It seems like the order books for the CRJ are all but done and airlines are starting to retire the CR2. Does the CR7, CR9, and CRJ-1000 still have a future as a brand new aircraft as is? Or will Bombardier ever try to revamp the line to better compete with the likes of the ERJ-170/175 and the E2?

jonair8 wrote:

Or will Bombardier ever try to revamp the line to better compete with the likes of the ERJ-170/175 and the E2?

They did. It's called the CSeries.

Bombardier got a lot of mileage out of the basic CL-600, but its cross-section and configuration put it at a disadvantage to larger, more modern designs, hence the CS. Time will tell whether the program is ultimately successful for the company.

Due to the strong standing of scope clauses at AA/UA/DL, as well as the delays to the MRJ and E175E2 programs, I wouldn't be surprised to see a resurgence of CRJ700/900 orders in the coming years, especially as airlines become desperate to retire 50 seaters. Speaking from AA's perspective, the CRJ700 still counts as a small RJ, so they are gobbling up as many as they can.

Unfortunately the C-Series, as well as the E2 and MRJ, are too heavy for US regional carriers to use in code-share flying. Unless scope changes, the CRJ-900 and ERJ 175 are as good as it gets.

I doubt the CRJ in its current form will garner many more orders. If any. Airlines like OO are dropping 700s from United to pick up 175s. Granted those 700s have found homes at AA and Delta(?). But they are not new builds. Passengers enjoy the 175 much more and they often don't realize they are flying a regional jet. The 700/900/1000 really haven't been updated in awhile. I believe the fuel burn numbers a quite close between the 175 and CRJ. So why not go for the more comfy jet? I think an updated CRJ could potentially get some orders but it would have to beat the E-Jets on cost by quite a bit. And at this point I dont think BBD has the money to invest in an updated CRJ. Just my 2 cents.

I thought there was talk of upgraded engines for the CRJ, not sure if I heard right. There still is a need for a 50 seat RJ but it needs to have better fuel burn numbers and good short field performance.

GE and its CF-34 have been kicked out of the RJ engine market by the GTF, with even Embraer defecting. I'm sure they would love to hold on to what remains of it, and find a further application for the Passport. This, plus the latest delays on the MRJ, are the only chance I see for the CRJ to get an upgrade and remain somewhat relevant. But it is a very narrow window of opportunity.

After freeing themselves from CSeries, they can probably study about putting 2nd generation GTF engines onto CRJ? That would be a generation of engine ahead of E2 and MRJ and there will also be enough time for them to put up the resources needed to reengine the aircraft. Also giving E2 and MRJ only a few years lead.

The reason the CRJ started getting passed by the E-Jets was comfort, they've been better on fuel all along during the CF-34 generations.

bradyj23 wrote:

I doubt the CRJ in its current form will garner many more orders. If any. Airlines like OO are dropping 700s from United to pick up 175s. Granted those 700s have found homes at AA and Delta(?). But they are not new builds. Passengers enjoy the 175 much more and they often don't realize they are flying a regional jet. The 700/900/1000 really haven't been updated in awhile. I believe the fuel burn numbers a quite close between the 175 and CRJ. So why not go for the more comfy jet? I think an updated CRJ could potentially get some orders but it would have to beat the E-Jets on cost by quite a bit. And at this point I dont think BBD has the money to invest in an updated CRJ. Just my 2 cents.

Actually, BBD released yet another new cabin for the CRJ around mid 2016 that certainly looks great in all the concepts but I'm not sure if it has been applied to any deliveries. That being said, expect new orders for 700s & 900s, the 175 isn't the answer in all the markets, it can't perform in DEN or PHX and certainly has its flaws elsewhere with payload. If the weight limit gets lifted off all of the scope clauses, then it becomes a different story. However, until then, the 700 & 900 will continue to sell. I think the 175s have hit a bit of a saturation at the moment where you will start to see some orders from the US spill back to BBD because the jets are available now instead of two years down the road.

alasizon wrote:

bradyj23 wrote:

I doubt the CRJ in its current form will garner many more orders. If any. Airlines like OO are dropping 700s from United to pick up 175s. Granted those 700s have found homes at AA and Delta(?). But they are not new builds. Passengers enjoy the 175 much more and they often don't realize they are flying a regional jet. The 700/900/1000 really haven't been updated in awhile. I believe the fuel burn numbers a quite close between the 175 and CRJ. So why not go for the more comfy jet? I think an updated CRJ could potentially get some orders but it would have to beat the E-Jets on cost by quite a bit. And at this point I dont think BBD has the money to invest in an updated CRJ. Just my 2 cents.

Actually, BBD released yet another new cabin for the CRJ around mid 2016 that certainly looks great in all the concepts but I'm not sure if it has been applied to any deliveries. That being said, expect new orders for 700s & 900s, the 175 isn't the answer in all the markets, it can't perform in DEN or PHX and certainly has its flaws elsewhere with payload. If the weight limit gets lifted off all of the scope clauses, then it becomes a different story. However, until then, the 700 & 900 will continue to sell. I think the 175s have hit a bit of a saturation at the moment where you will start to see some orders from the US spill back to BBD because the jets are available now instead of two years down the road.

It seems everything depends on defeating the "Scope Clauses". So just What airline is going to "fall on a sword" just to get a better RJ??
We've had Labor peace fir the last 5 years. What Idiot would mess that up for an airplane he Still has to BUY??
I work for United, if UAL wanted more RJ's like the E190?
All they have to Do is Field the E195 in mainline Livery and they can have more of them.
Since I doubt that will happen in the near term? Well? "It IS what it IS".
Labor Peace is worth FAR more than a larger "regional" airplane.
But it all depends on what an airline is willing to Pay to Have said airplane, It Could happen!!
The Question is? At What Cost??

The CRJ-900 burns less than the E-175, (and not much more than the CRJ-700), and offers more legroom...in scope configuration. The 175 offers wider seats. BBD has made some noises about re-engining the CRJ...once the CSeries and Global 7000 start bringing in some money and freeing up resources.

A re-engined CRJ-900, (up to 15% fuel savings), would be a scope/rj Cinderella. Emb may have to undo many of its 175 updates and maybe just do the engines if they hope to meet scope with a refreshed 175.

The Passport probably has the best chance since they are only on the Global 7000...and GE would love to sell a few more...but they are heavy. I believe the PW-800 could be made to work as well, but they are also heavy, (according to Wiki, 3200lbs dry)...about 1000lbs more than the CF-34-8's.

That weight might mean shifting the wing back a section, or some other balancing act but 15% efficiency at the cost of a couple of thousands pounds seems worth it to me.

strfyr51 wrote:

alasizon wrote:

bradyj23 wrote:

I doubt the CRJ in its current form will garner many more orders. If any. Airlines like OO are dropping 700s from United to pick up 175s. Granted those 700s have found homes at AA and Delta(?). But they are not new builds. Passengers enjoy the 175 much more and they often don't realize they are flying a regional jet. The 700/900/1000 really haven't been updated in awhile. I believe the fuel burn numbers a quite close between the 175 and CRJ. So why not go for the more comfy jet? I think an updated CRJ could potentially get some orders but it would have to beat the E-Jets on cost by quite a bit. And at this point I dont think BBD has the money to invest in an updated CRJ. Just my 2 cents.

Actually, BBD released yet another new cabin for the CRJ around mid 2016 that certainly looks great in all the concepts but I'm not sure if it has been applied to any deliveries. That being said, expect new orders for 700s & 900s, the 175 isn't the answer in all the markets, it can't perform in DEN or PHX and certainly has its flaws elsewhere with payload. If the weight limit gets lifted off all of the scope clauses, then it becomes a different story. However, until then, the 700 & 900 will continue to sell. I think the 175s have hit a bit of a saturation at the moment where you will start to see some orders from the US spill back to BBD because the jets are available now instead of two years down the road.

It seems everything depends on defeating the "Scope Clauses". So just What airline is going to "fall on a sword" just to get a better RJ??
We've had Labor peace fir the last 5 years. What Idiot would mess that up for an airplane he Still has to BUY??
I work for United, if UAL wanted more RJ's like the E190?
All they have to Do is Field the E195 in mainline Livery and they can have more of them.
Since I doubt that will happen in the near term? Well? "It IS what it IS".
Labor Peace is worth FAR more than a larger "regional" airplane.
But it all depends on what an airline is willing to Pay to Have said airplane, It Could happen!!
The Question is? At What Cost??

Agreed. Scope clauses are key, and they all are holding tight right at the 76-seat 86-89,000lb MTOW. The E2-175 is way above this, so there aren't any next gen a/c in development for this sub-76 sector. Will regionals just wither and die (wishful thinking!) or will someone develop a next gen model like an E2-170 or CRJ7x/9x type of plane that fits within the constraints.

JoeCanuck wrote:

The CRJ-900 burns less than the E-175, (and not much more than the CRJ-700), and offers more legroom...in scope configuration. The 175 offers wider seats. BBD has made some noises about re-engining the CRJ...once the CSeries and Global 7000 start bringing in some money and freeing up resources.

A re-engined CRJ-900, (up to 15% fuel savings), would be a scope/rj Cinderella. Emb may have to undo many of its 175 updates and maybe just do the engines if they hope to meet scope with a refreshed 175.

The Passport probably has the best chance since they are only on the Global 7000...and GE would love to sell a few more...but they are heavy. I believe the PW-800 could be made to work as well, but they are also heavy, (according to Wiki, 3200lbs dry)...about 1000lbs more than the CF-34-8's.

That weight might mean shifting the wing back a section, or some other balancing act but 15% efficiency at the cost of a couple of thousands pounds seems worth it to me.

Not arguing with any of your statements on performance here but it seems to overlook one thing about the E175 that BBD cannot mimic...the complete shape of the tube. Outside of wider seats, the fuselage is also taller...which allows it to masquerade a bit more like a smaller mainline jet than a CRJ can. I am not that tall of a person but I have many fellow frequent flyers who call this one thing out as one of the first obvious indicators that they are on a "small" plane...the dreaded neck tilt on BBD planes (across the 200/700/900).

I have seen the concepts of the new BBD interior and I think it looks great...they really did a nice job. The thing I will be interested in seeing is how passengers will react to it..."oh this plane looks so nice...but I still have to bend my neck a little to get down the aisle..."? Or will the better looking interior overshadow the tube size? It will be quite the experiment...

But in the debate regarding future orders...one thing that stands out for BBD is that they are at least willing to invest in their current line. As much as the tube size is a plus for the E175... Embraer is putting all of their best eggs in the E2 basket. Any and every possible cabin update is available on the E2 but not the original EJets (bigger bins, full color LED, etc). So for the US carriers who cannot take the E2 due to its MTOW, its quite a tug of war between tube and features. Embraer seems to think they have a way to make way for the E2 in the US but it seems poorly rooted in any sort of reality.

I'm 6"1 and I don't have to bend over walking down the aisle of a crj 7/900...but I have wide shoulders and the window seats don't really fit me on any aircraft. I agree that the cabin of an E-jet is noticeably larger, I don't feel much more cramped in a CRJ...especially since I exclusively choose aisle seats.

One thing that the CRJ's have on their side is that the flying public has been given, (or is only willing to pay for), a flying experience bar that is set so low, that they pretty much accept any flight where they aren't loaded with a cattle prod.

Delta has cut 50-seaters at Delta Connection from ~500 in 2009 to, IIRC, 150 at 1/1/17. No more ERJ-145s - it's all Bombardier. We could expect AA and UA to be headed in the same direction. It's easy enough to say there's demand for ~500 50-seaters in North America, so the question isn't CASM of a CRJ-900, but trip cost of a -900 vs a 200 -- or an updated -200.

As for JoeCanuck progressing down the aisle in a CRJ without ducking, he must go barefoot now and then! Bombardier cites a cabin height of 6' 2.25" (yeh, it's so tight they mention that quarter of an inch) and just 6' 1" for the CRJ-200.

http://www2.bombardier.com/CRJ/en/speci ... dimensions

toneal wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

The CRJ-900 burns less than the E-175, (and not much more than the CRJ-700), and offers more legroom...in scope configuration. The 175 offers wider seats. BBD has made some noises about re-engining the CRJ...once the CSeries and Global 7000 start bringing in some money and freeing up resources.

A re-engined CRJ-900, (up to 15% fuel savings), would be a scope/rj Cinderella. Emb may have to undo many of its 175 updates and maybe just do the engines if they hope to meet scope with a refreshed 175.

The Passport probably has the best chance since they are only on the Global 7000...and GE would love to sell a few more...but they are heavy. I believe the PW-800 could be made to work as well, but they are also heavy, (according to Wiki, 3200lbs dry)...about 1000lbs more than the CF-34-8's.

That weight might mean shifting the wing back a section, or some other balancing act but 15% efficiency at the cost of a couple of thousands pounds seems worth it to me.

Not arguing with any of your statements on performance here but it seems to overlook one thing about the E175 that BBD cannot mimic...the complete shape of the tube. Outside of wider seats, the fuselage is also taller...which allows it to masquerade a bit more like a smaller mainline jet than a CRJ can. I am not that tall of a person but I have many fellow frequent flyers who call this one thing out as one of the first obvious indicators that they are on a "small" plane...the dreaded neck tilt on BBD planes (across the 200/700/900).

I have seen the concepts of the new BBD interior and I think it looks great...they really did a nice job. The thing I will be interested in seeing is how passengers will react to it..."oh this plane looks so nice...but I still have to bend my neck a little to get down the aisle..."? Or will the better looking interior overshadow the tube size? It will be quite the experiment...

But in the debate regarding future orders...one thing that stands out for BBD is that they are at least willing to invest in their current line. As much as the tube size is a plus for the E175... Embraer is putting all of their best eggs in the E2 basket. Any and every possible cabin update is available on the E2 but not the original EJets (bigger bins, full color LED, etc). So for the US carriers who cannot take the E2 due to its MTOW, its quite a tug of war between tube and features. Embraer seems to think they have a way to make way for the E2 in the US but it seems poorly rooted in any sort of reality.

Considering the evolution of the North American market I expect the following Embraer moves:
- Postponing the aircraft 175 E2 indefinitely;
- Make major modernization in 175 E1 (new avionics, full fly-by-wire, new interior), keeping the structure and motorization current, perhaps with some modernization in CF-34 engines. Certify for operation from 2020/21.

That should be enough to keep the market dominance.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Delta has cut 50-seaters at Delta Connection from ~500 in 2009 to, IIRC, 150 at 1/1/17. No more ERJ-145s - it's all Bombardier. We could expect AA and UA to be headed in the same direction. It's easy enough to say there's demand for ~500 50-seaters in North America, so the question isn't CASM of a CRJ-900, but trip cost of a -900 vs a 200 -- or an updated -200.

As for JoeCanuck progressing down the aisle in a CRJ without ducking, he must go barefoot now and then! Bombardier cites a cabin height of 6' 2.25" (yeh, it's so tight they mention that quarter of an inch) and just 6' 1" for the CRJ-200.

http://www2.bombardier.com/CRJ/en/speci ... dimensions

Scope limit is 125 lines of 50 seat flying. The scope limit for large RJ's is 325, hulls (of which 102 can be 70 seat jets, IIRC). There isn't going to be any shrinkage of the CR2 for a few years, IMO. Once the shuffling of CR2's out of ASA is over, it's going to be very stable between 9E and OO.

Nean1 wrote:

Considering the evolution of the North American market I expect the following Embraer moves:
- Postponing the aircraft 175 E2 indefinitely;
- Make major modernization in 175 E1 (new avionics, full fly-by-wire, new interior), keeping the structure and motorization current, perhaps with some modernization in CF-34 engines. Certify for operation from 2020/21.

That should be enough to keep the market dominance.

Just curious, how do you propose Embraer makes these changes? Any added weight is going to push them over the 86k mark and without an engine improvement, the point is moot since the aircraft already has poor performance compared to the CR9.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Delta has cut 50-seaters at Delta Connection from ~500 in 2009 to, IIRC, 150 at 1/1/17. No more ERJ-145s - it's all Bombardier. We could expect AA and UA to be headed in the same direction. It's easy enough to say there's demand for ~500 50-seaters in North America, so the question isn't CASM of a CRJ-900, but trip cost of a -900 vs a 200 -- or an updated -200.

As for JoeCanuck progressing down the aisle in a CRJ without ducking, he must go barefoot now and then! Bombardier cites a cabin height of 6' 2.25" (yeh, it's so tight they mention that quarter of an inch) and just 6' 1" for the CRJ-200.

http://www2.bombardier.com/CRJ/en/speci ... dimensions

I just have to remember not to wear my heels.

alasizon wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

Considering the evolution of the North American market I expect the following Embraer moves:
- Postponing the aircraft 175 E2 indefinitely;
- Make major modernization in 175 E1 (new avionics, full fly-by-wire, new interior), keeping the structure and motorization current, perhaps with some modernization in CF-34 engines. Certify for operation from 2020/21.

That should be enough to keep the market dominance.

Just curious, how do you propose Embraer makes these changes? Any added weight is going to push them over the 86k mark and without an engine improvement, the point is moot since the aircraft already has poor performance compared to the CR9.

These changes do not have material impact in terms of weight. The comparative sales performance (80:20) between E175 and CR9 shows something about REAL PERFORMANCE.

Nean1 wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

Considering the evolution of the North American market I expect the following Embraer moves:
- Postponing the aircraft 175 E2 indefinitely;
- Make major modernization in 175 E1 (new avionics, full fly-by-wire, new interior), keeping the structure and motorization current, perhaps with some modernization in CF-34 engines. Certify for operation from 2020/21.

That should be enough to keep the market dominance.

Just curious, how do you propose Embraer makes these changes? Any added weight is going to push them over the 86k mark and without an engine improvement, the point is moot since the aircraft already has poor performance compared to the CR9.

These changes do not have material impact in terms of weight. The comparative sales performance (80:20) between E175 and CR9 shows something about REAL PERFORMANCE.

So all these airlines buying 175's in the last 2 years when fuel is cheap, aren't going to pay for it when fuel goes back up? Like it or not, the 175 is a dog in terms of fuel compared to the CR9. Its a simple fact, it takes more fuel to push a bigger cross-section in the air and it takes more fuel to push a heavier airframe.

The point is that the CRJ can be re-engined while remaining within scope. The ejet clearly cannot.

This is a real opportunity for BBD. As "regional" jets keep getting bigger and more capable, with transcontinental or even transatlantic range, they get less and less optimized for a major sector of commercial aviation, their traditional bread and butter. A huge number of flights are hub feeders of about an hour or less. The routes are extremely sensitive to cost because all the connecting pax mean low yields, while comfort is relatively unimportant because of the short flights. There's definitely a market for an aircraft with low acquisition cost and good fuel burn that's optimized for ~1 hour flights. Given the CRJ's inherently lighter weight, the addition of a modern engine without needing a complete clean sheet design that raises costs could be a real opportunity.

A repackaging of the CRJ cabin, along with new engines would probably be well worthwhile.

For instance, a small step down in the floor from the aisle to the seats would give another inch or two of headroom while walking.

Not sure how much heavier the passport engine is - and whether that makes it a worthwhile upgrade or not. This is not a Global that routinely flies thousands of miles. Carrying the weight to altitude is not an insignificant contributor to fuel costs for an RJ.

As a rough ass guesstimate, carrying the extra 2 tonnes to altitude would be in excess of an extra 100 kg of fuel.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Just curious, how do you propose Embraer makes these changes? Any added weight is going to push them over the 86k mark and without an engine improvement, the point is moot since the aircraft already has poor performance compared to the CR9.

These changes do not have material impact in terms of weight. The comparative sales performance (80:20) between E175 and CR9 shows something about REAL PERFORMANCE.

So all these airlines buying 175's in the last 2 years when fuel is cheap, aren't going to pay for it when fuel goes back up? Like it or not, the 175 is a dog in terms of fuel compared to the CR9. Its a simple fact, it takes more fuel to push a bigger cross-section in the air and it takes more fuel to push a heavier airframe.

And still the ATR is more economical but no big order have come. Please lets go to the facts.

As usual, its a balance.

Too much difference in either direction will lead to airlines swaying one way or another.

If BBD could pull CRJ fuel consumption down by 15% relative to any improvements EMB could make to the 175, then that will go a long way to taking priority over any cabin comfort differences.

I might be in the minority, but I expect BBD to wind down production of the CRJ in late 2018 or early 2019. The order book has been steadily declining and there are only 54 orders left including an order for 9 CRJ7s that has been on the books for a few years. At the current production rate, there will be no more orders at the end of 2018.

As for scope limits, I expect during the next round of negotiations that the weight limit will be increased, but that the passenger limit will remain at 76. This would allow the airlines to purchase the newest generation of RJs. In exchange for increasing the weight limit the airlines will agree to reduce their overall RJ fleet which will be necessary anyway because of the looming pilot shortage.

There flights in one day on AA CRJ's - they are just miserable from a passenger experience - the whole carry on bag thing just ruins the entire process - the EMB is the only regional anyone should fly

DiamondFlyer wrote:

So all these airlines buying 175's in the last 2 years when fuel is cheap, aren't going to pay for it when fuel goes back up? Like it or not, the 175 is a dog in terms of fuel compared to the CR9. Its a simple fact, it takes more fuel to push a bigger cross-section in the air and it takes more fuel to push a heavier airframe.

Nean1 wrote:

And still the ATR is more economical but no big order have come. Please lets go to the facts.

There was an Alaska Airlines graphic of a few years ago (2012?) that showed fuel burn per passenger of Q400 vs. CR9 and E75 over a 400-mile stage length. Sorry I couldn't find the graphic. $ burn per seat wouldn't be relevant today, but relative performance to each other would be.

CR9 is better than E75 -- but UA and AA showed they didn't care and bought E75s, anyway. (Delta bought more CR9s).

Q400 is best of all -- and yet only Alaska among major U.S. carriers is an operator, surprising when one sees all of the sub-400 mile flights operated by AA/DL/UA out of ATL, CLT, EWR...

From a passenger experience perspective - seat width, arm rest width, cabin width at shoulder level, cabin height, overhead bin size -- an E75 spanks a CR9.

Amiga500 wrote:

Not sure how much heavier the passport engine is

CF34-8C5 = 2'780 lbs
Passport 20-17BB1A = 4'550 lbs
PW814 = 3'135 lbs

Anyway, the Passport has too much thrust for the CRJ (16'800 lbs vs 13'300 lbs for the CF34-8C5)

Amiga500 wrote:

As usual, its a balance.

Too much difference in either direction will lead to airlines swaying one way or another.

If BBD could pull CRJ fuel consumption down by 15% relative to any improvements EMB could make to the 175, then that will go a long way to taking priority over any cabin comfort differences.

I do not know where you could get 15% of fuel efficiency gains with an outdated design aircraft, no increase in passenger capacity and operating over short distances. It will not be easy given the need to load a couple of extra tons of a new powertrain, even more with turbofans located in unfavorable location (rear).

Nean1 wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

As usual, its a balance.

Too much difference in either direction will lead to airlines swaying one way or another.

If BBD could pull CRJ fuel consumption down by 15% relative to any improvements EMB could make to the 175, then that will go a long way to taking priority over any cabin comfort differences.

I do not know where you could get 15% of fuel efficiency gains with an outdated design aircraft, no increase in passenger capacity and operating over short distances. It will not be easy given the need to load a couple of extra tons of a new powertrain, even more with turbofans located in unfavorable location (rear).

Do you work for EMB? Because your very biased towards the 175? And to the poster who thinks scope clause will change, no way does it go above 86000 lbs, it's there for a solid reason...

GoHokies wrote:

I might be in the minority, but I expect BBD to wind down production of the CRJ in late 2018 or early 2019. The order book has been steadily declining and there are only 54 orders left including an order for 9 CRJ7s that has been on the books for a few years. At the current production rate, there will be no more orders at the end of 2018.

As for scope limits, I expect during the next round of negotiations that the weight limit will be increased, but that the passenger limit will remain at 76. This would allow the airlines to purchase the newest generation of RJs. In exchange for increasing the weight limit the airlines will agree to reduce their overall RJ fleet which will be necessary anyway because of the looming pilot shortage.

I wouldn't fully count BBD out. They are out pounding the pavement with this new interior. The inside really does look good. They even have some new (not great, but pretty darn good) overhead bin concepts which could be a godsend on these flights. On the other side, there is a known solution for a really slick new bin system that Embraer won't even discuss incorporating on the E1 (or even E2 side). Kind of weird when you haven't even fully put a revised plane out into the world and someone has a retrofit option that is better than the line offer-able one. Woof.

I'm hoping that your suspicions during next negotiations come to fruition in some way. But my preference would be more around cutting scope counts on the 50-seater to up the counts in the 70 and 76 seat categories. Seat counts will absolutely stay the same... the only thing that continues to stick out in my mind is that the mentality of those in the negotiation seems to continue with "if it is not being flown by me or one of my colleagues...then it shouldn't happen." Cutting 50-seater counts but moving that shell count to 70 or 76 (but keeping the current overall count of RJs) to me feels like "trickle up economics". In the end, mainline pilots would get benefits...and sometimes an airline just needs an RJ to be deployed on a route. Do we just want to go running around throwing mainline capacity on all of these routes and lose money?

Embraer seems to be very sure that they are going to somehow assist in pilot scope MTOW limits being increased...but I don't see how they have a foot in the door. If anyone had any thoughts on that, I would be interested to hear them.

Nean1 wrote:

Considering the evolution of the North American market I expect the following Embraer moves:
- Postponing the aircraft 175 E2 indefinitely;
- Make major modernization in 175 E1 (new avionics, full fly-by-wire, new interior), keeping the structure and motorization current, perhaps with some modernization in CF-34 engines. Certify for operation from 2020/21.

That should be enough to keep the market dominance.

I don't know if i would go so far as to say that they should postpone E2 indefinitely. It's not a bad plane. Even though there is a current barrier to entry for the US market...there's a little thing called "the rest of the entire world". Would Embraer really ditch this solely for the US? It is impossible to think that the E2 could shed weight to fit under US scope clauses so they need to decide what to do if/when their efforts to increase scope MTOW do not pan out.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

As usual, its a balance.

Too much difference in either direction will lead to airlines swaying one way or another.

If BBD could pull CRJ fuel consumption down by 15% relative to any improvements EMB could make to the 175, then that will go a long way to taking priority over any cabin comfort differences.

I do not know where you could get 15% of fuel efficiency gains with an outdated design aircraft, no increase in passenger capacity and operating over short distances. It will not be easy given the need to load a couple of extra tons of a new powertrain, even more with turbofans located in unfavorable location (rear).

Do you work for EMB? Because your very biased towards the 175? And to the poster who thinks scope clause will change, no way does it go above 86000 lbs, it's there for a solid reason...

Or someone who simply doesn't like Bombarider for no good reason and claims to have the REAL FACTS, yet is biased tainting those FACTS. As for the scope clause, I'm not sure what they do, is going to have to change if Skywest wants their new planes.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

As usual, its a balance.

Too much difference in either direction will lead to airlines swaying one way or another.

If BBD could pull CRJ fuel consumption down by 15% relative to any improvements EMB could make to the 175, then that will go a long way to taking priority over any cabin comfort differences.

I do not know where you could get 15% of fuel efficiency gains with an outdated design aircraft, no increase in passenger capacity and operating over short distances. It will not be easy given the need to load a couple of extra tons of a new powertrain, even more with turbofans located in unfavorable location (rear).

Do you work for EMB? Because your very biased towards the 175? And to the poster who thinks scope clause will change, no way does it go above 86000 lbs, it's there for a solid reason...

I should appologize by not be biased towards BBD? No, I dont work for EMB.

Does BBD have the resources to deal with the CRJ at this point? None of their products are selling that great perhaps they will discontinue the Q400 and CRJ lines and concentrate on the C Series until their financial situation improves.

767333ER wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

I do not know where you could get 15% of fuel efficiency gains with an outdated design aircraft, no increase in passenger capacity and operating over short distances. It will not be easy given the need to load a couple of extra tons of a new powertrain, even more with turbofans located in unfavorable location (rear).

Do you work for EMB? Because your very biased towards the 175? And to the poster who thinks scope clause will change, no way does it go above 86000 lbs, it's there for a solid reason...

Or someone who simply doesn't like Bombarider for no good reason and claims to have the REAL FACTS, yet is biased tainting those FACTS. As for the scope clause, I'm not sure what they do, is going to have to change if Skywest wants their new planes.

Scope doesn't have to change, and the more and more regional pilots (who were adversely effected by both the age 65 rule and mainline carriers selling scope down the river) get employed at mainline, the lesser the likelihood of scope changing is. The only direction in which scope is moving, in my opinion, is smaller.

Personally I am a huge CRJ fan. It is the series I am most familiar with flying. I think the 200 and 700 have a chance with regional airlines like SkyWest or Endeavor. I think the 900 and 1000 stand no chance in the market. I feel like they were trying to compete with Boeing and Airbus with those two aircraft.

~Zac

thewizbizman wrote:

Personally I am a huge CRJ fan. It is the series I am most familiar with flying. I think the 200 and 700 have a chance with regional airlines like SkyWest or Endeavor. I think the 900 and 1000 stand no chance in the market. I feel like they were trying to compete with Boeing and Airbus with those two aircraft.

The 900/1000 are far smaller than any plane Airbus/Boeing sell. Also the CRJ900 sells better than the CRJ700. Embraer did not even bother applying the E175 (CRJ900 competitor) enhancements developed a few years ago to the E170 (CRJ700 competitor), let alone making a E2 version of it.

Polot wrote:

thewizbizman wrote:

Personally I am a huge CRJ fan. It is the series I am most familiar with flying. I think the 200 and 700 have a chance with regional airlines like SkyWest or Endeavor. I think the 900 and 1000 stand no chance in the market. I feel like they were trying to compete with Boeing and Airbus with those two aircraft.

The 900/1000 are far smaller than any plane Airbus/Boeing sell. Also the CRJ900 sells better than the CRJ700. Embraer did not even bother applying the E175 (CRJ900 competitor) enhancements developed a few years ago to the E170 (CRJ700 competitor), let alone making a E2 version of it.

Just wait an see ..

Polot wrote:

thewizbizman wrote:

Personally I am a huge CRJ fan. It is the series I am most familiar with flying. I think the 200 and 700 have a chance with regional airlines like SkyWest or Endeavor. I think the 900 and 1000 stand no chance in the market. I feel like they were trying to compete with Boeing and Airbus with those two aircraft.

The 900/1000 are far smaller than any plane Airbus/Boeing sell. Also the CRJ900 sells better than the CRJ700. Embraer did not even bother applying the E175 (CRJ900 competitor) enhancements developed a few years ago to the E170 (CRJ700 competitor), let alone making a E2 version of it.

I wonder if an E2-170 would come under the scope limit? A lot of 50 seaters will need to be replaced and the 170 is good off short runways.

cheapgreek wrote:

I wonder if an E2-170 would come under the scope limit? A lot of 50 seaters will need to be replaced and the 170 is good off short runways.

The E170 is not a 50 seater however.

What has killed the CRJ700/E170 is that for most airlines it falls under the same large RJ cap as the CRJ900/E175, not the 50 seater cap like the ERJ145/CRJ200. Since the airlines have generally reached their cap they would prefer to operate more of the larger CRJ900/E175s versus filling the restricted fleet with the smaller jets that have similar operating costs (so it doesn't really matter if the market can only support the smaller jet versus the larger- it costs the airline about the same).

That is why the E175 has sold 525 planes with a backlog of 88, versus 193 with a backlog of 3 for the E170. Numbers for the CRJ700 and CRJ900 are 336/9 and 438/29 respectively, showing the effect of the CRJ700's earlier service entry (remember F use to be rare/nonexistent on RJs, without a F cabin the CRJ900 was too large for scope).

cheapgreek wrote:

Polot wrote:

thewizbizman wrote:

Personally I am a huge CRJ fan. It is the series I am most familiar with flying. I think the 200 and 700 have a chance with regional airlines like SkyWest or Endeavor. I think the 900 and 1000 stand no chance in the market. I feel like they were trying to compete with Boeing and Airbus with those two aircraft.

The 900/1000 are far smaller than any plane Airbus/Boeing sell. Also the CRJ900 sells better than the CRJ700. Embraer did not even bother applying the E175 (CRJ900 competitor) enhancements developed a few years ago to the E170 (CRJ700 competitor), let alone making a E2 version of it.

I wonder if an E2-170 would come under the scope limit? A lot of 50 seaters will need to be replaced and the 170 is good off short runways.

At least at UA and DL, a 50 seater can only be replaced by a 50 seater. AA has slightly different numbers for large and small RJs, where they can configure a CR7 with generous pitch and make it a small RJ. So at Delta and United, they're going to need something that's 50 seats to replace the 145/200, upgage, or leave the market.

codc10 wrote:

jonair8 wrote:

Or will Bombardier ever try to revamp the line to better compete with the likes of the ERJ-170/175 and the E2?

They did. It's called the CSeries.

Bombardier got a lot of mileage out of the basic CL-600, but its cross-section and configuration put it at a disadvantage to larger, more modern designs, hence the CS. Time will tell whether the program is ultimately successful for the company.

Since Boeing is suing over the Bombardier CSeries, the aircraft are 737-600 and 737-700 comparable, and continues to market and sell their CRJ series I would say the CSeries is not an intended replacement in the least.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Scope doesn't have to change, and the more and more regional pilots (who were adversely effected by both the age 65 rule and mainline carriers selling scope down the river) get employed at mainline, the lesser the likelihood of scope changing is. The only direction in which scope is moving, in my opinion, is smaller.

You're right that scope doesn't have to change - smaller jets can just be operated by mainline - but that means the whole package has to work at mainline wage rates, work rules, and efficiencies. IMHO, AA/DL/UA will find it more profitable to go with CS100-sized planes as their smallest mainljne offerings, skipping E2s and MRJs entirely.

The aspiration that regional aircraft and subcontractors will just go away, and all jets will be mainline and Max7 or larger with all airport pairs as served today, is just expletive fantasy. The economics don't work. Mainline pilots like high pay. In any economic transaction, one side can set the price or the quantity, but not both.

JoeCanuck wrote:

The CRJ-900 burns less than the E-175, (and not much more than the CRJ-700), and offers more legroom...in scope configuration. The 175 offers wider seats. BBD has made some noises about re-engining the CRJ...once the CSeries and Global 7000 start bringing in some money and freeing up resources.

A re-engined CRJ-900, (up to 15% fuel savings), would be a scope/rj Cinderella. Emb may have to undo many of its 175 updates and maybe just do the engines if they hope to meet scope with a refreshed 175.

The Passport probably has the best chance since they are only on the Global 7000...and GE would love to sell a few more...but they are heavy. I believe the PW-800 could be made to work as well, but they are also heavy, (according to Wiki, 3200lbs dry)...about 1000lbs more than the CF-34-8's.

That weight might mean shifting the wing back a section, or some other balancing act but 15% efficiency at the cost of a couple of thousands pounds seems worth it to me.

I flew on an American Eagle (operated by Mesa) CR9 last month with a recently refreshed interior DFW-MOB and was very impressed with the legroom. Other than the small bins, it was equivalent to the Super 80 I came off of comfort wise. That being said, the CR7 I rode back on was a whole different ball of wax. I'd rather have been in an ERJ-145.

Nean1 wrote:

And still the ATR is more economical but no big order have come. Please lets go to the facts.

It's all about those whirling meat cleavers. "I'm not flying around on one of those antique puddle jumper prop things". The dumb American can not be sold on the modern turboprop.

Dalmd88 wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

And still the ATR is more economical but no big order have come. Please lets go to the facts.

It's all about those whirling meat cleavers. "I'm not flying around on one of those antique puddle jumper prop things". The dumb American can not be sold on the modern turboprop.

The turbo props offered today are not that modern. The Q400 is a stretch of the old Dash-8 and still uses deice boots. The ATR is an old design and while they fill a need in other countries, Americans still don't like propellers. A past study showed when an RJ replaced a prop, ridership jumped 20 percent. For years I have ridden Dash-8's, 100's and 300's many times and it is an uncomfortable ride, vibrations and slow deplaning while waiting to have the prop tethered. The prop is dead in America. Even the Q400 is on life support with very few orders and a short backlog.

I think the issue is a lot wider than just the big 3 looking for a solution. The entire commuter market is going to run into an issue of a lack of new designs. In Ontario, the government has assembled a committee with the goal of establishing more point to point regional routes to reduce some of the strain on the hubs. The problem is there is a lack of aircraft available to serve smaller markets, asides from aging beech 1900's, there isn't much of the right size to serve smaller markets. This means that larger aircraft must be used, by way of a hub. Now, with little development in the 50 seat segment, this is going to grow more and more difficult. You can kinda see how the problem compounds itself as you climb the ladder.

Moving up to the 70+ seat region, there are many routes that rely on the performance of this category of aircraft. Western Canada for example has the issue of crossing the Rockies, and relatively long stage lengths, but doesn't necessarily have the demand for a mainline type service, yet isn't something that can be realistically eliminated from networks. The RJs/ERJs still serve important niche markets all around the world. With little new developpement of regional airliners, by my estimation, it's inevitable that the current designs must continue, and be slowly improved via PiP style updates, or something to keep them cost effective. The 50 seat market continues to exist, but with a lack of development, low casm, larger aircraft are going to have to fill in the gaps. Think of how many CRJ-200's are going to need replacement. Outside of the US, the Q400/ATR72 can do the job, but with the notable apprehension to props, I think the larger RJs/ERJs will continue to grab small orders here and there, enough to keep lines open at least and to justify looking into performance improvements. Where will the ~20 seat flying go, that's my big concern. The whole point to hub to point idea makes for so much unnecessary congestion and time wasted.

Hey guys,
My CRJ experience is limited to flights on Kendall CRJ100s in service for Ansett pre-2001... And I absolutely hated them. No headroom (I'm over 6ft tall) with very poor cabin baggage storage and absolutely no shoulder room in the window seats. Even the toilets were shocking! I actively avoided them if I could.
My EMB experience is limited to flights on Virgin Australia E190s ... And I absolutely loved them! Room, room, room. Much more attractive inside. Bright and airy. Good (but not great) cabin baggage storage. They have provided an all round excellent experience every time that I have flown on them.
Yes, there is about a decade between flying the two types and I appreciate that the CRJs of today are substantially upgraded in terms of cabin interior but the point remains, the ESeries in my opinion is far superior from a passeneger's point of view.
I believe that we shall ever see CRJs operating again in Australia. The Embraers however seem to be here for the long run with airlines like Air North and Jetsgo (albeit with ERJ135/140s) adopting them.
But wait! The 'regional jet' I FAR prefer to even the ESeries is the 717... I'm so glad that Qantas is starting to use the 717 on off-peak golden triangle flights. That will change my flying habits!
And an honourable mention must go to the 146... One of my favourite planes of all time.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.