ISTAT: Bombardier vs Embraer: unsurprisingly, differing views

March 9, 2015: Ross Mitchell, vice president of business development, Bombardier, and John Slattery, chief commercial officer for Embraer, squared off today at the ISTAT conference. Below is a paraphrased summary of their panel discussion.

Bob Agnew of Morten Beyer Agnew, the moderator, asked the audience which airplanes would have the best residual values; the answers: CS300 and E-190 E2. The audience gave a vote of confidence of the Pratt & Whitney GTF that powers both airplanes, saying they would buy the GTF-powered airplanes before entry-into-service.

Ross Mitchell:

  • Q400 is most flexible turboprop: it’s fast, flexible cabin and configuration. It can operated as premium yield cabin, low cost yield, high performance, requirements, a combi version and a high density version.
  • CRJ is the lowest cost airliner in its class, it’s the light weight design, up to 10% cash operating cost advantage.
  • CRJ is here to stay. We’ve been working on the airplane to improve the costs, fuel burn. We continue to make investments in the airplane. We will have the best costs in the market regardless of what our competitor is doing.
  • In the US is constrained by Scope Clauses. CRJ900 is perfect for Scope Clause restrictions. We have more space in the cabin length-wise than the competition.
  • If Scope Clauses ease restrictions, the CRJ-1000 at 100 seats is “unbeatable.”
  • CSeries: it’s the only airplane in the (100-149 seat) market that is built from scratch. It’s not a derivative. Bigger bins, bigger seats. New cockpit not beholden to commonality.
  • We are going to meet everything we said (in our slides). We’re going to meet the promises, hit the range performances, hit the money savings.
  • We’ve passed 1,100 hrs in the test program. We are nearing completion.
  • We’ve flown the entire flight envelope with the CS100. The noise profile is right where it said it would be. The fuel burn is said where it will be.

John Slattery

  • We have a diversified source of revenue; 50% from commercial aviation; we have corporate aircraft and military. The KC-390 is the width of the 767 and the length of a 737.
  • Ours is a philosophy of resource allocation.
  • A measure of success is the number of airplanes in firm backlog. We’ve broken through 1,500 orders for the E-Jet. We have 67 operators in 48 countries, with goal of 100 operators in 50 countries by 2017.
  • We have 61% market share today.
  • In the fortress North American market share we’ve enjoyed 80% of the seats sold since January 2013.
  • We’re updating the E-Jet (E1). We’re reducing the family from four to three (dropping the smallest E-170).
  • Boeing and Airbus have adopted a good re-engining strategy. At Embraer, we’re not re-engining. We have, new systems, new wings, new tail, new overhead bins. Under any definition is this a lot more than a reengining. The only thing we’re keeping [of the airframe] is the fuselage diameter and cockpit commonality.
  • We have the same program management team overseeing the E2 that oversaw E1 that oversaw the ERJ. This supports a firm entry date.
  • E1 market opportunity in North American market just to maintain the number of seats over the course of the next few years required up to 200 E-175 aircraft, before the E-175 E2 EIS (2020).
  • We’re not competing with Airbus or Boeing, we’re complementing them.
  • 83% of canceled flights by LCCs around the world have 100 passengers or less. Smaller equipment can stimulate and higher yields.


4 Comments on “ISTAT: Bombardier vs Embraer: unsurprisingly, differing views

  1. Embraer is hiding is true goal which is to occupy the lower end of the 100-120 seats and there is no complementing in business. The market can support a limited number of manufacturers. Embraer doesn’t want an open battle with A and B. On this issue Bombardier seems more confident of there product and admitting of providing airplanes in a range that was left by A and B.

    • Sticking to the lower end maybe , but there is no doubt about their capability when they say the KC-390 is “the width of the 767”

  2. I’ve noticed a couple of times now Embraer claiming “80% share since Jan 2013”. A time band that conveniently ignores the DL order for 40 CRJ900’s in Dec 2012.

    There is no doubt the Embraer team pulled off some big deals In the latest round of US orders. But let’s face it, there are really only 3 end users and their scope clauses define the size of the opportunities. DL selected the CRJ900, UA selected E175, AA split the order between CRJ900 and E175. The U.S. majors are still open to both types.

  3. I see the E2 is going with an aluminum wing with composite control surfaces. Also, it looks like raked wingtips, even nicer than the ones on the 747-8 or P-8.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *