Classic Dash replacement??

Discuss topics relating to Jazz Aviation LP.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
notwhoyouthinkIam
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:49 am

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by notwhoyouthinkIam »

Julian.B wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 3:47 pm
rudder wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 3:03 pm
Julian.B wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 2:06 pm

Same type rating. Jazz, however, does not consider it. Dash 8-100/300 was flown by the same pilots and the Q400 by other pilots.
Much more complicated than that. TC would have required CCQ.

If Jazz wanted Dash 8-300 and Q400 pilots to fly both types regularly, then they would have to do alternating SIM training, and have currency on line operations.

Jazz made the decision not to consider that. Would have required ALPA input and approval.

Now a moot point. Dash 8-300 pilots can qualify on the Q400 with a differences course, SIM, and line Indoc.

Such horsesh*t that "Bombardier" (or whoever owns the Q400 / Dash 8 now) advertised it as a "common type". It's literally like one of those "Reverse Mortgage deals"... complete BS.
It's not unlike the 737.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Julian.B
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:24 am

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by Julian.B »

notwhoyouthinkIam wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 7:31 pm It's not unlike the 737.
Pretty much, right? I understand the manufacturer trying to play the "common type rating" game, but operators should know better. I think the only aircraft manufacturer that came close to a "across the board commonality" is Airbus. Even then, the A350 / A380 are not that similar to the old school A32X /A330/A340 models.
---------- ADS -----------
 
link821
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:19 pm

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by link821 »

Why is the fleet even forecasted to be reduced? If switch flipped over night(or when we eventually return to 2019 levels of traffic) and every aircraft was being utilized wouldn’t it make sense just to replace aging aircraft with newer ones?
---------- ADS -----------
 
notwhoyouthinkIam
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:49 am

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by notwhoyouthinkIam »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by rudder »

Splash wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 6:39 pm
The E2's could be problematic with the aircraft being heavy due to the PW GTF engines and how the AC mainline scope clause comes into play with aircraft weights. Embraer is still building E1's primarily for the USA market due to mainline scope clauses, so I expect that version to still be in play for sometime to come.
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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Julian.B
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:24 am

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by Julian.B »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TheStig
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by TheStig »

Julian.B wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 6:02 am
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.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 37.article

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by rudder »

Julian.B wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 6:02 am
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.

https://www.flightglobal.com/embraer-op ... 15.article
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by rudder »

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... 75_web.pdf

E175-E1(LR) is US scope compliant. E175-E1(AR) is not (but is in service at Horizon Air for AS which does not have a scope restriction).

Here is what is planned for the E2:

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... rcial-jet/
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Julian.B
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:24 am

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by Julian.B »

Thanks for the clarification guys!
---------- ADS -----------
 
bobcaygeon
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 681
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:03 am

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by bobcaygeon »

notwhoyouthinkIam wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 5:50 am
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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
notwhoyouthinkIam
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:49 am

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by notwhoyouthinkIam »

bobcaygeon wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 2:22 pm
notwhoyouthinkIam wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 5:50 am
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).
---------- ADS -----------
 
Kosiw
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:12 pm

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by Kosiw »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Gravity always wins
User avatar
Julian.B
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:24 am

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by Julian.B »

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...
---------- ADS -----------
 
47north
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:44 am

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by 47north »

bobcaygeon wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 2:22 pm
notwhoyouthinkIam wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 5:50 am
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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Splash
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:23 pm

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by Splash »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
notwhoyouthinkIam
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:49 am

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by notwhoyouthinkIam »

Splash wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 3:48 pm
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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
fish4life
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2405
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by fish4life »

47north wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 3:44 pm
bobcaygeon wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 2:22 pm
notwhoyouthinkIam wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 5:50 am

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
notwhoyouthinkIam
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:49 am

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by notwhoyouthinkIam »

Image
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/pe ... 0086.shtml

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].

Dash 8-300
Image
https://contentzone.eurocontrol.int/air ... ilter=dash

ATR42-500
Image
https://contentzone.eurocontrol.int/air ... Filter=atr
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
KenoraPilot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 902
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:34 pm
Location: 'berta

Re: Classic Dash replacement??

Post by KenoraPilot »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Jazz Aviation LP - Air Canada Express”