Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2770 times:
This is really interesting. A story in the latest issue of Airways (mostly about Horizon/q400) says that Bombardier claims that in terms of seat-mile costs the CRJ900 "beats the E190 on most stages. To achieve the same figures, ten more seats would have to be installed in the E190."
I'm sure there's lots of Bombardier puffery in that claim, but this looks like at least a partial response from Embraer to counter that threat. But adding seats in this fashion also detracts somewhat from the Embraers' main selling advantage over the crj900 -- superior comfort.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2999 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2624 times:
Im sure FlyBE would have had something to do with this, and applied the pressure to Embraer to try and get them to certify the aircraft with an extra row of seats. Esspecially with fuel prices continuing to rise!
You can almost guarantee they will adding the extra row of seats!
FlyBE's legroom is not good at the best of times with 29-30inch seat pitch... Another pressures inch of legroom taken away!
JobsaGoodun From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2422 times:
Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 6): FlyBE's legroom is not good at the best of times with 29-30inch seat pitch... Another pressures inch of legroom taken away!
The only aircraft with a 29" pitch in the Flybe fleet is the AEU 737's. Generally Flybe's legroom is superior to other LCC's at 31" average. This should remain about the same with the E195, even in 118 config.
CRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2169 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2166 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 2): One *half* row. So comfort isn't realy compromised on the smaller e-jets
Well, people here complain like mad about the "cramped 31 inch pitch Y-seating" on most airliners'... widebody or single-aisle. It won't take long before the "comfortable" is replaced with "cramped" for the E-jets too.
US Airways will start it off with 88 seats @ 31" pitch in their new E190s. Also one can wonder how the cabin service will be on two-class E190s as only two FAs will be onboard (one of the E190's main selling points). One FA will be occupied with 10-11 F-customers while the other FA must rush through the Y-cabin to serve all 88. I can hear the announcement: "I request all Y-pax to siddown and shuddup while your dedicated FA offer you an abbreviated beverage service of half a can of cola per pax - no special requests, please!"
120 seats on the E195 will make it a great 737-200/500 replacement, I'd say...
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6067 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2076 times:
Quoting Arrow (Reply 3): I'm sure there's lots of Bombardier puffery in that claim, but this looks like at least a partial response from Embraer to counter that threat. But adding seats in this fashion also detracts somewhat from the Embraers' main selling advantage over the crj900 -- superior comfort.
It is not puffery... it is misinformation. And no, this is not a CASM issue. While it is true that the CRJ-900 has slightly better TRIP COSTS than the E-175 the E-175 has better CASM figures. And the CRJ-900 is not even close to the E190 in CASM... let alone trip revenue.
BTW, Even with the same pitch (which the airline choses) the E-jets are still considerably more comfortable than the CRJ.
Quoting Aeroplan73 (Reply 9): Perhaps it's time for Bombardier to develop the C Series to really take on Embraer.
Unfortunately it is a non-starter.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Tangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 903 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1937 times:
Quoting Aeroplan73 (Reply 12): It seems to me that the market is there for that size of jet, so I wonder why it's a non-starter.
"TRUST" by the market and suppliers that Bombardier's C Series wont end up being an interim plane when Boeing and Airbus come up with their narrowbody replacements. There is also the talk about an engine by PWC, but nothing concrete. Don't forget that Boeing are saying they wont launch the 737 replacement before the new engines are ready (so how could Bombardier?, it would be like the L1011 program or the original 747 program where the late engines alomost killed Lockheed and Boeing). One other reason is Bombardier's shakey financial position that further makes potential customers and risk sharing partners skeptics. Results in inability to finance the program by issuing more equity (the stock is $3, used to be $25 5 years ago), and issuing debt is expensive as the company's credit rating is rated at Speculative.
IMO the only way Bombardier could pull it off would be through some truly innovative design concepts. Then the risk takers would jump in. But there is nothing innovative about the C Series, just the same old tired ideas.