ExMilitaryEng wrote:

The CRJ700/900 should have normally survived as is for some time. If scope clauses remain as is (likely), its only present/future competitor still remain the E175E1. Other models are too heavy.

I think you are maybe touching a Canadian perspective here. The CRJ's may continue low rate production for some time, but without investment (engines), it will be over in a few years. That's not in anybody's longer term interest.

Now A220 might work reasonably well, securing long term quality earospace employment, stake / stock holders might scratch their heads on the CRJ's, evaluating their longer term options.

Since Airbus had 50% shares in ATR, and have their hands inside Bombardier's operation. And the fact that Q400 and ATR72 are competing with each other.

Doesn't it mean Airbus already got the monopoly on Turboprop aircraft? Their next moves would be to create a next-gen Turboprop and they would crushed the market since nobody else making any good turboprops at the moment.

Or maybe make neo version of either Q400 or ATR72

Buying the CS was a smart move for Airbus. Very smart in fact. Buying the CRJ would be dumb. Pointless. I would be amazed if they did.

It would have to be really cheap. The CRJ has limited life and few orders left in its current form, and needs extensive investment in order to bring it up-to-date. How far did Bombardier ever progress on the re-engine program? How competitive would the CRJ become with the PW1215G or 1715G? The new cabin that was launched earlier this summer would go far to improve the passenger experience.
Maybe the Canadian state will offer some generous subsidies in order for Airbus to take over and safeguard the program (jobs) for the future?

ewt340 wrote:

Since Airbus had 50% shares in ATR, and have their hands inside Bombardier's operation. And the fact that Q400 and ATR72 are competing with each other.

Doesn't it mean Airbus already got the monopoly on Turboprop aircraft? Their next moves would be to create a next-gen Turboprop and they would crushed the market since nobody else making any good turboprops at the moment.

Or maybe make neo version of either Q400 or ATR72

Airbus is only involved in the A220, not any of the other Bombardier products.

mhkansan wrote:

MartijnNL wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

As for as comfort, I'll take a 200 over an E-145, now that's a cramped cabin.

The Embraer 145 is one of my favourite aircraft. I felt privileged every time I travelled aboard one. I love the A-seats; you get a window seat and an aisle seat at the same time. The windows are big and located at the perfect place in the cabin.

The window positioning can't be overstated. The way the windows connect to the cabin makes such a huge difference in airliners. Its also why I love the 787. The ERJ has the best windows of any commercial airplane save the 787. They're gigantic! The CRJ windows are what make that plane feel so terrible.

Thats because you guys all use the side windows. Mistake, man! Look out the front windows - way more comfortable!

Bricktop wrote:

Buying the CS was a smart move for Airbus. Very smart in fact. Buying the CRJ would be dumb. Pointless. I would be amazed if they did.

Agree. They only have 120 backlogs order for CRJs.

Maybe the Q400 and A220 would be a better combo than the CRJ. They could beefed up Q400 to meet some of the smaller CRJ capabilities.

Bricktop wrote:

Buying the CS was a smart move for Airbus. Very smart in fact. Buying the CRJ would be dumb. Pointless. I would be amazed if they did.

Why would it be dumb to get the 70-100 seat "jet" range covered as complement to the <100 seat ATR segment? There are plenty opportunities to upgrade the CRJ as in "real nextgen" with a GTF, some composite upgrade, etc. Not sure even a new wing would be needed.
That would further mitigate the need for a 100 seat in-house Turboprop, i.e ATR.

I don't see any other aircraft out there doing the <100 seat job better than the CRJ without being too heavy for scope clauses or being not sufficiently versatile for small airport OPS, i.e. no stairs need.

VSMUT wrote:

It would have to be really cheap. The CRJ has limited life and few orders left in its current form, and needs extensive investment in order to bring it up-to-date. How far did Bombardier ever progress on the re-engine program? How competitive would the CRJ become with the PW1215G or 1715G? The new cabin that was launched earlier this summer would go far to improve the passenger experience.
Maybe the Canadian state will offer some generous subsidies in order for Airbus to take over and safeguard the program (jobs) for the future?

ewt340 wrote:

Since Airbus had 50% shares in ATR, and have their hands inside Bombardier's operation. And the fact that Q400 and ATR72 are competing with each other.

Doesn't it mean Airbus already got the monopoly on Turboprop aircraft? Their next moves would be to create a next-gen Turboprop and they would crushed the market since nobody else making any good turboprops at the moment.

Or maybe make neo version of either Q400 or ATR72

Airbus is only involved in the A220, not any of the other Bombardier products.

We know, but it doesn't mean they wouldn't get involved in other products in the future. Since Embraer already closes its door and go with Boeing instead.

Looking a bit closer at the CRJ's I see 900 CRJ-700, 900, 1000 have been ordered, with the -900 being the most popular model. Most of them are operated by the US regional airlines serving the Dl, UA and AA. Also 1000 CRJ-200 were delivered, half of them being retired now.

As mentioned the scope clause based on MTOW make the CRJ's attractive for the significant US market. If BBD can produce significant improved CRJ700/900 in terms of fuel consumption, noise and MRO, it look slike this could be an attractive segment for the next 15 years. There is a family concept, limitted competition at this stage, large installed base and clear CRJ NEO opportunity.

I can see some of the bigger US regional operators sitting on the fence with the CRJ, while their CRJ fleets cycles are building up. For the CS300 airlines jumped off the fence when they felt the future was secured when it became A220.



The Q400 is a different topic, ATR practically wiped them of the market in recent years when they introduced the ATR42-600 and ATR-72-600. The Q400 is relatively heavy, expensive & coperating costs are significantly higher, also when it flies slower. Hard to improve on that. ATR already won year ago, when BBD had to fully focus on the CSeries.

ewt340 wrote:

We know, but it doesn't mean they wouldn't get involved in other products in the future. Since Embraer already closes its door and go with Boeing instead.

There is very little for Airbus to come for in the remains of Bombardier. As mentioned, the CRJ is almost worthless without significant investment, and the turboprop segment is already covered by the far superior ATR.
Further, Airbus isn't getting involved in Bombardier, they are taking over a single product that was spun out of Bombardier. The current structure isn't that different from that of ATR, and you don't see Airbus getting involved in Leonardo products.

VSMUT wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

We know, but it doesn't mean they wouldn't get involved in other products in the future. Since Embraer already closes its door and go with Boeing instead.

There is very little for Airbus to come for in the remains of Bombardier. As mentioned, the CRJ is almost worthless without significant investment, and the turboprop segment is already covered by the far superior ATR.
Further, Airbus isn't getting involved in Bombardier, they are taking over a single product that was spun out of Bombardier. The current structure isn't that different from that of ATR, and you don't see Airbus getting involved in Leonardo products.

Yeah agree, CRJ is a big no-no for Airbus. BUT, Q400 could be used by Airbus to corner the turboprop market to 99%.

I'm sure if it get too expensive Airbus would bail out. But Bombardier can't really ask too much for Q400 since it's not the hottest turboprops on the market either. They got to buy it to kill THE ONLY competitions out there.

Or they could just wait till Q400 died in decade.

Next up. Airbus buys the Rekkof.

I'm sure the Q400 program could be sold to e.g. a big MRO. E.g. Field, GlobalAero, C&L, lots of aftermarket for at least 2 decades. And there might be a significant market for a new, lean, quiet and flexible 35-60 seat twin prop.

Another manufacturer, looking to re enter the turboprop market in the longer term might be interested. https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/12/embraer-thinks-business-case-can-made-turboprop-nothing-soon/

ewt340 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

We know, but it doesn't mean they wouldn't get involved in other products in the future. Since Embraer already closes its door and go with Boeing instead.

There is very little for Airbus to come for in the remains of Bombardier. As mentioned, the CRJ is almost worthless without significant investment, and the turboprop segment is already covered by the far superior ATR.
Further, Airbus isn't getting involved in Bombardier, they are taking over a single product that was spun out of Bombardier. The current structure isn't that different from that of ATR, and you don't see Airbus getting involved in Leonardo products.

Yeah agree, CRJ is a big no-no for Airbus. BUT, Q400 could be used by Airbus to corner the turboprop market to 99%.

I'm sure if it get too expensive Airbus would bail out. But Bombardier can't really ask too much for Q400 since it's not the hottest turboprops on the market either. They got to buy it to kill THE ONLY competitions out there.

Or they could just wait till Q400 died in decade.

1. That would likely not pass the competition authorities.
2. They already cornered 99% of the market.
3. They dont have to conquer the entire turboprop market.

Coming soon: the single engine, high wing, four seater, piston powered A172.

I can see the opportunity here, but I think 'buy' is the wrong term. There is nothing of particular value in buying the CRJ / Q400 programmes when they are both approaching end-of-life and require significant investment to re-enter the market. If anything, I would expect a no-value takeover, along with the cash to upgrade the CRJ with new equipment.

I still am yet to see any credible news outlet run with this story. Seems like the original story is mostly speculative. Oh, and that whole "A100" thing sounds made up and hurts my eyes.

I feel like there's too much synergy to only take commercial aviation.

Why wouldn't airbus just buy up all of BBD aviation and get into the corporate jet game, too? They could really optimize engineering teams and procurement to get the cost down on them.

keesje wrote:

And there might be a significant market for a new, lean, quiet and flexible 35-60 seat twin prop.

Exactly! And I would add "rugged" to "lean quiet and flexible". See Greenland, for example. The Dash 8-200 is the lifeline there, serving Greenland's airports all of which are very challenging (except SFJ and UAK): short runways, rough weather... What are they going to be replaced with? Jets are out of the question because of runway length, and the ATRs, AFAIR, are not optimal in polar environment.

Nicoeddf wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Buying the CS was a smart move for Airbus. Very smart in fact. Buying the CRJ would be dumb. Pointless. I would be amazed if they did.

Why would it be dumb to get the 70-100 seat "jet" range covered as complement to the <100 seat ATR segment? There are plenty opportunities to upgrade the CRJ as in "real nextgen" with a GTF, some composite upgrade, etc. Not sure even a new wing would be needed.
That would further mitigate the need for a 100 seat in-house Turboprop, i.e ATR.

I don't see any other aircraft out there doing the <100 seat job better than the CRJ without being too heavy for scope clauses or being not sufficiently versatile for small airport OPS, i.e. no stairs need.

CRJ series is near its end of life and would take a large amount of capital and effort to bring it into the "modern" age. Big distraction.

And not directed at you Nico, it's amusing to see all the fanboys suddenly fall in love with the CRJ now there's even a hint of Airbus being interested. Yesterday's dog, today's darling.

Bricktop wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Buying the CS was a smart move for Airbus. Very smart in fact. Buying the CRJ would be dumb. Pointless. I would be amazed if they did.

Why would it be dumb to get the 70-100 seat "jet" range covered as complement to the <100 seat ATR segment? There are plenty opportunities to upgrade the CRJ as in "real nextgen" with a GTF, some composite upgrade, etc. Not sure even a new wing would be needed.
That would further mitigate the need for a 100 seat in-house Turboprop, i.e ATR.

I don't see any other aircraft out there doing the <100 seat job better than the CRJ without being too heavy for scope clauses or being not sufficiently versatile for small airport OPS, i.e. no stairs need.

CRJ series is near its end of life and would take a large amount of capital and effort to bring it into the "modern" age. Big distraction.

And not directed at you Nico, it's amusing to see all the fanboys suddenly fall in love with the CRJ now there's even a hint of Airbus being interested. Yesterday's dog, today's darling.

I looked at fleet ownership, age & scope clause. The E175 has been selling over the last few years, but the E2 seems too heavy. I wonder what the -700,900s will be replaced with.

The -700/900 program was launched 20 years ago, it got a new w wing (leading edge slats) and a stretched widened fuselage, with a lowered floor. So in that sense it is more up to date than e.g. a ATR, A320, 777 or 737NG. A version II makes sense if there is a market. There seems to be a market but BBD seems unwilling / unable to do the investment.

My biggest question is would Airbus be willing to enter this market segment, regionals. It's not the same as NB/WB. If so they probably would avoid full integration on production level.

workhorse wrote:

keesje wrote:

And there might be a significant market for a new, lean, quiet and flexible 35-60 seat twin prop.

Exactly! And I would add "rugged" to "lean quiet and flexible". See Greenland, for example. The Dash 8-200 is the lifeline there, serving Greenland's airports all of which are very challenging (except SFJ and UAK): short runways, rough weather... What are they going to be replaced with? Jets are out of the question because of runway length, and the ATRs, AFAIR, are not optimal in polar environment.

They have embarked on a massive runway expansion project. And AFAIK, ATRs are not suboptimal in the polar environment. In fact, Danish Air Transport has had an ATR 42-300 based up there for a while now, flying for Air Greenland. The STOL ATR 42-600 will be more than capable of serving Air Greenlands needs.

keesje wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Why would it be dumb to get the 70-100 seat "jet" range covered as complement to the <100 seat ATR segment? There are plenty opportunities to upgrade the CRJ as in "real nextgen" with a GTF, some composite upgrade, etc. Not sure even a new wing would be needed.
That would further mitigate the need for a 100 seat in-house Turboprop, i.e ATR.

I don't see any other aircraft out there doing the <100 seat job better than the CRJ without being too heavy for scope clauses or being not sufficiently versatile for small airport OPS, i.e. no stairs need.

CRJ series is near its end of life and would take a large amount of capital and effort to bring it into the "modern" age. Big distraction.

And not directed at you Nico, it's amusing to see all the fanboys suddenly fall in love with the CRJ now there's even a hint of Airbus being interested. Yesterday's dog, today's darling.

I looked at fleet ownership, age & scope clause. The E175 has been selling over the last few years, but the E2 seems too heavy. I wonder what the -700,900s will be replaced with.

The -700/900 program was launched 20 years ago, it got a new w wing (leading edge slats) and a stretched widened fuselage, with a lowered floor. So in that sense it is more up to date than e.g. a ATR, A320, 777 or 737NG. A version II makes sense if there is a market. There seems to be a market but BBD seems unwilling / unable to do the investment.

My biggest question is would Airbus be willing to enter this market segment, regionals. It's not the same as NB/WB. If so they probably would avoid full integration on production level.

A reengined CRJ faces the same issue as the E175E2- weight. Until the weight issue gets addressed in scopes clauses there is no point in investing in the reengine.

Right now most airlines are replacing their older CRJ700/900s (and E170/E175s) with new E175E1s that have conversion rights to E2 if new scope gets approved allowing them. See Republic’s order for 100+100 E175s from Farnborough.

DarthLobster wrote:

Utah744 wrote:

NYPECO wrote:

"A100-1000" sounds very strange.

If Hawaiian bought them they could call them "Hawaii 5-0s"

And then get sued by CBS...

Please CBS already markets with Hawaiian for the show. They would eat that up.

keesje wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Why would it be dumb to get the 70-100 seat "jet" range covered as complement to the <100 seat ATR segment? There are plenty opportunities to upgrade the CRJ as in "real nextgen" with a GTF, some composite upgrade, etc. Not sure even a new wing would be needed.
That would further mitigate the need for a 100 seat in-house Turboprop, i.e ATR.

I don't see any other aircraft out there doing the <100 seat job better than the CRJ without being too heavy for scope clauses or being not sufficiently versatile for small airport OPS, i.e. no stairs need.

CRJ series is near its end of life and would take a large amount of capital and effort to bring it into the "modern" age. Big distraction.

And not directed at you Nico, it's amusing to see all the fanboys suddenly fall in love with the CRJ now there's even a hint of Airbus being interested. Yesterday's dog, today's darling.

I looked at fleet ownership, age & scope clause. The E175 has been selling over the last few years, but the E2 seems too heavy. I wonder what the -700,900s will be replaced with.

The -700/900 program was launched 20 years ago, it got a new w wing (leading edge slats) and a stretched widened fuselage, with a lowered floor. So in that sense it is more up to date than e.g. a ATR, A320, 777 or 737NG. A version II makes sense if there is a market. There seems to be a market but BBD seems unwilling / unable to do the investment.

My biggest question is would Airbus be willing to enter this market segment, regionals. It's not the same as NB/WB. If so they probably would avoid full integration on production level.

Even if there is a market, I don't think it's one that Airbus should be chasing under their brand. They have enough battles to fight in the future with the follow-on to the A320 (HUGE!!!), how to battle the possible 797, and the A380 follow-on (Yes, I think there will be one). The RJ market is simply small potatoes. But I am not an OEM CEO.

ODwyerPW wrote:

Airbus would be offering a plane with seat widths less than 18".... hmmmm…

They own ATR that has less than 18" seat width already. Too late.

TWA772LR wrote:

baje427 wrote:

It would just mark the end of the Q400 which is not surprising I also predicted BBD will drop out the commercial market and stick the the business jets so this deal if true is not a shock.

Plot twist: BBD sells the Q line to Embraer who gets bought out by/collaborates extensively with Boeing.

Boeing already owned the Dash 8 & sold it to BBD, Why would they buy it back!

keesje wrote:

Looking a bit closer at the CRJ's I see 900 CRJ-700, 900, 1000 have been ordered, with the -900 being the most popular model. Most of them are operated by the US regional airlines serving the Dl, UA and AA. Also 1000 CRJ-200 were delivered, half of them being retired now.

As mentioned the scope clause based on MTOW make the CRJ's attractive for the significant US market. If BBD can produce significant improved CRJ700/900 in terms of fuel consumption, noise and MRO, it look slike this could be an attractive segment for the next 15 years. There is a family concept, limitted competition at this stage, large installed base and clear CRJ NEO opportunity.

I can see some of the bigger US regional operators sitting on the fence with the CRJ, while their CRJ fleets cycles are building up. For the CS300 airlines jumped off the fence when they felt the future was secured when it became A220.



The Q400 is a different topic, ATR practically wiped them of the market in recent years when they introduced the ATR42-600 and ATR-72-600. The Q400 is relatively heavy, expensive & coperating costs are significantly higher, also when it flies slower. Hard to improve on that. ATR already won year ago, when BBD had to fully focus on the CSeries.

the Q400 flys faster than the ATR.

Well, since Airbus paid $1 for control of the CSeries, I guess another dollar fits the bill for the CRJ…

What is the chance Vikimg air picks up the Q400 program and upgrades it, maybe reduces the production rate.

TWA772LR wrote:

baje427 wrote:

It would just mark the end of the Q400 which is not surprising I also predicted BBD will drop out the commercial market and stick the the business jets so this deal if true is not a shock.

Plot twist: BBD sells the Q line to Embraer who gets bought out by/collaborates extensively with Boeing.

Sure, why not? Boeing already owned De Haviland Canada for a few years before selling it to Bombardier, whose aerospace division originated with Canadair.

Canadair, in turn was sold to Bombardier after a brief stint of being owned by the Canadian government, who bought it back after several decades as a subsidiary of General Dynamic, which acquired it from the Canadian government in the first place.

And General Dynamics sold part of its business to Boeing-competitor Lockheed, and another part to McDonnell Douglas, which soon afterwards merged with Boeing, while General Dynamics then later bought Bombardier competitor Gulfstream.

Selling a portion of their business to Embraer just to have it land back with the Boeing, whose legal pressure likely helped precipitate the sale of another part of Bombardier's business to Boeing's main competitor would be a fitting extension of the complex history so far.

The next step, I predict, is that Viking Air will buy rights to the A380, out of production at that time, struggle to restart production for a few years, and be bought by the Canadian government. A change in policy after the next election cycle will lead Canada to sell Viking, resulting in Boeing taking over the A380 program.

I'd better stop now.

It's sad that the aviation industry is going to be in a place where there are only two manufactures. Innovation will be dead.

There is absolutely NO reason to believe two competitors can’t produce innovation. The A380 and B787 disprove you, speedbird52.


Three competitors can’t survive in commercial airplane construction, the capital costs are too high. It was Boeing/Douglas/Lockheed, then, with the rise of Airbus, Lockheed dropped out, followed by McDonnell Douglas.

Are Unducted Fan UDF engines still competitive with the new gen GTF's coming out?

Could the A100-700/900 be re-engined with a UDF engine like the Boeing 7J7/MD94 program?

Name a production UDF, please. Then, there’s still the weight and balance issue.

NYPECO wrote:

N415XJ wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

There was some talk a few years ago about upgrading the 200, new engines, wings, etc. Still must be a need for a 50 seat RJ for small markets. As for as comfort, I'll take a 200 over an E-145, now that's a cramped cabin.

I find the 145 vastly superior to the -200. The windows are huge and actually placed correctly at eye level, and on the left side of the cabin you can get both a window and an aisle. The -200s cabin may technically be larger but the windows and A side seats make the 145 feel much more roomy IMO.

Agree, Embraer 145s are awesome to ride in.

Utah744 wrote:

NYPECO wrote:

"A100-1000" sounds very strange.

If Hawaiian bought them they could call them "Hawaii 5-0s"

Having flown ERJ-145's on many occasions, "awesome" is not a word that I would use to describe my experience in them. In my opinion, they're OK, but not great.

It seems BBD's Q400 and CRJ are increasingly in heavy weather. ATR & Embraer are pushing them out.
https://leehamnews.com/2018/10/22/bombardier-squeezed-by-atr-embraer-mitsubishi/

What would be feasible strategies? The bigger CRJ's still seem to have good CASM, but new engines seem a must. Who bringing up the billion required ?

Of those types hundreds must be sold, not dozens (like the recent Delta 20). Ias said I maybe see Airbus taken over the CRJ lines, if the conditions / NEO prospects / after market looks good enough. It kind of fits under the A220. Not sure about the Q400, the market seems to habve decided they don't want to pay that much extra for the extra speed.

TWA772LR wrote:

baje427 wrote:

It would just mark the end of the Q400 which is not surprising I also predicted BBD will drop out the commercial market and stick the the business jets so this deal if true is not a shock.

Plot twist: BBD sells the Q line to Embraer who gets bought out by/collaborates extensively with Boeing.

Would actually be a good thing for the world. Two competing a/c are better than just one dominating a class of aircraft. I know you are only joking, but I actually could see this happening.

keesje wrote:

It seems BBD's Q400 and CRJ are increasingly in heavy weather. ATR & Embraer are pushing them out.
https://leehamnews.com/2018/10/22/bombardier-squeezed-by-atr-embraer-mitsubishi/

What would be feasible strategies? The bigger CRJ's still seem to have good CASM, but new engines seem a must. Who bringing up the billion required ?

Of those types hundreds must be sold, not dozens (like the recent Delta 20). Ias said I maybe see Airbus taken over the CRJ lines, if the conditions / NEO prospects / after market looks good enough. It kind of fits under the A220. Not sure about the Q400, the market seems to habve decided they don't want to pay that much extra for the extra speed.

Doesn't the CRJ line overlap too much with the CS-100? If so, why would Airbus save this line? I don't see this happening. CS-line is in the beginning of its cycle, lots of potentials, the CRJ is arguably at the end of its life cycle, that might be extended, but still....

The CRJ1000 approaches capacity overlap with the A220-100, depending on configurations, however they are two very different aircraft when it comes to performance and operations. The A220 is built as a mainline regional jet capable of flying some impressive sectors, whilst the CRJ is designed for shorter stages, and accordingly there's a huge difference in OEW, at 35 tonnes and 23 tonnes respectively.

Meanwhile the CRJ-700/900 have been in production for more than 15 years now, so I can see the market for a 'NEO' aircraft to EIS in the 2023-2025 timeframe, as large numbers of the existing fleets come up for renewal.

TWA772LR wrote:

baje427 wrote:

It would just mark the end of the Q400 which is not surprising I also predicted BBD will drop out the commercial market and stick the the business jets so this deal if true is not a shock.

Plot twist: BBD sells the Q line to Embraer who gets bought out by/collaborates extensively with Boeing.

Well they sell the Q400, but to a party that is probably mostly interested in the Q series aftermarket for the next 15-20 years.

That could also become the case for the CRJ. I wonder what the advantages of a CRJ-900 are over an E175..

Specially if the E175 weighs ~ the same but has superior luggage, space & range. And better engines (E2)

http://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/E175/CRJ900/

keesje wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

baje427 wrote:

It would just mark the end of the Q400 which is not surprising I also predicted BBD will drop out the commercial market and stick the the business jets so this deal if true is not a shock.

Plot twist: BBD sells the Q line to Embraer who gets bought out by/collaborates extensively with Boeing.

Well they sell the Q400, but to a party that is probably mostly interested in the Q series aftermarket for the next 15-20 years.

That could also become the case for the CRJ. I wonder what the advantages of a CRJ-900 are over an E175..

Specially if the E175 weighs ~ the same but has superior luggage, space & range. And better engines (E2)

http://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/E175/CRJ900/

The E175 weighs more, and burns more, but it’s capability and comfort means it’s more desirable. The comfort part is important in this segment as the legacies are trying to turn around the old crappy uncomfortable <50 seat plane image (which the CRJ200 contributed to) their regional arms use to have with the public and give the regionals a mainline like experience for pax (just with smaller planes). The E-jets accomplish that goal well.

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Plot twist: BBD sells the Q line to Embraer who gets bought out by/collaborates extensively with Boeing.

Well they sell the Q400, but to a party that is probably mostly interested in the Q series aftermarket for the next 15-20 years.

That could also become the case for the CRJ. I wonder what the advantages of a CRJ-900 are over an E175..

Specially if the E175 weighs ~ the same but has superior luggage, space & range. And better engines (E2)

http://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/E175/CRJ900/

The E175 weighs more, and burns more, but it’s capability and comfort means it’s more desirable. The comfort part is important in this segment as the legacies are trying to turn around the old crappy uncomfortable <50 seat plane image (which the CRJ200 contributed to) their regional arms use to have with the public and give the regionals a mainline like experience for pax (just with smaller planes). The E-jets accomplish that goal well.

yes, didn't want to go into a comfort discussion but the difference is real big, having done both CRJ and E jets over distances..

So passengers don't pick A380 for comfort over other types but do pick E-jets on comfort over CRJs when flying. I am no fan of sitting on a cramped CRJ-200, but there is normally not much choice involved in these decisions.

If Bombardier divest the CRJ line, why wouldn't Airbus pick it up and engineer an A100 line?

Exeiowa wrote:

So passengers don't pick A380 for comfort over other types but do pick E-jets on comfort over CRJs when flying. I am no fan of sitting on a cramped CRJ-200, but there is normally not much choice involved in these decisions.

It’s a bit different. With the A380 (and other manline aircraft) you are just talking about small differences in seat width.

With regional jets it goes beyond that. It is not really about seat width (although that helps) but the difference between a typical adult being able to walk down the aisle normally versus slouching to avoid the ceiling. The difference between having to gate check any carry on luggage larger than a backpack versus bringing it on board. The difference between having to walk out on the tarmac and go up so stairs versus walking directly onboard via a jet way. The difference between a tiny cramped bathroom and a normal size one (granted A and B are shrinking theirs). That is all important stuff that is just “comfort” but matters a lot. The CRJ700/900 matches the E jets in some aspects but it still has a stigma from the CRJ200, even if it is a much better and improved experience. The E jets also looks like a mainline jet which believe it or not matters since people are not 100% familiar with all different plane types and variants.

If the efficiency difference between the planes was huge then yea, airlines would say screw the E-jet comfort and just get the CRJ. But the difference is not huge. It is close enough that airlines are comfortable taking the small efficiency hit for a huge customer satisfaction boost (pax LOVE the E jet overwhelmingly over the CRJ).

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Plot twist: BBD sells the Q line to Embraer who gets bought out by/collaborates extensively with Boeing.

Well they sell the Q400, but to a party that is probably mostly interested in the Q series aftermarket for the next 15-20 years.

That could also become the case for the CRJ. I wonder what the advantages of a CRJ-900 are over an E175..

Specially if the E175 weighs ~ the same but has superior luggage, space & range. And better engines (E2)

http://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/E175/CRJ900/

The E175 weighs more, and burns more, but it’s capability and comfort means it’s more desirable. The comfort part is important in this segment as the legacies are trying to turn around the old crappy uncomfortable <50 seat plane image (which the CRJ200 contributed to) their regional arms use to have with the public and give the regionals a mainline like experience for pax (just with smaller planes). The E-jets accomplish that goal well.

Sure, but if there could be an efficiency improvement on the CRJ (be it a new engine, aerodynamic or what), it would at least be able to capture some of the market, as the E175-E2 is dead in the US. Embraer really didn't see the reality of the situation with scope in the US, which has now put Bombardier (or whoever ends up with the CRJ) in a position to clean it up and make it a clear cut efficiency winner in the 76 seat market.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

Well they sell the Q400, but to a party that is probably mostly interested in the Q series aftermarket for the next 15-20 years.

That could also become the case for the CRJ. I wonder what the advantages of a CRJ-900 are over an E175..

Specially if the E175 weighs ~ the same but has superior luggage, space & range. And better engines (E2)

http://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/E175/CRJ900/

The E175 weighs more, and burns more, but it’s capability and comfort means it’s more desirable. The comfort part is important in this segment as the legacies are trying to turn around the old crappy uncomfortable <50 seat plane image (which the CRJ200 contributed to) their regional arms use to have with the public and give the regionals a mainline like experience for pax (just with smaller planes). The E-jets accomplish that goal well.

Sure, but if there could be an efficiency improvement on the CRJ (be it a new engine, aerodynamic or what), it would at least be able to capture some of the market, as the E175-E2 is dead in the US. Embraer really didn't see the reality of the situation with scope in the US, which has now put Bombardier (or whoever ends up with the CRJ) in a position to clean it up and make it a clear cut efficiency winner in the 76 seat market.

Yes, but it is a question of whether the CRJ can get that efficiency boost without running into the same wall that the E175-E2 hits: weight. The CRJ900 is lighter than the E175, but that doesn’t mean it has a lot of wiggle room left for a reengine, especially as with the CRJ heavier engines (as new ones typically are) create CoG issues being rear engined (typically solved in past by stretching up front, which adds further additional weight).

Polot wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Polot wrote:

The E175 weighs more, and burns more, but it’s capability and comfort means it’s more desirable. The comfort part is important in this segment as the legacies are trying to turn around the old crappy uncomfortable <50 seat plane image (which the CRJ200 contributed to) their regional arms use to have with the public and give the regionals a mainline like experience for pax (just with smaller planes). The E-jets accomplish that goal well.

Sure, but if there could be an efficiency improvement on the CRJ (be it a new engine, aerodynamic or what), it would at least be able to capture some of the market, as the E175-E2 is dead in the US. Embraer really didn't see the reality of the situation with scope in the US, which has now put Bombardier (or whoever ends up with the CRJ) in a position to clean it up and make it a clear cut efficiency winner in the 76 seat market.

Yes, but it is a question of whether the CRJ can get that efficiency boost without running into the same wall that the E175-E2 hits: weight. The CRJ900 is lighter than the E175, but that doesn’t mean it has a lot of wiggle room left for a reengine, especially as with the CRJ heavier engines (as new ones typically are) create CoG issues being rear engined (typically solved in past by stretching up front, which adds further additional weight).

True, but the CR9 is below the scope limit of weight everywhere, whereas most E175-E1's already take a weight penalty to be flown for a US major. A CR9 has 1500 lbs to play with before it hits the limit. Sure, it's not enough of a weight difference, but it's a start.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Polot wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Sure, but if there could be an efficiency improvement on the CRJ (be it a new engine, aerodynamic or what), it would at least be able to capture some of the market, as the E175-E2 is dead in the US. Embraer really didn't see the reality of the situation with scope in the US, which has now put Bombardier (or whoever ends up with the CRJ) in a position to clean it up and make it a clear cut efficiency winner in the 76 seat market.

Yes, but it is a question of whether the CRJ can get that efficiency boost without running into the same wall that the E175-E2 hits: weight. The CRJ900 is lighter than the E175, but that doesn’t mean it has a lot of wiggle room left for a reengine, especially as with the CRJ heavier engines (as new ones typically are) create CoG issues being rear engined (typically solved in past by stretching up front, which adds further additional weight).

True, but the CR9 is below the scope limit of weight everywhere, whereas most E175-E1's already take a weight penalty to be flown for a US major. A CR9 has 1500 lbs to play with before it hits the limit. Sure, it's not enough of a weight difference, but it's a start.

It’s a question of risk. More room to play with BUT: A) need to keep aircraft development cost competitive (don’t want your CRJ9 costing as much as a E190/E195/A220) B) need to make damn sure you are under the weight limit at the end.

Don’t want to spend a ton of money on an aircraft that really only has one market then miss your goals. There is no larger aircraft (ie E190/E195 E2- the CRJ1000 is hopeless against those and the A220) to fall back on to recuperate money.