flying them OR the underlying economics of said jet.

Scope is simply a mechanism to stop the exploitation of cheap, outsourced labor.

As I said above, the number of pilots on a C402 and an A380 are both 2, but the seats/pilot difference is like 60x. The cost for the pilots per seat can't be 10x higher on small jets and that applies to all the other regional employees too. Otherwise if you don't live in a big city able to justify mainline airplanes you can't afford to fly. So you can blame it all on management if you want, but it's also broad economics. Would you expect somebody who manages a gas station market to get paid the same as managing a Walmart? A Walmart store manager make 175k on average plus bonuses. You are lucky to make $20-25k as manager of a convenience store. The whole economy works like this. This is why RJ pilots aren't going to be mainline and the few that have gone that way in North America have rolled it back or plan to shortly.


Wait, so you are trying to draw parallels between a convenience store manager/Walmart manager and comparing that to the difference between a 80 seat jet and 110 seat jet?

We aren’t talking C402s and A380s here. We are talking about similarly sized transport category jets.

In fact, since E190s exist on mainline scales and in mainline fleets, we are talking about a smaller version of the same plane. So your comparison would more closely be represented by a big Walmart manager compared to a small Walmart manager.
 
User avatar
TVNWZ
Posts: 2201
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:28 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 6:32 pm

impilot wrote:

Scope is simply a mechanism to stop the exploitation of cheap, outsourced labor.



Don't you mean cheap, outsourced union labor? Aren't the regional pilots represented?
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 6:52 pm

TVNWZ wrote:
impilot wrote:

Scope is simply a mechanism to stop the exploitation of cheap, outsourced labor.



Don't you mean cheap, outsourced union labor? Aren't the regional pilots represented?


They are but most regional airlines are shell companies that can close at any time and move the planes to another certificate. It is extremely hard to negotiate with a company that can just cease to exist tomorrow and nothing happens to the executives.

I think a lot of people have no idea how much outsourcing the US3 do. For example, Skywest is larger than every airline in Europe by at least 80 planes and that is just one of the countless regional airlines that inhabit the US market.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 7:07 pm

impilot wrote:
The real push should be for passengers who buy a ticket on Delta who get on a delta branded flight to have delta pilots and FAs working the flight, be it on a 777, 737, or E175.


Why? My regional jet flights arrive on time. The crews are generally friendly. They aren't falling out of the sky. Why should I clamor for a change?

What I've always thought made more sense - but I'm sure it doesn't in reality - is a graduated payscale where everyone is on a mainline-piloted aircraft but the crews earn the bottom of the scale. It wouldn't be (e.g.) $20K on the low end and $200K at the top, though, and that probably would ruffle some feathers with seniority-blessed crews.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 7:13 pm

TVNWZ wrote:
impilot wrote:

Scope is simply a mechanism to stop the exploitation of cheap, outsourced labor.



Don't you mean cheap, outsourced union labor? Aren't the regional pilots represented?


The largest US regional (SkyWest) is non-union. But union or not is irrelevant to this whole debate. There is an artificial line (held by mainline scope) between normal airline pilot pay (majors) and 76 seat regional pay. To get experience for the former, you typically have to spend time in the latter. Or be military or corporate. The seniority based system allows for whipsaws between regional pilot groups over flying, which allows for some pilots to vote for a concessionary contract to gain more flying (from another regional unwilling to take a concessionary contract). This allows seniority advancement and upgrades at the expense of another pilot group. This is historically what has happened until this recent shortage and why regional wages have been so suppressed over the years. And when some pilot groups had enough abuse, unionized or held the line, some regional management set up a union busting lower paying airline to transfer flying to (Mesa/Freedom). Now they use the same shell game with different companies, all of which (besides SKW) are union, but the shuffle continues. Reference the shuffling of planes amongst regional carriers.

Point is, the “market rate” for regional wages is skewed due to management tricks. The more accurate “market rate” for CRJs can be found in the pay scales of the majors that have them in there. But even if the US3 had CRJ rates that mirrored regional CRJ rates, the US3 still wouldn’t want them on property, because there is a huge financial benefit to reset seniority/longevity once a pilot moves from a regional to a major. If DAL went from 14k pilots to 20k pilots all receiving the bennies of working under a delta pilot contract instead of EDV (or whoever) and hit the 12 year longevity at Delta faster with no longevity reset, it costs them more.

“Good enough to fly Delta PAX, not good enough to be a Delta pilot.” Kind of a sick system frankly.

Ironically though the same union that represents most major airlines also represents most regional airlines. ALPA screwed up by allowing RJs to begin with. If they had any teeth they’d be pushing harder for their return to mainline.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12491
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 7:23 pm

anshabhi wrote:
Lol! How many MRJ are in operation currently: 0

That was the first thing that popped into my head, upon reading this.

They've had incredible difficulty even getting 1 into commercial service, now they're going to take over?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 7:26 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
impilot wrote:
The real push should be for passengers who buy a ticket on Delta who get on a delta branded flight to have delta pilots and FAs working the flight, be it on a 777, 737, or E175.


Why? My regional jet flights arrive on time. The crews are generally friendly. They aren't falling out of the sky. Why should I clamor for a change?

What I've always thought made more sense - but I'm sure it doesn't in reality - is a graduated payscale where everyone is on a mainline-piloted aircraft but the crews earn the bottom of the scale. It wouldn't be (e.g.) $20K on the low end and $200K at the top, though, and that probably would ruffle some feathers with seniority-blessed crews.


Because most people outside of a.net and the industry don’t realize cheap, outsourced, less experienced pilots are flying them. Even one of my Air Force buddies who flew on a Mesa CRJ thought it was American Airlines pilots flying it. If you buy a ticket on delta, it should be delta crew operating it. Without scope, delta (et al) would be virtual airlines, outsourcing labor to the lowest bidder.

I agree with your second point, and that’s my whole point. There is already a graduated payscale that accounts for seat (L/R), longevity, and equipment. RJs would just be (and already are) another column on that payscale. We probably don’t agree on what those numbers are, but the point remains that RJs should be a part of the mainline pay scale and fleet makeup.

All US3 airlines can afford to bring all/most RJ flying (certainly large RJs) in house and could fly 82 seat E175E2s at mainline. They just don’t want to. But scope and unions are the boogeyman with regards to advancing RJ technology to fly in the US....right.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18128
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 7:29 pm

Neither side will budge, so I see no reason to discuss changes to scope.

In perspective, the E-170/175:
https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-e170.htm

750 in service.
513 in US scope clause airlines plus 26 at Horizon (no 86,000 lb limit).
Republic: 190
SkyWest 149
Mess 60
Envoy 58
Compass 56

So 68% in US duty under scope clauses. Or, a mere 237 not in scope.

There is no RJ economy of scale without US scope. So Mitsubishi must modify the design to meet scope to sell.

Basically, sell to Republic and SkyWest or go home.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 7:41 pm

impilot wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
impilot wrote:
The real push should be for passengers who buy a ticket on Delta who get on a delta branded flight to have delta pilots and FAs working the flight, be it on a 777, 737, or E175.


Why? My regional jet flights arrive on time. The crews are generally friendly. They aren't falling out of the sky. Why should I clamor for a change?

What I've always thought made more sense - but I'm sure it doesn't in reality - is a graduated payscale where everyone is on a mainline-piloted aircraft but the crews earn the bottom of the scale. It wouldn't be (e.g.) $20K on the low end and $200K at the top, though, and that probably would ruffle some feathers with seniority-blessed crews.


Because most people outside of a.net and the industry don’t realize cheap, outsourced, less experienced pilots are flying them. Even one of my Air Force buddies who flew on a Mesa CRJ thought it was American Airlines pilots flying it. If you buy a ticket on delta, it should be delta crew operating it. Without scope, delta (et al) would be virtual airlines, outsourcing labor to the lowest bidder.

I agree with your second point, and that’s my whole point. There is already a graduated payscale that accounts for seat (L/R), longevity, and equipment. RJs would just be (and already are) another column on that payscale. We probably don’t agree on what those numbers are, but the point remains that RJs should be a part of the mainline pay scale and fleet makeup.

All US3 airlines can afford to bring all/most RJ flying (certainly large RJs) in house and could fly 82 seat E175E2s at mainline. They just don’t want to. But scope and unions are the boogeyman with regards to advancing RJ technology to fly in the US....right.


The only thing that changes in the bold is that bringing them inhouse just makes them "less cheap" - they are still the cheapest in the industry and are still the least experienced in the industry. We just had 100's (1000's?) of posts defending low-time pilots in the JT and ET crash threads that I guess I'm surprised it's an issue.

Regardless, I don't really have an argument against making them all mainline. It just seems logical that if it's less profitable that they will just cut the smaller stations.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9620
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 7:44 pm

impilot wrote:
Wait, so you are trying to draw parallels between a convenience store manager/Walmart manager and comparing that to the difference between a 80 seat jet and 110 seat jet?

We aren’t talking C402s and A380s here. We are talking about similarly sized transport category jets.

In fact, since E190s exist on mainline scales and in mainline fleets, we are talking about a smaller version of the same plane. So your comparison would more closely be represented by a big Walmart manager compared to a small Walmart manager.

As you well know, there has to be a line somewhere. The line has been drawn at 80 seats. The airlines would rather it be drawn at 150. ALPA would rather it be drawn at 0. This is basically why there are no airplanes in service in the USA between 79 and 110 seats (AA/B6 are exiting the E190s).

So yes, we are talking about C402s and A380s, you are just drawing attention to the inflection point and saying it makes no difference. Why don't you go and try to move the border between North and South Korea by two feet and see how that goes? What difference does two feet make? It matters because the line has to be drawn somewhere and that is where it has been drawn. Complaining about the edge of the line is meaningless.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 7:57 pm

A point is reached at smaller airports, with smaller aircraft operations, that flight and ground crews undertake multiple roles (exactly what the small store manager does, and what the Walmart mega store manager doesn't do).

That happens in small stations in Eastern Europe, Asia, ME and Pacific, where it's a big deal to have an air service, especially with a jet. Everyone lends a hand to get the aircraft turned around, including often the flight crew.

Security and demarcation seem at times to over rule commonsense in the rest of the World.

The MRJ needs serious volume / scale to be cost-effective. Small jet aircraft, manufactured at low volumes, are not viable for OEM's, suppliers and financiers, the margin gap made wider by the benefits A&B enjoy from grandfathering old designs.

And that's before issues like crewing and utilisation coming into play.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9620
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 8:05 pm

smartplane wrote:
A point is reached at smaller airports, with smaller aircraft operations, that flight and ground crews undertake multiple roles (exactly what the small store manager does, and what the Walmart mega store manager doesn't do).

Good post.

I think this is an area of capitalism that people struggle to understand. The Walmart store manager probably doesn't work harder than the convenience store manager and the regional pilots/ground staff often work harder and fly in more difficult conditions than mainline. BUT the pay for these jobs is not just set by skill and difficulty, it is also set by economics. You may want $175k to pilot an RJ or manage a convenience store, but the economics aren't there to support it. The job just won't exist if people are not willing to do the job for the wages in place. Or the number of jobs in that sector will plummet. Whereas the Walmart is producing so much revenue there is a lot more flexibility.
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: Leeham News: Mitsubishi appears to be well positioned to take over the RJ market

Mon May 13, 2019 8:14 pm

enilria wrote:
impilot wrote:
Wait, so you are trying to draw parallels between a convenience store manager/Walmart manager and comparing that to the difference between a 80 seat jet and 110 seat jet?

We aren’t talking C402s and A380s here. We are talking about similarly sized transport category jets.

In fact, since E190s exist on mainline scales and in mainline fleets, we are talking about a smaller version of the same plane. So your comparison would more closely be represented by a big Walmart manager compared to a small Walmart manager.

As you well know, there has to be a line somewhere. The line has been drawn at 80 seats. The airlines would rather it be drawn at 150. ALPA would rather it be drawn at 0. This is basically why there are no airplanes in service in the USA between 79 and 110 seats (AA/B6 are exiting the E190s).

So yes, we are talking about C402s and A380s, you are just drawing attention to the inflection point and saying it makes no difference. Why don't you go and try to move the border between North and South Korea by two feet and see how that goes? What difference does two feet make? It matters because the line has to be drawn somewhere and that is where it has been drawn. Complaining about the edge of the line is meaningless.


No...there shouldn’t be a line, period, and there doesn’t have to be. Outsourcing flying doesn’t have to be a thing. It hasn’t always been that way. And outsourcing a transport category 80 person jet is not like outsourcing a little light twin. Your comparison is ridiculous.

Border between North and South Korea? Are you kidding? That’s two separate countries with vastly different...well...everything. Again, we are talking about similar transport category jets, and in the E175/E190 case the same plane with 20 more seats, not a small twin prop job and a super quad.

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