Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Embraer Eyes Possible "five-abreast Aircraft"?  
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 12623 times:

There was another story sometime back which talked about a possible 5-abreast aircraft family that would span the 125-155 seat capacity. 5-abreast platform has a very narrow sweet spot, relative to 6-abreast platform, that maxes out at around 140-145 seats if designed with large wings to offer 3,000nm range. Why bother with another 5-abreast platform in a crowded field when Embraer could go after a bigger NB market that a 6-abreast aircraft would span.

IMO, Embraer should go for a light 6-abreast aircraft family that spans the 140-170 seat capacity with 2500nm range. Such an aircraft could do 70% plus(?) mission of current 737/320 NBs with unbeatable economics, and capture a significant portion of the NB market.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ossible-five-abreast-aircraft.html
Quote:
Embraer is eyeing possible development of a five-abreast narrowbody, CEO Frederico Curado has revealed. Speaking to analysts on 3 May, Curado said the Brazilian airframer could pursue "a couple of strategies" once Boeing has detailed its single-aisle replacement plans and the competitive landscape is clearer.

These include stretching the E-Jets "to get a little bit more size on our brand and then our strategy would be to develop a brand new aircraft, probably a five-abreast aircraft, if we perceive a more vacant space in that area".

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12326 times:

Personally, I like the decision to go with a 5 abreast frame instead of a 3x3. A 5 abreast plane can be stretched up to 175 or so very easily, and it gives weight and aero advantages over a 6 abreast frame. Unless EMB wants to enter into the 200 seat market, I don't see any advantage that a 3x3 layout would offer. If they could offer a true MD80/90 replacement, (which BBD has failed to do by making the C series too small), they would instantly be in the running for hundreds of frames that are going to need replacing over the next decade.

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12226 times:

I think if Emb offered a 150+ seat aircraft, BBD would announce a CS500 immediately after. If BBD can keep the CSeries on time and on spec, I'm not sure what Emb could offer that would beat it.


What the...?
User currently offlinenipoel123 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2011, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10625 times:

I prefer 5-abreast, travelling with two, you take the two seats, travelling with three, you take the three seats. Travelling with 4, like I usually do, then you take two rows of two. I'd prefer that to one row of three, and an additional seat across the aisle. Wish there were more 5-abreast planes...


one mile of road leads to nowhere, one mile of runway leads to anywhere
User currently offlinerichardw From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 3755 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10495 times:

Would it be better than the B717?

User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9999 times:

In my eyes Embraer should not start a 5 or 6 abreast airplane (alone).

They should choose Boeing or Airbus as partner and start to develope a co-product which fills the gap between the ERJ195 and the A319/B73G.


User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9573 times:

Quoting richardw (Reply 4):
Would it be better than the B717?

Yes. One of the issues some potential 717 customers had was that they felt it was a "warmed over DC-9". In some respects, the MD-95/717 was a DC-9NG, as it was the basic DC-9-30 series design with updates that came along as the family progressed into the MD-80 series of a/c. This a/c from Embraer would be a clean sheet design as opposed to a stretch or reworking of an existing. Plus I would venture to guess that it would use more cutting edge materials that at the time the MD-95/717 was designed, were either still being developed or was not in widespread use in the aviation industry. Using the 717 as a further example, there was a proposed shrink of the type (717-100) that never got any interest because of the weight of the a/c in comparison to the similar capacity offerings of Bombardier, Embraer, Fairchild-Dornier, and BAE at the time.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 5):
In my eyes Embraer should not start a 5 or 6 abreast airplane (alone).

They should choose Boeing or Airbus as partner and start to develope a co-product which fills the gap between the ERJ195 and the A319/B73G.

If Bombardier can develop such an aircraft without partnering with Boeing or Airbus, Embraer is more than capable of doing so as well. If Embraer partners up with another manufacturer, it will more than likely be someone like Kawasaki, as Kawasaki had a role in the development of the E-Jets, especially since they've got a proposed airliner, the YPX, which would have variants that seat from 100-150 passengers.


User currently offlinealanelrfc From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9556 times:

I think the idea for Embraer to start on a medium body programme is a great idea. They have had great success with the E-Jets, so why not go for a larger model? Possibly force the main aircraft builders in that field to rethink their plans imminently.


Flown On: F50,F100,DH4,M88,E145,E90,AT7,AR1,B733,735,738,739,752,763,773,A319,320,321,332,333,346
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9457 times:

I would say a cooperation would be a safer way.
Maybe with an advanced cockpit architecture which could show different layouts on the screens?


If they tie up with Boeing, i could see a ERJ-layout and B737-layout to be selected by potential customers.
The same would work for Airbus i believe.


So an E-JET operator buys the E-Jet layout and the Airbus/Boeing operator the Airbus/Boeing layout.


User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2940 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8156 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

EMB has the will and the wits to do anything. I have been there and it's very impressive. They were able to have great success with the 145 & 170 platforms because at that time they were able to "fly under the radar" no pun intended- but if they try and take a slice of the Boeing or Airbus pie: their lives could become miserable - I think some sort of JV with either giant would help them. They are a part of Brazil's big splash on the global stage. Do you think a 5 abreast ac would look radically different than current aircraft?


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8090 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 9):
Do you think a 5 abreast ac would look radically different than current aircraft?

I think a 5-6 abreast Embraer offering would look like a slightly wider version of the E-170/175/190/195. Then again, they could potentially use their KC-390 military transport design as the basis of a potential airliner.


User currently onlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3557 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7605 times:

Personally I think a 5 or 6-abreast is a bad idea it is what I believe that seperates them from A & B and a lesser extent Bomber is their 2x2 seating. They should focus on improving the economics of the E-Jets. Just my   


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7541 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 8):
So an E-JET operator buys the E-Jet layout and the Airbus/Boeing operator the Airbus/Boeing layout.

Interesting idea.

The auto industry is full of examples like this where the same frame, design, and engine form the basis for models from different manufacturers. The major difference is in exterior look and passenger cabin layout. However, It is hard to differentiate much in exterior look for an aircraft, but there could be minor differences in cabin layout.

Here are some rough numbers for my vision of a light 5-abreast 140 seat Embraer( E240). CS300 has a fuselage width of 12 feet, whereas B73G has a fuselage width of 12.34 feet. IMO, E240 doesn't have to be as wide as CS300. It could be around 11 feet wide(Sukhoi Superjet width), reducing frontal drag and weight. E240, if aiming for 2,500nm range, would not need a wingspan larger than 105 feet.

..........CS300ER... .E240
OEW ....78,200.... 73,000 lbs.
MTOW 139,160.. 131,000
MZFW. 115,700.. 108,000
MSP .....37,500 ....35,000 (Max. Structural Payload)
Wingspan....115.........105 feet
Length.........125.........130 feet(Fuselage)
Width...........12............11 feet(Fuselage)
Range ......2,950 ......2,500 nm
Seats ..........130 ........140 (Single Class)

This light version, E240, should have a 7% trip fuel advantage over CS300, with nearly 15% lower fuel burn per seat.

If Embraer decided to match the range of CS300, it would need a larger wing which would increase the OEW by nearly 3,000 lbs, but still lighter than CS300 with nearly 10% lower fuel burn per seat.


User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7526 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 9):
I think some sort of JV with either giant would help them. They are a part of Brazil's big splash on the global stage. Do you think a 5 abreast ac would look radically different than current aircraft?

Surely it wouldn't hurt their cause to partner with one of the two giants, but I don't think it's necessary for the success of such a project. Such partnerships might be necessary for a less reputable maker to break into the market, but Embraer strikes me as being well beyond this stage. They've already got name recognition and have established themselves in the market as providing a reputable and trustworthy product.

Given that this is the case, their offering would be competing with A and B solely on the basis of quality, so if they can produce an equivilant or superior product, they've got nothing to worry about. And, if A/B continue to focus their products toward a higher segments, It's not unforeseeable that EMB can find their niche alone and not have to share the profits. However, I see your point, that a JV could be a big success, as it not only eliminates a big-name competitor, but would bring in additional orders from the partner company's customer base.


User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7440 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 11):
Personally I think a 5 or 6-abreast is a bad idea it is what I believe that seperates them from A & B and a lesser extent Bomber is their 2x2 seating. They should focus on improving the economics of the E-Jets. Just my

The problem is that one can stretch an a/c with 2X2 seating only so long. Look at Bombardier's offerings. They've stopped their CRJ family at 100 seats and offer the CSeries for additional capacity because the CRJ design had pretty much reached its' maximum length. If Embraer stretched the E-Jets any further, they would have to redesign a lot of systems (like the landing gear) and they might as well do a clean sheet design. The E-190 is longer than the 737-700 and the A319 and E-195 is nearly as long as the 737-800 and is longer than the A320. If they stretched it even further, it would probably be as long as the 737-900 or the A321. There was a proposed stretch of the E-195 that would have put the seating at a max of 130, but it lacked the necessary range.

[Edited 2011-05-08 11:55:37]

User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 382 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6762 times:

Why are they going 5 abreast instead of 6 or 7? Have they not heard of the wide oval fuse which is supposed to beat physics?

User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6406 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 15):
Why are they going 5 abreast instead of 6 or 7? Have they not heard of the wide oval fuse which is supposed to beat physics?

7 abreast is not allowed on a single aisle a/c, as a passenger cannot be more than two seats away from an aisle.

McDonnell-Douglas for many years used a five abreast layout on their DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 family of a/c and this carried over onto the Boeing 717 since it was a MDD design. Fokker also used a five-abreast layout on the F-70/100. The BAC 1-11 also used a five-abreast layout, as did the Convair 880 and 990. Such a layout has been commonly used in the past.


User currently offlineanrec80 From Canada, joined Jan 2011, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5485 times:

If Embraer or Bombardier really do something like this, do not run into manufacturing capacity limitations and really come up with strong competitors, you will see Brazil and Canada being dragged around WTO, threatened with economic sanctions and, who knows, maybe even stop being democratic countries  .

US and EU are constantly looking at any excuse to complain on each other to WTO over subsidies. All governments provide aircraft manufacturers funding, loans, tax breaks, investments, etc. The reason they do not yet care about Bombardier or Embraer is because US and EU manufacturers do not make regional jets, and therefore they do not have reason to care.

But now this reason will be there I afraid.


User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3068 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5211 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 10):
I think a 5-6 abreast Embraer offering would look like a slightly wider version of the E-170/175/190/195.

Agreed. Slightly wider fuselage and bigger wings and it's ready to go.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 10):
Then again, they could potentially use their KC-390 military transport design as the basis of a potential airliner.

While I'd love to see an aircraft that looks for all the world like a two-engined Avro RJ100 in commercial service, I kind of doubt this proposal would ever get green-lit. However, if the cost of spinning off a commercial version is low for Embraer and the end-product's fuel burn is low enough to attract initial orders, it could happen.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 11):
Personally I think a 5 or 6-abreast is a bad idea it is what I believe that separates them from A & B and a lesser extent Bombardier is their 2x2 seating.

  
I think for most people what separates Embraer from Bombardier in the regional jet realm is Embraer's much less cramped seating, whether it be on the 2x1 140 series or on the 2x2 170/190 series.



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4954 times:

Quoting TSS (Reply 18):
While I'd love to see an aircraft that looks for all the world like a two-engined Avro RJ100 in commercial service, I kind of doubt this proposal would ever get green-lit. However, if the cost of spinning off a commercial version is low for Embraer and the end-product's fuel burn is low enough to attract initial orders, it could happen.

There's definitely cases in which a commercial a/c has its' roots in military a/c. Kawaski's proposed YPX is derived from their XP-1 maritime recon a/c for the JMSDF. Elements of the 747 were rooted in Boeing's failed proposal for the CX-HLS project that became the Lockheed C-5. I was thinking more along the lines of the fuselage of the KC-390 being the basis of a new a/c since it will be slightly wider than the E-Jets.


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4895 times:

5 abreast designs are best for the 100-160 seat range. There are two in production offerings: CSeries and SuperJet. But this market also has the E190/195, A319NEO, and likely the MRJ100 (not offered yet). So there is lot's of competition in the 100-140 seat market, and a backlog less than 500 jets.

6 abreast designs are best for the 140-190 seat range. There is the A320 and B737 families, and soon to arrive the COMAC C919. This market has a HUGE backlog.

Guess which market is MUCH larger and will be in greater demand? Answer: the 140-190seat range.
Guess which market has less competition? Answer: the 140-190seat range.
Guess what airlines are doing with their older 100-140 seat jets? Answer:Up-sizing to the 150-160seat range (like SAS did last month, and AA has been doing).

The 6 abreast market is large enough to support 4 players. the 5 abreast market is small, questionable, and too much competition.

My money is on Embraer launching an all new 6 abreast platform by end of this year.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6240 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4344 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 9):
EMB has the will and the wits to do anything. I have been there and it's very impressive. They were able to have great success with the 145 & 170 platforms because at that time they were able to "fly under the radar" no pun intended

It is not a matter of technical capability but financial risk. Most people don't know or forget that ALL 4 E-jets were developed for ONLY $1-billion! The circumstances that aligned for that to happen will NEVER happen again. And the ERJs essentially killed the Dash-8's (the 400 not included). The ERJs and E-jets did not "fly under the radar"... they were front and center.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 20):
Guess what airlines are doing with their older 100-140 seat jets? Answer:Up-sizing to the 150-160seat range (like SAS did last month, and AA has been doing).

And... we haven't even finished with consolidation yet.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1607 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4254 times:

"once Boeing has detailed its single-aisle replacement plans and the competitive landscape is clearer. "

The fact is - they have! The big announcement was that they were not going to abandon the 140-150 seat market. I don't think it matters "with what".Airbus is also a creating the 319NEO and Boeing will do something.Bombardier have stated they have no intention in going there (sensible),

Embraer are the marketbleaders in the 100 seat class.The first rule of business is to protect your existing strengths.They have a cracking aircraft which (from what I read) everybody loves.

The obvious thing to do is to protect this leadership position and re-engine with Purepower and get themselves an extra 15% efficiency gains.

As pointed out above the market only has a 500 backlog.Best get the lions share going forward and kill off the MRJ and squeeze the "C" into a very narrow marketplace.

The object is to make money.That is the best way for them to make money.


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4078 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 22):
The obvious thing to do is to protect this leadership position and re-engine with Purepower and get themselves an extra 15% efficiency gains.
Quoting parapente (Reply 22):
As pointed out above the market only has a 500 backlog.Best get the lions share going forward and kill off the MRJ and squeeze the "C" into a very narrow marketplace.

The CS100 will put some pressure on the E190/195, but I am not sure if it is worthwhile to re-engine the E190/195 to fight off the SuperJet and CSeries. Mitsubishi have a bit of a way to go before they threaten Embraer's market, but I agree that one needs to keep an eye on the. If they can deliver a very good MRJ-90 and go ahead with the MRJ-100, then Embraer will have to re-engine. Meanwhile Embraer have a proven and fairly reliable product, so they will focus on profiting from what they have invested for now.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 21):
And... we haven't even finished with consolidation yet.

Yeap, and that has delayed so many fleet decisions.



Only the paranoid survive
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...
Embraer Possible New 130 Seater posted Sun Jul 25 2010 10:32:45 by ElbowRoom
Hawaii Five-O Aircraft Sound posted Sat Sep 20 2008 20:11:37 by Crownvic
Possible Aircraft Emergency At EWR posted Thu Jun 5 2008 17:25:31 by Capitol8s
Air India Eyes Big Aircraft Order By Mid-2008 posted Thu Oct 18 2007 05:25:39 by Columba
11 Abreast A380. Here We Go.. 1000 Seat Possible posted Thu Jun 7 2007 17:26:15 by Keesje
France Eyes Aircraft-making Facility In India posted Wed Apr 25 2007 07:34:50 by BigTom
Hainan Buys 100 Embraer Aircraft posted Sun Apr 1 2007 05:19:07 by EvilForce
Name An Aircraft After Your Dog? Its Possible! posted Thu Feb 15 2007 19:32:28 by RootsAir
Embraer Aircraft Rating At LCY/EGLC posted Sat Feb 10 2007 17:52:10 by BBJII
Embraer Aircraft posted Wed Nov 22 2006 04:32:27 by A340600MAN