Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 4. Propulsive efficiency April 19, 2024
- Boeing unlikely to meet FAA’s 90-day deadline for new safety program April 18, 2024
- Focus on quality not slowing innovation, says GKN April 18, 2024
- Boeing defends 787, 777 against whistleblower charges April 17, 2024
- Dissecting Boeing CEO’s statement next new airplane will cost $50bn April 15, 2024
Exclusive: Mitsubishi ponders restarting CRJ production
By Scott Hamilton
July 6, 2021, © Leeham News: Mitsubishi is considering restarting production of the discontinued CRJ, LNA confirmed with multiple sources.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries discontinued production with the completion of the last of the small backlog it acquired with the June 1, 2019, purchase of the program from the ailing Bombardier. The final 15 CRJ900s were completed during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Montreal Mirabel Airport production line was shut down. The tooling was removed and stored. The buildings were turned over to Airbus, which now uses them for A220 production.
Source: Bombardier.
“Our primary focus remains the support of the CRJ operating fleet,” said Ross Mitchell, vice president of Shared Services. “Clearly, the regional jet market is important to us, but we have made no commitment to move forward in this respect.”
Skywest interested in restarted program
Production of the CRJ700 may be restarted for use by the USA’s Skywest Airlines in a CRJ550 configuration, LNA is told. The CRJ550 is a 50 seat configuration compared with the 70-76-seat design. Although the per-seat costs skyrocket by up to 34%, the trip costs essentially remain the same. The CRJ550 was a solution by United Airlines’ regional partner Trans State Airlines to remain within labor contract Scope Clause restrictions on seat count while replacing aging the 50-seat CRJ200s. There are no new 50-seat jet replacements.
The CRJ550 in United’s configuration has generous legroom for its three-class cabin plus extra carry-on baggage space.
During its investors’ day presentation June 29, United announced it had an over-reliance of 50-sest regional jets. But officials praised the CRJ550 and plan to retain this sub-type.
Skywest flies for United and for Delta Airlines. Skywest did not respond to a request for comment.
There are 371 CRJ200s in passenger service worldwide and another 278 in storage as of June 25. US airlines operate 257 and store 156 of these.
.
Restarting production in Canada
If MHI restarts production, it will be in Canada with economic development support, LNA is told. Although MHI had to give up the former Bombardier CRJ production space to Airbus, there is room at Mirabel Airport to construct new space.
Because MHI appears to have killed the SpaceJet program—which needed billions of dollars more to complete development and certify the aircraft—Embraer now has a monopoly in the regional jet sector. Restarting CRJ production gives MHI the ability to proceed with an aircraft that already is certified, by Canada, at much lower cost.
A continued CRJ program also feeds into the other half of the CRJ business acquired by MHI: the aftermarket service. Renamed MHIRJ Aviation Group, MHI committed $20m to expand its hangar space at Bridgeport (WV) by 100,000 sf. MHIRJ added a temporary hangar in the form of a giant tent to Bridgeport earlier. The new hangar will be big enough to accommodate narrowbody jets for a future strategic growth plan. The company will have 341,000 sf of hangar space when the expansion is complete.
Competing with Embraer
Restarting production with the CRJ700, even if in the CRJ550 configuration, gives MHI the ability to offer the 700 and the larger CRJ900 for sale, should it choose. But both aircraft are outclassed by Embraer’s more spacious E-Jets for passenger experience. The E-190 E2 also has modern Pratt & Whitney Geared Turbofan engines which are more environmentally friendly and which have better fuel efficiency than the CRJ900’s GE CF34 engines.
The SpaceJet was to have GTF engines with a spacious interior. While the M100 design complied with the restrictive Scope Clause weight limits, the completing Embraer E-175 E2 was too heavy and doesn’t comply. Embraer continues to offer the older generation E-175 E1, which is equipped with the same CF34s as the competing CRJ700.
The GTF is too heavy for the aft-engine-mounted CRJ700. A derivative of the GE Passport engine, a business jet powerplant, could be mounted. In the case of the CRJ550, the PW1100 or a Passport derivative are too heavy. LNA is told the plans are to continue use of the CF34.
“New generation propulsion could conceivably be installed on the CRJ Series. However, MHIRJ is not currently studying those options. Our engineering team is always looking at ways to improve the economics and environmental impact of our operating fleet and will continue to do so,” Mitchell said. “However, regarding new aircraft, this is all speculation as no such decision has been made.”
Years ago I looked at the idea of stretching the CRJ a bit in front to cog compensate for a new (heavier) engine and be a narrow match with 79 seat scope clause requirements.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1422729
It would require a few billion/ years in modifying the tail section though.. Will the CF34 be allowed after 2027 on new aircraft?
The market seems to be there..
Not mentioned is the PW800.
Yes it weighs more but also more thrust so a variant would be possible and if there are trade off on weight, fuel efficiency and the 50 passenger template it seems to have possibilities.
Why would a a new heavier engine modifications need ‘a few billion’
The CRJ 700 series was developed a decade ago to the CRJ-1000 a non scope 100 seater and to compete with the E190. That had more more powerful engines, those CF34-8C5 models are 50% more powerful than the much earlier CF34-3 type. ( The CF34-10 engines are completely different again being a mini version the CFM56 and used on the larger E195)
The Scope version of the CRJ-700 is quite capable of having a different manufacturers heavier engine. A larger radius that goes with a bigger bypass might be more of an issue).
This seems to me like a trial balloon. In any case, I wish them all the best!
If a couple of airlines can join Skywest, with perhaps some Canadian incentives, maybe there’s a good business case!
My sentiments exactly. I kind of expected this with the Space Jet stoppage. Lots of CRJ’s out there. MHI has got to do something…
It’s a waste of time and money, but they are used to it.
TLS – “It’s a waste of time and money, but they are used to it…2 Ho ho ho.
Interesting development. Could the CRJ be a good candidate for the new CFM (GE/Safran) open rotor? The CRJ would be the only T-tail aircraft in production, and the CFM open rotor is significantly lighter than the leap 1, according to a aviation week.com article published recently.
For limited production small potatoes and all the incurred costs?
No. And that assumes open rotor even works or is truly competitive.
Surely you do know it ‘does work’, for a long time it was noise factors that made it problem on takeoff
https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis-noise-goals-in-sight-for-open-rotor-researchers/112367.article
Duke:
Its not just the noise issues, its the rear mounting system that negates all the advantages because of the structural weight increase.
No one is going to take a dated design and put an open rotor on it.
You won’t see open rotor on anything new as GTF on a pylon maintains its advantage of both the GTF and the pylon mount system.
There is no containment structure with an open rotor. It’s a case of ‘trust our FEA, testing and quality control”. Leonardo’s model shows the podded open rotor engines suspended of the horizontal tail plane.
Having said that if the open rotor does fail in a tail engine aircraft instead of killing some passengers and flight attendants with blade fragments and depressurisation one can expect the knuckleheads to have estimated this as a ‘one in a 1000 million flight hour occurrence’ and not taken measures such as armouring the hydraulic and electrical lines in the tail or providing a segregated system from the main system. In addition one would need an ‘elevon mode’ for the ailerons in the FBW to provide pitch control of the aircraft in event of elevator loss.
The advantage of a tail arrangement is that the aircraft can be low to the ground and use simple stairs and luggage handling facilities.
Some of the weight transference issues are made up by the clean wing.
So now they do work but its not practical ?
As for taking dated design and ‘not putting new engines’ on them, the CRJ is newer than A320 or 737 series.
Derivatives of existing planes has been around since Wright Bros did it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer_II
CRJ is a smaller size than the previous prop fan projects so is harder to stack up economically.
“its the rear mounting system that negates all the advantages because of the structural weight increase.”
For CRJ, the engines are already at the rear and an advantage of open rotor engine is lower weight
The latest Safran design is discussed here, with a reduction gearbox now part of the picture to reduce blade speeds. ( Also part of the earlier PW/Allison design) And blade breakages ? Experience with turbo props helps with getting that right
https://mentourpilot.com/safran-open-rotor-the-next-engine-design-leap/
“the CRJ is newer than A320 …”
Only when you consider the CRJ in isolation. The initial CRJ is a stretched Challenger jet which took its first flight in 1978.
Not much in common now with the Challenger business jet , apart from the fuselage size.- they lowered the floor and its been stretched 3 0r 4 times. Plus the changes to make a 500 hr per year BJ to a RJ thats maybe 5000 hours per year and the cycles to math.
The design is dated however it fatigue and damage tolerance/heavy inspection interval is better than all the newer designs. It is most certainly lighter than most.
I am skeptikal with MHI intention. Sure CRJ550 is certified but re-lauching a production and getting approval up to today industrial standarts is another story. Not to mention re-launching the complete supply chain…
The price of the newly product CRJs may very well skyrocket…
While I share the thoughts, MHI can price it at whatever losses they want to.
All programs take losses initially so that is not new.
Is there a long term sold numbers that you can make money on the program?
Their own RJ has failed, many years gone by with delay after delay. The CRJ-700 and 900 sold well and offer a decent flight. Some upgrades could enhance its attractiveness among the airlines.
Many recent planes from majors ‘had delay after delay’….its part of how things work in this industry.
Starting from scratch is incredibly had to do, and while MHI was a partner with Bombardier on the large Global Express business jet , of a very similar size, the overall certification wasnt one of their areas ( they would have had to certify their work , largely on the wing)
The point is what kind of money is in it and what ROI?
Kind of like Caterpillar building a lawn mower.
And reality is that was the MRJ as well. If it leads someplace then thats one thing, but just to dabble in low end and no return likely let alone make any money, why?
> Although the per-seat costs skyrocket by up to 34%, the trip costs essentially remain the same.
Does this factor in that one less flight attendant is required?
I would think so. Crew costs are normally included in cost/asm figures.
Because there are more higher priced premium seats because it has a first class and main cabin extra space seating vs cheaper all coach seats.
I hope SkyWest doesn’t do this. The CRJ550 concept is fine for used aircraft. The CRJ700 obviously isn’t the preferred RJ of the U.S. majors (E175 is king), so converting to the CRJ550 configuration at 12-15 years of age may make sense.
On the other hand, I would not want to take a newly built CRJ550 in 2024, assuming that scope clauses, industry conditions, etc. will make the jet remotely desirable when the initial CPA expires in 10-12 years. You’d be taking on a ton of tail risk.
Mitsubishi might as well ask and pay bombardier to build it for them on a sub contract basis. Win win for both. Mitsubishi markets, provides aftermarket services and handles sales, and bombardier manufacturers for Mitsubishi.
Mitsubishi Aircraft is already a part fuselage builder for the CRJ series along with Spirit in Belfast
Canada should just join the EU and its industry become part of EADS and Airbus.
You lost all credibility in your charts when you listed Delta by itself which does not fly the CRJ-200, then marked Endeavor (American) which does not fly for American, but does for Delta and is one of Delta’s largest (and wholly owned) regionals. If you can’t get those details right, your credibility falls through the floor. Not to mention, your second paragraph mentions Trans States replacing CRJ-200s, which they did not fly. Come on, is this Simple Flying??
The data comes from an internationally recognized database. Ownership and flying are two different things under COVID. Trans States reconfigured CRJ700s into CRJ550s.
Ownership and flying are two different things? OMG, what a concept. Yes, well aware Trans States configured CRJ700s into CRJ550s. Again, CONTEXT.
“The CRJ550 was a solution by United Airlines’ regional partner Trans State Airlines to remain within labor contract Scope Clause restrictions on seat count”
What part of this sentence don’t you understand?
Bryan
Cool your jets little boy! Just like Scott said “ownership and flying are two different things.” Maybe after a few more years in the industry you will have some credibility.
I’ve been in the industry (particularly the regional end on both the mainline side of the regional biz and the regional side or the regional biz) for decades, thank you, Jack. Glad you make assumptions. Just because something might be factual doesn’t mean it’s not misleading. Also, Endeavor has NEVER flown for AA. So you can scream context all you want, but AA and Endeavor are not connected. Good job trying to build points with the author, though.
First time I’ve posted on a sight like this, but I couldn’t resist. Sorry Bryan, you are a genius! Sittin around in your mom’s basement looking at pictures of airplanes.
Just because an airplane is painted one color doesn’t mean that’s it’s home.
I don’t do points or job fairs!
@Jack: I appreciate the defense, but tone down the attack.
Hamilton
“””looking at pictures of airplanes”””
When I see pictures of Southwest tails, I wonder how many degrees Aircraft Nose Down it is when the tail stripes are vertical.
Did anyone else notice that too?
Maybe Southwest should consult someone better for a tail design.
The 550 is so range limited due to the weight restriction it’s not hardly a practical solution without a new Type engine. Not to mention the years it will take to build a new production plant and tool up, good grief, this a terrible idea!
As noted, wondering if a PW 800 could be fit in and balanced out with 50 seat even though its heavier per engine.
Getting it into production is not a big deal, all it takes is a hangar. That is what all assembly plants are, large open spaces.
The tooling is already there and likely people who worked on the program in some numbers.
What does not make sense is why MHI is playing in a small potential profit space? Is it the MHI CRJ group that is flailing for a mission?
The logical thing to do for MHI is to sell it all off.
Well, if all costs to relaunch CRJ700 (550) production can be figured out, then from there MHI can figure out a business case.
In many markets, a CRJ550 can fetch (or trigger overall) much higher RASMs than the increased CASMs it carries (versus current CRJ200s / ERJ145s).
Another way to look at it is how much of a hit do you incure (in overall RASM) as you cut 50 seats flying and close smaller stations.
That will dictate how much a carrier would be willing to pay for a brand new CRJ550.
Yeah, but what else can they do? It’s my understanding that about half of the existing 50-seat, all coach markets will support a 76-seat 3 class. For the other half, not forgetting the Essential Air Service cities, there is absolutely nothing in the world, save for the ancient ATR42/72, and the youngest CRJ-200’s and EMB-145’s are already about 20 and 15 years old, respectively.
Nothing wrong with a Turbo Prop (you miss theDH -8). Both ATR and DH have been upgraded over the years.
All I see is one narrow tube vs another.
People may not like them (US and ?) but given no planes vs a TP?
Maybe there’ll be a 2025 version of the ATR-42 to pick up those Essential Air Service routes, but there’s a bigger picture globally.
The ATR-42/72 is for all practical purposes the ONLY sub-76 seat airline in the world, at least for the moment.
I think the problem still stems from the fact only UA is trying something to keep the 50-seater alive by boosting revenue rather than lowering operating costs.
I can’t imagine that would work outside the North America with its scope clauses.
It does not make sense for airlines to add another fleet type for the smallest of markets. Small cities lose service, it’s been that way for years now. First the Twin otter, B-1900’s, EMB-110 and then the Dash’s all gone. I can think of many cities that had service years back and now nothing. It’s cost prohibitive to add a new frame for such a small return.
Micheal, US carriers already have maximized the number of 76 seaters they can fly. (They were even over the limit for sometime during covid I believe)
So the choice is indeed to lower frequencies (and cascade down 76 seaters, then mainline etc) all accross the board (lots of scheduling changes here). And/or cutting smaller stations altogether.
With a CRJ550, you have a 3rd option: keep some smaller stations open – the ones that provide higher RASM.
(The optimal solution is some mix of all the above 3 options)
Good assessment but it does not need new build.
Convert or upgrade existing. Just not a big market there.
Yes, they were ‘over the limit’ for 76 seat E175 during covid so they pulled some seats to make them 70 seaters!
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/united-removing-seats-from-embraer-e175-as-october-layoffs-near-2020-8?nojs=1
Some E175 routes are up to 4 hours plus, so they are being used a schedule fillers off peak. eg St Louis – San Franciso.
United added back seats removed as more mainline flights were restored.
For regionals, capital cost is more important than fuel burn due to lower utilization so if aircraft price can be kept attractive it may work, CF34 “good enough”
E2 is too heavy & expensive for regional market, E175E1 is nice but also more expensive, and how long will Embraer keep building it ?
Many CRJ200/E145s/older TPs need replacing.
Finally, airlines want choice so they have every interest to encourage it so they are not stuck with just Embraer.
Will be interesting to follow.
What airlines want and what they can pay for or make revenue is not relevant.
I have yet to see a buy based on, oh, we need to make sure X is in business and we will buy their airplanes to do so.
Just like people saying they want leg room and service and then paying for the cheapest seat (and complaining)
Reality is no airline alone drives the bus and no group of airlines tries to ensure there is choices. They take what they get.
“oh, we need to make sure X is in business and we will buy their airplanes to do so”
Just happened last week with United split buy of A321 and the exact same passenger seats Max 10.
Although the one they want to keep in business may have been Boeing !
“… United split buy of A321 and the exact same passenger seats Max 10.”
Yes and no, according to United the A321 will have ten more seats than the MAX 10. Does it worth to split order?? May be United is hedging its bet, not 100% confidence that the MAX 10 will arrive as scheduled and the A321 has better range.
Boeing itself shows MAX-9 with 220 seats and MAX-10 with 230.
United’s MAX-10 might not even have 89.8t MTOW, the 87.8t must be cheaper, especially when range is not important.
Airbus should change its price system to make these split orders less attractive and boost all-Airbus fleets.
Airbus has zero incentive to rock the boat for upping their current narrowbody marketshare. They can’t increase their production rates that much anyway.
Airbus is in early stage of ramping production of A320 to above 60 a month, even as many as 70 plus.
Airbus restricted their production rate of the A320family to 40. At the end of this year they want to have 45. 70 at the start of 2024 and are thinking of 75 in 2025.
900 per year is not bad. Airbus will increase their market share simply because Boeing will stumble again.
If Airbus don’t want to increase their market share, why giving 70 to United and why giving discounts they likely gave.
No need to give discounts when the whole production will be sold and especially not to United who favor the MAX more.
Imagine United wouldn’t get those 70 A321 and 50 XLR, other arlines would take the long range single aisle market.
Airbus has the better product and they should favor all-Airbus airlines. Then it would be interesting if United would want to be a 2nd tier airline or if they would prefer Airbus over MAX.
No doubt a better (quieter, better sfc) engine is possible, technically. Be it PW800, Passport or another future proof engine.
https://groups.google.com/group/aviation_innovation/attach/4c68005923123/CRJ-800%20Passport.jpg?part=0.2&view=1&authuser=0
From an industrial standpoint, engineering, developing, testing certifying it is a Major undertaking. Meanwhile the CRJ supply chain (hundreds of companies) should keep their production lines, resources, machinery, training, supply chains, certification intact.
If MHI wants a go, they need to act swiftly and put big money on the table. Take your time, don’t be pressured, try to fully understand the market, talk to all the airlines, make business cases & the base resources, capabilities, market have vaporized.. time kills.
All true and who knows.
What really is in it for MHI or is this just the dead commercial plane division lumbering on until it falls over?
There clearly are not big bucks in it like the defense programs.
This is Japan, you know where engineers hold sway , not that nasty Boeing where they are in thrall to Wall St and its quarterly numbers and executive stock options.
Why arent you saying ‘at last real aviation company that builds the right plane that the market needs ‘…the Steve Jobs approach.
They will do whats good for the long term for the business, and as its ‘national project’ whats good for Japan.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries ($38 bill revenue) is almost as big as Airbus Commercial Aircraft
I have no idea who holds sway in Japan.
What I can say is that there has to be a goal that involves a monetary return and possibly a national prestige.
MHI has done this on their own, so its not a national prestige project.
If it was just making things, they could make a great lawn mower, moped, motorcycle. Honda still does but they used that to launch into a far more lucrative market.
Regional is a small potatoes market that has no prestige and its damned hard to make money.
There is no logic to this, so a group of people nodded their head yes and off they went but at some point another group is going to ask, why?
You are completely wrong on this as it was a national prestige project…thats how it got government funding and other partners including Toyota. Hint thats a common way industrial policy works in Japan ( and other asian countries) with national champions.
Japan is also working in the jet engine area , with IHI and some others including Mitsubishi Aero Engines !!!!
As for small potatoes, go visit Idaho, where even they might tell tell you the pathway for original Bombardier and Embraer to get bigger was by way of regional jets , a larger market than you think- and you arent competing head on with majors.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/business/international/japan-aerospace-manufacturing.html
Financial Times-2018 ‘Japan’s complete-aircraft goal is put back to 2020’
https://www.ft.com/content/8130698a-b083-11e8-87e0-d84e0d934341
I’d like to see an Mitsubishi A6M and G4M flying again. May parents purchased a Mitsubishi Air conditioner that worked flawlessly for 37 years and was only retired due to renovations. I drive a Subaru (Nakajima) myself, they’re an aviation supplier as well. I think both companies have a point to prove. Oddly its Honda that made it into aviation.
@ William
Japan, Inc. is more than capable of producing a successful aircraft program.
So is South Korea, Inc.
Any failure/absence up to now can be ascribed to a lack of true motivation…perhaps due to a feeling that it was impossible to steal market share from established players. However, the aviation market is now fragmenting and upheaving significantly, and new opportunities are presenting themselves. For one thing, it’s now clear to every potential manufacturer that old giants can fall, and that new players can emerge. Who’d ever have expected that one half of the old “mainstream” duopoly would flush itself down the toilet so quickly and so thoroughly?
“””Who’d ever have expected that one half of the old “mainstream” duopoly would flush itself down the toilet so quickly and so thoroughly?”””
Airbus only needs to change its sale price system and Boeing would lose more market share.
The biggest problem with the 550 is the artificial maximum gross weight of 65000# that complies with the United scope restriction on 50 seaters. This severely restricts the operational use of this airframe when loaded to 50 pax and bags to markets under one hour flight time (one hours worth of fuel plus forty five minutes reserve). It would be a great 50 seater with the original 75000# MTOW, capable of three hours range. MHI will be facing more of the same problems the MRJ70 and Spice jet ran into with weights and range, (equal very small market).
It needs 75000#lbs and/or a different engine and auto throttles to be more efficient and competitive.
Why hasn’t someone built a good 50 seater? There’s market for a couple hundred in the U.S.
Small is relative, it requires big investment from suppliers and or seed money from manufactuerer to ramp up to 30 or 40 pm production. At this level a steady 6-8 pm output is perfect for the size of existing business and their funding capacity, no need to be offering big discounts on list price to keep the big customers satisfied, you are likely dealing with some smaller companies who need a lot more helping hand.
Captain:
You just put it as to why no 50 seater. A couple hundred market cannot return the high cost to build and certify a commercial aircraft.
Embraer is stuck due to the scope clauses and those are a reality not going away.
Even the A220 is working in the hundreds still, not the thousands per A320/737.
I wonder who, in his/her right mind, think the A220 is competing in the same market segment of 737 MAX and A320neo/321neo as both Airbus/Boeing move away from the 100-149 passengers segment in recent years.
Interesting article on investor site The Motley Fool regarding the fleet strategy differences between Delta and United (in view of the recent huge order of large narrowbodies by United):
“Essentially, United’s management is betting that rapid upgauging will allow it to reduce unit costs faster than unit revenue declines, bolstering its profitability. Perhaps it’s right. But with more 76-seat jets at its disposal and a substantial fleet of small narrow-body jets, Delta will be better able to match capacity to demand on a market-by-market basis. That’s a much more reliable strategy for generating strong earnings than United’s even more aggressive upgauging plan.”
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/07/08/united-airlines-and-delta-air-lines-fleet-strategy/
Someday the scope clause may disappear.
A rough parallel is the US law that forbid passenger service between US ports unless the ships were made in the US.
That has been temporarily suspended so that cruise ships can avoid stopping in Victoria BC, which they were forbidden to by xenophobe PM ‘jefe’ Trudeau Jr. That cost Alaska valuable tourist business, so it lobbied Congress and isn’t stopping with that success – momentum is being used to push for permanent rescinding of the law.
As for CRJ200s, are they not getting on in age now?
(Age judgement is variable, I shake my head at Leeham’s graph of B737 ages in [Edited] China, concerned about 12 year-old B737NGs.
Depends I suppose on structural condition, such as a big inspection for cracking.
And on eco-___ politics.
As for politics affecting sales, [Edited] China has stopped buying coal from Australia, because Australia pushed it hard on human rights.
Much coal in the world, Powder River Basin coal from the US is being exported through a port near Vancouver BC because attempts to build coal ports on the west coast of the US are blocked by environmentalists.
It is conceivable that CC will stop buying coal mined in Canada to try to pressure the government to release Ms. Huawei from extradition proceedings, it had stopped buying canola grain. She now says she has evidence from a big bank that clears her and colleagues, but I predict she will be extradited then use that evidence in defense in trial in the US. (Extradition just determines whether or not there is legal substance – my term – in charges, actual dealing with charges is in the country laying charges.)
CC using Russian engines or even airliners is an interesting guessing game, the two countries are somewhat in competition for power in the long term but against a common enemy (the US and like countries including northwestern Europe). Depending on how Russia matures after Putin steps aside or dies.
You mistake a national policy vs Union agreements. It only goes away if the Unions agree and there is no offering that convinces them to do so.
Scope is not going away, that was the assumption of the E2 and MRJ programs.
They were delusional to think so.
How about American’s vaccine nationalism?? Canada learnt a hard lesson which country is not trust-worthy.
“Scope is not going away, that was the assumption of the E2 and MRJ programs.”
It won’t immediately but eventually it will one way or another.
If scope doesn’t go away and things don’t become efficient they’ll get rid of the pilots totally, like they did flight engineers and no one will have a job.
It’ll start with Urban and Regional Air Mobility in about 7-10 years time when air traffic management is developed enough for pilotless and upstart companies who have been running eVTOL operations over short distances of 25-50km that will transition to pilotless and distances of 300km+
Off topic:
JetBlue is hiring a general manager of international airport operations…in France
https://mobile.twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1413375151987560451
Leon — “Airbus only needs to change its sale price system and Boeing would lose more market share…” To what elements of the Airbus sale-price “system” is the market most sensitive, do you think? And are they the same for “direct” airline customers as for lessors and banks? Does Boeing need to change its related “system”?
I guess United got a big discount because of the volume of 70 A321 they ordered. In this segment are only MAX-9/-10 and A321neo available. Airbus is better in quality, safety and range. The market needs these 70 A321neo, so why even give big discounts and especially to United.
According to wikipedia United has 30 MAX-9 in its fleet and 299 MAX-9/-10 on order and only 120 A321 on order. In this segment these 120 Airbus are 27% of 449 MAX-9/-10 and A321neo.
If the whole MAX-family and A320neo-family are included, Airbus has a share of only 22%. So United would be good for a 22% discount of the margin valid for discounts. I don’t care about the volume, the market needs these A321.
If another airline orders 10 A321 and has only A320neo-family in its fleet and no MAX, it would be good for 100% discount of the margin valid for discounts. This would boost all-Airbus fleets.
Southwest, Alaska, Ryan and United might not even think about Airbus, but at the same time they would not be competitive. To be competitive they would need much more Airbus.
Same could be done with lessors and banks. If they own MAX they will get less discounts and will likely not be competitive. All-Airbus lessors and banks will make the deals.
Boeing has fallen much and is still falling, they can’t do anything without self-certs anymore. Boeing is so desperate for Pre Delivery Payments that they can’t earn. Boeing is only in the business because they are cheap. Nobody would buy Boeing if it would be about quality. Now think about a small airline who could get 100% discount for quality Airbus.
Boeing can change nothing, it lost all its reputation. Trust needs to be earned and that takes long time, not this decade, and how, they don’t have the money to design a new plane without self-certs.
The distance from Boston to Belgrade Croatia (deep in eastern Europe) is 7000lm and a A321XLR has a range of 8700km. There are international airports at Newfoundland (Gander) and Ireland (Shannon) for ETOPS diversions. The A321 will gain respect when Jet Blue starts flying to Paris with the A321LR bypassing widebodies of the big airlines and able to offer a service the narrow body airlines like Southwest don’t and can’t.
The A321LR can certainly handle Dublin, London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Oslo. All under 5500km for this 7400km. The A321XLR will add even more destinations.
All — “Boeing is only in the business because they are cheap. Nobody would buy Boeing if it would be about quality…” Do others agree and upon what evidence or information in particular?