Pontifications: Shifting focus to Embraer

Hamilton KING5_2

By Scott Hamilton

Jan. 25, 2016, © Leeham Co. Embraer announced last week it had cut metal on its first E195 E2, more than a month before the roll-out of the first E190 E2, scheduled for Feb. 25, at is Sao Jose, Brazil, plant.

The aggressive manufacturer of small(er) passenger jets is moving forward full speed toward its next generation of aircraft even as Airbus, Mitsubishi, COMAC and Irkut encounter one delay after another.


Embraer E-195 E2. Embraer photo.

The Airbus A350 was about 18 months late. The A320neo was delivered about four months late. COMAC’s ARJ21 was eight years late and the C919 looks like it will be about two years late. Irkut’s MC-21 is also looking to be about two years late and Mitsubishi is running three years late with the MRJ90.

Only Boeing’s 737 MAX and the E-Jet E2 programs appear to be on time or ahead of schedule. The MAX entry-into-service target was originally set for October 2017 and Boeing later advanced this schedule to July. So far, so good.

Embraer has been circumspect about its EIS for the E190 E2, saying only the first half of 2018, but Market Intelligence indicates the roll-out is about a month ahead of internal plan.

“Embraer has started the parts production process for the E195-E2 jet, second model of the new generation of the E-Jets family of commercial aircraft,” the company announced Jan. 18. “The first part of the E195-E2 prototype is a lateral rib of the stub, which is on the Central Fuselage II section. This structure is made ​​of aeronautical aluminum and was manufactured at one of the modern high-speed machining centers of the metal structures factory at the Embraer Unit in São José dos Campos, Brazil.”

The E195 E2 carries 12 more passengers than the E1, giving it a one-class capacity of 133 and a two class seating of 120 passengers. This is a tad smaller than the 126 passenger Boeing 737-700/7. This is the same across from the Airbus A319ceo/neo. We remain unconvinced that Boeing will actually proceed with the 7 MAX, but Airbus has done so with the A319neo. Even if airline orders are sparse–as they have been so far–Airbus will use the A319neo as the basis for its ACJ corporate jet.

The E195 E2 is a major improvement over the E1, not only economically but because of its extra capacity. Airlines haven’t yet rushed to buy this version in large numbers, and the current low fuel price in the $20/bbl range won’t help sales, but Embraer is going to dominate the 80-120 seat sector.


19 Comments on “Pontifications: Shifting focus to Embraer

  1. The B737 MAX schedule is largely determined by Leap-1 engine availability. Can we praise Boeing for being on time?
    A320 NEO delay was due to engine issues, too.

    Embraer has the advantage of having a largely matured engine when E2 enters the market.

    • I disagree. Due to the inherently less capable architecture, Boeing engineers had a lot of hurdles to overcome to make the latest variation break even with the A320NEO.

      They also had to open up a third line in the middle of two other lines.

      While top Boeing management in the past has been the core of the problem, BCA has done a stellar job on this one and looks to be recovering on the KC4X (never can remember the number, should be KC767.

      Airbus with a better airframe to start withy did minimal changes, 737 had a lot of them. In that case the engine is the driving issue.

  2. Interesting point regarding the slippage on the A320 programme. It all seemed to be going to swimmingly (GTF excepted) and then stasis prior to first delivery.

    Re E2, Embraer seem to be doing everything very well at present, you appear more than normally confident both about the development going to plan and its eventual success. Is the development likely to be straightforward because it is minimal change vis a vis E1 and if so doesn’t that compromise the E2 against newer designs (a crowded market) going forward?


  3. I think EMB made a smart decision to avoid the too much airplane syndrome. Light and optimal for shorter flights. I think it is an example Boeing should have followed with the MAX, they have a lighter frame, with a smaller lighter engine and under 2000 mile range it would have made a short haul aircraft with unbeatable economics and given Boeing an advantage over most of the NB market for 130+ seats, most of which is 1000 mile or less. Instead they had to squeeze engines on it for how much loaded?

    Smart company EMB and the one A+B should really be worried about.

      • Smaller engine, lighten the wings as less fuel and engine weight to carry, same sized fan but lower thrust. Try to get back the engine advantage Airbus have with bigger fans. All up I guess they could find a few % improvement if they stuck to short haul and abandoned the medium distance. I’m sure smarter folks than I might know better but I think a 737 sized aircraft with CASM several % lower than the NEO would have been better. Look at E-jet sales.

        • That’s the C series in a nutshell (though the range is somewhat better, true range as Bjorn has noted is?)

          Regardless, this market has moved to transcontinental and even trans ocean ability and the shorter range routes they give up a lot for.
          It really more a 707 than anything.

          People with the slide rulers (dating myself) are the ones that decide if a shorter range fits in, so far its moved in the large numbers to the longer range stuff.

          Its not logical but its also a very complex equation.

          • I agree parameters are a complex equation, but remember Boeing built the 720 to cover the shorter range market, it was finished as soon as the 727-200 was available, too much aircraft. 737 short haul is a bit like the 720, compromised and susceptible if something else comes along, and 737-7/A319m are getting eaten by the E jets.

            Several things to note:

            MAX was a me too aircraft to stop the A320 NEO, not a project Boeing thought about carefully beforehand.
            The disconnect between Boeing sales and management on one hand and engineering on the other means I suspect it was have been rolled out without considering the development costs of meeting the salesman’s promises.
            Operators will always ask for more of something the OEM can’t provide, it makes for bargaining chips. Trying to do it all doesn’t work, reasonable compromises need to be made.
            If the 737 had a 5% advantage operators would buy it and to hell with the range, they would be uncompetitive on 80% of routes if they didn’t.

            I’m not sure the 737 doesn’t have another iteration left in it’s future as a short hauler offering E-jet operators a chance to scale up.

          • 2wings needed then?is a carbon wing for the a321 viable? Or is it better to just start afresh?

          • I think they should have gone with less thrust, and range abt 2000 mile, it could have been a A320 beater for CASM. Then they would have had resources to do a more capable aircraft for 4000-5000 mile ranging from 180 to 250 seats, with EIS earlier than the currently talked about MOM, and without compromising the 777-X.

  4. It really depends on the pricing power of BBD and how their manufacturing costs compare. How much more $$ does it cost BBD to offer the much more capable CS100 vs the E195, then there is that whole family thing with BBD being able to offer a trans continental CS300 as well for how much more we don’t know. (list prices be damned) The Cseries tech is a full generation newer with ALLi and composite wings, but again at what price technology.

  5. Southwest airline have a forward need for minimum 200 max7. The 30 order so far is not a placeholder. SNA, MDW, AMA, LUB and a host of stations need the 7 max.

    • I didn’t realize the E2 had different engine diameters. 56″ for the 175E2 and 73″ for the 190E2. That is a huge engine for the 190E2. Lots of potential for weight and range increases for that one.

    • The engines on the EMB jets are near identical (par eventual engine mounts and customer air bleeds) to the PW1000’s on the MRJ (E175) and C-series (E190).

    • We’ll see if Embraer develops a full 3 axis FBW system for the E2 series compared to the partial system they currently use with some cables.
      History shows this is normally a longer process than planned

  6. Sorry to change the subject a big of a aircraft metal has just been found on a beach in Eastern Asia looks like a cargo door maybe from flight 370.

Leave a Reply

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