rudder wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 5:54 am
There is no aircraft weight provision in the ACPA CPA scope clause. It is hull size/max certified seating and actual seating configuration (90/76 respectively).
The main delay for the E175-E2 has been lack of customers. US carriers (Alaska Air excepted) cannot use the aircraft in their partner fleets.
AC would be a logical customer for the E2. But considering pricing may settle for the US scope compliant version.
I didn't understand any of that. (No fault of yours. I'm still linguistically challenged)
1. So ACA CPA allows 76 - 90 seat aircraft only?
2. Why can't the US costumers not use it? Because it's too large and their "parent mainline" company won't allow it?
3. What's a "US scope compliant version?" How is that different than Canada?
rudder wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 5:54 am
There is no aircraft weight provision in the ACPA CPA scope clause. It is hull size/max certified seating and actual seating configuration (90/76 respectively).
The main delay for the E175-E2 has been lack of customers. US carriers (Alaska Air excepted) cannot use the aircraft in their partner fleets.
AC would be a logical customer for the E2. But considering pricing may settle for the US scope compliant version.
I didn't understand any of that. (No fault of yours. I'm still linguistically challenged)
1. So ACA CPA allows 76 - 90 seat aircraft only?
2. Why can't the US costumers not use it? Because it's too large and their "parent mainline" company won't allow it?
3. What's a "US scope compliant version?" How is that different than Canada?
Thanks for clarifying.
1) The ACPA Collective agreement allows for jets configured with 76 seats or less at CPA carriers, there isn't a weight limit specified but the aircraft can not be certified to carry more than 90 passengers. The Embraer E175 E2 meets the requirements to be flown at Jazz.
2) US carriers (other than Alaska) have a 86,000 lb MTOW limit included in their scope clauses. The geared P&W engines on the E2 make the aircraft too heavy to replace the original and E1 variants currently operated by US mainline carriers.
3) I can't find any information on a Scope compliant version of the E2, Embraer seems to be banking on Scope clauses being relaxed to match the aircraft specs more than the other way around.
The scope compliant version Rudder is referring to (I believe) is the E1, which is still in production and could be offered at a discount or found used and provide a lower cost approach to regional fleet replacement. An order for 40+ E175 E2 aircraft is a significant capital investment but AC has committed to maintaining a fleet of at least 80 aircraft at Jazz and the E2 would provide an advantage over its US competitors.
rudder wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 5:54 am
There is no aircraft weight provision in the ACPA CPA scope clause. It is hull size/max certified seating and actual seating configuration (90/76 respectively).
The main delay for the E175-E2 has been lack of customers. US carriers (Alaska Air excepted) cannot use the aircraft in their partner fleets.
AC would be a logical customer for the E2. But considering pricing may settle for the US scope compliant version.
I didn't understand any of that. (No fault of yours. I'm still linguistically challenged)
1. So ACA CPA allows 76 - 90 seat aircraft only?
2. Why can't the US costumers not use it? Because it's too large and their "parent mainline" company won't allow it?
3. What's a "US scope compliant version?" How is that different than Canada?
Thanks for clarifying.
1. ACPA scope permits maximum 76 seat jets to be operated at Express subject to a fleet ratio of mainline aircraft (restriction currently in abeyance due COVID).
The maximum permitted size hull cannot be certified for greater than 90 passenger configuration by any authority anywhere on the planet. This is to avoid putting larger aircraft in service at Express with less dense seating configuration (this was the lesson learned from the CRJ705/CRJ900 episode).
2/3. US legacy carriers (Alaska Air excepted) have scope provisions that limit seats (76) and MGTOW (86000 lbs). The E175-E2 is planned at 98000 lb MGTOW.
*edit* - just saw the response above mine. All correct. My guess is AC will order (or CHR) the E-jet version that is offered at the best price.
wouldn’t it make sense just to replace aging aircraft with newer ones?
Yes, if there were comparable aircraft at a reasonable price.
Unfortunately, there is no comparable aircraft. To replace the -300 (50 seats) and the CRJ100/200 (50 seats) would require an aircraft with no more than 50 seats and no less than 40.
I know of no such aircraft currently in production from a reputable western manufacturer.
What's wrong with the ATR 42 500/600 series? It's still very much in production, in use in Canada already, similar speeds to the 100/300, very popular worldwide, clearly has won the ATR vs Dash 8 business argument, and earlier models were used by the Jazz predecessors. The Dash 8 take-off performance is clearly overkill what Jazz does with it.
wouldn’t it make sense just to replace aging aircraft with newer ones?
Yes, if there were comparable aircraft at a reasonable price.
Unfortunately, there is no comparable aircraft. To replace the -300 (50 seats) and the CRJ100/200 (50 seats) would require an aircraft with no more than 50 seats and no less than 40.
I know of no such aircraft currently in production from a reputable western manufacturer.
What's wrong with the ATR 42 500/600 series? It's still very much in production, in use in Canada already, similar speeds to the 100/300, very popular worldwide, clearly has won the ATR vs Dash 8 business argument, and earlier models were used by the Jazz predecessors. The Dash 8 take-off performance is clearly overkill what Jazz does with it.
The issue is not with the airplane, but with the rest of the fleet.
Jazz committed to the Q400. Had they been up for replacement, the ATR family would be a great platform to choose. Really what the airplane is going to need to do is replace the -300 (50 seats) and the CRJ200 (50 seats). Likely to be replaced by a jet (if at all).
If Chorus/Jazz was to ever look at a 50 seat t-prop down the road, then perhaps deHavilland Canada might have a revised/updated -300 ready by then, as DH Canada were looking into the feasibility of such a project.
Personally, I don't believe AC wants Jazz to fly 50 pax airplanes. They rather have that contracted out (code share) to cheaper carriers. I see Jazz going to a 1 jet / 1 turboprop fleet (Embraer / Q400) or maybe just jet...
wouldn’t it make sense just to replace aging aircraft with newer ones?
Yes, if there were comparable aircraft at a reasonable price.
Unfortunately, there is no comparable aircraft. To replace the -300 (50 seats) and the CRJ100/200 (50 seats) would require an aircraft with no more than 50 seats and no less than 40.
I know of no such aircraft currently in production from a reputable western manufacturer.
What's wrong with the ATR 42 500/600 series? It's still very much in production, in use in Canada already, similar speeds to the 100/300, very popular worldwide, clearly has won the ATR vs Dash 8 business argument, and earlier models were used by the Jazz predecessors. The Dash 8 take-off performance is clearly overkill what Jazz does with it.
Jazz looked at the ATR 42-600 and it didn’t have the required performance for mountain ops. The ATR 72 definitely does not have the performance and I guess the extra seats on the Q400 was attractive.
Julian.B wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 3:14 pm
Personally, I don't believe AC wants Jazz to fly 50 pax airplanes. They rather have that contracted out (code share) to cheaper carriers. I see Jazz going to a 1 jet / 1 turboprop fleet (Embraer / Q400) or maybe just jet...
Gazing into my crystal ball, that's what I'm envisioning too, all 76-78 seat aircraft and everything else below code-shared, or some other interline arrangement. I don't foresee AC looking to create another CPA scenario to cover that segment.
Julian.B wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 3:14 pm
Personally, I don't believe AC wants Jazz to fly 50 pax airplanes. They rather have that contracted out (code share) to cheaper carriers. I see Jazz going to a 1 jet / 1 turboprop fleet (Embraer / Q400) or maybe just jet...
Gazing into my crystal ball, that's what I'm envisioning too, all 76-78 seat aircraft and everything else below code-shared, or some other interline arrangement. I don't foresee AC looking to create another CPA scenario to cover that segment.
An agreement with CMA in the west and PAL in the east would do wonders for AC in the markets too small for Jazz.
Yes, if there were comparable aircraft at a reasonable price.
Unfortunately, there is no comparable aircraft. To replace the -300 (50 seats) and the CRJ100/200 (50 seats) would require an aircraft with no more than 50 seats and no less than 40.
I know of no such aircraft currently in production from a reputable western manufacturer.
What's wrong with the ATR 42 500/600 series? It's still very much in production, in use in Canada already, similar speeds to the 100/300, very popular worldwide, clearly has won the ATR vs Dash 8 business argument, and earlier models were used by the Jazz predecessors. The Dash 8 take-off performance is clearly overkill what Jazz does with it.
Jazz looked at the ATR 42-600 and it didn’t have the required performance for mountain ops. The ATR 72 definitely does not have the performance and I guess the extra seats on the Q400 was attractive.
ATR’s are used all over the world in places with mountains higher than Canada’s. I doubt a 2700hp ATR 42 can’t do what a 2300hp dash 8-300 can.
They sure do look similar, but when we look at climb rates, the initial climb rate of a -300 is around 1800FPM whereas the ATR42-500 is around 1500FPM. It could very well be that certain airports that Jazz is looking for the aircraft to operate out of would require the higher rate of climb for obstacle avoidance... or it could be that they feel the ATR is not competitive across more routes as it is slower in cruise (compared to the Q400) [On second thought, this argument is stupid and I retract it].
I expect Jazz to be a Q400 and EMB175-E2 operator exclusively once the CRJ's have hit their end. I expect Jazz will exist just to carry the spoke passengers to the hub. I don't expect AC to want to "code share" the 700+ flights done daily by Jazz to "code share". Just my 2 cents.
KenoraPilot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 10:02 am
I expect Jazz to be a Q400 and EMB175-E2 operator exclusively once the CRJ's have hit their end. I expect Jazz will exist just to carry the spoke passengers to the hub. I don't expect AC to want to "code share" the 700+ flights done daily by Jazz to "code share". Just my 2 cents.
Not all of them, but many of the destinations served by the Dash -100/-300.
- North Bay
- Kingston
- Bathurst
- Sept Ile
- Mont Joli
- Val D'hor (I don't know how to spell it)
- etc.
Jazz will keep flying the Q400 but on "busier routes":
- Timmins
- Windsor
- London
- Sudbury
- Sault St. Marie
- Grand Prairie
- Fort Mac
- Victoria
- Kelowna
There's really no replacement for the -100 or -300.
There are some new build aircraft on the market (Cessna SkyCourrier, Viking Twotter) that fill the 1900's role, but nothing that I know of between 20 and 60 seats.
KenoraPilot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 10:02 am
I expect Jazz to be a Q400 and EMB175-E2 operator exclusively once the CRJ's have hit their end. I expect Jazz will exist just to carry the spoke passengers to the hub. I don't expect AC to want to "code share" the 700+ flights done daily by Jazz to "code share". Just my 2 cents.
Not all of them, but many of the destinations served by the Dash -100/-300.
- North Bay
- Kingston
- Bathurst
- Sept Ile
- Mont Joli
- Val D'hor (I don't know how to spell it)
- etc.
Jazz will keep flying the Q400 but on "busier routes":
- Timmins
- Windsor
- London
- Sudbury
- Sault St. Marie
- Grand Prairie
- Fort Mac
- Victoria
- Kelowna
etc.
The rest would be flown by the Embraer (E1 or E2)
The entire Jazz DH8-100/300 fleet will be retired by the end of October 2021.
notwhoyouthinkIam wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 1:57 pm
There are some new build aircraft on the market (Cessna SkyCourrier, Viking Twotter) that fill the 1900's role, but nothing that I know of between 20 and 60 seats.
With the minor issue that neither of those are pressurized, so useless on the west coast for replacing the 1900
notwhoyouthinkIam wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 1:57 pm
There are some new build aircraft on the market (Cessna SkyCourrier, Viking Twotter) that fill the 1900's role, but nothing that I know of between 20 and 60 seats.
With the minor issue that neither of those are pressurized, so useless on the west coast for replacing the 1900
Edit: I missed your point completely when crafting my response. All of the aircraft that I list below appear to be pressurized.
Pacific Coastal does quite well for itself with B1900C/Ds and Saab 340s.
Central Mountain Air does well with the 1900s, Dash 8-100/300, and the Dornier 328 (prop).
KenoraPilot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 10:02 am
I expect Jazz to be a Q400 and EMB175-E2 operator exclusively once the CRJ's have hit their end. I expect Jazz will exist just to carry the spoke passengers to the hub. I don't expect AC to want to "code share" the 700+ flights done daily by Jazz to "code share". Just my 2 cents.
Not all of them, but many of the destinations served by the Dash -100/-300.
- North Bay
- Kingston
- Bathurst
- Sept Ile
- Mont Joli
- Val D'hor (I don't know how to spell it)
- etc.
Jazz will keep flying the Q400 but on "busier routes":
- Timmins
- Windsor
- London
- Sudbury
- Sault St. Marie
- Grand Prairie
- Fort Mac
- Victoria
- Kelowna
etc.
The rest would be flown by the Embraer (E1 or E2)
The entire Jazz DH8-100/300 fleet will be retired by the end of October 2021.
Indeed. These smaller markets (ex. Kingston) was served by the (Jazz) Dash 8-100/300. What I'm trying to say is that a 3rd party (code share) airline might end up doing this with their own Dash 8 classics (maybe PAL)?
Julian.B wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:50 pm
Indeed. These smaller markets (ex. Kingston) was served by the (Jazz) Dash 8-100/300. What I'm trying to say is that a 3rd party (code share) airline might end up doing this with their own Dash 8 classics (maybe PAL)?
ACPA scope clause allows domestic codeshare by CPA carriers only.
Domestic Interline agreements (non-codeshare) limited to maximum 23 seat aircraft only.
Julian.B wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:50 pm
Indeed. These smaller markets (ex. Kingston) was served by the (Jazz) Dash 8-100/300. What I'm trying to say is that a 3rd party (code share) airline might end up doing this with their own Dash 8 classics (maybe PAL)?
ACPA scope clause allows domestic codeshare by CPA carriers only.
Domestic Interline agreements (non-codeshare) limited to maximum 23 seat aircraft only.
Okay. So then who will AC contract out their flying?(to Mont Joli for example). There was a news release a while ago, when AC got the loan, saying they must either start up the old regional routes or work it out with 3rd party carriers to reintroduce them. Did I understand that incorrectly?
notwhoyouthinkIam wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 1:57 pm
There's really no replacement for the -100 or -300.
There are some new build aircraft on the market (Cessna SkyCourrier, Viking Twotter) that fill the 1900's role, but nothing that I know of between 20 and 60 seats.
How many times does the still for sale brand new ATR 42 need to be brought up
notwhoyouthinkIam wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 1:57 pm
There's really no replacement for the -100 or -300.
There are some new build aircraft on the market (Cessna SkyCourrier, Viking Twotter) that fill the 1900's role, but nothing that I know of between 20 and 60 seats.
How many times does the still for sale brand new ATR 42 need to be brought up
It doesn't matter how many times it's brought up. I am currently discounting it on the fact that Jazz has rejected it as a possible replacement.
It is plausible that Jazz and Air Canada will revisit it, but considering that Air Canada has gone Boeing for every new aircraft over 150 seats for the past decade or so, I don't see them going Airbus/ATR soon.