Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

SSJ-100 Versus E-190 Economic Analysis

Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:57 pm

In this thread I will compare the SSJ-100LR(5-abreast) to EMB-190LR(4-abreast). Both aircraft have a capacity of 98 Y seats @32" pitch, with SSJ-100LR having a smaller galley. Most of the data is from Sukhoi and Embraer, and is rounded for convenience.

General Specifications:
....................................SSJ-100LR...................EMB-190LR
Fuselage Length...............98..........................119 feet
Fuselage Width.................11............................10
Wingspan.........................91.............................94
Seats(1 class)...................98.............................98(@32" pitch for both)


MTOW.......................101,150....................110,900 lbs.
MZFW.........................82,000.....................90,000
OEW...........................55,000.....................61,900
MSP............................27,000.....................28,100
Design Range..................2,400.....................2,400 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
Engines.........................17,500..... .............18,500 lbf.

Ratois
OEW/MTOW.....................0.54...........................0.56
OEW/MZFW......................0.67...........................0.69
MZFW/MTOW....................0.81...........................0.81
MTOW/Thrust....................2.89...........................3.00

For a 1,000nm trip(at MTOW), as per my model:

The SSJ-100LR burns about 160 gallons less for a fuel saving of nearly $500, while carrying 1,100 lbs. less cargo. Ignoring cargo, SSJ-100LR should save about $600,000 in annual fuel cost over EMB-190LR.

It seems that, for equivalent technology, the dividing line between 4-abreast and 5-abreast platform is around 100 Y seats. One would expect a reengined EMB-190LR to close the nearly 9% fuel burn advantage of SSJ-100LR.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19579
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: SSJ-100 Versus E-190 Economic Analysis

Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
Design Range..................2,400.....................2,400 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)

What a different world we live in versus concept. Initially the SSJ was supposed to be for the very-long and very thin markets. Having an established competitor able to do the exact same routes is going to make sales tough. Unless the SSJ beats promise or PIPs bring it ahead of the E190.

What are your total annual costs (estimates)? How many cycles? How many hours? I'm just curious so that I can understand if that $600k savings is the 6% to 8% cost savings Sukhoi was promising. I'm being too lazy to calculate my own estimates (yours are more precise than mine anyway... I'm too engine focused).  
Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
One would expect a reengined EMB-190LR to close the nearly 9% fuel burn advantage of SSJ-100LR.

Even the very un-loaded core of the MRJ PW1217G is promised to beat fuel burn, net engine/nacelle weight and drag, of 12%. So I think 9% can be easily bridged.   I suspect Pratt would have to do very little, if anything, to launch a PW1719G (I assume PW will save the PW18xx for a Chinese airframer, so I picked in the PW1Xyy number scheme 7 for Embraer and assumed Pratt would round up to 19k thrust for the yy part).

Here is the kicker if Embraer re-engines: Range or payload at range. A re-engined E190LR should have ~15% more range and thus 2400nm becomes 2760nm. 2760nm is excellent range from DEN, ATL, ORD, or any mid-America hub of your choosing. IMHO, it would make the type much more attractive to B6 (for further orders) among others.

In other words, it is not if, but when, we see a new engine under the E-jets. While I would root for a GTF, I suspect it will be a TECH-X.   

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: SSJ-100 Versus E-190 Economic Analysis

Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:31 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
What are your total annual costs (estimates)? How many cycles? How many hours? I'm just curious so that I can understand if that $600k savings is the 6% to 8% cost savings Sukhoi was promising.

My $600k estimate is only for fuel based on four 1,000 nm trips per day for 300 days of operations per year.

Does anyone have a good source for SSJ-100 price? One of the deals for EMB-190 suggests a list price of $37.5 million for EMB-190LR. I expect the SSJ-100 to be cheaper than EMB-190 by $2 to $4 million on a net basis.
 
Bau
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:13 pm

RE: SSJ-100 Versus E-190 Economic Analysis

Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:57 am

According to a Finmeccanica press relase, the list price should be anywhere between $30 and $31 Million ($370 Million for 12 unit).
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: SSJ-100 Versus E-190 Economic Analysis

Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:20 pm

Quoting Bau (Reply 3):
According to a Finmeccanica press relase, the list price should be anywhere between $30 and $31 Million ($370 Million for 12 unit).

Thanks. This translates to SSJ-100 at a $6 million lower list than EMB-190LR, and is consistent with my expectation of it being cheaper than EMB-190LR by $2-4 million on a net basis.

I wonder if an Indian carrier will buy SSJ-100 as part of the Rupee-Ruble trade initiative. I am sure Indigo could use a 100 seater aircraft with excellent operating economics.
 
panais
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: SSJ-100 Versus E-190 Economic Analysis

Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:40 am

Is it possible to analyse a hypothetical SSJ-100-110LR with an extra 3 rows of seats for a total of 110 seats at 32in legroom against the CS100 with 110 seats and the E-195LR with 108 seats?
 
Bau
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:13 pm

RE: SSJ-100 Versus E-190 Economic Analysis

Tue Sep 20, 2011 1:43 pm

Quoting panais (Reply 5):
hypothetical SSJ-100-110LR with an extra 3 rows of seats for a total of 110 seats at 32in legroom against the CS100 with 110 seats and the E-195LR with 108 seats

Personally, I have serious doubt about the economic of flying something with more than 100 and less than 120 seats. Consider that the E-195 sold less than 100 units and that you need 1 F/A every 50 passengers.

For the SSJ itself, sales in the western world are not going really well and I am pretty sure that Shukoi International will have to fight to get to the break even.

Just my 2 cents.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: SSJ-100 Versus E-190 Economic Analysis

Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:55 pm

Quoting panais (Reply 5):
Is it possible to analyse a hypothetical SSJ-100-110LR with an extra 3 rows of seats for a total of 110 seats at 32in legroom against the CS100 with 110 seats and the E-195LR with 108 seats?

I did compare CS100 with 110 seats to E195LR with 108 seats in a post(#19) in the following thread:
C110 Versus E190 Economic Analysis (by LAXDESI Jul 19 2008 in Tech Ops)

Cross posting from the above thread:
Estimated C110 cabin dimensions:
Length 78 feet
Width 10.75 feet
Cabin Area 839 sq. feet
No. of single class seats: 110 at 32" pitch (5-abreast)

Estimated E-195 cabin dimensions:
Length 92.5 feet
Width 9 feet
Cabin Area 833 sq. feet
No. of single class seats: 108 at 32" pitch (4-abreast)

Note below a summary of estimated technical specifications for C110 and E195 LR:
OEW 75,000 63,603
MTOW 120,700 111,972
MZFW 105,800 93,696
MSP 30,800 30,093 (Max. Structural Payload)
Range 2,200 2,300 (Max. Design Range in nm)

Let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 1500 nm (LAX-ORD) mission:
C110 cargo 5,913 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,024 gallons.
E195 LR cargo 5,793 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,224 gallons.

C110 burns less fuel for the trip, saving about $800 in fuel cost. It can also carry 2 additional passengers.

Next, let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 1,000 nm (JFK-MIA) mission:
C110 cargo 6,050 lbs, trip fuel burned 1,456 gallons.
E195 LR cargo 5,793 lbs, trip fuel burned 1,589 gallons.

C110 burns less fuel for the trip, saving about $500 in fuel cost. It can also carry 2 additional passengers.

In terms of GSM and GTM, the C110 is 10% more efficient than the E195LR. I suppose it may be possible for Embraer to reduce this advantage by 4-5% by 2013, which is the EIS date of C110.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

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