Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will Embraer Ever Build A Plane Larger Than E190?  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10859 times:

Looking at the ( Boeing and Airbus ) forecast of literally dozens of thousands of aircraft market for the next 20-30 years, and taking into account that the Regional Jets / Smaller narrow bodies is facing more competition every day ( E jets are in the same league of C-Series, SSJ , plus the Chinese projects, and probably I'm missing more ), will ( or SHOULD ) Embraer ever build an aircraft type larger than the E-190/195 ?? Obviously I'm not thinking in big WB quads like the 747 or A380, but something from 150 to 300 seats... Are they looking to that market in the future or is just a big no no for this company ??
Your thoughts ?


Rgds.
G.


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10831 times:

The E195.  

Also yes I think they will get up to 150.

NS


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 540 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10705 times:

I can't think of anything more than what they have now. An elongated NB doesn't seem like something they'd be interested in developing. Also to note Embraer and Boeing have established some sort of partnership to work on developing cargo aircraft, which could lead to a commercial partnership.

http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-12961341937928/


User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8875 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10623 times:

The KC-390 will be the largest ever aircraft built by Embraer. But in the civilian area, I think it's gonna be a little while until we see something bigger from Embraer. They've got a portfolio of business jets to push, the E-jet re-engine to manage and the KC-390 to build. They are also diversifying into other fields:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Sec...n/UPI-26421346192343/?spt=hs&or=si



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2428 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9971 times:

What's wrong with a civilian version of the Embraer KC-390?


I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9747 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 1):

Also yes I think they will get up to 150.

That would likely require an all-new design. Can the E195 be stretched future?

There is also the option (requirement?) to upgrade the E175-195 offering without a larger aircraft to counter the C-series.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineBD500 From Canada, joined Feb 2010, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9686 times:

It does not seem they will design a larger A/C than the E195, the latest news from Embraer is that they are working on a re-engined E175/E190/E195 version with the possibility of a common wing throughout the family.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...or-re-engined-e-jet-family-372681/


User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8875 posts, RR: 40
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9556 times:

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 4):
What's wrong with a civilian version of the Embraer KC-390?

Military aircraft are not designed with a very big emphasis on economics.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18683 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9503 times:

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 4):

What's wrong with a civilian version of the Embraer KC-390?

It's not designed for a civilian mission. Civilian missions are suited to low-wing twin-engine monoplanes.

I do wonder why Embraer won't take on A and B at least in the 737/A320 market. Both A and B have huge backlogs and I'd be willing to bet that the world's airlines would love a third player.


User currently offlineKDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8856 times:

I doubt they will build anything larger than 130 seats for the foreseable future. Boeing and Airbus have a stranglehold on that size and up. It would take a true technologial breakthrough of a fuel savings of 30% above the MAX and NEO for them to do that and I just dont see it happening.....but who knows what the future holds.....

User currently offlineKaiTak747 From Switzerland, joined Aug 2012, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8573 times:

To develop an aircraft with a higher capacity than the E195 would require building an entirely new airframe (I think the stretched E195 is the longest possible for the wing size and landing gear), which would cost a huge amount of money.

Also, competing with the 737MAX, A320NEO family and the C-series will probably mean that Embraer would not gain enough orders to see a ROI.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7871 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8397 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Embraer ever build an aircraft type larger than the E-190/195 ??

They are the best positioned manufactured to make that leap. If they don't someone else will and it will negatively affect their RJ business. The market is begging for a third option right now. The backlog is so huge that some airlines are losing market because they have to wait too long to get their hands on much needed aircraft.


User currently offlinetomcat From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7786 times:

Could we ever see Embraer or any other airframer building a short-range (1000-2000 nm) high capacity (widebody 200-250+ pax) turboprop aircraft? Let's say it would be the turboprop version of the A310 or the ill-fated 783. Such a plane would have tremendous economics on short trips and would be an ass kicker of the high speed trains on trips longer than say 300 miles.

Looking at the current rebirth of the ATR72, this seems the next logical step.


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7357 times:

Quoting KaiTak747 (Reply 10):
Also, competing with the 737MAX, A320NEO family and the C-series will probably mean that Embraer would not gain enough orders to see a ROI.

I'm not so sure about it. There is a huge number of aircraft needed in the next 20-30 years ( see Boeing or Airbus studies about the subject.)

And A & B have their own problems :

Quoting airbazar (Reply 11):
The market is begging for a third option right now. The backlog is so huge that some airlines are losing market because they have to wait too long to get their hands on much needed aircraft.

Rgds.

G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7257 times:

If they can secure the billions needed to develop a competitor to the A320neo/737max, they'll do it. My bet is that no such billions are available to them at the moment.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3067 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6935 times:

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 4):

What's wrong with a civilian version of the Embraer KC-390?

This:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 7):
Military aircraft are not designed with a very big emphasis on economics.

...and the specifications I've read say it can carry 60-some paratroops and 80-some regular passengers, so no more than an E-jet. It would resemble somewhat an Avro RJ or An-148. But neither of those overlapped with the lower 737 or A320 cappacity.

-Rampart


User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 726 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6049 times:

Quoting tomcat (Reply 12):
Could we ever see Embraer or any other airframer building a short-range (1000-2000 nm) high capacity (widebody 200-250+ pax) turboprop aircraft? Let's say it would be the turboprop version of the A310 or the ill-fated 783. Such a plane would have tremendous economics on short trips and would be an ass kicker of the high speed trains on trips longer than say 300 miles.

They'd be better off trying to redesign the E120 and capture the 10-29 seat turboprop market, as there is now a large gap in the light capacity EAS market with the retirements of the Beech 1900. An aircraft with less than 30 seats could get into airports that do not have FAR part 139 certification, but want/need airline service.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlinetomcat From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5898 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 16):
They'd be better off trying to redesign the E120 and capture the 10-29 seat turboprop market

You may be right about that, but I don't think that it's the kind of project that's going to fuel Embraer's growth even though they would make profit out of it. The goal of any company is to keep growing (at least the bottom line), so it seems sensible to expand the product line with higher value products, provided that you can sell enough of them with a good margin.


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5749 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 16):
They'd be better off trying to redesign the E120 and capture the 10-29 seat turboprop market, as there is now a large gap in the light capacity EAS market with the retirements of the Beech 1900. An aircraft with less than 30 seats could get into airports that do not have FAR part 139 certification, but want/need airline service.

Everything OK with that. But when I started the thread was thinking more about Embraer becoming a "major league" player fighting for a market share with Boeing and Airbus, in the market of bigger planes, not smaller ones :

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
taking into account that the Regional Jets / Smaller narrow bodies is facing more competition every day ( E jets are in the same league of C-Series, SSJ , plus the Chinese projects, and probably I'm missing more ), will ( or SHOULD ) Embraer ever build an aircraft type larger than the E-190/195 ??

In other words, yes, you are right, they could sell a good amount of small turboprops, but that is not a big challenge for them, they did the EMB-110 Bandeirante decades ago, and the Brasilia later, and yes, both great aircraft, but that is not a challenge for them anymore.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8875 posts, RR: 40
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4981 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 14):
If they can secure the billions needed to develop a competitor to the A320neo/737max, they'll do it. My bet is that no such billions are available to them at the moment.

Part of the problem, I have no doubt, is risk. It's a big project for a company like Embraer. If they can get a partner to go into it with them, say, somebody like Lockheed Martin, then I can see they jumping on it.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2428 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3661 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
It's not designed for a civilian mission. Civilian missions are suited to low-wing twin-engine monoplanes.
Regardless, that's an interesting photo of the Embraer cargo aircraft in some courious liveries.
How about an stretched KC-390 then? Long enough for 130 passengers @ 30" pitch

Quoting rampart (Reply 15):
...and the specifications I've read say it can carry 60-some paratroops and 80-some regular passengers, so no more than an E-jet.

Could it be possible that the "Civilian" KC-390 economics be better than the current E170?



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3214 times:

Quoting tomcat (Reply 12):

tomcat is spot on. Why go against Boeing and Airbus and C-Series and the chinese and the russians on planes below 200 seats. Go where there is no competition and this is the 250 short to medium range sized planes. This is the A300 territory, this is how Airbus started and look at the company now.

I suggest that they have a look at Keesje's Greenliner.


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 722 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3039 times:

Quoting KDAYflyer (Reply 9):
I doubt they will build anything larger than 130 seats for the foreseable future. Boeing and Airbus have a stranglehold on that size and up.

You can get the answer to this question by looking at the miserable orders for both the A319Neo and 737 Max-7. Both the 320 Neo and 737 Max-8 will effectively be the base models for the new Nb's coming later this decade from A and B. This leaves the 130 to 150 seat NB market open for new competitors. No doubt the C Series can stretch to around 150 seats but would that be possible for the E series jets without needing a new wing ($$$).


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2884 times:

Quoting panais (Reply 21):
This is the A300 territory, this is how Airbus started and look at the company now.

If you want an equivalent to the A300 the 767 is pretty close, and even at bargain prices it's not really a hot seller. Boeing also offered the 787-3 and in the end it was scrapped.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinetistpaa727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 319 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2762 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 23):
If you want an equivalent to the A300 the 767 is pretty close, and even at bargain prices it's not really a hot seller. Boeing also offered the 787-3 and in the end it was scrapped.

I think the bigger point against the 767 right now is airlines are upgauging their fleet to 787/330 sized equipment to fill the role the 767/300 once did. The 783 was a lame duck derivative, too heavy because it was based on the 788. Airlines were not interested in a non-optimized aircraft.

As airlines move up there does leave a large gap for an optimized aircraft between the NEO/MAX and 330/787. The problem for Emb (or BBD for that matter) is resources. It would take a lot of money to fund the development of a completely new aircraft in a completely new segment.

Still would be interesting though, at least from an aviation enthusiast's point of view.



Don't sweat the little things.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18683 posts, RR: 58
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2817 times:

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 20):
Could it be possible that the "Civilian" KC-390 economics be better than the current E170?

It's not competing with the E170. What matters is whether it can compete with the next generation of low-wing small airliners.

Quoting panais (Reply 21):
Go where there is no competition and this is the 250 short to medium range sized planes.

Who is buying? That's what the 783 was and nobody bought.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 26, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

I'd argue the A300 is not a good example anyway, since it was not a medium haul widebody per se, all other widebodies at the time were used on medium haul if the route warranted it. If was a widebody twin, the innovation was the number of engines, not the mission. Since ETOPS didn't exist, it meant it wouldn't have made sense to design it for long haul, but I'm not sure you can conclude it was optimized for medium haul.

What would really differentiate a medium haul 787 from a long haul one ? A little bit weaker wing ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4693 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2671 times:

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 20):
Could it be possible that the "Civilian" KC-390 economics be better than the current E170?

I think Embraer would be better off keeping the KC-390 in the military and special missions fold.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...eals-kc_390-details%2C-images.html

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 22):
This leaves the 130 to 150 seat NB market open for new competitors.

I guess that's where they're going with this.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ll-new-narrowbody-airliner-375746/

Quote:
"Embraer had been close to launching a new narrowbody airliner until last November, but then took a step back to avoid challenging the re-engined and upgraded Boeing 737-7 Max and Airbus A319neo in the 130-seat class.

Embraer instead decided to re-engine its current E-Jet family that occupies the market segment just below the 120-seat threshold, with entry-into-service scheduled no later than 2018.

But it is clear that decision only postponed Embraer's goal to eventually field an all-new narrowbody aimed at the 130-seat market provided that Airbus and Boeing vacate the segment"



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 603 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2453 times:

Quoting tomcat (Reply 12):
Could we ever see Embraer or any other airframer building a short-range (1000-2000 nm) high capacity (widebody 200-250+ pax) turboprop aircraft?

No. Too risky and too expensive for a small airframer like Embraer. I see Embraer becoming a tier 1 partner with Airbus or Boeing for their new narrowbody aircraft in 2025-2030.


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...
Will AA Ever Have A 100 Seat Plane (again)? posted Wed Nov 24 2010 17:07:29 by GlobalCabotage
Will Varig Ever Operate 777 Or Larger A/c Again? posted Fri Jul 6 2007 00:37:03 by JAM747
Will Advertising Ever Be Allowed Inside A Plane? posted Sat Apr 9 2005 20:34:10 by Bigpappa
Commutair, Will They Ever Get Larger AC? posted Sun Apr 3 2005 21:31:58 by Cumulonimbus
Will There Ever Be An Engine Bigger Than The 777s? posted Tue Oct 23 2001 07:15:00 by Lax
Will Airlines Ever Increase PVD? posted Fri Aug 31 2012 06:48:58 by spiritair97
NRT-LAX, ICN-LAX Markets Larger Than HKG-LAX. Why? posted Thu Aug 2 2012 13:10:55 by g500
Embraer To Build Jets In China posted Mon Jun 25 2012 22:50:57 by Ideekay
United And LHR, Will It Ever Come Together? posted Sun Mar 25 2012 21:20:41 by VC10er
Will MSP Ever Get A New Control Tower? posted Tue Dec 13 2011 15:32:42 by CIDFlyer