Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 4. Propulsive efficiency April 19, 2024
- Boeing unlikely to meet FAA’s 90-day deadline for new safety program April 18, 2024
- Focus on quality not slowing innovation, says GKN April 18, 2024
- Boeing defends 787, 777 against whistleblower charges April 17, 2024
- Dissecting Boeing CEO’s statement next new airplane will cost $50bn April 15, 2024
E190-E2’s first flight
E190-E2 is now Airborne #E2firstflight pic.twitter.com/iohoSUKZET
— Embraer (@embraer) May 23, 2016
May 24, 2016: Embraer’s E190-E2 had its first flight yesterday, several months ahead of the internal schedule (original plan was September) making it the only new airplane program in recent history to be significantly ahead. Boeing’s 737 MAX was on time or a day or two early for its first flight.
The E2 is Embraer’s entry into the next phase of the E-Jet development, It’s powered by the Pratt & Whitney GTF engine. The airplane has new wings, new empennage, enclosed main gear, a digital Fly-By-Wire (FBW) and other improvement over what is now called the E1.
The flight was remarkably productive as the crew could fly the test aircraft’s envelope to M 0.82 and 41,000 ft, which is the aircraft’s max speed/altitude. The crew also flew the FBW in Normal mode (includes augmentations and protections) after having started in Direct mode, a more normal mode for a first flight.
What was achieved was far more than what is usual in a first flight. It shows a high confidence in the aerodynamic and structural design of the aircraft and the maturity of the FBW. The concern when testing higher speeds/altitudes is the flutter risk for the new wing and empennage, a very dangerous aerodynamic/structural oscillation that can destroy the parts. Embraer must have advanced its flight test technology as well to clear the flutter envelope in real time during the flight.
Paulo Cesar Silva, the CEO of Embraer Commercial, told us that the E2 is “100% on time and 100% on budget” during our interview for our column at Forbes on-line in which he characterized Bombardier as a “government-owned” company.
The E190-E2 is scheduled to enter service in the first half of 2018. The larger E195-E2 follows by a year and the smaller E175-E2 a year after that.
Egyptair 804
It’s now five days since Egyptair flight 804 disappeared over the Mediterranean Sea. Searchers haven’t located either the main wreckage or the black boxes. There are 25 days left in the guaranteed performance of the box pingers. Egyptian authorities now refute Greek officials who said the flight made a 90 degree turn to the left and a 360 degree turn to the right as it descended from 37,000 ft to 10,000 before disappearing from tracking.
This is more evidence about why real-time flight data tracking is needed.
VietJet orders MAX 200
In the first order for the 737 MAX 200 since Ryanair launched this high-density version of the MAX 8 in September 2014, VietJet ordered 100 of the airplanes. This makes two customers and 200 orders.
The order is an important one for the MAX 200, but this model has a long way to go for general acceptance in the industry. Lessors want a broad customer base before they are interested in an aircraft. Still, this is an important boost for this sub-type.
Well done Embraer. You are showing the rest what is possible.
Several months AHEAD of schedule? Very poor planning, I’d say. A good plan is ON schedule.
Better to overdeliver than overpromise.
Last time I checked, airlines didn’t make OEMs pay penalties for early delivery. 😉
All airlines have fleet plans. Usually older models are replaced. The airplanes leaving the fleet have been sold or go back to leasing companies — all part of the fleet plan. The fleet plan reflects the delivery dates of new airplanes in the purchase contract. If the airplanes are not delivered according to contract dates, fleet rollover is compromised and costly to the airline.
Well, it shows that the built-in schedule margin to resolve unexpected design issues wasn’t needed. But who knows, maybe they’ll need some of that margin going forward, should they discover something unexpected during flight testing. The Boeing 787 had cracks developing in the center wing-box, and the Airbus A380 had cracks developing at the wing-skin to L-bracket joints. So clearly there’s a chance some of that schedule margin will come in handy at some point during the development.
In the case of the 787 and A380 the surprises came from the new materials used for the wing. But the E2 wing is made out of more conventional material. What impresses me is the apparent maturity of the software development. Embraer had problems in the past with outsourced coding, but my understanding is that they have since repatriated this important function in-house. If that is indeed the case it shows that their own house is in order.
Legacy 450/500’s FBW software was developed in house, after several problems with outsourced code. Not sure if that is the case for E2 or KC-390.
The E2 FBW software is developed in house as well as it the KC-390 code.
Normand:
There were no surprises on the 787 material wise.
There was a decision to lighten it in the wing join area that back fired.
The rest of the issues were abysmal management and trying to go cheap (also abysmal management) when bringing an all new technology on line. Stupid.
Virtually all the tech failures were a result of the management decisions on how the project was constructed. That includes the battery.
The only failure that I know of that was not was the electrical system zark out going into (Texas someplace). While a wrench is not supposed to be in a panel, the isolation system did not work and they went onto RAM air and battery.
As often happens, a bad thing lead to a needed fix.
My understanding has always been that the premature wing failure on the 787 was a FEA* problem.
*Finite Element Analysis.
It may have been pushed by the need to reduce weight and a modeling program that said you could and was not tuned to the point of any allowe or how much.
The weight reduction crisis was driven by the production scattered all over the planet and no central control.
As was noted in this blog, the 787-8 is vastly less commonality parts wise than the -9 or -10.
There was no central engineering oversight or coordination, the contractors, they could do all that themselves per the brilliance of management, all Boeing had to do was snap it together (all we are is an assembler) . Except each contractor added safety factors (other than the battery!), hid their issues.
Fasteners were hoarded as the name of the game was to meet your obligation and the heck with the program (rightly so the way Boeing set it up, they could only protect themselves)
The wing join issue was a fairly miner issue though it reverberated through the system. It was more the end result of all the mess.
Eventually Boeing created a large number of combined arms teams (ie. engineers, logistic experts, accountants, manager, production experts ) to go to all the facilities (not jus the major ones) and correct the problems. All those problems crossed through every disciplines required to build parts or sections.
Instead of a couple of teams to do that, things were scattered far and wide and they had a large number of them as non could correct something that was half a planet away.
As the goal was to do a pretty new tech, the correct thing to do is one thing at a time. In this case they did two massive changes. The tech side worked out amazingly well.
The project was a logistical and assembly disaster that had nothing to do with tech. and financially still is. A380 wiring harness problem on steroids.
The battery issue exemplified that. Security Aviation (?) never built a charge, a company in Japan made the monitor board, another one the batteries (the mfg conditions in the plant were simply gross – no once bothered to check) , Thales was the so called coordinator. All on new tech battery using incredibly poor testing (battery through the case to test it for failure!)
Boeing had killed their electronics development division where this would have come together and expertise to manage it . No one was in touch with anyone else on it and that typified the entire program.
Frankly its a stunning achievement that Boeing pulled it out (or the rank and file did) in the end.
The tech was incredibly solid. We can list 3 real tech issue and only one that was a tech failure (the power isolation system response and that was fixed quite quickly) .
Management on the other hand could not have screwed it up more if they had done it deliberately.
TW: “Frankly its a stunning achievement that Boeing pulled it out (or the rank and file did) in the end.”
Absolutely! The way Boeing has recovered from this fiasco is truly remarkable.
TW, difference between the A380 and the B787 is that although both companies learnt their lessons Boeing through those lessons in the bin in the name of ¨risk reduction¨ and have refused to risk doing a clean sheet design since, while Airbus have those lessons learnt to thank for a pretty clean A350 EIS.
Learning the lessons actually admits you made grossly incompetent decisions by management.
On the other hand the A350 was deemed a have to (forced), not something Airbus jumped into willingly (Ver 4 finally took)
Boeing is dragging their have to out much further and successfully. Got to hand it to them on the spin end.
E190-E2 FF: Congratulations to Embraer for being ahead of schedule. This company continues to impress me year after year.
Egyptair 804: Like for the aircraft itself the authorities in Egypt and France seem the have entered into a deep spin. But I can understand that they may want to avoid the T-word because of the consequences for the economy and possibly air travel has a whole.
VierJet Order: If the MAX 200 is a high-density version of the MAX 8 it makes sense for VietJet Air whose customers are relatively small and therefore less likely to suffer from more confined spaces. As for Ryanair its customers are bigger in the region of the world where it flies, but for the price they pay they expect to be treated more or less like cattle.
“If the MAX 200 is a high-density version of the MAX 8 it makes sense for VietJet Air whose customers are relatively small and therefore less likely to suffer from more confined spaces. As for Ryanair its customers are bigger in the region of the world where it flies, but for the price they pay they expect to be treated more or less like cattle.”
{Edited as a violation of Reader Comment rules.}
I don’t think that’s racist. It’s more or less factually correct (North Americans like me would have an even harder time w/max 200). Let’s not overuse “racism” lest it loose it’s meaning. Calling people names (jerk) is also not a sign of good critical thinking.
Great looking new plane; way to go Embraer. A bright light in an otherwise dark time for Brazil.
When we start stereotyping and generalizing people, that’s simply wrong. Period. I hope the moderators and commentators on here don’t tolerate this type of behavior.
dave. When Ethiopian Airlines ordered the 787, they did so in a high density version.
One of its main missions was China – Ethiopian and the management specifically noted that they could do it because of the smaller body size of the two countries.
There is nothing racist in what has been said. Americans and European tend to be larger in general and there certainly is an obesity issue in the US (less so in Europe)
“I hope the moderators and commentators on here don’t tolerate this type of behaviour.
To call other people “jerk” and to use words like “racism” should indeed not be tolerated.
{Edited as a violation of Reader Comment rules.] Your comments make me uncomfortable. Maybe this was OK in your world 50 years ago, it’s not ok now.
factually speaking, the average height of a male European is 5’10” and an average male from vietnam is 5’4″ (source http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-chart.shtml)
given that information it isn’t racist or bigoted to suggest that the average Vietnamese passenger would be less impacted by the seating density of a Max200 than the average European. it is simply a factual statement, not profiling or stereotyping.
of course there are very tall and very fat people of Asian ethnicity, but that doesn’t change the fact that the statistically average person in Southeast Asia is dimensionally smaller than the statistically average person in Europe or the US and it is not racist to state a fact.
you seem to be looking for an opportunity to be offended rather than engaging in rational discourse.
Bilbo:
Well said, I will comment no further, it could not be said better (rare for me to say that, Kudos)
It´s not so much that VietJet´s pax are smaller, it´s more that we need a diet.
Not that I don’t need a diet now, but I am 5 ft 9 and with zero fat (sadly when a young man) I still was 180 lbs. That was after a summer of severe grunt labor. I had so little fat I could sink to the bottom of a pool with lungs full (very full)
Granted I did not agree with the charts that said I should be 160, but to do so I would have had to cut off a leg.
Realistically I was a 200 lbs. person even back then. Severe grunt labor not being sustainable past 45.
according to an article on flightglobal, the reason for the early first flight was that they had built in schedule buffer for issues that they ended up not needing.
additionally, the Embraer rep states that the aircraft is underweight, which is pretty unusual at this point in the development cycle.
Still scratching my head on Viet split fleet decision. Good thing Asian people tend to be thin, that’s going to be one crowded plane.
Some nice early slots for a supposedly filled program.
Hello Scott,
in your Forbes article, Silva cites ““[Reports of] $20m, $22m” for the CS100 sold to Delta. It seems really low, I recall airwaysnews was announcing around $27m. Even with the government backing, I’m not sure bombardier could sell those at not much more than a Q400 market value. The -700 for united at $22m was stretching it already, but Boeing have deepest pockets and the model is amortized many times.
@Marc: I agree, the $20m-$22m seems very low and I’m not sure are credible.
22 million is probably nonsense. You have to take the 22m for the 737 and then NPV the lifetime savings which is HUGE. The factor the now platform risk and integration costs. Even 27M would be low I would say 29 ish.
An excellent piece on how not to build airplanes:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/airbus-tackles-its-procrastination-problem-1464082200
Andy: that is subscriber limited. synopsis please.
to access WSJ articles, just google its title
E190E2 congrats to Embraer, the advantages of a proven airframe with a proven (BBD) engine.
Flight 804: All will be clear 1 or 2 weeks later than it would have with E.g GADSS.
Vietjet 737-8 200 order. I’m sure this weeks US-Vietnam weapons deal is totally unrelated, absolutely.
Keejse:
I am a bit shady on the proven BBD engine. Same design that has had at least 3 significant issues in its introduction.
I think it has yet to be “proven” though I think its the future and will be good, there may be some teething issues.
Add in the F-35 engine by the same mfg had a bowing issue as well, so I wait on the arm and fuzzy part
Keesje:
Are you trying to imply (gasp) that all deals are not purely financial in nature?
“Vietjet 737-8 200 order. I’m sure this weeks US-Vietnam weapons deal is totally unrelated, absolutely.”
So?
I looks like this deal is more complicated then just aircraft specs. Keywords like Sovico, Panama, China, Nguyen Thi Phuong Thao, DoJ makes you skip details. 100 Boeings sounds like a good deal.
http://en.dangcongsan.vn/DATA/3/2016/05/lekyket_23516-16_20_32_796.jpg
Kind of like the orders from China for Airbus eh?
Impressive execution by Embrear. But it is a derivative, and no significant use of advanced materials. They did a bit better then Airbus and Boeing on their reengine projects and threw in an updated wing, so well done!!! She is not as pretty as the latest gen Cseries, Sukhoi 787 and A350 especially around the schnoz…that is where the latest gen have really cleaned up the aero.
I think the E2 will affect sales of the CS100 and the CS300 will have to compete with Boeing and Airbus. A tough situation for Bombardier. The other OEM’s have more flexibility in pricing and can undercut prices as they cannot continue to sell the CS series at very low prices. I was impressed by Embraer’s accurate forecast of EIS, something we have not seen for years.
The Paris air show should be interesting to watch as the narrow airliner lineup is quite large.
“I think the E2 will affect sales of the CS100 and the CS300 will have to compete with Boeing and Airbus.”
This is an interesting point. It is indeed one way to look at it to say that the C Series could get squeezed between Embraer at the lower end and A&B at the upper end. But there is also an alternative way to look at it, for it can be argued that the C Series now owns an entire market segment that has long been neglected by everyone. And this new situation has the potential to alter the market dynamic in a profound way. At one end we have Embraer and its remarkable E-Jet, while at the other end we have the enormously resilient A320 and the distinguish, but aging, B737. That leaves a big hole in the middle, and there is only one aircraft that can fill that hole: the C Series. The CS100 remains competitive with the larger Embraers while offering unmatched performances in terms of range and field length/altitude/temperature; the CS300 has already killed the A319neo and 737 MAX 7; and the CS500 will eventually breach the Big Two’s stronghold above 150 seats. Bombardier is actually the only aircraft manufacturer in position to offer three variants that will cover the entire 100-150 seat segment and beyond. As soon as the CS500 will have been launched, perhaps at the upcoming Farnborough Airshow, any airline will be in a position to plan its entire narrowbody fleet around the C Series, with the possibility to complement it with the A321 if necessary. I even predict that Airbus will feel the need to launch an A320.5 to keep the C Series at bay, while Boeing will be compelled to launch the NSA.
I think its kind of early to rate the CS series since its not entered service yet. True performance specs will be forthcoming after its been in revenue service for a while.
One of the points I was trying to make that the larger OEM’s can win the pricing war as Bombardier is in a weak financial standing and their other models are selling poorly. The Q400 especially has a dismal sales order list. The CRJ series is also losing sales to the other smaller OEM, Embraer,Mitsubishi and to a lesser extant the Russian and Chinese offerings.
Just my take on the future prospects for the narrow body market.
it hasn’t entered into service yet! Not even close.
Sure the E2 will compete against the CS100 but as you can see by Embrears enlarging of the E195 E2, the fact that Embrear is capped at E2 size, is a problem IMHO. The CS100 and 300 have amazing range and field performance, the CS300 is bigger and better and a CS500 is a possibility that Embrear cannot compete against. If BBD reengines the CRJ900/1000 to nibble at the bottom look out.
I am not so sure about the possibilities of a re-engined CRJ. It will still suffer from its narrow cabin. I terms of cabin width there is more difference between the CRJ and the E-Jet than between the 737 and the C Series. That being said I am very impressed by the new CRJ cabin layout. With Passport engines the CRJ might be able to offer attractive economics that would give it a new lease on life. But against the E2 series it will still be difficult.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oROtdilnDRY
Range on smaller narrow body planes is not that big of a factor. They mostly do flights of 2 hours or less. The Embraer E2 line up has good field performance also along with respectable range.. The CRJ’s are a derivative of a biz jet and has gone as far as it can in my estimations.
Passenger acceptance on the CRJ’s is below the E jets although when did airlines care about passenger acceptance.
If the first batch of CS series does well, the CS500 may have a spot in some fleets. A lot is riding on the P&W geared turbo fan and Bombardier’s
execution of on time deliveries, covering the hiccups that will occur and their being able to withstand pricing pressure from Boeing and Airbus.
Embraer already has quite an extensive list of airlines that fly the current E series aircraft, so we wait to see how this all pans out.
Interesting question for Bjorn if he’s reading this. How much difference does the new style of nose really make? It certainly looks a lot smoother and it’s where it really counts, at the front. On the other hand Boeing and Airbus don’t seem to bothered about it,or it would be on the neo’s and max
NH: “If the MAX 200 is a high-density version of the MAX 8 it makes sense for VietJet Air whose customers are relatively small and therefore less likely to suffer from more confined spaces. As for Ryanair its customers are bigger in the region of the world where it flies, but for the price they pay they expect to be treated more or less like cattle.”
We have often discussed this issue on LNC before and there are two reasons for this; one is technical and the other is commercial, and both are related to aviation:
1. It is a technical issue because airplanes and seats are sized to carry people, but size may vary dramatically from one region to another. I repeat, this is a technical issue and there is nothing judgemental about it.
2. It is a commercial issue as well because Boeing is more likely to sell this kind of solution to airlines like VietJet Air and Ryanair for the reasons mentioned above.
Please note that I have used words like “customers” and “region of the world” and never mentioned any race in particular. For similar reasons car manufacturers had to adapt their cars when women started to drive and acquire cars of their own. But we all know that in “some regions of the world” women are not even allowed to drive. So car manufacturers have to deal with regional diversity and indeed their offering has a tendency to vary from one region to another, or from one market to another. That is simple marketing and I think Boeing understands this very well.
Do ICAO standard weights even mention these’ small people’ as some seem to call it.
Its all very well for people who have never been to Vietnam to make observations but unless they are backed up by regulations allowing for that then its no use commercially.
dukeofurl :
We are not talking about a standard, we are talking about an affect. Ie. the small seating may work for that airline passenger comfort wise, how happy RA victims are going to be is another question.
Normand: I would call it reality though you may not have a market if you ignore the customer base!
tight for Westerners, not trying to imply Viets seats are small.
Listen up, Everybody: What the devil has gotten into some of you? Is there a full moon?
I had to close comments on the original MS804 post because some of you wouldn’t behave. I will do so again if need be.
@Dave: You are totally out of line. If you have issues with what @Normand (or anyone else) writes, respond in a respectful way, without name calling (which violates Reader Comment rules) and/or email me directly with your complaint.
It is, in fact, my experience in world traveling that those in the Far East tend to be lighter/smaller build than we bloated Westerners. I did not view Normand’s original comment as out of line.
@Billbo responded with facts and appropriately.
@Dave’s first and third replies are inappropriate and have been edited.
Scott: The Moon was 88% illuminated yesterday so maybe that’s close enough?
Passenger weight surveys done in Europe only find around a 2kg lower average weight between those going to Asia and those from the main western European countries, with some countries in Europe eg Turkey Romania being 2 kg more. When we are talking numbers in the low 80’s kg who can tell that extra 2.5%.
The idea that the 200 seater is suited to Asia is absurd when its pointed out Ryanair is the other major buyer.
The only reason based on evidence is that more seats allows cheaper fares.
I thought Bilbo had very good data.
Ryanair is the only other airline to take this and so far there has not been a land rush. I think the facts speak for themselves, Ryanair is not noted for happy customers (they know they are getting cheap and willing to suffer for it as noted)
Of course we excitedly await further sales of that model and to who so we can expand our data base.
Transworld , Ryanair is now Europes largest airline, and you dont get their without giving customers what they want.
Is your views based on your personal experience or are you like many and prefer the armchair traveler experience.
You might be surprised that its committed to improving its customer experience, which gets more passengers on board of course,
“According to Robin Kiely, Ryanair’s Head of Communications, O’Leary’s comments were part of a deliberate strategy. “Our CEO, in order to generate column inches and bookings, would resort to dressing up or saying something quite ridiculous and generate plenty of free controversial PR”.
Its called these days , ‘earned media’, and its worked too for the political sphere.
In the end its still a ‘strategy’
dukeofurl
Well, I have managed to get as far as the Philippines though I was arm twisted into that by work (I was not keen on the shooting of US personal between Manila and Clark at the time) . I have roamed Mexico, Belize, Costa Rico and the Bahamas on my own (well with a friend)
I tend to think I am not an arm chair traveler (through in Alaska that many consider a foreign territory and I have lost count of the trips to and from by vehicle and plane) . Granted the first time up (Jeep) I am sure I was dragged kicking and screaming and if I had a vote I would have told them they were crazy (my parents, which they were but I forgave them)
I have flown in a DC-3 at -40 and lower (no heat, or if there was any it was ineffective ) been in Gooses, Widgeons, Beavers and various other float and small planes.
So does that allow me to comment or do I have to come to Europe and fly an even worse cramped 200 seat 737 and prove it?
I am open to that on line contribution thingy
I also forgot I flew a PBY Catalina (pax of course)
I am sorry that I have not been updated as to whether I am an armchair traveler or not. I await the ruling from dukeofurl
with baited breath.
“Transworld , Ryanair is now Europes largest airline, ”
I have no idea who told you that, but lets correct before people start repeating & it becomes a fact 😉
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_largest_airlines
Depends on how you measure it.Ryanair carries lots of passengers short distances. Ryanair claims 116 million passengers last year, Lufthansa group claims 104 milion.
I fly Ryanair quite a bit and l think that max 200 might be just push me to look elsewhere,mainly because I think that the horrific deplaneing experience will be even worse. Do not fly if you are unusually tall (I’m quite short) I don’t think that I have ever seen people being tortured so badly.
Also, no shows will be worse, unloading unaccompanied baggage is already a problem for the 737
Ryanair is Europes largest airline. No one said it was the worlds !
Combining different airlines together doesnt make sense in this context.
Oleary is the master of saying something stupid and incredulous. The rest is done by gullible reporters. Over the years he has adopted different personas from Mr bad to Mr nice. He has played on the fact that Ryanair is cheap and therefore doesn’t have to ‘care’ about customer service. In recent years things have changed a bit due to competition in LCC, they have had to get their website to work for one!
The simple fact is if I can fly to and from Italy from the UK in the summer for £220 for 4 people including £108 tax then I won’t complain. Their safety record is strong and beyond that you are getting a bus on wings.
I rarely fly for leisure as I used to take 100++ flights for work a year. What I like about all LCC is that you can avoid the ‘faux service’ that you receive on the old national carriers. Airline travel is all about A to B especially on short haul, get on, sleep, get off
Where do I donate to the TW Ryanair fund?……
Thanks sowerbob, as usual you give your view based on personal experience. A LCC is what it is , nothing like the ‘cattle’ some talk about.
He still is offering to donate to the TW Ryanair fund!
Maybe Scott would agreed o hold the money until I drop in on him in Seattle?
Still awaiting the supreme ruling on being an armchair traveler !
And I failed to mention, my wife and I flew a Cattle Car 737 to Boise Idaho back in the late 80s.
Horizon branded flight, I suspected end of year Sun Valley cattle run.
I am not tallest person in the world (5 ft 8.5) my wife is close to 6 feet, she was in agony, I was very uncomfortable (a bit over an hours flight time, ungh.
The more I think about it the less arm chair I feel.
Of course an apology would go a long ways to mitigating the remarks.
I can also come up with quite a lengthy travel itinerary on top of those mentioned as well.
@TransWorld: If it was branded Horizon, it wasn’t a 737. A CRJ, maybe, or a Q400, but not a 737.
This is not about weight, its about length / knee space / seat pitch. Vietnam people are 4-5 inch shorter on average then West European people. And that’s not an opinion 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide
Anyway, nobody says Vietjet will put 200 or 186 seats in 737-8 200.
Over the last 5 years Vietjet build up a fleet of 35 aircraft. And now they have 284 on order and 96 options. And nobody is asking questions why Vietjet ownership & Boeing need this order. An exploding market I suppose..
Weight started to increase in the Wester population in the Seventies following ill-advised recommandations by the medical authorities. But it is only after the crash of US Airways Flight 5481 in 2003 that the FAA decided to do something about this. When pilots compute the weight of the aircraft before take-off they use standard figures that they multiply by the number of passengers. But the older figures did not take into account the increase in average weight over the years. I don’t recall what those figures were exactly but they were similar to what Boeing still uses today versus what Bombardier is using: 195 lbs per passenger/luggage versus 225 lbs per passenger/luggage. And of course people are also taller today, and unfortunately the seat pitch is still shrinking. There is not much BBD can do about seat pitch with the C Series because that remains the prerogative of the operators. But the C Series will address the average passenger size issue with larger seats and a wider aisle. Carry-on bags are also larger today than they were in the past and the oversized storage bins on the C Series will address that issue as well.
I forgot to mention that new regulations require all new aircraft to have washrooms large enough to accommodate a passenger in a wheel chair. That is why the rear washroom on the C Series is so large. I assume the A350, and perhaps the 787 as well, do have at least one larger washroom to accommodate a wheelchair; perhaps someone else can confirm this for the benefit of the readers.
Considering Ryanair’s success and increasing profit stream they know very well what they are doing. To grow quickly from zero to the biggest airline in Europe now operating some 400 737s is a remarkable accomplishment. They know how to run the airline business better than anybody, with the exception of Southwest Airlines in the US, part of which they copied.
I would segregate out knowing what they are doing to cattle packed levels.
Agreed people know what they are getting.
In my case when I saw a 737 it was yippee, nice trip, not knowing AK had a special bird for that route. That was 30 years ago, it would kill my wife now.
Did I mention bus rides around the Western US as non arm chair travel candidates?
I really likes it. People being proud of their achievement and passionated. Great job. Wonderful bird. enjoy your success.
Greetings from Toulouse
@steve
Q – “I think its kind of early to rate the CS series since its not entered service yet.”
R – This is an important point. My understanding is that many airlines are waiting to see how the C Series will fair in service. We won’t have very long to wait because the first CS100 is scheduled to EIS in 50 days from now, and the first CS300 by next September. A successful introduction will make everything much more tangible. First, we will gain a better knowledge of the plane’s reliability on multiple runs, every day, and in all kinds of circumstances. Second, we will find out if the operators are satisfied that the plane has delivered on all its promises under the harsh reality of daily operations. Third, we will discover its level of acceptance among the first customers who will have the privilege to fly on this brand new aircraft.
Q – “The larger OEM’s can win the pricing war as Bombardier is in a weak financial standing and their other models are selling poorly.”
R – True. Bombardier is not out of the woods yet and it will take a few more years before the situation improves. Right now everything converges to make life very difficult for BBD. What will make a big difference though is when the first Global 7000 will be delivered to its first customers who will have been patiently waiting for a number of years to get their hands on the most advanced business jet in the world. In the meantime the first C Series will have been in service for a while and each new delivery will improve the cash flow situation. Everything hinges around production output, which is reported to be better than what had been anticipated. Originally it was expected that the new facilities would max out at 120 aircraft per year, or 240 if doubled. But the learning curve is much steeper than expected and as things stand out today maximum production is now expected to be as high as 150 a year, or 300 when the installations will have been doubled. As for the other models like the CRJ and Q400 I don’t know where BBD’s priorities are but obviously they cannot do everything at once. In the meantime difficult choices will have to be made and we can expect a few casualties along the way.
Q – “Just my take on the future prospects for the narrow body market.”
R – The future prospects depend on what part of the narrowbody market we focus on. At the lower end BBD will be facing increasing competition and I don’t see how the CRJ and Q400 could be made that much better than they already are when comparing them to all this new competition. As for the upper end of the narrowbody market there is no doubt that A&B will continue to use all the leverage at their disposal to slow down the C Series, but they can’t stop it and they know that by now. And when we consider the intermediate segment, the 100-150 seat range, it doesn’t take long to realize that Bombardier now owns that market. And its enviable position can only improve with the future introduction of the CS500, or any other larger model they will be able to derive from this very promising platform.
Normand, I honestly hope the CS will grap marketshare. Selling 75 aircraft under cost price doesn’t guarantee market dominance though.
It seems used / overhauled 737-700s / A319s are poisoning the market. The OEW of a E195-E2 will be ~ 65k lbs vs the CS100 ~ 73.5 lbs.
The risk of CSeries being squeezed between E jets & NB’s with many big airlines remains, this ain’t over jet.. 😐
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/embraermay2015bookri-150507201154-lva1-app6892/95/embraer-may-2015-book-ri-15-638.jpg?cb=1431029712