User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 12923
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:29 am

It seems Boeing Brasil has some choices to make on their <100 regional portfolio / market strategy.

:arrow: 40% of regional aircraft demand is in the America's
:arrow: E175 has been succesfull with US regionals in recent years
:arrow: E175-E2 doesn't meet scope clause MTOW for 76 passengers restrictions
:arrow: MTOW scope clause restriction most likely won't be changed
:arrow: MHI has taken action modifying the MRJ70 into a just right, scope clause compliant spacejet,
:arrow: EIS of the Spacejet will be in a few years, when most CRJ's need replacement
:arrow: MHI is moving towards buying the CRJ infrastructure & productline.

Will Boeing Brasil just sit back, focus on the bigger E190/195-E2 & watch MHI take over the marketshare they build <100 seats over the last 20 years?

The E175 needs quieter, savier engines, but the E175-E2 isn't the solution. Orders evaporated.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2018-10-30/embraer-removes-100-unit-skywest-order-e2-backlog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family#Orders_and_deliveries

Image


:arrow: Should Boeing redo the E175-E2 like MHI is redoing the MRJ70?
What is (im)possible?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2130
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:14 am

keesje wrote:
Will Boeing Brasil just sit back, focus on the bigger E190/195-E2 & watch MHI take over the marketshare they build <100 seats over the last 20 years?


If it had been Embraer only - I don't think they could have afforded to let it slide - it would have seen Embraer become marginalised to a pretty niche market (above regional, below mainline) that Bombardier were finding themselves in with all cash spent on CSeries and CRJ withering - except the CSeries at 5AB and stretched could become small mainline to maybe 180 seats. E195 is never gonna bust ~130-140 seats.

Now that its a part of Boeing - they may well have more lucrative markets that need more attention from a finite pool of engineering talent.


Quite amazing how its all turned on its head really.

Say, 10 years ago:
Bombardier were the big dogs in terms of RJ share, EMB were coming up hard with the better product. MITAC nowhere.

5 years ago:
Bombardier in deep trouble with CRJ stagnating, CSeries draining cash. EMB well placed with the E2 to capture 90+% of the RJ market. MITAC still nowhere.

Now:
Bombardier essentially gone. CSeries now threatening big things with Airbus' backing. Now the entire EMB E2 series at risk of becoming a bit of an orphan line without the 175 to anchor the range. MITAC looking like they (will) have the best RJ product and are about to take over the CRJ, which gives those customers a smooth replacement path to Spacejet.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:32 am

The E175-E2 will slide off BUT! The E175-E1 still remains a strong contender.

-low capital cost, no development costs to write off
-operating experience, pilots already trained on type, existing logistics infrastructure
-low risk engines, ie no PW GTF
-commonality within a larger family
-opportunity to grow into the E2 if scope clauses change

I think that MITAC should have developped the M100 from the beginning instead of the MRJ90 + MRJ70.

Just before EIS they realised this...

Well, they can sell CRJ's as a stopgap solution...
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4816
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:33 am

If Mitsubishi really does end up capturing most of the 'Scope' replacement market, that would be one hell of a chess move they played with the MRJ. (With just a bit of opportunism)
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
texl1649
Posts: 964
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:54 am

Why would Boeing be paying what they are to give up on the primary product line’s anchor product? It would make no sense. It does make sense that they can’t legally do anything until it’s all approved (from the acquisition standpoint).

The real question is what modifications could be done to the baseline E2 product to make it scope compliant with the new engines/wings. Boeing has invested heavily into new carbon wing design/production abilities. A revised compliant E2 model with a (similar to other E2) 10:1 aspect ratio, and perhaps even a smaller engine option vs. the Pratt GTF, might in fact not be that difficult for the new organization to design/certify once they get past the present pause.

The main issue is that Boeing Brazil won’t want to put a ‘wrong sized’ wing on a shrink. Embraer has a history of not doing so, of course, as well, having maintained different sizes for all models on the E1. I’m not sure what newer generation engine would work best on such a ‘E170E2’ shrink. I suspect GE has studied this at some length as well though.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2118
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:25 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Why would Boeing be paying what they are to give up on the primary product line’s anchor product?


Because the product wasn’t what they were after.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1479
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:42 pm

Scope will change and the 175E2 will see service. Mainline can’t serve the smaller markets effectively. There is no alternative for this market. Who the hell knows when the “SpaceJet” will fly.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
luckyone
Posts: 2751
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:58 pm

DL717 wrote:
Scope will change and the 175E2 will see service. Mainline can’t serve the smaller markets effectively. There is no alternative for this market. Who the hell knows when the “SpaceJet” will fly.

First flight occurred November 11, 2015.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3132
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:19 pm

It will take another 9/11 style meltdown to change the scope limits, not zero but low probability. If scope stays in place; airlines drop marginal markets, prioritize the 76-seaters or replace with M-CRJ or E170-E1 and carry on. There are loads of markets that can be either upgauged or dropped. Pilot cost and availability will also drive the solution.
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:20 pm

luckyone wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Scope will change and the 175E2 will see service. Mainline can’t serve the smaller markets effectively. There is no alternative for this market. Who the hell knows when the “SpaceJet” will fly.

First flight occurred November 11, 2015.


I think you must know this, but I will say it anyway, just in case. DL717 was stating what most people are still thinking:

Who the hell knows when the SpaceJet will begin commercial service?

As a purchaser and consumer of airline travel, it would not sadden me in the slightest to see the entire line of Embraer jets quietly fade away. Not sure about the MRJ SpaceJet, since interior pics are scarce and it's not even in service yet, but I suspect that it won't be comfortable in Economy for anyone.

Back to today..... When there is a choice, I am selecting the A220 hands down over the any other RJ of any type. The wider cabin on the A220 is much more spacious and comfortable, especially on flights longer than 90-minutes. If the A220 is not available on a given route, I look for the 717. The older I get and the more that I am flying, I am increasingly avoiding the entire CRJ line (50-seaters all the way up the line). I don't care how much you stretch a CRJ, it retains the same miserable cross section.
Last edited by DL747400 on Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3063
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:38 pm

DL717 wrote:
Scope will change and the 175E2 will see service. Mainline can’t serve the smaller markets effectively. There is no alternative for this market. Who the hell knows when the “SpaceJet” will fly.


Scope will only change if forced in bankruptcy. Pilots will not sell regional scope, period.
From my cold, dead hands
 
luckyone
Posts: 2751
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:15 pm

DL747400 wrote:
luckyone wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Scope will change and the 175E2 will see service. Mainline can’t serve the smaller markets effectively. There is no alternative for this market. Who the hell knows when the “SpaceJet” will fly.

First flight occurred November 11, 2015.


I think you must know this, but I will say it anyway, just in case. DL717 was stating what most people are still thinking:

Who the hell knows when the SpaceJet will begin commercial service?

As a purchaser and consumer of airline travel, it would not sadden me in the slightest to see the entire line of Embraer jets quietly fade away. Not sure about the MRJ SpaceJet, since interior pics are scarce and it's not even in service yet, but I suspect that it won't be comfortable in Economy for anyone.

Back to today..... When there is a choice, I am selecting the A220 hands down over the any other RJ of any type. The wider cabin on the A220 is much more spacious and comfortable, especially on flights longer than 90-minutes. If the A220 is not available on a given route, I look for the 717. The older I get and the more that I am flying, I am increasingly avoiding the entire CRJ line (50-seaters all the way up the line). I don't care how much you stretch a CRJ, it retains the same miserable cross section.

Without intending to further the pedantry that is infecting this thread, no, I didn’t. When someone questions whether an aircraft will fly I take the words at face value, especially considering that we have separate words for service entry. On top of that, until I read that post and subsequently looked into it, I wasn’t aware that it had flown, and figured the poster may not either.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17501
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:02 pm

Folks, please read the forum rules. It is the sticky post at the start of the forums.

Do not discuss other users.
It even points out not to be pedantic on gramer.
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
WN732
Posts: 495
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:49 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:05 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Folks, please read the forum rules. It is the sticky post at the start of the forums.

Do not discuss other users.
It even points out not to be pedantic on gramer.


I see what you did there.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17501
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:08 pm

Now to be a normal user of a.net.

In this size category, the US market is too much of the market scale. My opinion is that pilots are not in the mood to open up scope.

So the E2-175 has no US market. Thus it is extremely high risk of having zero resale market. This will impact financing.

86,000 lb for 76 seaters. As the MRJ is being redesigned, so must the E2 for this market

65,000 lb for a 50 seater. I see demand for high premium 50 seaters, I do not see anything except the CRJ-500 to fill this market. (Recertified CRJ-700 to meet scope).

The CF-34 has poor fuel burn and the -10 version is a maintenance headache (-8 is a different, much more proven engine).

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 12923
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:12 pm

Most OE's publicly stand solidly behind their long term strategy moving forward, until the moment they changed it.

I believe Boeing Brasil / Embraer can retain their healthy marketshare US domestic, but not with the E175-E2

Like MHI on the MRJ70 and Boeing with the 737-7, they probably need to adjust their offering to meet the market requirements.

Maybe they can come up with something quiet, lean and mean that puts the rest out of business in 7-8 years..
Last edited by keesje on Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
solracfunk14
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:10 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:22 pm

Brazilian here, and my thoughts:

- Embraer is realling working with the unions to get around the scope clause, since the number of pax will not change from the E1 to the E2.
- If that don't work (Embraer will wait until next year since some contracts will expire between this year and middle of 2020), I can see the Embraer going for a E170-E2 with the help of Boeing expertise.

But by now the word at SJK is: let's focus on scope clause itself
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:34 pm

OK, I am going to bite.

If Embraer and Boeing through Embraer are conspiring to undermine pilot SCOPE clauses with the E175-E2 in the US, shouldn’t advanced labor be more open to the A220 program?

Boeing better nip this one in the bud quickly.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:37 pm

For those truly interested in comparing aircraft think of every Embraer as two Convair 440s.
The specifications when compared side to side are quite interesting.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
VC10er
Posts: 3988
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:04 pm

Curious about E170’s in the USA today.
1: it seems, just by looking out airport windows all over the country that the E170 have multiplied like rabbits, between the DL, AA and UA.
2: Aside from the many, many I see everywhere, I do know UnitedExpress operators have many on order and awaiting delivery
Between the 3 majors, and whomever else, roughly how many E170’s are in service today (roughly) And what is the US backlog for E170’s to come (Roughly?)
I don’t mind. I did 3.5 hours (albeit F) on the E170 and was perfectly comfortable and happy.
But if the total number of E170s in the USA is close to my guess, it will be an enormous problem to replace them when the day comes!
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5192
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:54 pm

VC10er wrote:
Curious about E170’s in the USA today.
1: it seems, just by looking out airport windows all over the country that the E170 have multiplied like rabbits, between the DL, AA and UA.
2: Aside from the many, many I see everywhere, I do know UnitedExpress operators have many on order and awaiting delivery
Between the 3 majors, and whomever else, roughly how many E170’s are in service today (roughly) And what is the US backlog for E170’s to come (Roughly?)
I don’t mind. I did 3.5 hours (albeit F) on the E170 and was perfectly comfortable and happy.
But if the total number of E170s in the USA is close to my guess, it will be an enormous problem to replace them when the day comes!

Details of type by operator for the express fleets are found in the annual reports of DL/AA/UA. There are more 175s than 170s. There are lots of CR7/CR9, too.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9270
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:59 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
OK, I am going to bite.

If Embraer and Boeing through Embraer are conspiring to undermine pilot SCOPE clauses with the E175-E2 in the US, shouldn’t advanced labor be more open to the A220 program?

Boeing better nip this one in the bud quickly.

The E175-E2 is the right size for scope clauses but the wrong weight (too heavy). The A220 is neither the right size (way too big) nor the right weight (way too heavy). Pilots not willing to cede scope for the E175 means they would be even less receptive to do so for the A220 family.

Above that it doesn’t matter what labor is open to, it is what the airline’s management thinks they can make money with.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:11 pm

Polot wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
OK, I am going to bite.

If Embraer and Boeing through Embraer are conspiring to undermine pilot SCOPE clauses with the E175-E2 in the US, shouldn’t advanced labor be more open to the A220 program?

Boeing better nip this one in the bud quickly.

The E175-E2 is the right size for scope clauses but the wrong weight (too heavy). The A220 is neither the right size (way too big) nor the right weight (way too heavy).


Sorry to point this out but 86-90 seats single class configuration as well as its weight are the E175-E2s limiting factors.

Don’t be fooled by “SCOPE creep.”

PS moderators, am not at all calling any names here as moderator should be able to tell I used the parentheses for clarity and absolutely no confusion. I seem to get a few “misguided” warning notes on here lately for some reason.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9270
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:18 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Polot wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
OK, I am going to bite.

If Embraer and Boeing through Embraer are conspiring to undermine pilot SCOPE clauses with the E175-E2 in the US, shouldn’t advanced labor be more open to the A220 program?

Boeing better nip this one in the bud quickly.

The E175-E2 is the right size for scope clauses but the wrong weight (too heavy). The A220 is neither the right size (way too big) nor the right weight (way too heavy).


Sorry to point this out but 86-90 seats single class configuration as well as its weight are the E175-E2s limiting factors.

Don’t be fooled by “SCOPE creep.”

PS moderators, am not at all calling any names here as moderator should be able to tell I used the parentheses for clarity and absolutely no confusion. I seem to get a few “misguided” warning notes on here lately for some reason.

Embraer can easily certify a plane to a max of 76 or whatever passengers as both they and BBD have done in the past with their aircraft to get around various scope clauses and fleet caps (see relatively new E175SC). Note that the current E175E1 can fit ~90 pax in a single class configuration, as will the new M100. The A221 needs to be in an almost all (US market) F layout to have just 76 seats. Great for passengers but the airline will never go for that.

It is the MTOW that is a problem for Embraer (E2 performance suffers too much when MTOW is below scope).
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1113
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:37 pm

DL747400 wrote:
luckyone wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Scope will change and the 175E2 will see service. Mainline can’t serve the smaller markets effectively. There is no alternative for this market. Who the hell knows when the “SpaceJet” will fly.

First flight occurred November 11, 2015.


I think you must know this, but I will say it anyway, just in case. DL717 was stating what most people are still thinking:

Who the hell knows when the SpaceJet will begin commercial service?

As a purchaser and consumer of airline travel, it would not sadden me in the slightest to see the entire line of Embraer jets quietly fade away. Not sure about the MRJ SpaceJet, since interior pics are scarce and it's not even in service yet, but I suspect that it won't be comfortable in Economy for anyone.

Back to today..... When there is a choice, I am selecting the A220 hands down over the any other RJ of any type. The wider cabin on the A220 is much more spacious and comfortable, especially on flights longer than 90-minutes. If the A220 is not available on a given route, I look for the 717. The older I get and the more that I am flying, I am increasingly avoiding the entire CRJ line (50-seaters all the way up the line). I don't care how much you stretch a CRJ, it retains the same miserable cross section.

Just FYI, the A220 is generally not considered to be an RJ. It is considered a mainline aircraft, and not just because scope clause. So, what you’re really saying is that you prefer there be no regional jets whatsoever.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:10 pm

There are multiple problems with the E2-175.

1) It should be called the E2-180 or E2-185. It’s stretched one row over the E1-175, which itself is already a bit too long for a true 76 seater (hence 12F seats).
2) Airlines could de-rate an E2-175 to 76 seats and an appropriate MTOW (above 76k) such that it’s useful range does not exceed what current / previous generation aircraft could do. Basically go to the unions and ask to use the new plane in the same role (same capability) as the old one (E1-175 payload range as benchmark) and they probably wouldn’t require too many concessions as the regional capacity functionally doesn’t change.
3) however, doing the above nets very little, probably not enough to out weigh the concessions. Why?

Current E175’s are called Enhanced models. They debuted in late 2014 with new wing tips and several critical aero clean ups along with updated optimized procedures for hot & high, longer key maintenance intervals on critical sub systems. Enhanced models cut burn nearly 6% over Standard models. This is why the E170 was dropped at the same time, the new E175 burned slightly less fuel for a larger frame.

Embraer advertises 16% fuel burn improvement over “Standard” E1 for a 600nm sector, 80 seats in E2 compared to 76 in the E1.

Lets break this 16% savings down.

Equalize to 76 seats in each, that 16% becomes 9% per seat (or now 9% less total trip cost).

That’s against the older standard model. Compare that to the Enhanced model, 9-6= 3%.

For a 600nm segment, fuel burn is only reduced 3%. That not nearly enough to justify the scope fight and support system changes (type ratings, spares, etc)

The longer the trip, the higher the savings for E2. However, short trips (<300nm), the E1 likely is more efficient for this configuration.

Therefore, additional scope relief is needed. It’s not just a MTOW bump limited to E2 models to allow them the same payload / range as E1, they also need a pax increase to 82-86 seats to have appropriate economic value to begin to seriously consider. That increase in pax count is, in many opinions including mine, a non starter.

This begs the question: why stretch the E2-175 and increase wingspan / weight to begin with?

For that, we don’t have factual answers. We can only speculate.

So here’s my speculation: the smallest GTF is too heavy and sub-optimized for this class range. Going shorter / lighter doesn’t net reduction due to lower efficiency of the engine. At that point, other than raw material costs, the stretch is “free” and improves unit efficiency (CASM). The CF34-8e linage is ancient. It’s largely similar to the first CF34 which was one of the very first high bypass engines ever. Yet despite the nearly 50 years old linage, the newest GTF is barely 10% better sfc. This to due to sub-optimized engine to keep it affordable.

So this is why the stretch. To further show economic improvements, performance at longer range was needed. EMB boosted the average sector several hundred miles (I forget the exact number). This drove further weight increases to optimize cruise drag.

I’d like to get Lightsaber’s input on this but for me, the E2 needs a better and more optimized engine in the 15klbs thrust range. The P1000G shares too many components with its larger brother.

As such, I wonder how much, if any, PIP room remains in the -8e. Several have occurred over the year but can any of the newer improvements be brought over at a reasonable cost such that the certification makes sense? Perhaps a new fan optimized at existing low side operating speeds? CMCs?

Finally ... replacement market. It’s going to be 10+ years before any of the recent E175 are needing replaced. Most of the USA operators are already maxed out on frame count. This leaves replacing against CRJ700 and CRJ900s (not too many yet) as the near term target market. That’s not a huge market to justify a lot of investment ....

As such, I think we’ll see more tweaking of the existing E1 which will continue to sell for the limited USA opportunities available.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:21 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
There are multiple problems with the E2-175.

1) It should be called the E2-180 or E2-185. It’s stretched one row over the E1-175, which itself is already a bit too long for a true 76 seater (hence 12F seats).
2) Airlines could de-rate an E2-175 to 76 seats and an appropriate MTOW (above 76k) such that it’s useful range does not exceed what current / previous generation aircraft could do. Basically go to the unions and ask to use the new plane in the same role (same capability) as the old one (E1-175 payload range as benchmark) and they probably wouldn’t require too many concessions as the regional capacity functionally doesn’t change.
3) however, doing the above nets very little, probably not enough to out weigh the concessions. Why?

Current E175’s are called Enhanced models. They debuted in late 2014 with new wing tips and several critical aero clean ups along with updated optimized procedures for hot & high, longer key maintenance intervals on critical sub systems. Enhanced models cut burn nearly 6% over Standard models. This is why the E170 was dropped at the same time, the new E175 burned slightly less fuel for a larger frame.

Embraer advertises 16% fuel burn improvement over “Standard” E1 for a 600nm sector, 80 seats in E2 compared to 76 in the E1.

Lets break this 16% savings down.

Equalize to 76 seats in each, that 16% becomes 9% per seat (or now 9% less total trip cost).

That’s against the older standard model. Compare that to the Enhanced model, 9-6= 3%.

For a 600nm segment, fuel burn is only reduced 3%. That not nearly enough to justify the scope fight and support system changes (type ratings, spares, etc)

The longer the trip, the higher the savings for E2. However, short trips (<300nm), the E1 likely is more efficient for this configuration.

Therefore, additional scope relief is needed. It’s not just a MTOW bump limited to E2 models to allow them the same payload / range as E1, they also need a pax increase to 82-86 seats to have appropriate economic value to begin to seriously consider. That increase in pax count is, in many opinions including mine, a non starter.

This begs the question: why stretch the E2-175 and increase wingspan / weight to begin with?

For that, we don’t have factual answers. We can only speculate.

So here’s my speculation: the smallest GTF is too heavy and sub-optimized for this class range. Going shorter / lighter doesn’t net reduction due to lower efficiency of the engine. At that point, other than raw material costs, the stretch is “free” and improves unit efficiency (CASM). The CF34-8e linage is ancient. It’s largely similar to the first CF34 which was one of the very first high bypass engines ever. Yet despite the nearly 50 years old linage, the newest GTF is barely 10% better sfc. This to due to sub-optimized engine to keep it affordable.

So this is why the stretch. To further show economic improvements, performance at longer range was needed. EMB boosted the average sector several hundred miles (I forget the exact number). This drove further weight increases to optimize cruise drag.

I’d like to get Lightsaber’s input on this but for me, the E2 needs a better and more optimized engine in the 15klbs thrust range. The P1000G shares too many components with its larger brother.

As such, I wonder how much, if any, PIP room remains in the -8e. Several have occurred over the year but can any of the newer improvements be brought over at a reasonable cost such that the certification makes sense? Perhaps a new fan optimized at existing low side operating speeds? CMCs?

Finally ... replacement market. It’s going to be 10+ years before any of the recent E175 are needing replaced. Most of the USA operators are already maxed out on frame count. This leaves replacing against CRJ700 and CRJ900s (not too many yet) as the near term target market. That’s not a huge market to justify a lot of investment ....

As such, I think we’ll see more tweaking of the existing E1 which will continue to sell for the limited USA opportunities available.


Nice analysis
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17501
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:21 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
There are multiple problems with the E2-175.

1) It should be called the E2-180 or E2-185. It’s stretched one row over the E1-175, which itself is already a bit too long for a true 76 seater (hence 12F seats).
2) Airlines could de-rate an E2-175 to 76 seats and an appropriate MTOW (above 76k) such that it’s useful range does not exceed what current / previous generation aircraft could do. Basically go to the unions and ask to use the new plane in the same role (same capability) as the old one (E1-175 payload range as benchmark) and they probably wouldn’t require too many concessions as the regional capacity functionally doesn’t change.
3) however, doing the above nets very little, probably not enough to out weigh the concessions. Why?

Current E175’s are called Enhanced models. They debuted in late 2014 with new wing tips and several critical aero clean ups along with updated optimized procedures for hot & high, longer key maintenance intervals on critical sub systems. Enhanced models cut burn nearly 6% over Standard models. This is why the E170 was dropped at the same time, the new E175 burned slightly less fuel for a larger frame.

Embraer advertises 16% fuel burn improvement over “Standard” E1 for a 600nm sector, 80 seats in E2 compared to 76 in the E1.

Lets break this 16% savings down.

Equalize to 76 seats in each, that 16% becomes 9% per seat (or now 9% less total trip cost).

That’s against the older standard model. Compare that to the Enhanced model, 9-6= 3%.

For a 600nm segment, fuel burn is only reduced 3%. That not nearly enough to justify the scope fight and support system changes (type ratings, spares, etc)

The longer the trip, the higher the savings for E2. However, short trips (<300nm), the E1 likely is more efficient for this configuration.

Therefore, additional scope relief is needed. It’s not just a MTOW bump limited to E2 models to allow them the same payload / range as E1, they also need a pax increase to 82-86 seats to have appropriate economic value to begin to seriously consider. That increase in pax count is, in many opinions including mine, a non starter.

This begs the question: why stretch the E2-175 and increase wingspan / weight to begin with?

For that, we don’t have factual answers. We can only speculate.

So here’s my speculation: the smallest GTF is too heavy and sub-optimized for this class range. Going shorter / lighter doesn’t net reduction due to lower efficiency of the engine. At that point, other than raw material costs, the stretch is “free” and improves unit efficiency (CASM). The CF34-8e linage is ancient. It’s largely similar to the first CF34 which was one of the very first high bypass engines ever. Yet despite the nearly 50 years old linage, the newest GTF is barely 10% better sfc. This to due to sub-optimized engine to keep it affordable.

So this is why the stretch. To further show economic improvements, performance at longer range was needed. EMB boosted the average sector several hundred miles (I forget the exact number). This drove further weight increases to optimize cruise drag.

I’d like to get Lightsaber’s input on this but for me, the E2 needs a better and more optimized engine in the 15klbs thrust range. The P1000G shares too many components with its larger brother.

As such, I wonder how much, if any, PIP room remains in the -8e. Several have occurred over the year but can any of the newer improvements be brought over at a reasonable cost such that the certification makes sense? Perhaps a new fan optimized at existing low side operating speeds? CMCs?

Finally ... replacement market. It’s going to be 10+ years before any of the recent E175 are needing replaced. Most of the USA operators are already maxed out on frame count. This leaves replacing against CRJ700 and CRJ900s (not too many yet) as the near term target market. That’s not a huge market to justify a lot of investment ....

As such, I think we’ll see more tweaking of the existing E1 which will continue to sell for the limited USA opportunities available.

The engines are heavy.

A custom engine would have been lighter and more fuel efficient. The high spool in particular is far too large. Because of that the engine pressure ratio is off (low). This creates a about 6% less efficient engine that is maybe 400kg heavy (each engine). Many sub parts of the PW1200G/1700G come right off the PW1500G making them heavy too (add another 25kg per engine).

Embraer needs to do as Mitsubishi (sub-optimal wingspan and fuel capacity to cut weight) and shrink the body too.

There isn't a competitive engine option likely.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
JungleJets
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 6:50 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:37 pm

Embraer needs to certify the E175 E2 as it was promised as an option for some customers. Even if no plane was delivered it was a chess move. The E175 E1 had already dominated the regional market in the past 10 years now on Boeing's wings they will be more competitive with lower acquisition and leasing costs.
Many forget that the current E175 E1 are from the enhancend version (fuel burn is 6.4% lower). In today's rapidly changing world it is difficult to predict the future of scope clauses I respect the pilots unions but no one can really be sure of what regional aviation will look like in the next 10 years. In this sense, what Embraer can offer to protect the airline's investment:
E175 ESC (enhanced special configuration) with 70 seats within the current scope clauses.
If the rules change, they can pay a fee for Embraer and add up to 6 more seats (76 in total).
If the rules change even more: they can pay the difference and change the rest of the order to the E175 E2 SC or E175 E2.
 
iceberg210
Posts: 331
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:11 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:43 pm

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a E170E2 at Paris that is Embraer's response to the new 'space jet M100'. They kind of have to and if down the road scope relaxes you'll see more 175E2's sold, just like you saw with the 170 to 175 transfer in the E1 series. At this point what you can't have happen is be locked out of the market on a hope and a prayer that scope relaxes even if you think there's a chance it does.
Erik Berg
Defying Gravity
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1332
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:48 pm

Scope clauses are artificial, but it is a definition that is set in contracts. With the 3 US majors having similar clauses in their pilot contracts it really will not change. If just one, it might, but it would take substantial concessions in trade - with 3 it just isn't happening. It seems surprising to me that every OEM chose to design models that were close but did not fit into the clause. Only now is MHI looking to adapt to get a model to just fit - where they should have been in the beginning.

BBD bet poorly on this market, yes they did the technically excellent C series, but its location in the market puts it in contention with both the 737 and A320 where it is very hard to compete with each making over 10x shipsets compared. As noted by Lightsaber and others the unit costs drop substantially as production volume increases. But the C series and the huge financial problems in BBD's rail section caused them to starve out the Q400 and the CRJ. Now they have sold the Q400, with possibly only a few years more production left. The CRJ is on the market with what appears to be only a single buyer for it - a tough negotiating spot.

Sorry for the snide remark earlier but I get frustrated with the weekly flame bait headlines like "Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?". Instead if the post was about how the E series could adapt to produce the best RJ that meets scope.
 
WkndWanderer
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:36 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:19 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Polot wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
OK, I am going to bite.

If Embraer and Boeing through Embraer are conspiring to undermine pilot SCOPE clauses with the E175-E2 in the US, shouldn’t advanced labor be more open to the A220 program?

Boeing better nip this one in the bud quickly.

The E175-E2 is the right size for scope clauses but the wrong weight (too heavy). The A220 is neither the right size (way too big) nor the right weight (way too heavy).


Sorry to point this out but 86-90 seats single class configuration as well as its weight are the E175-E2s limiting factors.

Don’t be fooled by “SCOPE creep.”

PS moderators, am not at all calling any names here as moderator should be able to tell I used the parentheses for clarity and absolutely no confusion. I seem to get a few “misguided” warning notes on here lately for some reason.


The existing E-175 can already seat 88 in a single class configuration, the E-175 E2 being 2 ft longer and capable on paper of carrying 90 in a single class configuration is hardly a game changer in that regard from the capacity of the current aircraft which are already prolific under existing scope.
 
GmvAfcs
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:25 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:59 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
There are multiple problems with the E2-175.

1) It should be called the E2-180 or E2-185. It’s stretched one row over the E1-175, which itself is already a bit too long for a true 76 seater (hence 12F seats).
2) Airlines could de-rate an E2-175 to 76 seats and an appropriate MTOW (above 76k) such that it’s useful range does not exceed what current / previous generation aircraft could do. Basically go to the unions and ask to use the new plane in the same role (same capability) as the old one (E1-175 payload range as benchmark) and they probably wouldn’t require too many concessions as the regional capacity functionally doesn’t change.
3) however, doing the above nets very little, probably not enough to out weigh the concessions. Why?

Current E175’s are called Enhanced models. They debuted in late 2014 with new wing tips and several critical aero clean ups along with updated optimized procedures for hot & high, longer key maintenance intervals on critical sub systems. Enhanced models cut burn nearly 6% over Standard models. This is why the E170 was dropped at the same time, the new E175 burned slightly less fuel for a larger frame.

Embraer advertises 16% fuel burn improvement over “Standard” E1 for a 600nm sector, 80 seats in E2 compared to 76 in the E1.

Lets break this 16% savings down.

Equalize to 76 seats in each, that 16% becomes 9% per seat (or now 9% less total trip cost).

That’s against the older standard model. Compare that to the Enhanced model, 9-6= 3%.

For a 600nm segment, fuel burn is only reduced 3%. That not nearly enough to justify the scope fight and support system changes (type ratings, spares, etc)

The longer the trip, the higher the savings for E2. However, short trips (<300nm), the E1 likely is more efficient for this configuration.

Therefore, additional scope relief is needed. It’s not just a MTOW bump limited to E2 models to allow them the same payload / range as E1, they also need a pax increase to 82-86 seats to have appropriate economic value to begin to seriously consider. That increase in pax count is, in many opinions including mine, a non starter.

This begs the question: why stretch the E2-175 and increase wingspan / weight to begin with?

For that, we don’t have factual answers. We can only speculate.

So here’s my speculation: the smallest GTF is too heavy and sub-optimized for this class range. Going shorter / lighter doesn’t net reduction due to lower efficiency of the engine. At that point, other than raw material costs, the stretch is “free” and improves unit efficiency (CASM). The CF34-8e linage is ancient. It’s largely similar to the first CF34 which was one of the very first high bypass engines ever. Yet despite the nearly 50 years old linage, the newest GTF is barely 10% better sfc. This to due to sub-optimized engine to keep it affordable.

So this is why the stretch. To further show economic improvements, performance at longer range was needed. EMB boosted the average sector several hundred miles (I forget the exact number). This drove further weight increases to optimize cruise drag.

I’d like to get Lightsaber’s input on this but for me, the E2 needs a better and more optimized engine in the 15klbs thrust range. The P1000G shares too many components with its larger brother.

As such, I wonder how much, if any, PIP room remains in the -8e. Several have occurred over the year but can any of the newer improvements be brought over at a reasonable cost such that the certification makes sense? Perhaps a new fan optimized at existing low side operating speeds? CMCs?

Finally ... replacement market. It’s going to be 10+ years before any of the recent E175 are needing replaced. Most of the USA operators are already maxed out on frame count. This leaves replacing against CRJ700 and CRJ900s (not too many yet) as the near term target market. That’s not a huge market to justify a lot of investment ....

As such, I think we’ll see more tweaking of the existing E1 which will continue to sell for the limited USA opportunities available.

The engines are heavy.

A custom engine would have been lighter and more fuel efficient. The high spool in particular is far too large. Because of that the engine pressure ratio is off (low). This creates a about 6% less efficient engine that is maybe 400kg heavy (each engine). Many sub parts of the PW1200G/1700G come right off the PW1500G making them heavy too (add another 25kg per engine).

Embraer needs to do as Mitsubishi (sub-optimal wingspan and fuel capacity to cut weight) and shrink the body too.

There isn't a competitive engine option likely.

Lightsaber


Given all the information above, why bother with the change? Is changing the CF34-8e by the GTF really worth? If not by the fuel burn, would the maintenance costs justify it? Because other than that, the 175E1 2014 version already have all the advanced avionics features from E2, although still keeping the smaller displays. It also lacks Full FBW, but this wouldn’t do so much of a difference in fuel burn and maintenance costs.
 
VC10er
Posts: 3988
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:37 pm

With ALL the reading here I have done- thus I must be really dense- because it’s a topic I really do not understand I often gloss past scope conversations.

My simple, topical understanding is “70/76 seat scope clause” simply mean that a crew’s compensation is capped vs mainline aircraft. Am I correct? A pilot and co-pilot make less than a 737 or A320 series- much less a WB.
HELP BECAUSE I REALLY DONT GET “SCOPE CLAUSES” - essentially the “why” (sure, I understand that at the end of day it’s about money) but if DL/AA/UA got E195’s why isn’t there a different clause for that size ac- clearly more pax and therefore more potentially more revenue?. Or, is an E195 and a 73G roughly equal in seat counts?
Landing fees a factor?

And as for mainline does a pilot certified for a 767 and 787-10 or 77W or A380 differ also?

From my extremely limited understanding, I get that flying 70 people seated behind you vs 250 or 300+ would trigger different compensation.
But what does aircraft weight have to do with it? An E2 can’t be THAT MUCH more heavy- vs a 767 and 77W?
Is there an answer in the new UA 50 seat premium heavy CRJ - can a premium heavy configuration E2-175 be (very large F and E+) generate greater margins?
Sorry: but to me, there SEEMS to be a “cut nose off to spite face” dynamic going on?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4593
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:46 pm

Paying a pilot more or less because the plane he is flying has more or less seats is like GM paying the guy bolting on the wheels on the Cadillac Escalade more than the guy bolting on the wheels on the Chevy Suburban. But since unions exist to protect incumbents and screw the new guys, and incumbents like to fly the big shiny toys, this is where we are.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3669
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:50 pm

keesje wrote:
:arrow: 40% of regional aircraft demand is in the America's
:arrow: E175 has been succesfull with US regionals in recent years
:arrow: E175-E2 doesn't meet scope clause MTOW for 76 passengers restrictions


All of these apply to the American market only, but the world is bigger than America. So what if they don't sell any in the USA? They can sell them in Europe, Africa, South America, Australia, etc. There's always a market. It wouldn't be the first time an aircraft is popular in one part of the world and less popular in other places. Don't think the whole world is like the USA, it isn't.
 
seanpmassey
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 3:22 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:06 pm

VC10er wrote:
With ALL the reading here I have done- thus I must be really dense- because it’s a topic I really do not understand I often gloss past scope conversations.

My simple, topical understanding is “70/76 seat scope clause” simply mean that a crew’s compensation is capped vs mainline aircraft. Am I correct? A pilot and co-pilot make less than a 737 or A320 series- much less a WB.
HELP BECAUSE I REALLY DONT GET “SCOPE CLAUSES” - essentially the “why” (sure, I understand that at the end of day it’s about money) but if DL/AA/UA got E195’s why isn’t there a different clause for that size ac- clearly more pax and therefore more potentially more revenue?. Or, is an E195 and a 73G roughly equal in seat counts?
Landing fees a factor?

And as for mainline does a pilot certified for a 767 and 787-10 or 77W or A380 differ also?

From my extremely limited understanding, I get that flying 70 people seated behind you vs 250 or 300+ would trigger different compensation.
But what does aircraft weight have to do with it? An E2 can’t be THAT MUCH more heavy- vs a 767 and 77W?
Is there an answer in the new UA 50 seat premium heavy CRJ - can a premium heavy configuration E2-175 be (very large F and E+) generate greater margins?
Sorry: but to me, there SEEMS to be a “cut nose off to spite face” dynamic going on?


It has to do with outsourcing. Regional airlines are 3rd-parties that are contracted to handle smaller, shorter routes. Scope clauses limit how much of that flying can be outsourced to regional airlines, including the size and number of aircraft that can be flown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause
 
VS11
Posts: 1416
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:20 pm

Well, if the 175-E2 can take 90 pax and is 15-16% more efficient, is that not enough to make it economical to be operated by mainline crews? What improvements can Boeing add to make it more economically viable to be operated by mainline? How much of the E175/190 is made of carbon fiber?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17501
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:50 pm

VS11 wrote:
Well, if the 175-E2 can take 90 pax and is 15-16% more efficient, is that not enough to make it economical to be operated by mainline crews? What improvements can Boeing add to make it more economically viable to be operated by mainline? How much of the E175/190 is made of carbon fiber?

Mainline isn't working for a hundred passengers. In the US3, only the E2-195 is big enough for mainline costs.

I hope at Paris for good E2-195 sales.
I'm not expecting any E2-175 sales.

Heck, unless Aircastle can place their E2-190s due next year, there is going to be an issue.

Embraer needs another large customer. At this time E2 sales are at about B717 levels. They need 500+ sales to ramp up production, negotiate vendors down in price, and create confidence that MRO shops should support the airframe and engine.

The MD-90 is a great example of why too few in service creates issues. DL squeezed MROs on engine overhaul costs. All but one shop decided the expense of being audited to keep maintaining the V2500D5 wasn't worth it as even Pratt and RR dropped rebuilding the type.

Embraer needs a big North American order just to support the Pratt shop. They need another EU order to support the MTU shop. By big, I'm talking 100+ aircraft such as possibly Spirit.

DL forced Pratt to allow PW1500G overhauls to support the type as did LH. At this time I am aware of 5 shops opening to support the PW1500G (which is more than the 3 the current sold quantity could support). Embraer really needs to sell. At this time, if only a small number sell, either Pratt or MTU will be forced to take a loss supporting the PW1700G.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
texl1649
Posts: 964
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:42 pm

Respectfully, all of the PW1000 have a very common architecture, I am not sure how the 1400/1700 in particular wouldn't be able to be serviced at any shop that handles GTF overhauls.

Part of Embraer’s reason for selecting the PW engine was based on the fact the PW1700G while configured with a 56-in. diameter fan, is a virtual clone of the PW1200G on the MRJ, while the PW1900G is the same size as the PW1500G on the A220.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1359
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:57 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
keesje wrote:
:arrow: 40% of regional aircraft demand is in the America's
:arrow: E175 has been succesfull with US regionals in recent years
:arrow: E175-E2 doesn't meet scope clause MTOW for 76 passengers restrictions


All of these apply to the American market only, but the world is bigger than America. So what if they don't sell any in the USA? They can sell them in Europe, Africa, South America, Australia, etc. There's always a market. It wouldn't be the first time an aircraft is popular in one part of the world and less popular in other places. Don't think the whole world is like the USA, it isn't.

A market that is 60% of the world's demand, and that may not be enough to actually make a market. It's also very regionally fragmented. Sure you can sell them 10 at a time, but it's much better to sell them by the hundred.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8200
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:07 pm

The prototype E175-E2 is already being built, fyi.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17501
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:20 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
keesje wrote:
:arrow: 40% of regional aircraft demand is in the America's
:arrow: E175 has been succesfull with US regionals in recent years
:arrow: E175-E2 doesn't meet scope clause MTOW for 76 passengers restrictions


All of these apply to the American market only, but the world is bigger than America. So what if they don't sell any in the USA? They can sell them in Europe, Africa, South America, Australia, etc. There's always a market. It wouldn't be the first time an aircraft is popular in one part of the world and less popular in other places. Don't think the whole world is like the USA, it isn't.

Without the US market, economy of scale is lost.

They could sell all over the world. They have tried. No one buys an RJ unless their is maintenance competition. At this time, no one else buys a hundred plus RJs except the US companies. The E2-175 needs a minimum order of a hundred just to get small airlines looking at the type.

The era when an aircraft could be launched with tiny orders is over. The MD-90 and B717 have become object lessons in avoiding risk. Most airlines simply do not have the capabilities to maintain the fleet leaders (first 18 months of production). Unless AF/KLM, IAG, or LH group launch the type, who do you see able to afford this risk.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
9Patch
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:26 pm

DL747400 wrote:
As a purchaser and consumer of airline travel, it would not sadden me in the slightest to see the entire line of Embraer jets quietly fade away.

I've never flown on an E-jet, but I've heard they are quite comfortable.
Certainly better than a CRJ.
And I would think 2x2 would be more comfortable than 3x2.
I don't mind flying on a 717 if I can sit on the 2x side.

DL717 wrote:
Scope will change and the 175E2 will see service.

When? Leeham thinks the scope clause won't be changing anytime soon.
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:47 am

9Patch wrote:
I've never flown on an E-jet, but I've heard they are quite comfortable.
Certainly better than a CRJ.
And I would think 2x2 would be more comfortable than 3x2.
I don't mind flying on a 717 if I can sit on the 2x side.


The E-jets are just OK. 3X2 trumps 2X2 hands down, IMO. I prefer the wider cabin.
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
GoSharks
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:23 am

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:46 am

DL747400 wrote:
9Patch wrote:
I've never flown on an E-jet, but I've heard they are quite comfortable.
Certainly better than a CRJ.
And I would think 2x2 would be more comfortable than 3x2.
I don't mind flying on a 717 if I can sit on the 2x side.


The E-jets are just OK. 3X2 trumps 2X2 hands down, IMO. I prefer the wider cabin.

I’ve flown about 100k miles on the E175. It’s my favorite narrowbody in Y by far. Much different from CRJs.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:04 am

Pyrex wrote:
Paying a pilot more or less because the plane he is flying has more or less seats is like GM paying the guy bolting on the wheels on the Cadillac Escalade more than the guy bolting on the wheels on the Chevy Suburban. But since unions exist to protect incumbents and screw the new guys, and incumbents like to fly the big shiny toys, this is where we are.


You pay more for the pilot in the plane with more seats because they are bringing in more money for the company. That’s just economics has nothing to do with unions.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:12 am

VC10er wrote:
With ALL the reading here I have done- thus I must be really dense- because it’s a topic I really do not understand I often gloss past scope conversations.

My simple, topical understanding is “70/76 seat scope clause” simply mean that a crew’s compensation is capped vs mainline aircraft. Am I correct? A pilot and co-pilot make less than a 737 or A320 series- much less a WB.
HELP BECAUSE I REALLY DONT GET “SCOPE CLAUSES” - essentially the “why” (sure, I understand that at the end of day it’s about money) but if DL/AA/UA got E195’s why isn’t there a different clause for that size ac- clearly more pax and therefore more potentially more revenue?. Or, is an E195 and a 73G roughly equal in seat counts?
Landing fees a factor?

And as for mainline does a pilot certified for a 767 and 787-10 or 77W or A380 differ also?

From my extremely limited understanding, I get that flying 70 people seated behind you vs 250 or 300+ would trigger different compensation.
But what does aircraft weight have to do with it? An E2 can’t be THAT MUCH more heavy- vs a 767 and 77W?
Is there an answer in the new UA 50 seat premium heavy CRJ - can a premium heavy configuration E2-175 be (very large F and E+) generate greater margins?
Sorry: but to me, there SEEMS to be a “cut nose off to spite face” dynamic going on?


Here’s a very simple explanation:

SCOPE is about WHO flies the jet not how much the pilot makes. Mainline pilots would gladly fly the E2 we just don’t want Skywest to fly the E2. If mainline needs the plane then they need to hire the pilots to fly them.

The bankruptcies in the early 2000s parked hundreds of planes 727, DC-10, 747 classics, MD-11 etc......These pilots were furloughed and regional jets were forced into many routes those aircraft use to fly. Then again in 2008 when the downturn happened more mainline pilots were furloughed and regionals grew again as mainline jets got sent to the desert.

Bankruptcy is the only way an airline will ever get mainline pilots to give away their jobs again. It’s not our problem that 70 seat jets are old and need to get replaced with the next generation. Mainline flies them or they don’t fly at all and the old generation can cycle out.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:48 am

DL747400 wrote:
9Patch wrote:
I've never flown on an E-jet, but I've heard they are quite comfortable.
Certainly better than a CRJ.
And I would think 2x2 would be more comfortable than 3x2.
I don't mind flying on a 717 if I can sit on the 2x side.


The E-jets are just OK. 3X2 trumps 2X2 hands down, IMO. I prefer the wider cabin.

How so? 20% of passengers get a middle seat and 20% are two seats away from the aisle
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

Re: Will Boeing Brasil let the E175-E2 just fall off the table?

Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:53 am

CriticalPoint wrote:
VC10er wrote:
With ALL the reading here I have done- thus I must be really dense- because it’s a topic I really do not understand I often gloss past scope conversations.

My simple, topical understanding is “70/76 seat scope clause” simply mean that a crew’s compensation is capped vs mainline aircraft. Am I correct? A pilot and co-pilot make less than a 737 or A320 series- much less a WB.
HELP BECAUSE I REALLY DONT GET “SCOPE CLAUSES” - essentially the “why” (sure, I understand that at the end of day it’s about money) but if DL/AA/UA got E195’s why isn’t there a different clause for that size ac- clearly more pax and therefore more potentially more revenue?. Or, is an E195 and a 73G roughly equal in seat counts?
Landing fees a factor?

And as for mainline does a pilot certified for a 767 and 787-10 or 77W or A380 differ also?

From my extremely limited understanding, I get that flying 70 people seated behind you vs 250 or 300+ would trigger different compensation.
But what does aircraft weight have to do with it? An E2 can’t be THAT MUCH more heavy- vs a 767 and 77W?
Is there an answer in the new UA 50 seat premium heavy CRJ - can a premium heavy configuration E2-175 be (very large F and E+) generate greater margins?
Sorry: but to me, there SEEMS to be a “cut nose off to spite face” dynamic going on?


Here’s a very simple explanation:

SCOPE is about WHO flies the jet not how much the pilot makes. Mainline pilots would gladly fly the E2 we just don’t want Skywest to fly the E2. If mainline needs the plane then they need to hire the pilots to fly them.

The bankruptcies in the early 2000s parked hundreds of planes 727, DC-10, 747 classics, MD-11 etc......These pilots were furloughed and regional jets were forced into many routes those aircraft use to fly. Then again in 2008 when the downturn happened more mainline pilots were furloughed and regionals grew again as mainline jets got sent to the desert.

Bankruptcy is the only way an airline will ever get mainline pilots to give away their jobs again. It’s not our problem that 70 seat jets are old and need to get replaced with the next generation. Mainline flies them or they don’t fly at all and the old generation can cycle out.

So long as the E1 is still in production, older 70 seaters can still be replaced with new 70 seaters.

My question is to anyone. Can an E170 E2 be made that is less than 86,000 pounds ?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos