Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EMB 175, 195 Sales - Not Taking Off?  
User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3159 times:

The EMB-170 is operational and has lots of orders (though the US Airways situation has to be a concern for Embraer). The EMB-190 isn't supposed to be operational until 2005, and has a few big orders (JetBlue, Air Canada together have over 200 firm orders and options). However, as of June 30, Embraer had only one order (Crossair) for a dozen or so EMB-195s (for delivery, presumably, after the 190 enters commercial service) and no orders for the EMB-175. Does anyone know if that's changed - the EMB website doesn't talk about post June 30 orders - and does anyone know how soon the EMB-175 could be in commercial service when someone does order the plane.



15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNWDC10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2976 times:

Give this time. I'm sure the EMB's are very good a/c to compete against the CRJ's. Robert NWDC10

User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2846 times:

I think Jet airways of India was launch customer for the E175 but pulled out because lack of funds?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22718 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2724 times:

Embraer certainly has the advantage in the 70-110 seat market in that they were the first to get a completely new a/c to market and thus have a product superior to what I term "first generation" RJs, or those based on props or business jets. Given the fairly positive response to the E170s from pax and US (and, I would imagine, from LO as well), it would seem logical that Embraer would get more orders for all a/c in this series. Look at the second generation 737s compared to the A32x series. Though most would argue that Airbus' product is superior, Boeing got to the market first and was thus able to gain a huge advantage before the first A320 was even delivered.


I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineRichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4242 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2623 times:

There are a lot of airlines in the red right now, so ordering new equipment is still a ways off.
When the airlines that don't fold decide they need new short-haul equipment, they'll come knocking to Embraer. No worries.



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2576 times:

. Though most would argue that Airbus' product is superior, Boeing got to the market first and was thus able to gain a huge advantage before the first A320 was even delivered.

Huh? The A320 predicates the 737NG by almost 10 years..... the second generation 737 was an MD-80 competitor and was designed far before the A320 was even concieved. The 733/734/735 breifly coexisted, but in the early 90s, customers were leaving the 737-G2 for the A320 in mass.

Also, aircraft that are later to the market tend to slaughter their oponent. Look at the 777 versus A340 and MD-11. The 777 was the *last* 300-seat widebody on the market, but it has sold better than the A340 and MD-11 combine.

Just wait for the RRJ


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9490 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2547 times:

I find it quite strange how Embraer decided to develop 4 planes in the 70-110 seat market. I'm not sure airlines really need planes in 10 seat increments. the E170 and E190 would probably be enough, and they are enough of a family.

Families of planes definitely do better because they offer a customer more choice, however it gets to a certain point. Airbus and Boeing seem to have it down. I highly doubt a carrier like B6 or UA would want to have fleets of all 4 planes. It would make scheduling a nightmare and aircraft swaps would be difficult, because one plane might have 10 less seats than another (proportionally it might be a significant number, but in practicality, it isn't). Maybe Emberaer is on to something, but I think the planes are too close in size for a big order. One airline might order 2 of the series, but would be unlikely to order more. (Are any carriers supposed to get different types now?)

The ERJ 135,140 and 145 are the same way. I don't really see a place for the 140, and its sales have been slim. But Embraer is a good company, so I am sure they know what they are doing.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2536 times:

Simple answer: The 175 and 195 have restricted range compared to the 170 and 190. For airlines like AC, which plans to use the 190 on long thin routes, it makes the 175/195 less attractive.


E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22718 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

DFWRevolution- I'm considering the 2nd generation 737s, the airbii, and the 737NGs as 3 distinct families of a/c. The point is this: When UA, US, and others were looking for narrowbodies in the early and mid-80s, they couldn't wait around for the airbii to come online. Boeing made a killing for 8 years or so on carriers who needed frames then. Once the airbii came along, a readjustment was necessary and from that the 737NG was born.

Similarly, a carrier looking for a 90 seater now (or, let's say, in 2 years when the bigger Embraers are online) is going to have a fairly easy choice as the E190 series is far superior to the CR9. When the RRJ or the new CRJ (will that be a BRJ?) comes online, things may be change, but Embraer has the market cornered for now. For as long as it takes competitors to develop their new a/c, that means profit for Embraer. After that, who knows?

After all, the rule which you present as hard and fast is not by any means. Your comment about 300 seat widebodies works for that family, but few can argue that the Lockheed benefited from Douglas' 1 year head start in DC-10 production. In fact, I've seen arguments on this board and elsewhere indicating that this delay was a big reason for the DC-10's greater market success despite some obvious bad press (AA 191 et al).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2468 times:

Simple answer: The 175 and 195 have restricted range compared to the 170 and 190. For airlines like AC, which plans to use the 190 on long thin routes, it makes the 175/195 less attractive.


True, but with a 3334 km range vs 3700 for the 170, the 175 can reach any North American destination from Toronto except the West Coast. And I can't see AC flying a 65-seater from Toronto to LAX, SFO, SEA and YVR. For the rest of NA, the 175 would have a better seat mile cost than the 170 and a load profile different from Jazz's CRJ-705s. I presume you can adopt a similar rationale in the US or Western European markets, perhaps even more so.



User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2274 times:

Actually, the difference between the 190 and 195/175 is 400nm (AC ordered the 190). Also, there’s always a difference between the advertised range and actual operating range So, the actual range for the 195/175 is below 1700nm.

A 195 could not fly YYZ-SAN or YUL-LAS non-stop while a 190 can. Hence, the advantage of the 190 over the 195 is clear for AC in that case.



E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2250 times:

I agree on the 195. But the 175 is basically a smaller capacity DC-9 rangewise, so AC has made good use of aircraft that can do up to four hours.

User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

RoseFlyer,

Hi again.

I don't really see a place for the 140, and its sales have been slim.

Wasn't it the case that the 140 was tailored-made for American Eagle for some
reason related to the number of flight attendants they could have on board, i.e.
they can fly the 140 with one attendant, whereas, given the extra number of
passangers in the 145, they would have to have two, and they really wanted
one attendant per plane?

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2180 times:

Hey DfwRevolution,

Also, aircraft that are later to the market tend to slaughter their oponent.

I assume this is because when you design last, you know what your opponent's
weaknesses and performance is and you improve on them. Wouldn't you agree?

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineCazito From Brazil, joined Apr 2000, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2103 times:

I read somewhere on the net that the E190 undisclosed customer is COPA and that an official announcement will me made later next month. Any confirmation of that?


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9490 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2087 times:

Snath

The ERJ 140 was only sold to American I believe, and less than 100 have been built. However I don't think it was because of FA staffing because almost every single carrier that operates the 145 has 50 seats on board, which is the maximum number of passengers for one FA operations. However I could be wrong. Maybe AA just had some need for a 44 seat regional plane with 100nm more range to complement their 37 and 50 seaters.

Embraer seems content to build many versions. Their costs must be low with such simple stretches and shrinks.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Taag Not Taking 777s And 737s? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 00:36:32 by Clickhappy
Cathay 773 Taking Off From HKG (video) posted Tue Sep 12 2006 05:26:30 by Historic747
2 AC B767-300ERs Taking Off One After The Other? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 00:01:19 by AirCanada014
The Rush Of Taking Off! posted Tue Mar 21 2006 20:16:32 by Deaphen
Will AC Be The Biggest Operator Of EMB 175 And 190 posted Fri Dec 23 2005 04:43:10 by AirCanada014
Weird Plane Taking Off From SAN Today...Help posted Wed Dec 21 2005 07:25:29 by Radelow
747 Taking Off On Two Engines .... posted Sat Dec 17 2005 17:41:09 by Condor24
Priority For Taking Off! posted Wed Nov 23 2005 16:00:27 by Bigpappa
Taking Off From St Maarten? posted Thu Nov 3 2005 15:21:33 by VS773ER
Crossing Runway While Plane Taking Off? posted Sat Oct 15 2005 16:57:09 by DeltaGator