Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is Embraer Missing An Opportunity?  
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4228 times:

Assuming that eventually Embraer eventually wants to go after B and A fullscale are they not missing a golden opportunity to enter the 150-200 seat market with a clean sheet design when B and A have both decided to go derivative and probably not bring a clean sheet for 15 years?

I wouldn't want to do a me-too single aisle product, but basically take Boeing's playbook and do what they were contemplating a very light twin aisle 737 replacement. And then when done offer a LR version (possibly with larger wing/higher capacity - read longer) to go after transatlantic type markets?

When will they get another chance at this market? No point in waiting 7-10 years to launch (after you redo the E Series) as you would be to close to A320 and 737 replacement campaigns getting under way in the next decade.

Yes they might not sell thousands but they could build a beachhead and sell 1,000-2,000.

Seems obvious to me. Re-engine the E series but do just that (and have GE do the bulk of the work), no other changes so you have the engineering resources to tackly the largest segment of airline production.

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4139 times:

Embraer has carved out their niche in the RJ market and it would be dangerous to try and venture into B and A territory right now.

Bombardier is having enough trouble with their CS100, which will compete directly with the E195. With the 737 MAX and the A320neo set for EIS in 2016 and 2017 respectively, a 175-seat Embraer wouldn't even be fully certificated until a hundred of the aforementioned frames have already been delivered to customers around the world. Further orders would also likely go to B and A again based on proof of service, as opposed to a new market E-jet.

As a BRIC nation, I'm certain Brazilian carriers would eat up this proposed jet, but unfortunately the economy of scale just doesn't exist.   



Flying refined.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6193 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4028 times:

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
Assuming that eventually Embraer eventually wants to go after B and A fullscale

They don't because it would be suicide. They have shown that they are content to "nibble" at the edges.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 582 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3995 times:

I think embraer with their line of E-jets and business jets has a nice sweet spot. If they go what was told and update the engines to latest status as well work with Alcoa to use their new material, plus a little stretching it will work fine I guess.

Another sweet spot could happen when B and A would decide that an all new Narrow body would be centered around 200 pax, similar as Boeing was evaluating as part of their new narrow body plan. then there could be an opportunity to center something around the 150 seat market, which B&A would have left then. But BBD would be already there with their updated C-Series.

regards

Flyglobal


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3849 times:

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 3):
Another sweet spot could happen when B and A would decide that an all new Narrow body would be centered around 200 pax, similar as Boeing was evaluating as part of their new narrow body plan. then there could be an opportunity to center something around the 150 seat market, which B&A would have left then. But BBD would be already there with their updated C-Series.

Instead of shying away from the 150-200 seat market, Embraer should consider a light 6-abreast aircraft with a maximum range of 2,200-2,500nm. IMO, there is a huge latent demand for such an aircraft.

An all new light 6-abreast EMB will have unbeatable economics relative to A320NEO/737MAX. Many carriers/routes don't need the range of much heavier A320/B737, so a carrier focused on sub 1,500nm routes would have a competitive advantage in many parts of the world( like the Euro zone and South Asia).

One of these days I will get around to comparing a light all new 6-abreast to A320NEO/B737MAX.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3765 times:

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
Assuming that eventually Embraer eventually wants to go after B and A fullscale are they not missing a golden opportunity to enter the 150-200 seat market with a clean sheet design when B and A have both decided to go derivative and probably not bring a clean sheet for 15 years?

They should have reached out to Boeing over the summer to launch a 120-150 seat narrowbody family in a joint venture. It would have solved a lot of problems on both sides.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3732 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 4):
IMO, there is a huge latent demand for such an aircraft.

And I really don't think there is, or we'd have one.

NS


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3707 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 4):
An all new light 6-abreast EMB will have unbeatable economics relative to A320NEO/737MAX. Many carriers/routes don't need the range of much heavier A320/B737, so a carrier focused on sub 1,500nm routes would have a competitive advantage in many parts of the world( like the Euro zone and South Asia).

I think you're onto something here. And to get established it's obvious who you'd need to put up with. Let Ryanair rape you... get critical volume enabling the airframe to get established (ryan would probably come to the party if it meets both the promises in savings and it enables them to show Airbus/Boeing that Ryanair is still top dog in the negotiating department). The airframe doesn't need to have transcontinental US range if the fuel savings are good enough. Everywhere from Domestic India, to East Coast Australia/New Zealand, to inside the Eurozone, to Domestic China and South Africa could all do with a highly efficient aircraft that really only needs a 3 hour range. 3000km is enough. That will link any central US hub to any continental US city, it will cover the entire EU market, it can link Australia and New Zealand easily, Cover East coast China easily, Link China with Secondary cities in Japan, and Hong Kong with Secondary cities in China as well as short haul flights in Southern Africa. If it could get costs 10% lower than the much heavier offerings from the two big boys, then I think they're onto something. Might be time to revisit the unducted fan concept?


User currently offlineBureaucromancer From Canada, joined Feb 2010, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3235 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 7):
Might be time to revisit the unducted fan concept?

Embraer aside for a moment this would seem to be almost certainly true for ANY manufacturer at this point. There never really was an economic argument against unducted fans, and with the increased fuel costs and greater acceptance of turboprops...


User currently offlineyenne09 From Canada, joined Jun 2010, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2854 times:

Bombardier had no choice but to do a new aircraft because the CRJ are nothing else that an extended Challenger. Their design is coming from the 70's from, at first the Lear Learstar 600. The roll-out of the very firs Challenger happened in
April or May 1978, if my memory is correct. Embraer has a more recent design with the ER 170-195. Also it is the first design in the 100 seat area since the Bae 146 (design of the 70's), the Boeing 717 (coming from the DC-9) and the Fokker 100 (coming from the F-28). I flew the ERJ 175 and 190 many times on Air Canada and for me they are the replacement of the DC-9 regarding the number of seats.


User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2628 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2737 times:

It has been said on these forums many times that the best Embraer could do without venturing into a flight with A or B is to try to enlarge, if possible, without going into major modifications. the E195 frame, be from 2.40m to 6.30m and add extra fuel tanks for longer range.


I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2664 times:

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
no other changes so you have the engineering resources to tackly the largest segment of airline production.

Embraer is currently working on:

*KC-390, their largest plane ever.
*Legacy 450 & 500

Not such an empty plate at the moment.

Something else I also wonder about, regarding your topic, is whether the numerous technologies around still not quite mature are telling Embraer to just go for the re-engine. If composites don't scale down all that well, which still appears to be an open question and one that based on technological advances I suppose the answer could change, two engine technologies, and you've got yourself some pretty big risks on areas that seem so fundamental. And as we have seen with Embraer, they waited for the two 600lb Gorillas in the room to settle down before deciding what to do next. So I wouldn't expect Embraer to take off with something bold until the dust settles in the engine and materials field.

Then, of course, there is the whole competitive and economic landscape to consider. . .



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineRainmaker From Brazil, joined Jan 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
Assuming that eventually Embraer eventually wants to go after B and A fullscale are they not missing a golden opportunity to enter the 150-200 seat market with a clean sheet design when B and A have both decided to go derivative and probably not bring a clean sheet for 15 years?

Same reason neither Boeing nor Airbus decided for a clean sheet design. There is no compelling case w/ current technology for that. Embraer is trying to defend its turf against incoming competition. And that's tough enough as it is.
Not to mention Embraer's resource base, which is way way smaller than either A ou B.


User currently offlineYXwatcherMKE From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1003 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2373 times:

No I don't think that Embraer has missed an opportunity at all. I do think that they need to go need to the 140 seat range which could be a 195-extra long. Beef up the landing gear, wing and engine and stop there. They have a great product now. Having had several rides in the 170 and the 190 I can say as stated above, it is a great DC9/MD90 replacement.
I like the 2-2 seating they have now, to go to a 6 abreast a/c would be going to just another n/b aircraft. The only I way could see that happening is if Airbus and Boeing clean sheet new products are 200+ seats, otherwise no thanks please.
Now maybe if AA and other airlines that are still hanging on to the old a/c would have replace them with the E190/95 a/c instead of the 738 they would have not fallen into BK as soon as they did. But, AA's problem(s) are a different story altogether (miss-management, etc... Oh no did I type that out loud).



I miss the 60's & 70's when you felt like a guest on the plane not cattle like today
User currently onlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16281 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2362 times:

A recent article in Air Transport World or maybe Aviation Week (I can't recall which) quoted EMB as looking at 2 options for their E-jet line:
1. A re-engining of the E175-195 range (but not the E170),
2. A further stretch to the 195 (likely 2-3 rows or 8-12 seats at most).

/Neil



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2178 times:

Roughly speaking, a light 6-abreast platform with 100 ft. wingspan and 2,200-2,500nm range could be 8-10% lighter than B737MAX/A320NEO. Assuming another 2-3% gain from better aero and integration, a hypothetical light 6-abreast platform should have at least a 10% lower fuel burn per seat than A320NEO/B737MAX.

As an example, for a route length of 600nm and assuming 6 such flights a day, I expect the savings from fuel to be around $3,000 per day(about $1 million annually) for a light 6-abreast platform.

One would expect that Embraer will be able to build and sell profitably such an aircraft at a lower net price than NEO/MAX.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 14):
A recent article in Air Transport World or maybe Aviation Week (I can't recall which) quoted EMB as looking at 2 options for their E-jet line:
1. A re-engining of the E175-195 range (but not the E170),
2. A further stretch to the 195 (likely 2-3 rows or 8-12 seats at most

Here again, a stretched E195 is not good news for CS300 if range is not needed. A stretched E195(130 seats@31" pitch) should be about 10,000-11,000 lbs. lighter than CS300(130 seats@32" pitch).


User currently offlinesf260 From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2087 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 15):
Here again, a stretched E195 is not good news for CS300 if range is not needed. A stretched E195(130 seats@31" pitch) should be about 10,000-11,000 lbs. lighter than CS300(130 seats@32" pitch).

Let's compare apples to apples. Per Embraer, the E195 seats 108 in a 32" layout. So a "simple" stretch means 116 (or 120 at best) in 32", well below the 130 of the CS300. The added revenue might well offset the weight/fuel burn difference (as you phrase so often in your analyses).   


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2029 times:

You are right that at 32" pitch, CS300 should have at least a 10 seat advantage over E19X(stretched), which should offset the fuel burn advantage of EMB at 70% load factor.

Quoting sf260 (Reply 16):
Let's compare apples to apples. Per Embraer, the E195 seats 108 in a 32" layout. So a "simple" stretch means 116 (or 120 at best) in 32", well below the 130 of the CS300. The added revenue might well offset the weight/fuel burn difference (as you phrase so often in your analyses).


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

Quoting Rainmaker (Reply 12):
Same reason neither Boeing nor Airbus decided for a clean sheet design. There is no compelling case w/ current technology for that. Embraer is trying to defend its turf against incoming competition. And that's tough enough as it is.

Airbus and Boeing both didn't see enough saving potential in a clean sheet design to justify the extra cost and development ressources over a 'simple' improvement to existing designs. If Embraer had the right materials, engines and designs to produce such a revolutionary airplane today, A and B would have done it themselves. Embraer thrives on a market that A and B have largely left behind as neither the A318 nor the 736 proved a success. That's Embraer's niche and they're doing a great job filling it.

I think the more interesting question is why both manufacturers decided to focus on long haul jets and surrended the



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1796 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 4):

Instead of shying away from the 150-200 seat market, Embraer should consider a light 6-abreast aircraft with a maximum range of 2,200-2,500nm. IMO, there is a huge latent demand for such an aircraft.

An all new light 6-abreast EMB will have unbeatable economics relative to A320NEO/737MAX. Many carriers/routes don't need the range of much heavier A320/B737, so a carrier focused on sub 1,500nm routes would have a competitive advantage in many parts of the world( like the Euro zone and South Asia).

One of these days I will get around to comparing a light all new 6-abreast to A320NEO/B737MAX.

A bit like a modern Dassult Mercure ? 


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...
Is Congonhas Airport An Intl Airport? posted Mon Mar 29 2010 21:40:59 by tonytifao
Baggage Fees-An Opportunity For Cargo Carriers? posted Thu Feb 4 2010 10:18:59 by RyeFly
Is Pluna Becoming An LCC? posted Wed Aug 12 2009 02:16:19 by Faucett
Is Anybody Here An Air Tran FA? posted Thu Apr 23 2009 10:24:50 by SWA TPA
Wow! B6 Is Considering Joining An Alliance posted Tue Mar 10 2009 16:11:13 by Ota1
PBI-SJU. No Nonstops, An Opportunity There? posted Tue Sep 25 2007 15:31:56 by OzarkD9S
How Is Singapore Airlines An Industry Leader? posted Sun Nov 5 2006 09:03:50 by Shinkai
Is LPL Now An All EZY319 Base? posted Tue Sep 19 2006 13:33:16 by Timetable
Is JM Missing Winglets? posted Thu Jul 13 2006 03:42:35 by CRGsFuture
Is Singapore Airlines An Asian Version Of Emirates posted Wed Jun 14 2006 19:55:58 by FL370