Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Embraer- What's Next?  
User currently offlinePavlovsDog From Norway, joined Sep 2005, 658 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3387 times:

I was wondering if anyone knows what Embraer is up to?

Do they have any new aircraft in development? I can't find anything. Is their engineering staff just sitting around? I assume not.

What do you think the are doing/should be doing?

Some ideas:

I can't see them doing anything to replace/update the 135-145 market. That seems to be saturated.

I really don't see them entering the mainline 737/320 market. I imagine they could make a great plane but would they have any competitive advantage? Perhaps a 5 abreat C-series like 120-150 seater?

The turboprop market seems most likely to me. Specifically the 60-120 seat market. They already have a great fuselage from the E-Jets. Maybe develop a family with a 60 and 80 seater sharing the same wing and powerplant and a 100 and 120 seater with a second wing and powerplant. The fuel savings from turboprop aircraft could give them a very lucrative market. Having a top modern aircraft competing at the lower end with older models from Bombardier and ATR and being alone with the larger aircraft would give them a strong competitive advantage.

Embraer would then have a full family of regional's and be even more attractive to airlines.

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3397 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3378 times:

A 500 seat double decker VLA?

No seriously, if they could get a toe-hold in the meat of the A320/737 market there's plenty of sales to support 3 manufacturers but the initial cost of entry would be high. Maybe they could buy Bombardier's plans for the C-series?


User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1671 posts, RR: 49
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3358 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
No seriously, if they could get a toe-hold in the meat of the A320/737 market there's plenty of sales to support 3 manufacturers but the initial cost of entry would be high.

I agree with both parts of the statement.

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
Maybe they could buy Bombardier's plans for the C-series?

Why? The design overlaps the E190 and E195, EMBRAER has more than enough expertise to design the aircraft (and it would be a design that matches its industrial capacity), EMBRAER has no incentive to front BBD a huge wad of cash. This idea makes no sense.

Quoting PavlovsDog (Thread starter):
I can't find anything. Is their engineering staff just sitting around?

Look here.


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3397 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3342 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 2):
Why? The design overlaps the E190 and E195, EMBRAER has more than enough expertise to design the aircraft (and it would be a design that matches its industrial capacity), EMBRAER has no incentive to front BBD a huge wad of cash. This idea makes no sense.

My mistake - I've just Wiki'd the C-series for some reason I thought it was a 150 seat 737 challenger but I was talking nonsense!


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6280 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3304 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 3):
My mistake - I've just Wiki'd the C-series for some reason I thought it was a 150 seat 737 challenger but I was talking nonsense!

Not a total mistake... the CSeries would challenge the 736 and the 73G.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinePavlovsDog From Norway, joined Sep 2005, 658 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 2):
Look here.

So you're telling me all of Embraer's engineering and development resources are tied up in basically derivatives? I guess I don't know much about the Phenom. How closely related is that jet to existing family members? It looks very similar, albeit smaller,than the EMB-120 and ERJ-135.

[Edited 2007-01-09 16:34:33]

User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3100 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
No seriously, if they could get a toe-hold in the meat of the A320/737 market there's plenty of sales to support 3 manufacturers but the initial cost of entry would be high.

I agree with both parts of the statement.

 checkmark 
If we look at what Embraer and Bombardier are selling these days, it is jets above 70 seats. In fact they are selling very few 70 seat jets. Embraer is getting more and more orders for its 190/195 models than the 170/175 products.

The need of smaller RJ's in the 50-70 seat range was justified back in the 90's when legacy carriers were rolling in fat ticket prices and fat around their waists, so they put a great deal of capacity to their regional operations. They have now restructured and therefore a unit cost of a 70 seat RJ under a regional carrier in today's reality would be the same as putting a 100 seat jet under the mainline structure. This could not have been achieved in the 90's. They have narrowed the cost structure gap between their regional affiliates and mainline operations. This is why we are seeing legacy carriers and LCCs buying the E190 and more and more are placing them within their mainline operations.

Now as these legacy carriers complete their restructuring, they will need more and more narrowbody jets both as replacement as well as expansion needs. I have said this many times before that Embraer stands to gain if they were to launch a 125-155 seat all new jet family by capitalizing on this trend early. Boeing and Airbus narrowbody replacements seem like they will be optimized at 160-200 seat range unless they come up with a smaller model for the 100-150 seat range.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2208 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3011 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Will they try to tweek more range out of their E195?

On their website for the E195, the stats say that the E195 can only carry 70(!) pax if it is to reach its max range of 3,800 km. That means flying with 40-48 empty seats... that can't be too economical?

The E190, however, is listed as capable of flying 4,200 km with 98 pax, which is almost a full cabin.



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1021 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2993 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
A 500 seat double decker VLA?

Why not?


User currently offlineSkyexRamper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2988 times:

Like many said, Embraer will most likely focus on getting the VLJs up and running while still improving their excellent airline jets and modding more into bizjets.

User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3148 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2955 times:

I really like the idea of developing large advanced turboprops. That's a market to be realized, I think, as fuel prices climb (in fits and starts).

I also agree that the 737/A32x size market offers room for a competitor. We're talking many thousands of airframes here. Labor markets and expertise combined make EMBRAER a good candidate. They stand a better chance than Russian developments presently, and if they get something going soon, would have a jump on anything China's industry might develop (or might they team up?)

-Rampart


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3397 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2922 times:

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 8):
Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
A 500 seat double decker VLA?

Why not?

I think the cost and issues that Airbus are facing with the A380 will scare everyone else off for the next 50 years!


User currently offlineLawgman From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2814 times:

Quoting PavlovsDog (Thread starter):
The turboprop market seems most likely to me. Specifically the 60-120 seat market. They already have a great fuselage from the E-Jets. Maybe develop a family with a 60 and 80 seater sharing the same wing and powerplant and a 100 and 120 seater with a second wing and powerplant. The fuel savings from turboprop aircraft could give them a very lucrative market. Having a top modern aircraft competing at the lower end with older models from Bombardier and ATR and being alone with the larger aircraft would give them a strong competitive advantage.



Quoting Rampart (Reply 10):
I really like the idea of developing large advanced turboprops. That's a market to be realized, I think, as fuel prices climb (in fits and starts).

But, the question is whether the E-Jet platform is the right one for a turboprop market. Wouldn't a 60 to 80 seats turboprop using the E-Jet platform be a little heavy to compete with the Dash-8? It may be more comfortable but at what cost?

I presume the E-Jet can be stretched one or two more times to hit the 120-125 pax market. This will probably be something they do if BBD decides to officially launch the c-series.


User currently offlineRainmaker From Brazil, joined Jan 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2773 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
No seriously, if they could get a toe-hold in the meat of the A320/737 market there's plenty of sales to support 3 manufacturers but the initial cost of entry would be high. Maybe they could buy Bombardier's plans for the C-series?

I wonder there would be two lines of action here:

1) a bottom up strategy stemming from VLJ (already in course) to light - midsize business jets (new business platform to be launched in 2007 as per Embraer´s VP & CEO) then a composite upgrade to the E145 by 2010 and so on to the E-jets upgrade.

2) a - for lack of a better word - morphing strategy by opportunistically take advantage of Airbus´ cashflow & engineering tightness to seal a partnership to develop the A320 - New Generation or even parts of the A350. The Power 8 program could very well involve contracting out engineering resources from a low cost country (i.e. Brazil). The question is whether Embraer would tradeoff project independence to gain a foothold on the very large aircraft market. i would think so since the potential future benefits are simply enormous.

Cheers


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9238 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2769 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 11):
Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 8):
Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
A 500 seat double decker VLA?

Why not?

I think the cost and issues that Airbus are facing with the A380 will scare everyone else off for the next 50 years!

Eventhough I think that the first statement was one of comical sarcasm, I agree with the second statement entirely! The 747 may no longer be the largest bird in the air, but it will reign as the over-all king of jumbo jets for decades to come!

As far as Embraer tapping into the 100-150 seat market, I think they should, too! I think they could have a considerable footing in that market when competing against the A320 and 737NG from Airbus and Boeing respectively. I think that as far as RJs are concerned, they have the most economically efficient RJs in the air now with the E70 and E75. They are the smallest planes able to make money for US (and probably for anyone). Source: US employee, 26 December 2006. The E90s are ideal IMO for expansion and for the short to medium haul flights that can only fill 85-100 seats, especially with fairly low costs. I would like to see what they can do with a 120-150 seat aircraft. I just think it would be interesting. I doubt that US would be in a hurry to jump on given their liking towards the A319/320s and even the 321. Still, I am sure other airlines might show some interest...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineRainmaker From Brazil, joined Jan 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2748 times:

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 14):
I would like to see what they can do with a 120-150 seat aircraft. I just think it would be interesting.

Right now no matter how good a new Embraer design could be there is no reason why a 120/150 Embraer aircraft could succeed without a new powerplant, e.g. Bombardier´s C-series.


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2742 times:

Quoting Lawgman (Reply 12):
I presume the E-Jet can be stretched one or two more times to hit the 120-125 pax market. This will probably be something they do if BBD decides to officially launch the c-series.

I don't see Embraer letting themselves falling into the same trap as Bombardier by stretching the hell out of a plane. By the way do you know that a 118 seat E195 is 15 feet 8 inches longer than a 126 seat B737-700NG (that is nearly 5 meters)?

Anyway, the equity markets have recently caught on that the only real products Embraer have in its future is the 190/195 sales and the Phenom sales. What was thought to be the growth segment back a few years ago: the 50 - 70 seat market, has now shifted to above 90 seats. That is going all the way up to 200 seats. Why not take a cut at that?



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlinePavlovsDog From Norway, joined Sep 2005, 658 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2714 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 16):
That is going all the way up to 200 seats. Why not take a cut at that?

How about a 757 replacement? That would allow them to develop a 6 abreast fuselage which could later be used in a 737/A320 challenger when the powerplants are ready. The engines used for the 787/350 could be more easily downsized for a 757 type of plane with fewer cycles and longer range. I imagine a small two size family with aircraft sized 190 and 230 seats and range of 10,000 km could be very sucessful. Boeing and Airbus are busy and maxed out with their own projects so they wouldn't meet any immediate challengers and by the time the engines are ready for the 737RS and 320NG they will already have a competitive airframe.


User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2710 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 6):
I have said this many times before that Embraer stands to gain if they were to launch a 125-155 seat all new jet family by capitalizing on this trend early.

Last year I reported on a news report here in Brazil over a potential 200 series aircraft, and to me it seems the way to go, with a 125-160 seat aircraft. At that time the reported forcast for aircraft in and around the 150-200 seat market for the next 20 years is about 15,000 units. Even a 10% stake of that is well worth the development risks.

RE: Embraer Studying 200 Series Aircraft (by Rainmaker Oct 8 2006 in Civil Aviation)?searchid=3030830&s=embraer+200+series#ID3030830

Quoting Rainmaker (Reply 13):
for lack of a better word - morphing strategy by opportunistically take advantage of Airbus´ cashflow & engineering tightness to seal a partnership to develop the A320

Also mentioned last year was a hint that some type of technology exchange was being nurtured between Airbus and EMB, but it was stated that EMB wanted more than just a design alliance, they aslo wanted a production alliance.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2679 times:

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 5):
So you're telling me all of Embraer's engineering and development resources are tied up in basically derivatives? I guess I don't know much about the Phenom. How closely related is that jet to existing family members? It looks very similar, albeit smaller,than the EMB-120 and ERJ-135.

The Phenoms may look similar, but they are not derivatives. They don't really look all that similar to the ERJ-145 - some, but not that much. You can tell that Embraer worked on the aerodynamics of the fuselage. Also, the Phenoms are slightly wider in the bottom part of the fuselage (compared to the original design, more curved following the fuselage) to improve foot room for the pax.

Structurally, I've seen drawings that includes composite parts. Not all composite, but I think Embraer chose to put them where they would be beneficial for a small aircraft without driving the price up too much.

The Legacy 600 and Lineage 1000s are indeed derivatives, but there are many L600s already flying.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 16):
I don't see Embraer letting themselves falling into the same trap as Bombardier by stretching the hell out of a plane. By the way do you know that a 118 seat E195 is 15 feet 8 inches longer than a 126 seat B737-700NG (that is nearly 5 meters)?

Instead of stretching, making it one row wider will add 25% capacity. That's ~122 pax for the E190 and ~138 pax for the E195. And that means they can stretch the aircraft a little further as well, requiring only a four row stretch to add another 20 seats (~160 seats).

Then maybe they can do a 3-3 going from 170/180 seats up to 220 230?

Of course this all would mean new wings, engines, and probably more composites.

[Edited 2007-01-09 22:17:31]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2629 times:

Quoting Rainmaker (Reply 15):
Right now no matter how good a new Embraer design could be there is no reason why a 120/150 Embraer aircraft could succeed without a new powerplant, e.g. Bombardier´s C-series.

This stuff about the powerplant not being ready is more Boeing talk than true engine suppliers talk. Boeing needs to milk the 737NG as much as possible and the last thing they want is to be pressured coming up with a 737 replacement as they need to meet shareholder expectations (earnings, free cash flow, and dividends), develop the 787-3-8-9 and develop the 747-8.

Since when was an engine ready before a new aircraft program? Think of CF34-10 for E190/195 this was a whole redesign from the CF34-3, think of GenX for 787 AND 747-8, and the list goes back to the A380 GP7200, or go back even further in time (L1011, 747-100, etc.). If Boeing or Embraer today wanted an engine for a 737 replacement or E200 with a target of 20% less burn, they would have that in about 4-5 years. Think of the 767 to 787. The technology to convert the GE-CF8's (767) to GENx (787) is doing just that. The CF8 and GE90 are as old as the CFM56 mounted the 737NGs. So getting 20% savings on fuel burn from a CFM56 can be attained using the same design changes as going from the CF8s the GenX. PW is also confident with its GTF.

The point is that Boeing is TRYING HARD pulling the strings on when this new class of 25,000-40,0000 LBS. class engine is to hit the market. They want it to hit the market when they say so: in about 7 or 8 years from now. But it can be here in half that time.

If Embraer and Bombardier both wanted to enter the 120-150 seat markets, then GE or PW or CFM or IAE may give in do Boeing's arm twisting and launch the engine as the chances of success with two manufacturers against A & B are greater. Perhaps that is the best thing Bombardier can hope for to launch the C Series  eyepopping 



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineRainmaker From Brazil, joined Jan 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2446 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 20):
This stuff about the powerplant not being ready is more Boeing talk than true engine suppliers talk.

No it is not. There are two incumbent large a/c manufacturers right now. They are both afaik planning on redesigning a new 100-200 pax a/c for EIS @ 2014/2015. The two engine alliances currently supplying this market are naturally afraid of losing business on these replacement a/c. Thus the risk of pouring a vast amount of money into a new engine aimed at an entrant company that might not gain a 10% marketshare of this huge market AND lose either airbus´or boeing´s business may be too high. Boeing´s threat is indeed credible.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 20):
If Embraer and Bombardier both wanted to enter the 120-150 seat markets

You mean both Embraer and Bombardier joined together on a single project or both crowding into a market that may now support one single new a/c? Either option would be very surprising.


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...
Air Wisconsin - What's Next posted Mon Aug 14 2006 02:54:38 by ATWZW170
737: What's Next? posted Tue Jul 18 2006 15:16:09 by ContinentalGuy
What's Next For MKE? posted Mon Jul 10 2006 18:35:35 by YX717fan
European Aviation/Ozjet: What Next? posted Tue Jun 20 2006 20:39:24 by DHHornet
After The 717.......What's Next? posted Thu May 25 2006 21:11:16 by RJ777
What's Next For Gulfstream And Co? posted Fri May 5 2006 20:06:07 by Lredlefsen
After The Pilot Agreement - What's Next For DL posted Tue Apr 11 2006 21:33:15 by WorldTraveler
BA Exec Ticketsfor2 - What's Next? posted Mon Feb 20 2006 11:13:52 by ANother
After Jet Blue, What's Next For Bermuda? posted Fri Feb 3 2006 19:01:56 by Columbia107
What's Next For FRA? posted Fri Dec 30 2005 19:33:09 by EWROwznj00