RJ Scope
07-29-2017, 11:54 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,538
Then let's call their bluff and let them become the next IndyAir/AquafreshJet experiment. I doubt the guaranteed profit FFD Midas Touch model will work on that one.
07-29-2017, 12:57 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,424
Would they not have to bluff first? The last word I saw was they would cancel the order or downgrade to the 70 that is scope legal if no change in the scope clause.
07-29-2017, 02:24 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,424
I would look again at the latest published weights. You might also google the issue. The CEO of Mitsubishi aircraft seems to think it's a big issue. Only the standard range version of the 70 seater is scope compliant.
07-29-2017, 02:31 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,302
MRJ90 is too heavy. It's less too-heavy than the 175-E2 though. Mitsubishi has stated publicly that they will not limit certification weight because it would hurt range too significantly. Either scope has to change or orders coverted to 70s. This would basically be a CRJ7 equivalence and not nearly as economical.
07-29-2017, 02:44 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,424
07-29-2017, 05:08 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,538
It also fits with the chatter I've heard about our guys being predisposed to large RJ scope relief, coupled of course with the company's impeding attempt at getting it. While normally there's zero chance we'd fall for that again, if it were packaged with a sky is falling "OMG THEY HAVE ALL THE ATL GATES WE'RE DOOMED!" spin, perhaps some think that could get it over the 50%+1 finish line.
07-29-2017, 06:41 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Position: DAL A320 CA
Posts: 559
Maybe, but they've always had pretty huge egos, and they've always fancied endless growth and ultimately a manifest destiny of sorts with ever larger planes.
It also fits with the chatter I've heard about our guys being predisposed to large RJ scope relief, coupled of course with the company's impeding attempt at getting it. While normally there's zero chance we'd fall for that again, if it were packaged with a sky is falling "OMG THEY HAVE ALL THE ATL GATES WE'RE DOOMED!" spin, perhaps some think that could get it over the 50%+1 finish line.
It also fits with the chatter I've heard about our guys being predisposed to large RJ scope relief, coupled of course with the company's impeding attempt at getting it. While normally there's zero chance we'd fall for that again, if it were packaged with a sky is falling "OMG THEY HAVE ALL THE ATL GATES WE'RE DOOMED!" spin, perhaps some think that could get it over the 50%+1 finish line.
JMHO..CG
07-30-2017, 08:13 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,031
If SKW wants to take delivery of the MRJ and ERJ-2..they can forfeit their Delta FFD contract and fly them under Alaska colors since they don't have any scope protection. Wage war with mainline C-series and let the chips fall. No one is going to relax our current scope at Delta..
JMHO..CG
JMHO..CG
07-30-2017, 05:32 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,237
it should be around 86k.
The mrj70ER has a mtow of 85,965.
So my guess is they will certify the 90 with 76 seats and 86K.
I also expect Bombardier to re engine their CRJ9's
with PW800's. I think they can do that and remain
under 86K lbs and probably so could Emb with the 175.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
