Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The ERJ-135  
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23148 posts, RR: 20
Posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6268 times:

It seems to be common sentiment on a.net that the smallest member of an airliner family is not terribly successful. The 318 is a niche aircraft. The 736 is a niche aircraft. The 751 was never launched, etc. But in looking at the ERJ-135, I'm not so sure that it's the same.

I noticed the following facts. First, the 135 has sold better than most shrinks. It represents 123 of Embraer's 845 deliveries (a.net numbers; may not be up to date) of the type to date, or about 15%. Also, the 2 largest operators of the type (MQ and BTA) and 3 of the 5 largest (YS is the other) operate the type. Interestingly, CO and AA are also probably the two financially healthiest legacy carriers in this country. I'm not trying to suggest a causal relationship here, but it is interesting. Having said this, I'm going to pose two questions...

1) Is there a viable, long-term market for 30 to 40 seat jets? Or alternatively, is the 135 just another niche product for those that operate lots of 140s and 145s?

2) Should Bombardier have developed a CRJ shrink? DH was operating FRJs for DL, and that flying just sort of disappeared when DH went the FlyI route. Would an airline like DL have bought? Clearly, this is just a hypothetical, but I'm curious to hear what you guys think...

[Edited 2006-10-27 23:21:57]


I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGarri767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6197 times:

not to be off topic, but wasnt the E-120 the shrink of the ERJ series?

User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6178 times:

The EMB120 predates the ERJs by decades.

I think the 135 created a new niche by itself, and as such is a successful niche aircraft. It became the 'in' thing to rid your airline of props, and the 135 came about at just the right time. Nevermind it's expensive to fly.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 3, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6157 times:

Quoting Garri767 (Reply 1):
not to be off topic, but wasnt the E-120 the shrink of the ERJ series?

No, other way around. The E-120's EIS was 1985 and the ERJ-145's about ten years after.

Quoting Cubsrule (Thread starter):
1) Is there a viable, long-term market for 30 to 40 seat jets? Or alternatively, is the 135 just another niche product for those that operate lots of 140s and 145s?

I think it's a niche aircraft. The 140 was developed for AA, and I don't think anyone else operates it.

Don't forget that the Legacy 600 is based on the ERJ135 as well, so it's not all commercial aircraft.

Quoting Cubsrule (Thread starter):
2) Should Bombardier have developed a CRJ shrink? DH was operating FRJs for DL, and that flying just sort of disappeared when DH went the FlyI route. Would an airline like DL have bought? Clearly, this is just a hypothetical, but I'm curious to hear what you guys think...

I think they did. Or at lest BBD studied it. But the 2-2 config. was too much for the size and the airlines turned away.

The general consensus is that the 50-seat market is saturated and it will be for a while.

Cheers  Smile



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23148 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6090 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
The 140 was developed for AA, and I don't think anyone else operates it.

The 140 is really much the same story as the CRJ-440, both developed as 44 seaters to get around scope requirements. They're definitely niche aircraft, but when some carriers (like 4Z) operate the 135 exclusively and there are other similarly-sized products (like the 328 jet and the Saab 340), I wonder if the 135 is the same story.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
The general consensus is that the 50-seat market is saturated and it will be for a while.

I agree. That's why I wonder if the 34-37 seat market is any different.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6071 times:

The EMB-145 came first. They then cut up a production E145 and made the first EMB-135. That aircraft was later re-plugged and is now flying as an EMB-145 for a US carrier.


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5951 times:

Most of the above variations were created to work around scope clauses...

User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 27
Reply 7, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5926 times:

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 6):
Most of the above variations were created to work around scope clauses...

Mainly the ERJ-140.



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5888 times:

As was the CRJ -440

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 4):
The 140 is really much the same story as the CRJ-440, both developed as 44 seaters to get around scope requirements.

Noted above and missed; the -135 was a market shrink.


User currently offlineOptionsCLE From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5876 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 5):
The EMB-145 came first. They then cut up a production E145 and made the first EMB-135. That aircraft was later re-plugged and is now flying as an EMB-145 for a US carrier.

Very interesting! I don't suppose you could divulge the carrier or perhaps the registration?


User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5855 times:

Quoting OptionsCLE (Reply 9):
Very interesting! I don't suppose you could divulge the carrier or perhaps the registration?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Roberto Becker



Now just follow the paper trail. I couldn't seem to find the airline that it is currently with...but I'm willing to bet there are several a.netters who could.



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23148 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5848 times:

Quoting DIA (Reply 10):
Now just follow the paper trail. I couldn't seem to find the airline that it is currently with...but I'm willing to bet there are several a.netters who could.

That bird is still flying for Embraer. It's in the current house colors.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fabio Laranjeira - Contato Radar




I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11752 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5792 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Thread starter):
Is there a viable, long-term market for 30 to 40 seat jets?

Most likely not. There's probably not even a long-term market for 50-seat jets in most instances. The economics of RJs have just gone into the tank with the spike in fuel prices. The planes already had horrific economics to begin with, but it was more bearable with $30/barrel oil. Now, at $70/barrel, the money just isn't there. Originally, when the RJs were first gaining popularity in the 1990s, airlines were willing to overlook their dramatically higher unit operating costs versus regionals because of the anticipated increasing unit revenues because passengers would book away from props and towards airlines offering RJs.

Unfortunately, however, the novetly soon wore off, especially as regionals in the U.S. like Eagle, Continental Express, ASA, SkyWest, etc., piled on tons of RJs in the late 1990s, and stuffed them into many markets that already had mainline flights. Not to mention that, especially following 9/11, competition was so great that price once again became the main factor -- the benefit of flying an RJ became meaningless as everyone had them and fares were plummeting.

This was particularly detrimental to the 37-seat EMB-135 because these planes were spreading relatively similar operating costs to its larger 44-seat and 50-seat cousins over a 37-seat configuration.

So, long story short, the 37-seat EMB-135s just don't really have to much of a future long-term because they have incredibly high costs and a tiny capacity to cover it with.

Quoting Cubsrule (Thread starter):
Or alternatively, is the 135 just another niche product for those that operate lots of 140s and 145s?

Indeed. The plane was designed as a replacement as the SAAB 340 and Bombardier Q200, with 34 and 37 seats respectively. The problem, of coures, with this market niche is that both the SAAB 340B and Q200 have much, much lower unit costs than the EMB135 and with the upgrades Bombardier has made to its Q200, also have similar performance characteristics in markets under 500 miles, which constitues many, if not most, of the markets that the under-40-seat aircraft category serves.

Quoting Cubsrule (Thread starter):
Should Bombardier have developed a CRJ shrink?

They did shrink the 50-seat CRJ to a 44-seat CRJ to match Embraer's EMB140 and get around U.S. majors' mainline pilot scope clauses. If you're talking about a 37-seat shrink, the answer is definitely no. There wasn't much of a market for it then, and there certainly isn't now.

Quoting Cubsrule (Thread starter):
Would an airline like DL have bought?

Maybe, but they certainly would be stupid to buy now.


User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5779 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 12):
There's probably not even a long-term market for 50-seat jets in most instances.

So what exactly are the future of RJs? If 50 seat RJs go by the wayside, what comes in to replace them? Larger 75-99 seat units? Does CASM get good enough at $60/bbl for larger RJs?


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5762 times:

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 6):
Most of the above variations were created to work around scope clauses...

This is the main reason for the E135 at all. To say it was successful for any other reason is missing out on the reality of the situation.

Some airlines had scope clauses to get under before they were modified, others had a limit on the number of 50 seat jets they could fly, others had to average a certain number with their fleet.

But all the follow-on orders for the ERJ were of the 145 varieties because the other two just aren't economically sound.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11752 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (7 years 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5660 times:

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 13):
So what exactly are the future of RJs?

. Roswell
. Victorville
. Tucson
. Las Vegas

... exaggerating. There will be a market for a 50-seat jet on long/thin routes that can support yield premiums even with rising fuel-driven unit costs, but those markets are few and shrinking.

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 13):
If 50 seat RJs go by the wayside, what comes in to replace them?

At the lower end of the capacity/range spectrum, probably highly-advanced, jet-like, next-gen props like the Bombardier Q series. At the high end, probably 2-class 70-90 seat jets.


User currently offlineAkizidy214 From Jamaica, joined Sep 2006, 408 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 12 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5525 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 12):
The plane was designed as a replacement as the SAAB 340 and Bombardier Q200, with 34 and 37 seats respectively.

 checkmark  AMR originally order these planes to replace the SF340. And even retired the SAABS, but quickly learned that flying them on routes like DFW-ACT, DFW-GGG, DFW-TYR they were not profitable. Now a majority of them fly on the east coast.



DCA
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26605 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (7 years 12 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5487 times:

Quoting Garri767 (Reply 1):
not to be off topic, but wasnt the E-120 the shrink of the ERJ series?

No. In fact, the ERJ family's fuselage is a stretched version of the Brasilia's.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 4):
I agree. That's why I wonder if the 34-37 seat market is any different.

It is even worse

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 13):
Larger 75-99 seat units? Does CASM get good enough at $60/bbl for larger RJs?

75-99 seat aircraft were historically mainline. Remember the DC9-10?

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 13):
If 50 seat RJs go by the wayside, what comes in to replace them?

Hopefully, a return to props



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBA787 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 2596 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (7 years 12 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5478 times:

Quoting Garri767 (Reply 1):

I thinK the ERJ's are based on the E-120 lightly


User currently offlineHawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3195 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (7 years 12 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5456 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 12):
They did shrink the 50-seat CRJ to a 44-seat CRJ to match Embraer's EMB140 and get around U.S. majors' mainline pilot scope clauses.

Actually, the CRJ-440 isn't a shrink at all. It's a CRJ-200 with a reduced MTOW and certified to only 44 seats. As I recall, by paying money to Bombardier it's possible to get the plane re-certified to 50 seats.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23148 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (7 years 12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5393 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 12):
Maybe, but they certainly would be stupid to buy now.

Agreed that it's stupid, but I wonder if DL would have. They were one of the biggest RJ cheerleaders in the early days. Just a fun thought exercise.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (7 years 12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4788 times:

Quoting BA787 (Reply 18):
I thinK the ERJ's are based on the E-120 lightly

Many of the structural parts on the ERJ carry EMB-120 part numbers.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4703 posts, RR: 50
Reply 22, posted (7 years 12 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4530 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 15):
At the lower end of the capacity/range spectrum, probably highly-advanced, jet-like, next-gen props like the Bombardier Q series.

Wich is why ATR is doing pretty good at the moment after a long time of few orders.



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4379 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 12):



Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
Hopefully, a return to props

In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, it was mentioned how the airlines were eager to dump their turboprops in the 1990's, only now to have a strong demand for them again as the price of oil shot up.

Quoting BA787 (Reply 18):
I thinK the ERJ's are based on the E-120 lightly

Very true, the original design of the ERJ-145 (It was the first of the E-Jets), was to be an EMB-120-based design with wing-mounted turbofans, as Embraer was trying to achieve an 75% commonality between the two. But that soon changed, and by the time the design froze in 1991, the ERJ-145 incorporated a new tail, supercritical wing, and a stretch among others. However, there still is a commonality between the ERJ-145 and EMB-120, I'm just not sure of the actual percentage at this moment.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 5):
The EMB-145 came first. They then cut up a production E145 and made the first EMB-135. That aircraft was later re-plugged and is now flying as an EMB-145 for a US carrier.

Two prototype 145s had this done to be exact. But it is interesting, how basic the -135 is, in that it is a -145 with plugs removed to reduce its size, and nothing else (engines are supposedly the same).


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (7 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4271 times:

Quoting OptionsCLE (Reply 9):
Very interesting! I don't suppose you could divulge the carrier or perhaps the registration?

S/N:145.002 as the EMB-135 Demo...
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brian Hill

Later replugged and as the EMB-145...
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel J. Evans




"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
25 Penguinflies : yes, test aircraft c/n 145002, and 145003 leased to Trans States Airlines as 849HK and 850HK in New United Colors
26 Someone83 : Would that ob ebe looking like a wing with a T-tail?
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...
Some Questions About The ERJ-135 And Chautauqua posted Mon Apr 25 2005 06:31:47 by IslipWN
Meals/Inflight Service On The ERJ-135 posted Sat Feb 21 2004 02:39:59 by KLM11
London City has been certified for the ERJ-135 posted Wed Nov 19 2003 17:59:03 by CALMSP
Fatal Flaw With The ERJ-145/135 posted Sun Jan 7 2001 19:21:02 by Aer Lingus
Would The ERJ 145 Have Made It? posted Fri Sep 1 2006 19:27:18 by 71Zulu
Underseat Baggage Space On The ERJ? posted Sun Feb 26 2006 15:18:42 by Frontiercpt
Midwest And The ERJ Order posted Mon Dec 12 2005 16:27:45 by BAW2198
CO ERJ-135 Registrations posted Wed Nov 16 2005 02:30:49 by JBLUA320
ERJ-135 Vs. DASH-Q300 Vs. ATR-42-500 posted Thu Oct 20 2005 06:20:44 by MD90fan
ERJ-135 Out Of LCY Range Limited? posted Wed Apr 27 2005 16:38:44 by Konrad