The E2 production thread is going off topic.

I know IAG is looking at E2-190s.
What other sales campaigns?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1424001&start=100

This was the year of 'sales surge.'

https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... -push-2019

I'm aware of KLM buying 15:
https://www.ifn.news/posts/klm-announce ... r-e195-e2/

We were also talking the impact of scope.
I personally believe mainline pilots want to, if anything, reduce scope. For example, Delta, about 7 years ago, agreed to reduce 50 seat RJ flying and replace that flying with 717s:

https://blog.seattlepi.com/airlinerepor ... ery-first/

If anything, that set the president. I do not think the 76 seat/ 86,000 lb or 50 seat/ 65,000lb limits will increase. (Excludes AS). This hurts E2-175 prospects as there will not be a US resale market.

I believe Embraer needs to remove weight. Slightly tougher for them than the MRJ. I wish them luck.

Lightsaber

It's peculiar isn't it. Embraer seems to be having no trouble ramping up E2 production steeply, but they don't have the orders they need. Meanwhile Airbus has been struggling to ramp up CSeries production despite a very healthy backlog.

The big one is United, who if they order the ERJ195E2 will be able to add additional 75 seat ERJ-175s. They can add 1 new ERJ-175 for each 1.25 additional ERJ-195E2s they add up to 70 additional ERJ-175s for 88 ERJ-195E2s.

If Embraer could land that order from United that would change the fortunes of the program. United though expressed concerns about adding a new type and whether the economics of the ERJ-195E2 will work for them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

STT757 wrote:

The big one is United, who if they order the ERJ195E2 will be able to add additional 75 seat ERJ-175s. They can add 1 new ERJ-175 for each 1.25 additional ERJ-195E2s they add up to 70 additional ERJ-175s for 88 ERJ-195E2s.

If Embraer could land that order from United that would change the fortunes of the program. United though expressed concerns about adding a new type and whether the economics of the ERJ-195E2 will work for them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

But that's been the case for years already. If UA wanted to add a new small jet it wouldn't go through with the CR550 experiment, spreading 70 seats of cost across just 50 tickets.

You really have to ask how, from a UA mainline point of view, an E95-2 is superior to the 221 or 223. I don't see it unless Embraer gives them away or UA is in a great hurry to get them.

MIflyer12 wrote:

STT757 wrote:

The big one is United, who if they order the ERJ195E2 will be able to add additional 75 seat ERJ-175s. They can add 1 new ERJ-175 for each 1.25 additional ERJ-195E2s they add up to 70 additional ERJ-175s for 88 ERJ-195E2s.

If Embraer could land that order from United that would change the fortunes of the program. United though expressed concerns about adding a new type and whether the economics of the ERJ-195E2 will work for them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

But that's been the case for years already. If UA wanted to add a new small jet it wouldn't go through with the CR550 experiment, spreading 70 seats of cost across just 50 tickets.

You really have to ask how, from a UA mainline point of view, an E95-2 is superior to the 221 or 223. I don't see it unless Embraer gives them away or UA is in a great hurry to get them.

If I recall correctly, the A221 would count the same as an E2-195. Would the A223?.

I see a market for a premium heavy 50 seat RJ, but only because of scope clauses.

If UA adds another fleet type, I would expect an order for 88, but attempts to increase the quantity of RJ a by adding more mainline.

I wouldn't assume on the UA order. The slots would be early...

Lightsaber

I still think the 175-E2 has AS written all over it. They’re not under any of the scope-clause issues, are they?

Beyond an early delivery date and probably heavy discounts, what’s the value proposition for the E2? If you want something below 100 seats, the MRJ does as well or better. If you’re in the 100-150 seat range, the A220/CSeries does better. So unless you need aircraft earlier or can get some heavy discounts from Embraer/Boeing Brasil, what’s the value proposition? The best I can see is that Boeing does its best to package them with 737 Max sales.

All that still address the scope issues. And here the MRJ will eventually (probably) be able to both shed weight and get some forgiveness on MTOW from the unions to make them viable. Embraer? There’s no way unions are going to allow that much of an MTOW increase, let alone upping the seat count to 80 or 84. That high a seat count might tempt airlines like UA and AA to grow their regionals over getting a mainline 100 seater.

I am curious how the unions would see a limit of 80 seats and 90 000 lbs MTOW. That’s the minimum that might allow wiggle room for both OEMs and the airlines to get the 175-E2 and the MR90 into service among US regionals. Absent that kind of concession, both airlines will have to do some serious work. EMB may have to bite the bullet and commence work on an 170-E2 that’s slightly shorter than 1750-E2 and as scope compliant on MTOW.

superbizzy73 wrote:

I still think the 175-E2 has AS written all over it. They’re not under any of the scope-clause issues, are they?

They’d be a good fit at Horizon. But their Q400s still have some life left in them. And their E175s are brand new (the oldest had their first flight in 2017). They don’t need to order for at least a few years.

Not to mention, they have bigger fish to fry digesting the Virgin merger and dealing with the 737 Max issues.

TObound wrote:

superbizzy73 wrote:

I still think the 175-E2 has AS written all over it. They’re not under any of the scope-clause issues, are they?

They’d be a good fit at Horizon. But their Q400s still have some life left in them. And their E175s are brand new (the oldest had their first flight in 2017). They don’t need to order for at least a few years.

Not to mention, they have bigger fish to fry digesting the Virgin merger and dealing with the 737 Max issues.

All very true, and good points. I keep forgetting how young some of their E175’s are. I’m still kind of curious how the E2 would fit in as a follow-up order to replace the older E175’s.

TObound wrote:

If you want something below 100 seats, the MRJ does as well or better.

How could you possibly know this?

Pudelhund wrote:

TObound wrote:

If you want something below 100 seats, the MRJ does as well or better.

How could you possibly know this?

Same engine. Lighter airplane. As far as fit gor purpose goes, I'd say it's a reasonable guess to say the MRJ is close or better. With pricing and delivery slots making up the difference.

TObound wrote:

Pudelhund wrote:

TObound wrote:

If you want something below 100 seats, the MRJ does as well or better.

How could you possibly know this?

Same engine. Lighter airplane. As far as fit gor purpose goes, I'd say it's a reasonable guess to say the MRJ is close or better. With pricing and delivery slots making up the difference.

The weight of an aircraft is not the whole picture when it comes to efficiency. Furthermore, The MRJ90, which competes most directly in size to the E175E2, is 81 seats in a dual class (measured at 36" pitch in J and 29-31" in Y) vs. 80 seats in a dual class on the E175E2 (measured at 38" pitch in J and 31" in Y). The difference in MTOW for the MRJ90 is 42,800kg, the E175E2 is 44,800kg. Not much of a difference at all considering the other variables.

superbizzy73 wrote:

TObound wrote:

superbizzy73 wrote:

I still think the 175-E2 has AS written all over it. They’re not under any of the scope-clause issues, are they?

They’d be a good fit at Horizon. But their Q400s still have some life left in them. And their E175s are brand new (the oldest had their first flight in 2017). They don’t need to order for at least a few years.

Not to mention, they have bigger fish to fry digesting the Virgin merger and dealing with the 737 Max issues.

All very true, and good points. I keep forgetting how young some of their E175’s are. I’m still kind of curious how the E2 would fit in as a follow-up order to replace the older E175’s.

The E1s have been a very good fit for QX and the focus is shifting back to strengthening local flights around the northwest with the Q400s now finding renewed importance.

I personally think the E2 could firmly put AS ahead of the competition around the longer regional flights, but I don’t see QX being able to support another new fleet type this soon after the introduction of the E1s

On a minor side note, The E2 is too large to fit into any of the Horizon spots in SEA to my knowledge. Widening them to fit the extra wingspan might have to involve sacrificing a gate or two, and the Alaska side is already full

Pudelhund wrote:

The weight of an aircraft is not the whole picture when it comes to efficiency. Furthermore, The MRJ90, which competes most directly in size to the E175E2, is 81 seats in a dual class (measured at 36" pitch in J and 29-31" in Y) vs. 80 seats in a dual class on the E175E2 (measured at 38" pitch in J and 31" in Y). The difference in MTOW for the MRJ90 is 42,800kg, the E175E2 is 44,800kg. Not much of a difference at all considering the other variables.

You're forgetting about the M100 that Mitsubishi just announced. 76 seats and 42 tons. 15 ft shorter wingspan than a 175-E2. They are able to paper derate to 39 tons (limit to tanking 2100 gallons) to meet scope. They have a scope-limited range of 1500 nm. If the 175-E2 undertook the same exercise (paper de-rate) would they even be able to get 1000nm?

This is what I mean about the MRJ being better in the >100 seat category.

I just don't get why American scope limited airlines would pick the 175-E2 over the M100. For other airlines that want something close to 100 seats, I agree that the E2 is a better fit.

452QX wrote:

On a minor side note, The E2 is too large to fit into any of the Horizon spots in SEA to my knowledge. Widening them to fit the extra wingspan might have to involve sacrificing a gate or two, and the Alaska side is already full

The Mitsubishi M100 has a shorter wingspan than the Q400. Might be very relevant in the future.

Yes the M100 will be a huge success in the US regional airlines. He will kill the E175-E1 and E2

queb wrote:

Yes the M100 will be a huge success in the US regional airlines. He will kill the E175-E1 and E2

RealIy ? I am seated and waiting for their sales ...

EMBSPBR wrote:

queb wrote:

Yes the M100 will be a huge success in the US regional airlines. He will kill the E175-E1 and E2

RealIy ? I am seated and waiting for their sales ...

The E175-E2 is already dead, I don't understand why they still put money in. For the E1, he's still alive because he did not have a serious competitor until now. Order for the M100 will come when customers will be sure there will be no more delay.

You can have the best design on the market, if quality and customer support are deficient you are dead. Embraer seems to be reliable on those aspects, and we can guess that with Boeing it will stay like that.

Mitsubishi needs to build the whole infrastructure around its SpaceJet almost from ashes.

LaunchDetected wrote:

You can have the best design on the market, if quality and customer support are deficient you are dead. Embraer seems to be reliable on those aspects, and we can guess that with Boeing it will stay like that.

Mitsubishi needs to build the whole infrastructure around its SpaceJet almost from ashes.

Agree, with the E1 you need a very good customer support, ask Air Canada and JetBlue.

EMBSPBR wrote:

queb wrote:

Yes the M100 will be a huge success in the US regional airlines. He will kill the E175-E1 and E2

RealIy ? I am seated and waiting for their sales ...

Now that they have BBD's CRJ support organization/network, I have a feeling you'll be singing a different tune in a few months.

I am waiting for Embraer to announce the E170-E2 after finally admitting defeat on the E175-E2.

LaunchDetected wrote:

Mitsubishi needs to build the whole infrastructure around its SpaceJet almost from ashes.

What do you think they bought Bombardier's CRJ program for?

Analysts agree: Mitsubishi does not envy the CRJ itself, but rather the global structure accompanying it, everything from engineering and certification expertise to customer relationships and support. They note airlines shy from buying aircraft from smaller airframers that lack global support, citing Sukhoi Superjet 100 maintenance struggles as a cautionary example.

"[Mitsubishi] wants the customer base around the world, the support network," says Addison Schonland, partner at consultancy AirInsight Group. "[They] need certification people, engineering and production people."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-how-the-crj-could-save-the-mrj-458742/

queb wrote:

LaunchDetected wrote:

You can have the best design on the market, if quality and customer support are deficient you are dead. Embraer seems to be reliable on those aspects, and we can guess that with Boeing it will stay like that.

Mitsubishi needs to build the whole infrastructure around its SpaceJet almost from ashes.

Agree, with the E1 you need a very good customer support, ask Air Canada and JetBlue.

You can also ask to Aeroméxico, Alitália, American Airlines, Air France, Azul, Austrian, British Airways, COPA, JAL, KLM, LOT, Lufthansa, TAP, Tianjin, among others ...

I feel the E2 has a massive struggle coming. For an airline the opportunity cost of buying the E2 is not getting the A220..... Why would you take the E2 over the A220?

SEU wrote:

I feel the E2 has a massive struggle coming. For an airline the opportunity cost of buying the E2 is not getting the A220..... Why would you take the E2 over the A220?

Yes, Embraer is in the same situation than BBD 20 years ago with their CRJ700/900 when Embraer launched the Ejet. Even worse, the E2 is squeezed between 2 cleansheet aircraft.

queb wrote:

SEU wrote:

I feel the E2 has a massive struggle coming. For an airline the opportunity cost of buying the E2 is not getting the A220..... Why would you take the E2 over the A220?

Yes, Embraer is in the same situation than BBD 20 years ago with their CRJ700/900 when Embraer launched the Ejet. Even worse, the E2 is squeezed between 2 cleansheet aircraft.

It is clear that you don’t have any knowledge on the E2.

GmvAfcs wrote:

queb wrote:

SEU wrote:

I feel the E2 has a massive struggle coming. For an airline the opportunity cost of buying the E2 is not getting the A220..... Why would you take the E2 over the A220?

Yes, Embraer is in the same situation than BBD 20 years ago with their CRJ700/900 when Embraer launched the Ejet. Even worse, the E2 is squeezed between 2 cleansheet aircraft.

It is clear that you don’t have any knowledge on the E2.

Well I know its near enough a clean sheet design, but tell me what we have missed. Why would you choose the E2 over the A220?

Both airplanes are economically very close. Even JetBlue admits this:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 20-450121/

So the E2 is not a dead rat like some like to picture it. It is able to compete against A220 very well. Most of the sales stalled mainly due to merger with Boeing.

It's not just about cost, it's also about the right size, range. The A220 is almost a perfect fit with the A320neo, I don't think the E2 is a good fit with the Max. In ten years, I think there will be more Boeing Brazil workers on B797 sub-assemblies than on the E2.

queb wrote:

LaunchDetected wrote:

You can have the best design on the market, if quality and customer support are deficient you are dead. Embraer seems to be reliable on those aspects, and we can guess that with Boeing it will stay like that.

Mitsubishi needs to build the whole infrastructure around its SpaceJet almost from ashes.

Agree, with the E1 you need a very good customer support, ask Air Canada and JetBlue.

Didn't Mitsubishi just buy the CRJ support network?

Embraer has a great support network. In my opinion better than what Mitsubishi just bought by a significant amount.

But as the numbers currently look:
The MRJ with about a 1500nm range will have a reduced business case due to the limited range.

Selling a 1,000 NM E2-175 (shrunk, smaller wing) isn going to work. But with so many of this class of jet US based, it would be tough to sell.

What Embraer needs is a US based sale of the E2. I see merit in the E2-130.

Lightsaber

superbizzy73 wrote:

I still think the 175-E2 has AS written all over it. They’re not under any of the scope-clause issues, are they?

Aren't all of Alaska's 175s only a couple years old though? I can't see them replacing new frames so soon and I'd doubt they would want to introduce a new variant with a top up.

Three new movies about the E2 family:

First E190-E2 to Helvetic Airways:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1154522955076046850

First E195-E2 to Binter Canarias:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1158792350501502976

First E175-E2 in house colors:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1158810480502333440

lightsaber wrote:

queb wrote:

LaunchDetected wrote:

You can have the best design on the market, if quality and customer support are deficient you are dead. Embraer seems to be reliable on those aspects, and we can guess that with Boeing it will stay like that.

Mitsubishi needs to build the whole infrastructure around its SpaceJet almost from ashes.

Agree, with the E1 you need a very good customer support, ask Air Canada and JetBlue.

Didn't Mitsubishi just buy the CRJ support network?

Embraer has a great support network. In my opinion better than what Mitsubishi just bought by a significant amount.

But as the numbers currently look:
The MRJ with about a 1500nm range will have a reduced business case due to the limited range.

Selling a 1,000 NM E2-175 (shrunk, smaller wing) isn going to work. But with so many of this class of jet US based, it would be tough to sell.

What Embraer needs is a US based sale of the E2. I see merit in the E2-130.

Lightsaber

I have a couple of questions for you.

1. Are there enough differences between the ERJ-175-E2 and the ERJ-190, 195E2 engine to cause the ErJ175E2 to be an orphan aircraft?
2. Would the structure ( I'm speaking of the wings because to my understanding that's the only difference besides engines and the stretch of the aircraft) also cause the ERJ 175E2 to be an orphan aircraft?

Oliver2020 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

queb wrote:

Agree, with the E1 you need a very good customer support, ask Air Canada and JetBlue.

Didn't Mitsubishi just buy the CRJ support network?

Embraer has a great support network. In my opinion better than what Mitsubishi just bought by a significant amount.

But as the numbers currently look:
The MRJ with about a 1500nm range will have a reduced business case due to the limited range.

Selling a 1,000 NM E2-175 (shrunk, smaller wing) isn going to work. But with so many of this class of jet US based, it would be tough to sell.

What Embraer needs is a US based sale of the E2. I see merit in the E2-130.

Lightsaber

I have a couple of questions for you.

1. Are there enough differences between the ERJ-175-E2 and the ERJ-190, 195E2 engine to cause the ErJ175E2 to be an orphan aircraft?
2. Would the structure ( I'm speaking of the wings because to my understanding that's the only difference besides engines and the stretch of the aircraft) also cause the ERJ 175E2 to be an orphan aircraft?

The engines are 20% different. Some parts are shared on the engines, to the tune of 80% of the engine cost.

The nacelles are designed quite similarly, but differ based on fan diameter. A mechanic working on one would feel at home on the other. There are minor differences, for example: The fuel injectors have different part numbers due to different fuel flow orifices. To prevent incorrect assemblies, all pure power engines have a fractionally different fuel injector flange so different fuel flow orifices are not installed on the wrong airframe. But the low spool is different. Excluding overhauls, no one cares on a day to day basis.


It is the wing, gear, fuel subsystem, a few wing actuators, and size of some aircraft subsystems that differ.

Will it be an orphan? Mostly. Since the MRJ and PW812 will create economics of scale for engine parts, Embraer could support a sub-fleet of only a hundred.

The issue is resale. If the E2-175 sells well, airlines with E2-190s might buy them, outside of the USA for managing gauge.

Lightsaber

Oliver2020 wrote:

I have a couple of questions for you.

1. Are there enough differences between the ERJ-175-E2 and the ERJ-190, 195E2 engine to cause the ErJ175E2 to be an orphan aircraft?

I would vote yes, the E175E2 will be an orphan plane because of the smaller PW1700G engines. Those are very similar to the PW1200G engines that will be used on the Mitsubishi jets.
The PW1900G mounted on the E190E2 & E195E2 and the PW1500G used on the A220/C-series are also very similar.
I don't understand why Embraer is still developing the E175E2, AFAIK it has no orders because it's not US scape compliment. Why didn't Embraer decide to develop a E185E2, the E175E2 with PW1900G engines. This would share commonality with the E190E2 & E195E2.
AFAIK Embraer mistakenly stretched the E175 with the transition to the E2.
To get a scope compliment E2 I think CFRP fan blades are required for the smaller GTF engines, and Embraer should return to the E175 length.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

Oliver2020 wrote:

I have a couple of questions for you.

1. Are there enough differences between the ERJ-175-E2 and the ERJ-190, 195E2 engine to cause the ErJ175E2 to be an orphan aircraft?

I would vote yes, the E175E2 will be an orphan plane because of the smaller PW1700G engines. Those are very similar to the PW1200G engines that will be used on the Mitsubishi jets.
The PW1900G mounted on the E190E2 & E195E2 and the PW1500G used on the A220/C-series are also very similar.
I don't understand why Embraer is still developing the E175E2, AFAIK it has no orders because it's not US scape compliment. Why didn't Embraer decide to develop a E185E2, the E175E2 with PW1900G engines. This would share commonality with the E190E2 & E195E2.
AFAIK Embraer mistakenly stretched the E175 with the transition to the E2.
To get a scope compliment E2 I think CFRP fan blades are required for the smaller GTF engines, and Embraer should return to the E175 length.

USA
Would that be feasible even with CFRP fan blades, and the length reduction? Would you suggest the new wing or the current wing for the maximum weight reduction?

Foreign
Virgin Atlantic 49% owned by Delta recently purchased Flybe, and before someone flames me I know the parent company is connect airways 30% owned by Virgin Atlantic, 30% Stobart, and 40% Cyprus Capital. The new CEO of Virgin Connect( or whatever they decide for a final name) has said this is the start of consolidating/acquiring UK regional airlines to place them under the Virgin Connect fleet.

My question is if Virgin Atlantic are able to turn the ex Flybe operation around assuming they consolidate the current fleet to
54-q400-dash8, and 11-erj 175 as the previous CEO of Flybe stated. What are the thoughts on an RFP for 40-erj175e2-88seats(for routes under or a little over 1 hour) and 15-erj 175e2 80 seats(2 class cabin) for routes approximately 2 hours?

RFP 55 -erj-175e2( this would also entitle them to launch customer discount my estimate 20 million per AC considered this would be a shot in the arm to the erj175e2 program)
Would this still be considered an orphan fleet at 55? Also would Delta tech ops be able to service the engine in addition alongside the current or soon to be p&w line?
RFP Airbus 40 -atr-72-600 70 Seats and 15 A220-100 109 seats.
My apologies for grammar mistakes I'm typing on an iPhone as I'm running errands.

Future is near ...

Source: https://aviationweek.com/crossover-narr ... t-year-end

Embraer Predicts E175-E2 First Flight By Year-End

Excerpt:

Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer expects the E175-E2 to make its first flight later this year, with an entry into service for the latest member of its new-generation E-Jets family expected at the end of 2021.

An I must say: it is a very beautiful bird !!!

And the E195-E2 is due to enter service with Binter Canarias and Helvetic Airways in the next few weeks too.

An additional note about Alaska and the E2, while it's an interesting thought for Horizon, per earlier discussions on this forum its not an option for Skywest. As i understand it, their Delta contract precludes them from operating non-scope compliant aircraft for anyone.

EMBSPBR wrote:

And the E195-E2 is due to enter service with Binter Canarias and Helvetic Airways in the next few weeks too.

Helvetic has the E190 on order?!

EMBSPBR wrote:

queb wrote:

Yes the M100 will be a huge success in the US regional airlines. He will kill the E175-E1 and E2

RealIy ? I am seated and waiting for their sales ...

Does anyone know when the aircraft (MRJ) will get its type certificate? It has been in development since forever.

superbizzy73 wrote:

I still think the 175-E2 has AS written all over it. They’re not under any of the scope-clause issues, are they?

What about B6? I know they ordered the BCS3 and could do the BCS1, but there are airfields in the B6 network for which the BCS1/3 would be too much plane once the E190 and likely oldest A320s when they're up next for a D-check when they'll be at around 90,000 hours are out of the fleet...and for which the E275 could provide frequency. B6 could establish a lower tier airline with a new AOC with flow-through similar to what MQ has with AA...or farm out the work to another regional airline operator, such as YX or OO. (B6 has no scope clause, but it's likely that B6 would not fly E275s and mainline planes on the same route if they go with the E275.)

If HA had not chosen turboprops for Ohana, the E275 could have worked for them. Could the E295 work as a B717 replacement though, with turnaround times increased from 25 to 35 minutes?

aemoreira1981 wrote:

superbizzy73 wrote:

I still think the 175-E2 has AS written all over it. They’re not under any of the scope-clause issues, are they?

What about B6? I know they ordered the BCS3 and could do the BCS1, but there are airfields in the B6 network for which the BCS1/3 would be too much plane once the E190 and likely oldest A320s when they're up next for a D-check when they'll be at around 90,000 hours are out of the fleet...and for which the E275 could provide frequency. B6 could establish a lower tier airline with a new AOC with flow-through similar to what MQ has with AA...or farm out the work to another regional airline operator, such as YX or OO. (B6 has no scope clause, but it's likely that B6 would not fly E275s and mainline planes on the same route if they go with the E275.)

If HA had not chosen turboprops for Ohana, the E275 could have worked for them. Could the E295 work as a B717 replacement though, with turnaround times increased from 25 to 35 minutes?

This is erroneous. B6 does have scope (a result of their CBA). They cannot have a "JetBlue Express" or alter-ego "lower tier" airline doing their flying if it is in any way controlled by JetBlue proper.

Hi, there

Boeing-Embraer launched the E-175E2 without a launch customer, hoping to sell the plane worldwide and maybe in the US (if the scope clause with the pilot unions is overthrown).

Meanwhile, Mitsubishi launched its own version of a scope-compliant 76-seat jet, the M-100, while faced the same issues as the E-175E2 is facing right now.https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mitsubishi-rebrands-mrj-as-spacejet-and-plans-new-76-458878/.

"Scope clauses are provisions in contracts between major US airlines and their pilot unions which keep the airlines from farming out more flying to regional airlines. They prohibit regional affiliates from operating aircraft that have more than 76 seats or maximum gross takeoff weight in excess of 86,000lb. While the first generation of the E170 and E175 fulfilled the clauses, the E175-E2 with the new engines would put the aircraft 12,000lb over that maximum weight."https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/embraer-hopes-e175-e2-jet-efficiency-helps-modify-sc-461518/.

This debate reminds me of the A-318, too small of a plane and too large of an airframe to fulfill its mission with only 83 units ever been built by Airbus.

Can Boeing-Embraer slash 12,000 pounds off the E-175 E2 and still deliver a profitable airplane for air carriers ?

It would be surprising if they wouldn't actually be already working on such a design modification...

Have a nice day everyone !

docmtl

PS: I searched for an E-170E2 topic and couldn't find any

Saw the E2 in YYZ in October. I’d bet AC (well Sky Regional) will be the launch customer as their scope clause is based on seats rather than weight.

Skywest to Pilots: "So...if instead the plane came in 12,000 pounds less than an E1 could we pay you less?..."

12,000 lbs is nearly 12% in this case. If you can figure out how to remove that but keep the performance specs then you can write your own contract with any manufacturer and retire. The A-318's problem was it was a shrink of a larger plane which doesn't work well...structure and weight is optimized for a larger cabin.

Maybe if you stop calling it Boeing-Embraer