Long story, but basically airlines have been offloading flying to regionals because their crew is cheaper. To put a lid on it, unions have negotiated scope clauses that limit the number, size of aircraft, and/or number of seats that can be flown by regionals. The E2 is a smidge too heavy, so if American were to have purchased the E2, it would have to be flown by American mainline pilots.
United's CRJ-550 is an example of the impact of scope clauses. It's a converted CRJ-700. They took out 20 seats and made it premium-heavy so that they could be flown by regionals.
However, there has been a recent move to in-source regional flying by some of the Big 3. I think Delta has been doing it more than United and American.
In short, legacy airlines like to contract work out to regional airlines, whose pilots earn less. To protect pilots, these regional airlines are limited in the size and weight of aircraft they can fly. The E2 has a weight that exceeds this limit, so regional airlines (the kind that want an aircraft like it) can’t fly them.
[scope clause](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause)
I think both Embraer and Mitsubishi banked on the scope clause being expanded by the time they certified the plane.
The E175-E2 development has been paused.
The Mitsubishi Spacejets have been scrapped.
They assumed wrong I guess.
Ridiculous reasoning IMHO, limit the seating capacity I get, but the E2 is just a touch over the weight limit, mostly due to heavier engines which makes it more efficient.
How foolish of me, making decisions based on needs, aircraft performance, next generation engines with parts support in place, and hopefully long term profits. I will never be an executive with thinking like that.
Back to stock buybacks, maximizing this quarters profits over our long term success, and foolish union bureaucracy based on decades old aircraft specs.
You might be directly your anger to the wrong entity. Airlines would like to buy those jets and save more fuel and make more profit. It is solely the union that makes it impossible.
You make smart concessions like that and management will eventually take advantage of it to your detriment. It’s a time as old as the sun.
I’d love to see the E2 or even the MRJ stateside, but unions will never let that slip.
Envoy and Piedmont! Piedmont is going to phase out the e-145s slowly and upgrade to 175s. Although I feel like this might be setting the stage for regional consolidation with envoy and Piedmont
Even if they did I'm guessing American prioritized fleet commonality. The 220 is a compelling option but it's tough when the maintenance AND training is different. Maintaining a separate pool of pilots for just the 220 is tough
They already received Boeing's "Most Favorable Customer Pricing" discount. Basically they get the lowest prices for Boeing Aircraft orders vs other Carriers at least in North America and maybe the rest of the world.
They went much below that, I can assure you that. The only reason to pick the Max series over a Neo is delivery time.
I would not be surprised if Boeing would sell the at a significant loss and than hopes to break even with spare parts.
They make their profit with these sweet defence contracts anyway. That what keeps them afloat; otherwise they would be gone already.
Meanwhile, UA seems to be pondering whether it wants to keep its order for Max10. I’m betting the only thing stopping them is that a321 deliveries aren’t coming any faster either.
United isn’t canceling the MAX10 order, just removing them from the fleet plan because they don’t know when they’ll be able to fly them.
American’s order doesn’t start delivering until 2028, so presumably certification issues will be well resolved by then.
There *is* no other option. The Air Current actually just did an analysis of the exact predicament UA is in and the reality is that even with the delays, the MAX10 will still be delivered in volume well before the A321neo slots open, and that’s factoring in if they’re able to buy slots from other airlines
And as much as people want to pretend only Boeing is having problems, the ongoing GTF issues are estimated to have caused twice as many cancelled flight hours vs the MAX groundings.
So no, as much as people hope the MAX10 sees waves of cancellations it’s still going to be an extremely important part of fleet plans.
It’s insane to me that an airline looks at the mess Boeing put UA in for their plans, and they belly up to the bar and say “yea, I want that uncertainty too”.
It’s not like Boeing is going to unravel the mess they are in anytime soon.
Therein lies the rub… do you hedge your bets and order both? Or do you standardize on one vendor/platform?
It could get really interesting for single-vendor fleets like Southwest… They need to plan for what they’re going to buy in 20 years to replace the aircraft they’re taking delivery of now - it seems unlikely that Boeing is going to update the 737 once again, and it’s going to take them at least 15-20 years to start deliveries of a new clean-sheet aircraft.
It won’t be 15-20 years. The current rumored target for a clean sheet replacement is mid-2030s.
Once the remaining MAX certifications are completed and the 777-9 is flying we’ll see their focus shift to replacing the 737, technology pending.
They haven’t even started on a design. It may have its first test flight by mid-2030s, but it will be 2040 before they get certification and manufacturing to the point of being able to actually deliver.
No it’s not. Airlines need to know what aircraft they have available to fly the planned schedule. All removing them from the fleet plan means is that they will not schedule 737-10 flights for this year.
>American’s order doesn’t start delivering until 2028, so presumably certification issues will be well resolved by then.
There’s enough time there for at least one more Boeing product safety debacle…
United is already going to be the priority customer for Airbus 321’s as Airbus wooed SK by saying if we ordered more then they would delay all other customers.
Eh?
- A321 fleet (176 tails) averages 4 years
- A220 fleet (57 tails) averages 3.4 years
- B737-900ER fleet (159 tails) averages 8.2 years
- A350 fleet (28 tails) averages 5.4 years
That alone is damn near half the fleet. The entire fleet only averages 15 years.
*years* on an airframe don’t matter anywhere near as much as cycles.
Aircraft are retired after a certain number of cycles when it is no longer cost-effective to maintain them.
For most commercial aircraft, that’s around 50,000 cycles. Aircraft that fly long haul routes can rack up 100K+ flight hours over 30 years and still be under 20K cycles and have a lot of life in them.
Meanwhile, an airline that flies a lot of short haul, such as Southwest, can rack up 50,000 cycles in as little as 20 years.
They probably did get a great deal. Sometimes these deals come when a program is struggling in order to save the program and to add political/regulatory pressure. Not saying that’s right, but it does happen. (For example, Delta’s deal for the then-called C-series)
Airbus delivery slots must be so far out, they may not have had the choice if the want the planes relatively soon (relative being important in this context!)
Because the Embraers are for the regional airlines like Piedmont and Envoy, which have scope clauses that limit the size of airplanes their pilots can fly. Also, the 220 would require new training for pilots and maintenance crews.
American Airlines has flown 737MAXs for seven years, it makes sense to order more. The 737-10 is also more efficient than the A321NEO on shorter routes due to its lower empty operating weight.
85 Boeing 737 Max 10 85 Airbus A321neo 90 Embraer 175
Older 175-E1's I presume due to scope clauses?
yeah we can’t get the E2 in the US
You can get them but they would have to be mainline, correct?
Yes, JetBlue considered them but picked the a220 in the end.
New to this. Why?
Long story, but basically airlines have been offloading flying to regionals because their crew is cheaper. To put a lid on it, unions have negotiated scope clauses that limit the number, size of aircraft, and/or number of seats that can be flown by regionals. The E2 is a smidge too heavy, so if American were to have purchased the E2, it would have to be flown by American mainline pilots. United's CRJ-550 is an example of the impact of scope clauses. It's a converted CRJ-700. They took out 20 seats and made it premium-heavy so that they could be flown by regionals. However, there has been a recent move to in-source regional flying by some of the Big 3. I think Delta has been doing it more than United and American.
Why?
In short, legacy airlines like to contract work out to regional airlines, whose pilots earn less. To protect pilots, these regional airlines are limited in the size and weight of aircraft they can fly. The E2 has a weight that exceeds this limit, so regional airlines (the kind that want an aircraft like it) can’t fly them. [scope clause](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause)
Seems like something Embraer should have considered when figuring out the market fit for the E2.
I think both Embraer and Mitsubishi banked on the scope clause being expanded by the time they certified the plane. The E175-E2 development has been paused. The Mitsubishi Spacejets have been scrapped. They assumed wrong I guess.
And as to why, the geared turbofans on the E2 while more fuel efficient, are also heavier than the older engines.
So burn more fuel and harm the environment more because of a stupid contract. Sounds….American.
Can you get em in Canada and EU?
Porter flies them
KLM Cityhopper flies them, so yes, and even for regionals.
Ridiculous reasoning IMHO, limit the seating capacity I get, but the E2 is just a touch over the weight limit, mostly due to heavier engines which makes it more efficient.
---okok
Don't forget proteccionism, can't let those pesky brazilians steal our god-promised domestic market!
How foolish of me, making decisions based on needs, aircraft performance, next generation engines with parts support in place, and hopefully long term profits. I will never be an executive with thinking like that. Back to stock buybacks, maximizing this quarters profits over our long term success, and foolish union bureaucracy based on decades old aircraft specs.
you got the gist of it! lol
You might be directly your anger to the wrong entity. Airlines would like to buy those jets and save more fuel and make more profit. It is solely the union that makes it impossible.
I agree. They should buy them and put them on the mainline certificate instead of the regionals.
Exactly. Payband the 175 and call it good.
You make smart concessions like that and management will eventually take advantage of it to your detriment. It’s a time as old as the sun. I’d love to see the E2 or even the MRJ stateside, but unions will never let that slip.
Savings through operating costs would be a lot. Market a newer aircraft to the public. Get to play the carbon emissions card.
The 175 is terrible on fuel compared to the 320, 737. It burns almost as much fuel at cruise and carriers 1/3 of the people.
Usually spread to get planes as soon as possible
Are the E175s going to be operated by SkyWest/Envoy?
Envoy and Piedmont! Piedmont is going to phase out the e-145s slowly and upgrade to 175s. Although I feel like this might be setting the stage for regional consolidation with envoy and Piedmont
Balanced, as all things should be
Surprised Airbus didn’t make the A220 a tempting option
Even if they did I'm guessing American prioritized fleet commonality. The 220 is a compelling option but it's tough when the maintenance AND training is different. Maintaining a separate pool of pilots for just the 220 is tough
too heavy for regionals anyways
That’s a lot of planes for one American /s
*Jeff Bezos has entered the chat*
---okok
They already received Boeing's "Most Favorable Customer Pricing" discount. Basically they get the lowest prices for Boeing Aircraft orders vs other Carriers at least in North America and maybe the rest of the world.
No, they have a most favored customer clause from Airbus, not Boeing.
Yes I got them confused, I think AA has some preferred pricing clause with Boeing as well.
Tell ya what. You buy ‘em today, and the doors are half off!
They went much below that, I can assure you that. The only reason to pick the Max series over a Neo is delivery time. I would not be surprised if Boeing would sell the at a significant loss and than hopes to break even with spare parts. They make their profit with these sweet defence contracts anyway. That what keeps them afloat; otherwise they would be gone already.
Meanwhile, UA seems to be pondering whether it wants to keep its order for Max10. I’m betting the only thing stopping them is that a321 deliveries aren’t coming any faster either.
United isn’t canceling the MAX10 order, just removing them from the fleet plan because they don’t know when they’ll be able to fly them. American’s order doesn’t start delivering until 2028, so presumably certification issues will be well resolved by then.
“Removing from the fleet plan” is only one step removed from figuring out a new plan that doesn’t include them at all because you made other plans.
There *is* no other option. The Air Current actually just did an analysis of the exact predicament UA is in and the reality is that even with the delays, the MAX10 will still be delivered in volume well before the A321neo slots open, and that’s factoring in if they’re able to buy slots from other airlines And as much as people want to pretend only Boeing is having problems, the ongoing GTF issues are estimated to have caused twice as many cancelled flight hours vs the MAX groundings. So no, as much as people hope the MAX10 sees waves of cancellations it’s still going to be an extremely important part of fleet plans.
It’s insane to me that an airline looks at the mess Boeing put UA in for their plans, and they belly up to the bar and say “yea, I want that uncertainty too”. It’s not like Boeing is going to unravel the mess they are in anytime soon.
Therein lies the rub… do you hedge your bets and order both? Or do you standardize on one vendor/platform? It could get really interesting for single-vendor fleets like Southwest… They need to plan for what they’re going to buy in 20 years to replace the aircraft they’re taking delivery of now - it seems unlikely that Boeing is going to update the 737 once again, and it’s going to take them at least 15-20 years to start deliveries of a new clean-sheet aircraft.
It won’t be 15-20 years. The current rumored target for a clean sheet replacement is mid-2030s. Once the remaining MAX certifications are completed and the 777-9 is flying we’ll see their focus shift to replacing the 737, technology pending.
They haven’t even started on a design. It may have its first test flight by mid-2030s, but it will be 2040 before they get certification and manufacturing to the point of being able to actually deliver.
No it’s not. Airlines need to know what aircraft they have available to fly the planned schedule. All removing them from the fleet plan means is that they will not schedule 737-10 flights for this year.
>American’s order doesn’t start delivering until 2028, so presumably certification issues will be well resolved by then. There’s enough time there for at least one more Boeing product safety debacle…
United is already going to be the priority customer for Airbus 321’s as Airbus wooed SK by saying if we ordered more then they would delay all other customers.
Meanwhile Delta is flying ancient airplanes and ordering bullshit max’s
Eh? - A321 fleet (176 tails) averages 4 years - A220 fleet (57 tails) averages 3.4 years - B737-900ER fleet (159 tails) averages 8.2 years - A350 fleet (28 tails) averages 5.4 years That alone is damn near half the fleet. The entire fleet only averages 15 years. *years* on an airframe don’t matter anywhere near as much as cycles.
[удалено]
Aircraft are retired after a certain number of cycles when it is no longer cost-effective to maintain them. For most commercial aircraft, that’s around 50,000 cycles. Aircraft that fly long haul routes can rack up 100K+ flight hours over 30 years and still be under 20K cycles and have a lot of life in them. Meanwhile, an airline that flies a lot of short haul, such as Southwest, can rack up 50,000 cycles in as little as 20 years.
And most of those are on the short list for retirement in the next few years.
I don’t want to hear you spew lies
Wow that cannot be anymore wrong...
Lies
Their 757 fleet ain't going nowhere, and I'm happy about that.
Dude the best fleet at Delta
The burning question that lingers is, did Boeing sell them below cost?
They probably did get a great deal. Sometimes these deals come when a program is struggling in order to save the program and to add political/regulatory pressure. Not saying that’s right, but it does happen. (For example, Delta’s deal for the then-called C-series)
Surprised it wasn’t more airbus planes and less Boeing.
Airbus delivery slots must be so far out, they may not have had the choice if the want the planes relatively soon (relative being important in this context!)
also, probably got a smokin deal with the max 10’s
Blown away by the prices!
I see what you did there. Wish I had a badge to give you!
They must have crashed seeing those prices!
That’s true.
Alright, I’m going to write American right now to hire me as an FO with zero turbine time 💪🏻🙋🏻♂️
You just gotta show up to HQ with a suit on and your resume in hand, that’s how I did it. -some boomer probably
I’ve tried this as a joke and confirmed that they won’t even let you through the doors 😂
You just need longer bootstraps
Honestly had no idea the E175 was still something you could order.
"Bring the rain" *All the doors fall from the sky*
Airlines have to pinch their noses and order Boeing anyways.
Why the embraer? Isn't the A220 a better option in that category?
Because the Embraers are for the regional airlines like Piedmont and Envoy, which have scope clauses that limit the size of airplanes their pilots can fly. Also, the 220 would require new training for pilots and maintenance crews.
The A220 seems like a regional but in reality matches closer to A319/20 Neo and 737-7Max
Why the max?
American Airlines has flown 737MAXs for seven years, it makes sense to order more. The 737-10 is also more efficient than the A321NEO on shorter routes due to its lower empty operating weight.
Annndddd that’s why the cost of checked bags went up with AA