Quote: But at this point, I could not say that there is any specific technology that has a clear advantage over the other. GE has been a very good partner on the E-Jets and the other engine manufacturers seem to have very interesting propositions as well.
Aren't they contractually obligated to stay with GE? Does GE have any serious upgrades available for the CF-34?
NASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1286 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3557 times:
Quoting sasd209 (Reply 1): are there reliability issues with the current engines or are they not efficient?
As far as I can tell, they seem to get the job done pretty well, with minimal expense (per their missions). As far as the E-jets go, it appears that their reliability issues go further than their engines. Perhaps Embraer should have a serious pow-wow with the software engineers for the E-jets.
Consolidating the (very) strong position the E-190 has around 100 seats would be key. Little competition left here for Embraer. Expand the family upwards, putting pressure on the CS100 with a leaner alternative.
Then we have the GTF powered MRJ, recently scaled up by MHI, I doubt how much direct competition it can offer in the next 5-8 yrs. MHI does not have a global after sales support infrastructure and that's crusial.
MoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2752 times:
I think a re-engined, stretched, enhanced, 19X+ would do very well. A 140 all economy - 132'ish 1st class / economy cabin along with ranges from 1500 nm to 2500 nm depending on which model (Ie.... standard vs. ER vs. AR) . E-jets would be a great solution for a carrier that could have a nice sweet spot of 80 to 130 passengers.
The only question is cost. If this update, stretch "only" costs a few hundred million that may be the best answer. If it costs $1 billion +, would it make more sense to just develop a 2nd airframe family based on 5 abreast and the lucrative 125 to 175 seat category.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2689 times:
Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 8): The only question is cost. If this update, stretch "only" costs a few hundred million that may be the best answer. If it costs $1 billion +, would it make more sense to just develop a 2nd airframe family based on 5 abreast and the lucrative 125 to 175 seat category.
That's the major trade-off I guess. An entirely new competitive models would at least costs $5 Billion. In addition margins would be depressed by competing CSeries, Superjet, ARJs CRJ's, A320, 737, MS21, C919...
Maybe it's better to be king of a smaller 90-130 seat hill then fight an uphill battle with the rest of the world.. Mauro Kern mentions consolidation of it's current lucrative market position is very important.
Dash9 From Canada, joined Nov 2008, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2670 times:
Quoting VgnAtl747 (Reply 7): I believe the discussion here was specific to E135/145s... I doubt the 19x would be due for re-engining yet.
I think the opposite. The ERJ series will most probably never sell again. Embraer is definitely studying the re-enginning of the E-jets because the CF-34 engines are an 'old' design of the late 80's can can't compete against the GTF powered MRJ and Cseries
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2599 times:
Quoting Dash9 (Reply 10): Embraer is definitely studying the re-enginning of the E-jets because the CF-34 engines are an 'old' design of the late 80's can can't compete against the GTF powered MRJ and Cseries
Not really with the CF34-10E. While they share design with existing engines, they were developed for the E-190/195, and there was nothing else available from GE in that thrust range for the E-Jets. Even the CF34-8C on the E-170/175 and CRJ700/900/1000 is a newer design than the original CF34-3B on the CRJ100/200s.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.