Hi, folks

I'm wondering whether the market battle between Airbus A220 vs Boeing E-195 E2 is already won by Airbus...

A220: More than 500 units already ordered, major airlines in NA, Europe and Asia on board with this plane.

E-195E2: Just launched with Azul (Brazilian company, very close to Embraer), and a few more companies, no NA customer, no major order as yet.

With Boeing struggling to cope with the B737 Max grounding, B737 NG structural cracks, can the new Boeing Brasil stand up to the challenge and turn this commercial battle around ?

Your thoughts are most welcome

docmtl

Folks, keep the topic civil.

Why do MAX and NG issues have to do with Embraer products? Do you think they fired every Embraer engineer in Brazil when the financial transaction was done?

Kind of good Airlines will be able to get earlier delivery slots with these products, over semi-competing Boeing and Airbus products.

There is not much point looking at the 195E2 in isolation since it has a high degree of commonality with the 190E2. Overall, the 190/195E2 have gathered about 200 orders. It's not that bad and it includes a high profile customer such as KLM. I would also expect that over the time they will gather small orders from multiple small regional airlines, just like like Helvetic Airways or Binter Canarias which have already ordered them.

docmtl wrote:

Hi, folks

I'm wondering whether the market battle between Airbus A220 vs Boeing E-195 E2 is already won by Airbus...

A220: More than 500 units already ordered, major airlines in NA, Europe and Asia on board with this plane.

E-195E2: Just launched with Azul (Brazilian company, very close to Embraer), and a few more companies, no NA customer, no major order as yet.

With Boeing struggling to cope with the B737 Max grounding, B737 NG structural cracks, can the new Boeing Brasil stand up to the challenge and turn this commercial battle around ?

Your thoughts are most welcome

docmtl

The 737NG picklefork cracks issue seems to be under control. Perhaps in the future Boeing will design an improved part to replace the original. The real issue for Boeing is that they did not have a plane optimized for the below 160 seat market. The 737-7 does not really cut it for thin routes to and from smaller cities. The 737 started out as a 100 seat regional jet. Each generation of 737 has seen the size of the base model and size of the too model increase. Some on Airliners.net say the minimum size plane Boeing should build is in the 170 to 200 passenger. I think this is wrong headed. There are lots of small and medium size cities that can't justify 737-8 and above sized planes. I know my city needs something smaller to connect multiple flights per day on WN. Lots of people are just driving to SAT, AUS, and HOU to catch flights on WN that are are available multiple times per day from those airports but not available even if connecting through HOU.

As a destination I wouldn't bother flying to Houston due to the fact I can drive there in a little over 3 hours. The only reason I would normally fly there is if I wanted to make a connection at HOU or IAH.

Southwest could fill lots of holes in its network if they had more planes the capacity of the 737-200. Not every city can support multiple 175 seat planes per day.

tomcat wrote:

There is not much point looking at the 195E2 in isolation since it has a high degree of commonality with the 190E2. Overall, the 190/195E2 have gathered about 200 orders. It's not that bad and it includes a high profile customer such as KLM. I would also expect that over the time they will gather small orders from multiple small regional airlines, just like like Helvetic Airways or Binter Canarias which have already ordered them.

Kind of was under the impression the
Embraer 195 E2 had a lot in common with the
Embraer 175 E2 too.

The two planes are different. The EMB an extension of its regional jet which has hobbled it in the US. The A220 is designed as a mainline plane—longer legs, room for expansion (-300 and possible -500) and 2-3 seating.

The last word is definitely not spoken since the other big two US carrier (AA/UA) have large Embraer fleets. Yes, scope clauses are important, but they probably would find a way. AC is out since they (naturally...) decided for the A220.

In Europe I can see top-up orders from the LH Group for the A220 and I totally believe it would be a perfect fit for TK. BA could be a life-safer in Europe for the E2 in my eyes.

The fatal decision as far as the North American market is concerned was stretching the E175-E2 and allowing weight to grow beyond scope clause limitations. North America has never been a good fit for the E190/E195, but it was by far the biggest market for the original E175. The unions are absolutely not giving management any breathing room on scope and I'd be surprised to see any E175-E2 frames in US fleets.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

tomcat wrote:

There is not much point looking at the 195E2 in isolation since it has a high degree of commonality with the 190E2. Overall, the 190/195E2 have gathered about 200 orders. It's not that bad and it includes a high profile customer such as KLM. I would also expect that over the time they will gather small orders from multiple small regional airlines, just like like Helvetic Airways or Binter Canarias which have already ordered them.

Kind of was under the impression the
Embraer 195 E2 had a lot in common with the
Embraer 175 E2 too.

Yes, but not as much as with the 190E2. This wing of the 175E2 is specific to it.

at this point, a lot of the airlines that have already ordered A220 have already ordered more or picked option or looks like they will pick option for more. So I would say A220 has a lot of growth potential. Especially if they decide to launch A220-500. That'd be a CASM killer. Long term, A220's biggest competition is no E2.

stylo777 wrote:

In Europe I can see top-up orders from the LH Group for the A220 and I totally believe it would be a perfect fit for TK. BA could be a life-safer in Europe for the E2 in my eyes.

Speaking of Lufthansa group, wouldn't surprise me if they end up with both. They already have a mix of CRJs and E-jets. Could definitely see them ordering both A220s and E2s for future needs. They are different enough.

Something like E2s for Dolomiti and Cityline, A220 for Lufthansa mainline etc.

The key order to win was probably JetBlue. That is what likely swayed things.

I added the Boeing troubles with their product line just to illustrate how difficult it is for them right now to own the Embraer line and market them worldwide...

Moreover, I found an interesting comparison between these 2 planes: https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a220-vs-embraer-195

(Sorry guys, I couldn't figure out how to insert URL here, so please cut and paste to open the link.)

The E2 is just not as good an aircraft. Very limited improvements over the last generation in almost every respect. The only way Boeing/Embraer will be able to sell them will be through pricing. The A220 on the other hand is just in another league. Once the GTF problems are solved it's going to own the market segment wholly.

Aeromexico an E190 current user is deciding between these two. It will be interesting to see if DL push AM towards the A220 or they continue using Embraer planes. I think Embraer will be fighting very hard for this order

edit: for context, Aeromexico has 47xE190 and 10xE170 in operation

Galaxyflyer had the best answer above imho.

The 220 being 5 abreast is what puts it in a different class than the 4 wide EJets. US3 are simply not going to operate a 4 abreast jet in mainline service at their cost structure. Game, set, match to the CSeries /220 for the US market at least.

aviationaware wrote:

The E2 is just not as good an aircraft. Very limited improvements over the last generation in almost every respect.

Really ???
Could you elaborate, please ?
Seems you know the E2 family very deeply !!!
Something that we don´t I guess ...

aviationaware wrote:

The E2 is just not as good an aircraft. Very limited improvements over the last generation in almost every respect. The only way Boeing/Embraer will be able to sell them will be through pricing. The A220 on the other hand is just in another league. Once the GTF problems are solved it's going to own the market segment wholly.

On which basis do you say "very limited improvements"? The E2 has been designed to greatly improve the fuel burn (thanks to a new wing, new engines and new FBW) and to tackle the issue of high maintenance costs of the E1. It seems to be delivering on both fronts and on top of this, it's much cheaper than the A220. One has to keep in mind that the E2 was not meant to become a mainline aircraft. It's still a light and affordable regional aircraft with increased capabilities compared to the E1.

From a shareholder point of view, it seems that the E2 has definitely won the battle .

tomcat wrote:

From a shareholder point of view, it seems that the E2 has definitely won the battle .

Ouch. And great point. The Ejet family was launched in 1997 and first flew in 2002. Since then 1500+ orders and 400ish backlog all based on the same design with four variants.

Bombardier basically said they do one better, launched the BRJ-X in 1998 to fly in 2003, but shelved it, brought it back, shelved it, brought it back and it first flew in 2013 and it now has 90 delivered and a little over 400 on backlog. In the interim control over the program was sold to Airbus and Bombardier quit the airline industry.

For perspective Airbus launched the NEO in 2010 and has 6,600 orders and Boeing launched the Max and got 4,900 orders, bringing each fleet to around 14,000+ Each and 28,000 combined.

tomcat wrote:

One has to keep in mind that the E2 was not meant to become a mainline aircraft. It's still a light and affordable regional aircraft with increased capabilities compared to the E1..

Then EMB made a massive error in judgement by letting the weight of the E2 175 go out of the scope clauses for pretty much all the possible US airlines. The US market was the largest for the E1, and the E2 has not sold there.

The largest 2 E190 operators in the world (AC and B6) went for the A220, the E2 175 cannot be flown in the US by any regional operation unless the scope clauses get changed and that's very unlikely in the current market situation... Without the US the E2 will be relegated to also-ran status. With the Mitsubishi competition looming as well the E2 has some sales obstacles to overcome.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

I think a lot of people underestimate the E2 program.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

tomcat wrote:

There is not much point looking at the 195E2 in isolation since it has a high degree of commonality with the 190E2. Overall, the 190/195E2 have gathered about 200 orders. It's not that bad and it includes a high profile customer such as KLM. I would also expect that over the time they will gather small orders from multiple small regional airlines, just like like Helvetic Airways or Binter Canarias which have already ordered them.

Kind of was under the impression the
Embraer 195 E2 had a lot in common with the
Embraer 175 E2 too.

E170-E2 uses the PW1700 series engine, the 190/195-E2 use the PW1900 series engine. However all 3 have different wing spans that are tuned to each model. The wings along cut commonality but the engines further distance the E175 from the other models.

VV wrote:

I think a lot of people underestimate the E2 program.

As a passenger I love the Embraer!
But, I heard from people who work on the maintenance that the plane (mostly the engines) are a nightmare

And operators claim that there is not space for all the hand luggage. Air Europa with a fleet of 11 195lr are planning to retire them all in 2020 and go all Boeing (yes in this days this sounds crazy ..)

tomcat wrote:

KlimaBXsst wrote:

tomcat wrote:

There is not much point looking at the 195E2 in isolation since it has a high degree of commonality with the 190E2. Overall, the 190/195E2 have gathered about 200 orders. It's not that bad and it includes a high profile customer such as KLM. I would also expect that over the time they will gather small orders from multiple small regional airlines, just like like Helvetic Airways or Binter Canarias which have already ordered them.

Kind of was under the impression the
Embraer 195 E2 had a lot in common with the
Embraer 175 E2 too.

Yes, but not as much as with the 190E2. This wing of the 175E2 is specific to it.

The wings are all 3 specific to each model.

VV wrote:

I think a lot of people underestimate the E2 program.

Nah, I don't think so. This thread is about the 195E2 only and that may be one going one bridge too far. Leeham puts 195E2 and A223 at around the same fuel burn, giving the A220 an almost 10% per seat advantage.

Best regards
Thomas

rbavfan wrote:

tomcat wrote:

KlimaBXsst wrote:

Kind of was under the impression the
Embraer 195 E2 had a lot in common with the
Embraer 175 E2 too.

Yes, but not as much as with the 190E2. This wing of the 175E2 is specific to it.

The wings are all 3 specific to each model.

Sure, but the 190/195 wings have much more commonality between them than with the 175 wing.

spacecookie wrote:

VV wrote:

I think a lot of people underestimate the E2 program.

As a passenger I love the Embraer!
But, I heard from people who work on the maintenance that the plane (mostly the engines) are a nightmare

And operators claim that there is not space for all the hand luggage. Air Europa with a fleet of 11 195lr are planning to retire them all in 2020 and go all Boeing (yes in this days this sounds crazy ..)

Indeed, the E1 isn't brilliant in terms of maintenance. One of the main design goals of the E2 was precisely to address these shortcomings so there is no point pointing at them when discussing the E2 (provided that the E2 delivers as expected on that front).

northstardc4m wrote:

tomcat wrote:

One has to keep in mind that the E2 was not meant to become a mainline aircraft. It's still a light and affordable regional aircraft with increased capabilities compared to the E1..

Then EMB made a massive error in judgement by letting the weight of the E2 175 go out of the scope clauses for pretty much all the possible US airlines. The US market was the largest for the E1, and the E2 has not sold there.

The largest 2 E190 operators in the world (AC and B6) went for the A220, the E2 175 cannot be flown in the US by any regional operation unless the scope clauses get changed and that's very unlikely in the current market situation... Without the US the E2 will be relegated to also-ran status. With the Mitsubishi competition looming as well the E2 has some sales obstacles to overcome.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

They made a bet with the 175E2 indeed. At the same time, they have a back-up plan with the 175-E1 which keeps selling on the US market. Its current order book is still close to 200 units. How does this compare with the competitors?

tomcat wrote:

northstardc4m wrote:

tomcat wrote:

One has to keep in mind that the E2 was not meant to become a mainline aircraft. It's still a light and affordable regional aircraft with increased capabilities compared to the E1..

Then EMB made a massive error in judgement by letting the weight of the E2 175 go out of the scope clauses for pretty much all the possible US airlines. The US market was the largest for the E1, and the E2 has not sold there.

The largest 2 E190 operators in the world (AC and B6) went for the A220, the E2 175 cannot be flown in the US by any regional operation unless the scope clauses get changed and that's very unlikely in the current market situation... Without the US the E2 will be relegated to also-ran status. With the Mitsubishi competition looming as well the E2 has some sales obstacles to overcome.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

They made a bet with the 175E2 indeed. At the same time, they have a back-up plan with the 175-E1 which keeps selling on the US market. Its current order book is still close to 200 units. How does this compare with the competitors?

The E175 shows 191 firm orders and 3 commitments as a backlog currently and some of those are stale orders... The CRJ still has 93 and a pending possible order for more crj550s, the m100 has 100+ 50 options... And that's not counting the unchosen variant orders listed for the Spacejet... Combined the firm orders for the CRJ and M100 are basically the same as the E175 and the M100 is new with sales just starting to come in... I don't see your point here?

The E2 is what EMB pitched to be the next evolution, and it's not going to fit the market. The M100 can fit the US scope clauses with GTFs where the E2 175 cannot, the A220 is winning more orders handily (500+ vs slightly less than 200) over the E2 190/195... So like I said the E2 faces more than a few sales obstacles. It will sell, but it's not going to be the leader this time.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Boeing have been taken for a ride. 3 billion for a weak program isn't exactly a good deal anf considering how some orders have panned out, the Brazilians were able to oversell themselves as the perfect bride.
We ll see how strategic this purchase was but I wouldn't be surprised if Embraer becomes the new Bombardier.

tomcat wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

tomcat wrote:

Yes, but not as much as with the 190E2. This wing of the 175E2 is specific to it.

The wings are all 3 specific to each model.

Sure, but the 190/195 wings have much more commonality between them than with the 175 wing.

The 190E2/195E2 wings are actually identical other than the length/angle of the raked wingtips. The 175E2 on the other hand is a completely different wing in all dimensions with a drastically different engine attached (56 inch fan on the 1700G used on the 175E2 vs 73 inch fan on the 1900G used on the 190E2/195E2).

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Boeing have been taken for a ride. 3 billion for a weak program isn't exactly a good deal anf considering how some orders have panned out, the Brazilians were able to oversell themselves as the perfect bride.
We ll see how strategic this purchase was but I wouldn't be surprised if Embraer becomes the new Bombardier.

But Embraer was the only potential bride for Boeing, and the bride was already pregnant with someone else's baby.

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

I think a lot of people underestimate the E2 program.

Nah, I don't think so. This thread is about the 195E2 only and that may be one going one bridge too far. Leeham puts 195E2 and A223 at around the same fuel burn, giving the A220 an almost 10% per seat advantage.

Best regards
Thomas

Actually Leeham conclusion is not this one. Per Seat, the 195E2 is lower than A220. A220 wins in flexibility for cabin and range. E195E2 is slightly more economical. And this is due specially because of higher aspect ratio wings on E2, and maintenance is expected to be lower as well since E2 has 1000/10000 A and C checks, while A220 has 850/8500 FH.

But in my view, EMBRAER did a mistake by losing JetBlue. They did not wanted to sell at loss. They protected the share value, but marketingwise was not very clever.

There is no way 175E2 can be under current scope with these new engines. Without stretching it would barely beat the 175 Plus in a per seat basis.

rbavfan wrote:

The wings are all 3 specific to each model.

Nope.

United857 wrote:

The 190E2/195E2 wings are actually identical other than the length/angle of the raked wingtips.

Correct.

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... e2-422341/

Excerpt:

"Embraer has announced a major design revamp for the E195-E2, adding up to 450nm range by increasing take-off weight by 2t and a 1.4m wingspan extension.
The longest version of the re-winged and re-engined E-Jet family now offers a maximum range of 2,450nm from a take-off at sea level."

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Boeing have been taken for a ride. 3 billion for a weak program isn't exactly a good deal and considering how some orders have panned out.

Hello Waterbomber2 ... living up to his predecessor: disparaging and disqualifying.

To your knowledge, the total amount exceeds $ 5.2 billion. And with 20% of old Embraer in JV and voting on the board.

northstardc4m wrote:

Then EMB made a massive error in judgement by letting the weight of the E2 175 go out of the scope clauses for pretty much all the possible US airlines. The US market was the largest for the E1, and the E2 has not sold there.

The program was full ahead. It would be more expensive to cancel it.

And there are still US sales prospects for companies not limited to scope clauses (AS for example) and new entrants, and for worldwide customers (BA, AD, AF, KL, JL, JH, for example).
Contrary to what many claim here, it is not yet a dead bird ...

northstardc4m wrote:

With the Mitsubishi competition looming as well the E2 has some sales obstacles to overcome.

First they must deliver what they proposed 12 years ago. And, as was suggested here, another delay is expected.
And after the first delivery, there will still be a long learning curve.

MHI hired people from both Embraer and Bombardier (and even had a lawsuit filed by this one for "spying").
However, resource management was not enough for the company to open from managing issues ...

I suggest this reading:
Source: https://airinsight.com/transformation-at-embraer/

Excerpt:
"The Embraer team has designed, developed and delivered fourteen programs in fourteen years!
And all were on-time and on-budget.
Has anyone ever done this before? "

VV wrote:

I think a lot of people underestimate the E2 program.

Thank you.
By the way, loved your articles: congratulations !!!

GmvAfcs wrote:

Actually Leeham conclusion is not this one. Per Seat, the 195E2 is lower than A220. A220 wins in flexibility for cabin and range. E195E2 is slightly more economical. And this is due specially because of higher aspect ratio wings on E2, and maintenance is expected to be lower as well since E2 has 1000/10000 A and C checks, while A220 has 850/8500 FH.

GmvAfcs wrote:

But in my view, EMBRAER did a mistake by losing JetBlue. They did not wanted to sell at loss. They protected the share value, but marketing wise was not very clever.

We didn´t lose. Airbus did.
As you said, we could not sell at loss.
Actually, we could not afford it.
And, since there is no government backing up us, sometimes not win is not lose ...

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... d-k0zigcr2

"U.S. Can Tariff About $8 Billion of EU Goods Over Airbus Aid"

GmvAfcs wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

I think a lot of people underestimate the E2 program.

Nah, I don't think so. This thread is about the 195E2 only and that may be one going one bridge too far. Leeham puts 195E2 and A223 at around the same fuel burn, giving the A220 an almost 10% per seat advantage.

Best regards
Thomas

Actually Leeham conclusion is not this one. Per Seat, the 195E2 is lower than A220. A220 wins in flexibility for cabin and range. E195E2 is slightly more economical. And this is due specially because of higher aspect ratio wings on E2, and maintenance is expected to be lower as well since E2 has 1000/10000 A and C checks, while A220 has 850/8500 FH.

But in my view, EMBRAER did a mistake by losing JetBlue. They did not wanted to sell at loss. They protected the share value, but marketingwise was not very clever.

There is no way 175E2 can be under current scope with these new engines. Without stretching it would barely beat the 175 Plus in a per seat basis.

Who told you they didn't want to sell at loss to JetBlue?

You always need to sell at loss in the beginning. Once you get enough sale, you can lower production cost through higher volume and turn those losses to profits.

I am sure the initial a220 to JetBlue will be at loss. But once airbus get those supplier and assembly coat down, they could very well be profitable for airbus by the end of the later units. And that doesn't even factor in after sale service support. Or possibility of more orders from JetBlue down the road at higher prices, which look more and more likely by the day.

If they were truly not willing to sell at loss, then that shows very little faith in their own ability to cut production costs and to get JetBlue to pick up more options later.

I think in terms of history. Since the dawn of the Jet Age in the 50’s, I cannot really think of any major European or North American, legacy, mainline, or flag carrier that has gone with a 4 abreast coach cabin as a SUBSTANTIAL and MAJORITY (20%~50%) part of their jet travel fleet business model.

Caravelles, DC 9-30s, BAC 111’s, and Fokker 100’s were pretty much the smallest airliners operating for these sorts of carriers that made up a substantial portion of the airlines fleets and these were all 5 abreast, unless in a premium cabin configuration.

Times have changed since the dawn of the Jet Age. We have had deregulation, tremendous increase in fuel prices, ULCC’s, regional outsourcing, new aircraft interiors designs, de-flagging of state supported carriers, 9/11.

I do not think airlines can succeed using the exact same paradigms and business as usual prism, in a society more nimble, mobile, and technology driven, thus requiring fleets to be shifted rapidly to where the business is, or fits that airlines particular business model against the upstart competition.

The age of Dinosaurs may be extinct.

Anyone looking at the CS orders should note that there was a quiet period prior to Airbus completing its purchase of 50.01%. May 18 Air Baltic 30, Dec 18 JetBlue 60, Dec 18 Moxy 60, Dec 18 Delta 15, June 19 Delta 5 JetBlue 10 So 180 of the orders came once the sale was done.

It seems reasonable that E2 sales will brighten once Boeing Brazil is completed.

I do feel the 175E2 missed its sweet spot by being above the scope clauses. Maybe a 170E2 that squeaks inside of the clauses.

Meanwhile the Spacejet M90 just lost an order for 50 because it isn't scope compliant. What is interesting is the order is cancelled, not changed to the M100 compliant plane, no confidence?

https://www.aerotime.aero/zivile.zalage ... 0-canceled

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

I think a lot of people underestimate the E2 program.

Nah, I don't think so. This thread is about the 195E2 only and that may be one going one bridge too far. Leeham puts 195E2 and A223 at around the same fuel burn, giving the A220 an almost 10% per seat advantage.

Best regards
Thomas

It is strange. I read the same articles and concluded E195-E2 has better COC on per trip and slightly on per seat basis.

EMBSPBR wrote:

VV wrote:

I think a lot of people underestimate the E2 program.

Thank you.
By the way, loved your articles: congratulations !!!

What articles?

VV wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

I think a lot of people underestimate the E2 program.

Nah, I don't think so. This thread is about the 195E2 only and that may be one going one bridge too far. Leeham puts 195E2 and A223 at around the same fuel burn, giving the A220 an almost 10% per seat advantage.

Best regards
Thomas

It is strange. I read the same articles and concluded E195-E2 has better COC on per trip and slightly on per seat basis.

Slightly better on per seat basis.

On the DOC side, it can also be better because E195-E2 should be priced lower, at least theoretically.

So why airlines order A220 instead of E195-E2?
I do not know, but the whole story is not finished yet.

By the way the thrust usage of the engine will be lower on E2 and thus the maintenance cost should be better. That's what drives the COC better on E2 even on per seat basis.

I think Airbus will always tout A220 better payload-range capability, but in places like Europe, range capability for such small aircraft doesn't have much value.

The A220 is in a class of its own so comparing it with the E2 is just another fruitless attempt here at comparing apples with oranges. That’s not saying the E2 doesn’t have its place among some airlines as a capable regional aircraft, but in the overall scheme of things, the A220 kinda rules the roost if you need more versatility and mainline capability.

tphuang wrote:

GmvAfcs wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Nah, I don't think so. This thread is about the 195E2 only and that may be one going one bridge too far. Leeham puts 195E2 and A223 at around the same fuel burn, giving the A220 an almost 10% per seat advantage.

Best regards
Thomas

Actually Leeham conclusion is not this one. Per Seat, the 195E2 is lower than A220. A220 wins in flexibility for cabin and range. E195E2 is slightly more economical. And this is due specially because of higher aspect ratio wings on E2, and maintenance is expected to be lower as well since E2 has 1000/10000 A and C checks, while A220 has 850/8500 FH.

But in my view, EMBRAER did a mistake by losing JetBlue. They did not wanted to sell at loss. They protected the share value, but marketingwise was not very clever.

There is no way 175E2 can be under current scope with these new engines. Without stretching it would barely beat the 175 Plus in a per seat basis.

Who told you they didn't want to sell at loss to JetBlue?
.

Believe it or not, that’s the truth.

tomcat wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

The E2 is just not as good an aircraft. Very limited improvements over the last generation in almost every respect. The only way Boeing/Embraer will be able to sell them will be through pricing. The A220 on the other hand is just in another league. Once the GTF problems are solved it's going to own the market segment wholly.

The E2 has been designed to greatly improve the fuel burn

And on the downside the E2 is 20% heavier than the previous generation. Absolutely unacceptable design failure.

dampfnudel wrote:

The A220 is in a class of its own so comparing it with the E2 is just another fruitless attempt here at comparing apples with oranges. That’s not saying the E2 doesn’t have its place among some airlines as a capable regional aircraft, but in the overall scheme of things, the A220 kinda rules the roost if you need more versatility and mainline capability.

Correct, but do most airlines in Europe need the range capability?

Both E195-E,2 and A220-300 have 130-140 seats and the temptation to use much bigger aircraft for longer distances or dense routes between European big cities is just too strong. This where a simple stretch of CS300 would be excellent.

VV wrote:

dampfnudel wrote:

The A220 is in a class of its own so comparing it with the E2 is just another fruitless attempt here at comparing apples with oranges. That’s not saying the E2 doesn’t have its place among some airlines as a capable regional aircraft, but in the overall scheme of things, the A220 kinda rules the roost if you need more versatility and mainline capability.

Correct, but do most airlines in Europe need the range capability?

Useful pretty much ends at 2000nm ....

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

dampfnudel wrote:

The A220 is in a class of its own so comparing it with the E2 is just another fruitless attempt here at comparing apples with oranges. That’s not saying the E2 doesn’t have its place among some airlines as a capable regional aircraft, but in the overall scheme of things, the A220 kinda rules the roost if you need more versatility and mainline capability.

Correct, but do most airlines in Europe need the range capability?

Useful pretty much ends at 2000nm ....

Best regards
Thomas

Exactly.

So why would you carry more weight when you do not need the range capability?