Embraer anticipates making a decision on designing a clean-sheet aircraft for the 130-seat segment once Boeing finalises its plans for replacing current single-aisle models.
Boeing's ultimate decision will directly influence Embraer's strategy in the 130-seat market, says Curado. "We are waiting to understand where Boeing is going", before taking a decision to engage in the development of a five-abreast aircraft, he explains.
Tangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 862 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13637 times:
Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter): Embraer is looking to go with a 5-abreast frame to enter the 130 seat category market.
I think that they are well on their way with plans for an all new design to move in the larger seat category. The 70-100 seat RJ market has matured and Embraer needs an all new cash cow for its commercial program. They will unveil the concept starting with a 130 and 150 seat family in Paris and probably launch it later in the year with a few signed up customers. With a 5 year development program their 130 seater can hit the market 1 year after the CS300.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13409 times:
The proposed EMB 5-abreast 130 seater with a 6" narrower fuselage relative to CS300 and a 105 foot wingspan would yield a weight saving of nearly 8,000 lbs. in OEW over CS300(nearly 10%), and still have a design range of nearly 2,500nm, which I think should appeal to most operators.
A 5 row stretch of the base model(150 seats) would still weigh less than CS300 with a design range of nearly 2,200nm, and a 17% lower seat fuel burn .
VC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2431 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 12793 times:
I still think we may see a Boeing and Embraer partnership. Embraer's reputation for flying Mack truck (but graceful) ac. When I say Mack Truck I mean high utilization/fast turn ability as Phenom has shown. I would love to see an EMB sketch.
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
LoveJT8D From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 54 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11557 times:
I hope to see another T-tail in the 130 + seat market. (Minus the RJ's) they are becoming more and more less with the retirement of the MD's and DC's. I think it's a sharp design and would be excited to see an updated concept of this style. Maybe Embraer will spice things up from the usual wing mounted engines.
davs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 357 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 9907 times:
Quoting RG787 (Reply 4): Is it just me or this is gonna be a hell of a long bird?
No, it shouldn't be too long at all. The longer 150 seat variant will only have 30 Y rows. IMO, a capacity of 130-150 is really the "sweet spot" for a 5 abreast frame. It would be slightly shorter than a maddog.
Trucker From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 178 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7675 times:
In the past there hasn't been room for 4 manufacturers in this size range. You're now going to have the 7NG, 319, CS300, and this new Embraer. Is it really possible for all 4 to be successful at the same time?
Tangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 862 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7489 times:
Quoting bestwestern (Reply 9): Is there really a need for a trans-con 130 seater? I know that could open up more hub-spoke routes, but have these ever made money?
I agree with you. Look at Europe, do you need 3000 nm range? In the US, that buys you East-West Coast. But that could be better served with a 150 seat and above. In my opinion 2500 nm range, and 2800 nm ER variant is all that is needed for an aircraft with that seating capacity to keep the weight as low as possible.
Quoting panais (Reply 10): Would it make sense for Embraer to use the same or very similar flight deck already with the E-Jets so that they can have at least pilot commonality across two platforms?
Quoting panais (Reply 10): Would it also make sense for them to use the PW1000 across the two platforms starting with an E-Jets NEO project?
Quoting Trucker (Reply 12): In the past there hasn't been room for 4 manufacturers in this size range. You're now going to have the 7NG, 319, CS300, and this new Embraer. Is it really possible for all 4 to be successful at the same time?
If Embraer will launch an all new design 130 to 150 seats, with GTF engine, cockpit commonality with the E-Jets, and eventually re-engine the E-Jets, they will have a very compelling family offering to airlines in the future with a seamless 70 to 150 seat family concept. The E-Jets will remain with regionals, and the larger with mainline while a brief retraining for pilots between the two types. This will all make it less worthwhile for the marginal designs (B737-600/700, A318/A319 ) to still be offered. This is why it is more in the interests of Airbus to partner up with Embraer thhan vice versa. As for Boeing, I don't think they will stay in the sub 150 seat category.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5574 times:
Quoting bestwestern (Reply 9): The 130 seater will alienate all the LCCs, unless they could get a high density 150 config approved.
Perhaps Embraer should offer the smallest variant with 135 seats @32" seat pitch, and a high density layout with 150 seats@29" pitch--a pitch used by many LCCs around the world. It would turn out to be a strong competitor against A319NEO(134 seat 1 class) for sub 1,500nm routes. A light 5-abreast Embraer airframe will have around 15% lower seat fuel burn number than A319NEO.
If memory serves me right, sub 1,500nm missions are nearly 75% of missions flown by existing sub 150 seat NBs.
Agree on the 3000nm front. With fuel prices on the constant rise, CASM for US transcon missions can only likely be covered by revenue generated w/ +150 seats, at historical yields.
Flying 130 seat jets on US transcons, in any real large scale fashion, is just a very small operation. Operating an efficient 130 seater (85% fuel burn of current state aircraft of similar size) on a 6hr mission is still probably going to cost at least 20k in DOC $, which likely puts margins very tight.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5402 times:
Quoting mercure1 (Reply 20): Based on some simple extrapolations, here are estimates for OEW:
EMB170 = 21.8t (known)
EMB190 = 28.9t (known)
ERJ130 = 36.5t (guess)
ERJ150 = 41.0t (guess)
Compared to A319/NEO (41t/42.6t~guess), A320/NEO (43t/44.2t~guess).
Giving the 150 seat E-jet variant about 7% wt advantage vs. an A320NEO.
Here's some numbers from my thread comparing CS300 to B73G: CS300 Versus B737-700 Updated Analysis (by LAXDESI Apr 1 2009 in Tech Ops)
OEW ....78,200.... 83,000
MTOW 139,100.. 154,500
MZFW. 115,700.. 128,900
MSP .....37,500 ....38,700 (Max. Structural Payload)
Range ....2,950 ......3,000 (Max. Design Range in nm at 225 lb./passenger)
Seats ......135 ........140 (Single Class) CS at 31" pitch w/ wider seats/aisle. B at 32" pitch.
I would expect a 135 seat light 5-abreast EMB(with 105 foot wingspan and 6" smaller fuselage width) to weigh less than the OEW estimate of 35.5t for CS300. My estimate for such an aircraft is around 75,000 lbs(34t).
morrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 200 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5285 times:
If I were EMB I would wait to see which way Boeing goes and do exactly the opposite. Why Go 5 rows when the 6 row market is so much larger, and there 2x2 product will already do 2200nm with up to 122 pax. If you need a little more stretch it a little bit and sling new engines under it.
If Boeing goes 2x2x2 or 2x3x2 go super-efficient 3x3 from 130-180 seats or if Boeing abandons the light twin concept it's an excellent market for EMB to go after. Do a 2x2x2 Double bubble and create a new market 160-220 passengers with transcon/transatl range.
If you have to, team up with BBD and have the C-Series to cover 110-150, adapt C-Series Controls/systems for the 2x2x2 and create a real competitive line-up to Boeing and Airbus.
You may not sell 5,000 of them but I bet you would sell a lot more than a 5 row 130-150 seater and if you team up with BBD that range is covered. No need to create another competitor in that size.
The market would be large enough that you could have final assembly in both Brazil and Canada.
If Boeing goes light twin, then just build a 3x3 by yourself without BBD, development costs cannot be materially different than a 5 row as both will be from scratch.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5234 times:
Quoting morrisond (Reply 23): If Boeing goes 2x2x2 or 2x3x2 go super-efficient 3x3 from 130-180 seats or if Boeing abandons the light twin concept it's an excellent market for EMB to go after. Do a 2x2x2 Double bubble and create a new market 160-220 passengers with transcon/transatl range.
I still think a 3x3 is a proven platform with hard to beat economics for 160-200 seat NB market.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 23): If Boeing goes light twin, then just build a 3x3 by yourself without BBD, development costs cannot be materially different than a 5 row as both will be from scratch.
I would agree that the incremental development cost of a 6 abreast platform can not be that much higher than a 5 abreast platform, and it would open up a much larger market. I still would like to see EMB go with a lighter 6 abreast airframe optimised for sub 2,500nm range with 10-15% better seat fuel burn.
25 RG787: Thanks, I got the point. Just thought for a moment that the MD's were 6 abreast so a 130 sets aircraft at 5 abreast would be longer.
26 mercure1: Rumors of OEW on the CS300 was around 80,500lbs w/ MTOW 144,000lbs. FYI, most 737-700W OEWs for in service aircraft are around 86-88k.