Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 24550 posts, RR: 22 Posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7180 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
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6290 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7090 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.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 9101 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7069 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.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 24550 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7002 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
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.
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.
Akizidy214 From Jamaica, joined Sep 2006, 408 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6437 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.
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.
Hawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3241 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6368 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.
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).