Your last line hits it squarely on the nose, Baradium. Having ridden SEA-FAI on a Delta 737 and a Compass E-175 I've got to admit the -175 was more comfortable (both in Comfort + class).

It just goes to show RJs aren't really "regional" jets. Perhaps the Mainlines should consider acquiring some and staffing with Mainline pilots.

Oh well, one can dream!

 

In a limited sense that’s a false comparison: the 175 can’t be optimized for seat count because of scope, so it is artificially First heavy and spacious because of mainline scope considerations.

However, I also agree with your conclusion that it is a ‘mainline’ airplane ... that it qualifies as an RJ is beyond my comprehension ... what we’ve been willing to accept is bewildering. I’ve always said it’s be a great airplane if it was being flown at main line like what DL is doing with the 717.

 

Generally speaking if you optimize for a niche an aircraft will perform better in that niche than an aircraft optimized to do something else. For that reason alone it probably makes sense to come up with a clean sheet 50 seater. Currently there are 1500 of those registered in the US alone. That’s a sizable market and they are wearing out. A replacement aircraft with 20% more fuel efficiency could quite possibly be a market success.

The larger challenge, IMHO, is the next generation of larger not-exactly regional jets like the E-2 series and the A220. What Neeleman is hoping to do with Moxy could well put a serious dent in the traditional hub and spoke model. Any trip involving a transfer is inherently slower and less efficient, and more fraught with uncertainty than a nonstop. Just how many commuters even look at flights requiring a connecting flight when they are jumpseating?

With a nonstop aircraft of transcontinental, and even transatlantic range, how many people are going to want to go from a medium sized airport to a hub - most likely not in their intended final direction of travel, to PERHAPS make a connecting flight, assuming the first flight gets off on time and the second flight isn’t scheduled too close on the heels of the first flight’s scheduled arrival.

Sure, with enough of a price break people will still use hub and spoke, but it won’t be as lucrative as it once was if the A220 winds up being as economical to operate as it is being touted.

 

Those drones have a horrific accident rate. They are massive orders of magnitude away from the reliability needed.

 

Boeing is pathetic. 737 now the 767 and the CRJ.

Bring back the Edsel!!!

 

What he said. At one point the pred fleet had suffered a 50% loss rate, with only one or two of those combat related. That's cost effective (sort of, by military standards) for continuous ISR, but not for pax ops, or commercial cargo ops.

They also found out that they cannot actually fly them safely over long-range comms (ie SATCOM). Even the speed of light suffers latency over satellite ranges, and through comms hardware. You can manage the FMS and mission by SATCOM, but they had to go back to line-of-sight for landings.

 

Also they've experienced more "hands on" man hours per flight hour vs a similar sized F16 squadron. Until it's a cheaper and more reliable platform it's not in the running.

 

So what genius had the bright idea to run real-time UAV control over SATCOM? I mean best case to geo-stationary orbit you're talking 500ms of latency. I haven't done the math in a while but if memory serves at lower look angles, it's usually more like 650-700, sometimes even 750. So we're talking 2/3rds to 3/4 of a second - that's worse reaction time than being drunk.

And shifting gears back to the original topic of conversation: not to mention the cyber-security nightmare that is an airliner you can potentially remotely control. You'd think we'd have learned from 9/11, but I guess if you tell some idiot there's profit involved the "danger Will Robinson" part of their imagination shuts off...

 

Yes it was about one sec latency. They thought they could pull it off with training given the low approach speeds but they were wrong. Sometimes the wind gusts.

 

We do a little more than manage the FMS with SATCOM. Precision weapons engagements are the norm, from across the globe. You’d be amazed how quickly you adapt to an aircraft that responds 1 second after your hands make an input. The MQ-9 is a very reliable platform, a turboprop is much better long term than a turbocharged Rotax. LRE is still done by LOS due to lag, but they can also feature auto land capability. The Army bought that feature off the shelf for their MQ-1Cs, Big Blue took a while to entertain that feature (superior pilots and all). I’ve been out of the community for a while, so I’m not sure where they stand on it currently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk