Quote:
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.
"Asked to provide his market place assessment in light of the A320neo Curado states: "For me it is really a continuation of the A320 heritage. It is a very successful programme."
That sounds like Embraer is looking to Airbus for a partnership.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10732 times:
Quoting erj170 (Reply 7): Only 2500 and 2200 nm range? If I was an airline, I would be pushing for 3500 and 3200. Something at least transcon worthy.
A quick clarification: Embraer is not suggesting the above range. In reply#2 of this thread, I was estimating some numbers based on a light 5-abreast airframe.
Embraer may go with a larger wing to achieve the longer range that you are suggesting, but many operators don't need the range and would prefer a lighter airframe with lower fuel burn.
panais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 381 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10182 times:
Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter): It would make sense for Embraer to design the aircraft with 130 seat as the smallest variant and a stretch at 150 seats.
I think that you are absolutely right.
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?
Would it also make sense for them to use the PW1000 across the two platforms starting with an E-Jets NEO project?
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?
Yes
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?
Yes
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.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9143 posts, RR: 96 Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5997 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?
That's a good question.
Of course, you're already going to have one with a vengeance when the A319NEO comes along, with a nominal range of at least 3 500Nm - 3 600Nm....
Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 13): 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.
Of course it may well end up being the heaviest 130 seater around..
thegman From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 606 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5664 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?
There is already a big player on the market, A319.
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.
mercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 605 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5561 times:
Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 13): 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.
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.
mercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 605 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5496 times:
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 18): A light 5-abreast Embraer airframe will have around 15% lower seat fuel burn number than A319NEO.
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.
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)
.........CS300ER... B737-700
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.
28 mercure1: ah ok, might have been #s for the CS300ER, which might be heavier/higher?
29 bjorn14: As previously mentioned there is the A319 but if you can bring in a improved/comparable a/c at a better price why not? a 130/150 would be a great add
30 LAXDESI: The number quoted from the BBD site is for CS300ER. The non-ER version is lighter than 139,600 lbs.
31 morrisond: Yes but think of your potential competition if Boeing builds a new 3x3. Build something different and create a new market.
32 LAXDESI: Not an issue if the 3x3 797 can deliver 20% lower fuel burn and much reduced maintenance costs over the current A&B NBs. A3xxNEO would negate mos
33 davs5032: I don't think a new "market" can just be created by simply doing 2x3x2 vs. 3x3. Markets are based on how many seats airlines can fit in a frame and w
34 328JET: I really hope Boeing is not going the CFRP way for shorthaul/mediumhaul aircrafts. Ramp rash is an issue for all CFRP aircrafts. But more turnarounds
35 PPVRA: What if one takes the Airbus approach to it, and build it with CFRP panels. Then, on the ramp rash prone areas, use Al-Li panels instead? Would it be
37 alangirvan: Airbus will launch the three different sizes as three different projects, and the Embraer 130 seater makes the A319 NEO seem like a very heavy aircra
38 JoeCanuck: Composites are very robust...more so than metal. They can withstand impacts which would permanently deform metal. Both Boeing and Airbus have shown th
39 OyKIE: I wonder what Embraer thinks of the Brazilian state partnering with NG Aircraft on the Fokker 100NG. This airplane will be a direct competitor to Embr
40 JoeCanuck: An NG with a common cockpit with the E-Jets maybe?
41 max550: Definitely, I just couldn't think of any 5-abreast aircraft with wing mounted engines. Maybe one of the larger BAe RJ's? I can't remember how many th
42 astuteman: That's possible. If you look at the A319NEO compared to, say the CS300, they're both similar size, but the CS300 is a 63t MTOW aircraft and the A319N
43 328JET: Lufthansa seems to disagree with you. They see the ramp rash problem for CFRP airplanes: Lufthansa’s EVP Corp Fleet On NEO, CS, Leap-X, GTF (by fer
44 JoeCanuck: That's only if one tries for minimum structural thickness for weight savings, not minimum impact resistance thickness. Boeing has said that the minim
45 328JET: The weight saving is limited, correct. But, i wanted to say something else: The risk of getting a ramp rash is bigger on shorthaul / mediumhaul fligh
47 JoeCanuck: Right but ramp rash is ramp rash. The number of hits isn't the issue since it has to survive all of them. A plane also has to survive every bird stri
48 max550: But not 130-150 seaters. I was trying to give an idea of how long a 150 seat 5-abreast aircraft would be.
50 328JET: It is both. We had more than 20 RRs the last year with some up to 30 days repair time, which is very expensive. A COMPLETE repair, no temporary fix,
51 JoeCanuck: A patch is just as easy as with metal and a permanent repair can wait indefinitely...just like metal. Composites also resist crack propagation better
52 328JET: I have the feeling we are talking about different levels of RRs... I do not mean scratches or small dents. I am referring to big structure or skin da
53 JoeCanuck: I'm talking about semi trucks which have rolled over or hit things as large as moose. Any patch that can be made in metal, can be made with composite
54 328JET: As far as i know the opposite is true. It takes longer to repair CFRP. But nevertheless, i doubt CFRP is the way to for shorthaul / mediumhaul airpla
55 JoeCanuck: With composite skins or structural members, you have the option of splicing in pieces or forming them by hand. Neither is particularly difficult depe
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2010, 108 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6447 posts, 
From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 381 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9143 posts, 
From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 605 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 200 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
