Embraer gears up for E2 delivery; a look at the 100-150 seat sector demand

March 31, 2018 © Leeham News: The first Embraer E2 jet will be delivered April 4, to Norway’s Wideroe Airlines.

The E190-E2 seats 114 passengers in one-class, 29-inch pitch and 106 at 31-inch pitch, putting it at the low end of the 100-150 seat sector that is often maligned as a Bermuda Triangle for airplanes of this size.

Wideroe of Norway takes delivery of the firzst Embraer 190-E2 April 4. Photo: Embraer

The E190-E2 competes with the Bombardier CS100, a 110-seat airplane in one-class. Neither Airbus nor Boeing have a competing product. Each offers a larger airplane in the 125-150 sector, the A319neo and 737-7 MAX respectively. Embraer and Bombardier offer the E195-E2 and CS300 in this sub-sector.

Market Demand

Although the 100-150 sector often dismissed as a no-man’s land for airplanes, the potential is respectable—for the right airplane.

Bombardier forecasts a demand of 6,800, the most optimistic of any manufacturer—but more conservative than the Japan Aircraft Development Corp. JADC offers the most detailed sector-segment forecast.

Airbus stopped segmenting out this sector in 2014. The year before, it forecast a 20-year demand of about 4,100 airplanes. Boeing doesn’t segment the sector in its 20-year forecast, but earlier this year, the aerospace analyst at Cowen & Co. reported Boeing sees the sector demand between 3,000 and 5,000 aircraft. Boeing subsequently made oblique references to the sector when talking up its 7 MAX that were consistent with the Cowen report.

JADC segments the 110-119 seat sector in its 20-year forecast, seeing a demand of 1,913. JADC sees a demand for 6,111 aircraft in the 120-150 seat sector.

The right airplane

Airplanes in the 100-150 seat sector have indeed had a mixed success.

Excluding the first generation of jets in this sector (the Boeing 737-100/200, 727-100 and Douglas DC-9s) and starting with the second generation of jets (Boeing 737 Classics, McDonnell Douglas MD-80s, etc.), there have been 7,654 jets ordered or delivered.

But only a few were specifically designed for the sector; the rest were derivatives. Also, some of the specific designs came from companies that were in financial straits or soon slid there.

Few of the airplanes sold more than 300 models: the A319ceo, 737-300, 737-500, 737-700 BAE/Avro 146/RJ, Embraer E190-E1 and the MD-80.

The A319ceo, 737-300, 737-700 and MD-80 sold more than 1,000 each. The A319 sold nearly 1,500—an impressive number for a shrink-derivative.

The double-shrink A318 and 737-600—created to kill the McDonnell Douglas MD-95—each sold fewer than 100 airplanes.

The MD-95 was McDonnell Douglas’ last gasp in the commercial aviation market. By then MDC had been reduced to a mere 7% market share. MDC gave up and was acquired by Boeing in 1997. Boeing tried to sell the orphan airplane and gave up after 156 sales.

The BAE 146, a clean-sheet design for the sector, was a four-engine airplane and a fuselage so narrow that passengers complained bitterly about the six-abreast configuration. Many airlines reduced the configuration to five abreast, destroying the economics of the airplane. Still, it sold nearly 400 examples.

Embraer and Bombardier

Embraer designed the first clean-sheet airplane that entered the sector with its E190/195. The first EJet entered service in 2004. The

The E190 sold more than 500 examples, the slightly larger E195 fewer than 200.

Although the E2 is touted by Embraer to be a new airplane, its antecedents are clearly the original jet, now called the E1. The E190-E2 remains the same size as the E1, but the E195-E2 has 12 more seats, putting it into the 125-150 seat sector.

E2 sales have languished, however. Low fuel prices suppress sales and the labor scope clauses in the US, restricting the size of the airplanes that can be operated by regional carriers on behalf of the legacies, hurt as well.

Bombardier designed the first clean-sheet airplane specifically for the 100-150 seat sector since the E1 jet and the BAE 146. Every other design, by Airbus, Boeing, Fokker and McDonnell Douglas, was a derivative. Fokker was an ailing company and MDC became one.

And so was Bombardier.

Plagued by poor management that launched not only the C Series but also new corporate jet programs, Bombardier didn’t have the financial strength to take all these on at once. Misdirection that neglected the CRJ and Q400 commercial airplane programs that would have supplied cash flow further damaged Bombardier’s balance sheet and cash flow.

Driven to the edge of bankruptcy by C Series and corporate jet program delays, financial mismanagement and poor strategic decisions, Bombardier sold a majority interest in C Series to Airbus for $1. The completion of this deal is pending.

It remains to be seen if Airbus’ marketing and support system will make the C Series a success.

Boeing and Embraer

Even as Embraer prepares to deliver the first E2 next week, talks continue between Boeing, EMB and the Brazilian government about a combination of some sort between the two companies. The details remain fluid. The most recent suggest Boeing takes a 51% interest in a new company that includes only EMB’s commercial airplanes, excluding the corporate jets and military programs.

If a combination is achieved, Airbus and Boeing will have complete product lines from 100 to more than 400 seats, each with renewed strength in the low end of these sectors.

A market demand exists for the 100-150 seat sector. The right airplanes, and now the right companies, are converging to compete head-to-head.


53 Comments on “Embraer gears up for E2 delivery; a look at the 100-150 seat sector demand

  1. “Driven to the edge of bankruptcy by C Series and corporate jet program delays, financial mismanagement and poor strategic decisions“
    Anyone know a good link to read about these issues, especially the financial and strategic decision aspect, even here on Leeham?

    • The “right plane” is referenced in this article more than once. From most everything I’ve read on this subject, and by all accounts it appears the CS100 and the CS300 are the Right Planes for the 110-124 and the 135-160 markets respectively. Now, what stands in the way of that success? Previously Boeing and Airbus; and as noted Bombardier management. Now, hopefully Airbus is a positive and will use the design and technology going forward. Other impediments could be: a) recession, b) productions delays, c) the GTF’s success, d) the unforeseen? What also could be a positive for all these planes in this sector, is more point-to-point flights. Happy Easter and Passover.

    • Hello Gerard,

      Regarding: “Anyone know a good link to read about these issues, especially the financial and strategic decision aspect, even here on Leeham?”

      The post by Bjorn Fehrm from 2014 at the link below touches on some of these issues. Immediately below is a short excerpt from Mr. Fehrm’s 2014 article.

      “The situation in the two companies could not be more different. Embraer is financially healthy with well-selling aircraft programs, both on the commercial aircraft side (E-jet) and the business aircraft side (Phenom, Legacy). Embraer is well positioned for the future with a well-received update to its E-jet program (E-jet E2 ) . Bombardier on the other hand, has problems. Its financial situation is strained with too many new aircraft programs eating up cash (CSeries, Learjet 85, Global 7000/8000) and their currently active programs have in some cases seen their zenith in the market (CRJ, Challenger 600 and, arguably, the Q400).”


      • Thanks AP_Roberts. Much appreciate you replying and the link to the article. The 2014 predates me finding this fantastic blog. Cheers mate.

    • Embraer is the leader in the segment with the current 190 and 195 (E1). Do you have sources reporting these problems or is it mere speculation? Predicting boarding and disembarkation times is not a simple task, since it depends on several factors besides the aisle´s length:
      – distance between the passenger and the aisle;
      – aisle area and facility to put and remove luggage.

      • Slow boarding of 5 seaters compared to six seaters is well discussed here, same would apply to a 4 seater with small overhead bins.
        The E jets are a bit bigger than their competitor the CRJ regional jet, not really in the same league as the Cseries

        • “Slow boarding of 5 seaters compared to six seaters is well discussed here…”


          • Regarding: Where?

            Figure 2 in the Boeing Aeromagazine article “The Role of Computer Simulation in Reducing Airplane Turn Time” at the link below ” plots “through stop time” vs. year for different single aisle airliner types for flights originating in the US according to OAG ( a company that compiles databases of airline schedule performance) for years 1975 to 2000. One component of through stop time is, of course, boarding time.

            According to this figure “through stop times” for DC-9 /MD-80 (5 abreast in coach) increased from about 28 minutes in 1975 to about 54 minutes in 1997, and “through stop times” for the 737 (6 abreast in coach) increased from about 26 minutes in 1975 to about 35 minutes in 1995.

            Why the general increase in through stop time from 1975 to 2000? My guess is fuller planes, longer stretch variants being phased into the fleet, and most importantly the infernal ever larger and more numerous carry on bags.

            Why were through stop times for Dc-9/MD-80 types only 2 minutes longer than 737 types in 1975 but 19 minutes longer in 1995? My guess is that the 737 data is greatly influenced by Southwest which maintained fast boarding policies throughout the time period for its very large 737 fleet, while the DC-9/MD-80 data is greatly influenced by policy changes at non-Southwest US airlines during the time period that caused boarding times to greatly increase (the damned carry on bags!). Also the original Pacific Southwest Airlines, on which Southwest airlines modeled itself and which had a large MD80 fleet in the 1980’s, was taken over by US Air in 1988 who then did away with PSA’s Southwest like California route network and fast boarding policies, because the geniuses at US Air knew that hub and spoke operations would be more profitable. Subsequently, Southwest invaded California, duplicated PSA’s route network, and blew US Air and most of the US majors (United hung on) out of California short haul. Why would anyone in their right mind traveling from California’s capitol city of Sacramento to San Diego select a regional turboprop flight from Sacramento to San Francisco, followed by a mainline flight from San Francisco to Los Angles, followed by a regional turboprop flight from Los Angeles to San Diego, when the competition was offering non-stop mainline flights from Sacramento to San Diego with lower fares?

            Why are A320 “through stop times” for A320 types even greater than those for DC-9/MD-80 types? My guesses are that A320 types were not flown by fast boarding Southwest and were mostly flown by slow boarding US majors during this time period, some A321’s may be included in the A320 types, and this was an article in a Boeing magazine. In partial defense of the slow boarding times for US majors, it should be noted that during a hub ramp involving dozens of aircraft, there is trade off between turning each aircraft as fast as possible and the number of angry passengers roaming the halls of your terminal because they missed their connection when their inbound flight was 15 minutes late, or even angrier because grandpa had a heart attack while he was running to try to make his connection. As turn time is decreased in a network hub, the number of missed connections and passengers stressed out by nearly missed connections will increase.

            Which single aisle aircraft types had the longest through stop times? Should be no surprise – the longest ones. DC-8 60/70 and 757 both had through stop times of greater than 60 minutes in 1997.


          • Thanks AP, I don’t know how de-planing “outside-in” could speed up things so dramatically in reality, but interesting (Figure 5B).

            The quickest that I have seen single aisles turn around through the front door is by de-planing from the back to front, business and other plus categories obviously first. Bad passenger discipline however often mess this up.

            Hand luggage remains the dagger in aircraft turn around times heart.

        • Ah, well… careful now.

          1. Bigger bins than current 5-abreast.
          2. Wider aisle than current 5-abreast.

          Getting luggage away without issue means the aisles are cleared quicker.

          *Every time*, any problem with boarding I have observed is due to folks not being able to stow their baggage. [I’m racking my brain, and really can’t come up…. oh. maybe one time there was a seat confusion issue between two passengers.]

          • Length of the aisle does impact on boarding an de-planing but the big enemy is getting stuff in and out of overheads.

            One thing that often causes havoc is no show checked in pax, another is waiting for stairs or bus in bad weather.

    • In the E2 generation Embraer redesigned the side panels, gaining 2 inches. Therefore the difference for the CRJ increased to 22 cm (8.7 in). At floor level, by the shape of the cabin the gap is evidently even greater.

      • Its a fine 4 seater cabin. I havent seen any Embraer release or their supplier Priestmangoode saying the cabin is wider with reduced thickness side panels.
        Maybe its a ‘new wide look’ according to the PR flacks

        • View in:

          “… Inside the cabin, the side walls were replaced for 1 in. of additional space on each side. The new overhead bins are about 3 in. deeper to allow International Air Transport Association standard trolleys to be stored wheels-first. That enables each bin compartment to hold four trolleys so every passenger can store one big piece of carry-on baggage overhead and keep the space underneath the front seat free for smaller items and more legroom… “

          • Doesnt mention those ‘extra inches’ on Embraers own promotion.
            The seats are covered in some detail- same width as before-
            The best they can say is ‘unprecedented space’, but that seems in context of its 2 x2 seating- which is a great feature.
            This story here too, no mention of ‘extra inch each side’ either.

            No mention of those extra inches here either, and this is the designers.
            The only metric they use is 40% extra ‘carry on capacity’.
            I must say looks a fantastic job they have done, but dont promote any extra inches- maybe there arent any and AW got it wrong ( its not what it used to be)?

          • I think I have found that ‘extra inch’ in the E2 cabin.
            “Embraer showed off its first E2 cabin mockup in 2014 and has been honest about subsequent alterations. “The overhead bin wasn’t quite as good as we wanted,” Stein recalls. “We went back to the drawing board, kept the internal space of the bin, but rearranged some systems. That created more passenger space, getting back about an inch above [the passenger’s] head.” -Clearly is in relation to the overhead bins
            This was a direct quote and specifically talks about ‘above the head’, a later AW report has misinterpreted that to ‘extra width’

            As an aside they seem fanatstic planes, I my country they would be great for secondary routes but lack of competition means some flights are nearly 2 hrs in turbo props with nearly 75 seats

    • Think the 190E2 is a good aircraft, economy, price, comfort. Not sure about the 195E2, a stretch too much?

      On boarding, if you take the 190E2 at 31″ pitch, ~26 rows. EasyJets 319’s also have 26 rows while Southwest’s 737-700’s have 24 rows, so the 190E2s should be good in boarding and de-planing.

    • The difference is that the Ejets fuselage is 6 inch wider (~1.5″ per seat) than the CRJ’s.

      Just looking at the C-series cross-section, if you add an aisle and two seats on the left do you look at an Airbus NMA?

      Know you just don’t scale up things but a twin aisle 7 abreast C-series could be a nice aircraft.

      Similarly, a scaled up E2 to 3-3 could be Boeing’s new NSA?

    • Is slower boarding on 4 vs 6 abreast really a thing?
      In my experience as a passenger on E190 vs B737-700 and A319 getting off the plane seems to go faster on the E190.

  2. MDC gave up and was acquired by Boeing in 1997.

    MDC gave up and decided to acquire Boeing in 1997, in a reverse takeover. LOL!

    • Sadly that is the truth.

      It doesn’t happen often but it does happen.

      • Wasnt that just a technicality to take advantage of MD greater accumulated losses ?
        Reverse mergers for tax reasons are common, it was once for backdoor listings.
        Stonecipher bought needed reorganization.

        “If there was one area where Stonecipher’s straight-talk-express routine was needed most, it was facing up to what had long been Boeing’s terrible secret: The assembly lines of America’s leading exporter were morasses of inefficiency. Airplanes were built more like customized houses, with airlines able to select from 109 shades of white paint, 20,000 galley and lavatory arrangements, and even curtained prayer rooms with devices that pointed to Mecca (“Mecca meters”).”

  3. What is the price difference between comparable C series and the E-2’s? I would think Embraer would have more pricing power due to lower production costs being a derivative.

    • Hello Steve,

      Funny you should ask about the selling price for the C-Series. There was just major trade case concerning C-Series pricing lost by Boeing with US Trade Agencies. Boeing alleged the C-Series had received an illegal government bailout and subsidies when Bombardier was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and was being sold at prices that would never possibly recover its development costs. The US Department of Commerce found that illegal subsidies had occurred and that the C-Series was being sold below cost; however, the US International Trade Commission did not impose subsidy or below cost sales penalties because they found that Boeing has not suffered material damage from the illegally subsidized and below cost C-Series sales, partly because Boeing did not have an aircraft that competed directly with the CS-100, which was the only model that had actually been purchased by a US customer (Delta). Brazil has filed a complaint over illegal subsidies (i.e. the government bailout of insolvent Bombardier) on behalf of Embraer with the WTO, and if the WTO adjudicates the case at its usual pace, we can expect a decision in our children’s lifetime, if not in our own.

      Originally Bombardier was trying to sell the CS aircraft at a premium to 737’s and A320’s, let alone E-Jets, due to its better fuel economy and more advanced technology. Post government bailout, they have been undercutting 737 and A320 prices. Not having to worry about having to recover 6 billion of dollars of development costs or providing investors with a rate of return better than they could get with a savings account at their local bank (0.01%?, but al least you don’t lose money as long as you ignore inflation) can do wonders for pricing!

      • @Steve, you’re not supposed to compare the CSERIES to the E2 (according to Boeing and US government).

        During the trade case AP mentioned, Boeing argued the CSeries and 737 Max 7 are in the same class, but the E2 is not in that class. And the committee/court agreed.
        If I remember correct, due to range. And Embraer increased the range of the E2 soon after, which would have included the E2 in the same class.

    • For anyone who may be interested in comparing prices that no one ever actually pays, here are some list prices in millions of USD that were quoted in a 2-26-18 post on this blog by Mr. Hamilton.

      CRJ-700: 41.4
      E170: 43.6
      CRJ-900: 46.5
      E175: 46.9
      CRJ-1000: 49.5
      E190: 52.0
      E175-E2: 53.1
      E195: 55.0
      E190-E2: 60.8
      E195-E2: 68.5
      A318: 77.4
      Cs100: 79.5
      737-700: 85.8
      CS300: 89.5
      A319ceo: 92.3
      737-7: 96.0
      A319neo: 101.5

      Below is a link to Mr. Hamilton’s blog post from which I copied the above list prices.


      • Whats wrong with a Cs300 list price of $89.5 mill compared to A319 neo price of $101.5mill.

        • Another problem of the 319NEO is that for $90M you can get an CS300 and $110m you can get an 320NEO. The one has better sector and seat mile costs and the other better seat mile cost. The cargo capacity of the 320N is also ~35% more than that of the 319N

      • Thanks AP, the CS300 price might seems “high”, assuming the above as guide and single class layouts at 31″ pitch the following (leaving out the 195E2 for this due its lesser performance capabilities).

        1)CS300, 150 seats, price per seat $59.7K,
        2)190E2, 104 seats, price per seat $58.5K.

        Thus an CS300 cost only ~$1000 per seat more than an 190E2.

        Not sure what the situation is with the CS and E-Jets re if prices includes cabin fits or not.

        • Apologies, the edits could not come through in time;

          1)CS300, $597K per seat,
          2)190E2, $585K per seat.

          Thus CS300 $12K more per seat more which is S50 per month over a 20 year life.

          Also the CS300 MTOW 62T while the 190E2 52T.

          This gives an MTOW of 413Kg/seat for the CS300 and 500Kg/seat for the 190E2 which relates to lower airports fees per passenger for the CS300, if my calculations are correct.

          Which will retains its value longer, assume the CS due to being a new clean sheet design?

          This is not really comparing apples with apples, if the airlines route can not sustain the CS300’s capacity the 190E2 is a good aircraft/option.

  4. I think one the problems with the 319NEO is the size of the engines, 78″ and 81″ fans with a core that has around 33-35Klb thrust capabilities.

    If the 319NEO could have been fitted with 69″ LEAP-B’s or 73″ fanned PW1500G’s it could have been a better aircraft?

  5. NikI think the large availability of used A319s, 737-700s doesn’t help. Embraer scored no orders in Europe for the E2’s in 5 years. I wonder if they are capable of changing their marketing approach.

    Regarding smaller fans for the A319, Boeing went a long way to sqeeze out every possible half inch.. and then declared it was just right.

    • Can see the 190E2 finding homes where an airline wants to up gauge from CRJ’s/Q400’s/ATR72’s. The 75E2’s to small and the CS100 “to much aircraft”?

  6. I think the B-717 line should have been kept going. Very possibly a program ahead of its time.

    • It was designed well but suffered from an old wing design. Had it got a Gulfstream V type of wing it would have been a winner.
      Try to get a used one on the market today , Everybody is holding on to thiers as they are that good.

  7. The forecast of 1/3 the demand for the 100-119 size vs the 120-150 size pretty much matches the ratio of CS100 vs CS300 orders and deliveries. This validates the projected relative size of those markets and suggests to me BBD got the sizing right.

  8. The projection of 3580 aircraft in the 60-99 size is hard to interpret without knowing how much of that is in the US market and subject to scope clauses.

    • The US scope clauses most likely the 190E2’s biggest enemy?!

      Its economics should be better than the CS100 with seating of 90-100?

      • Hello Anton,

        The US major’s scope clauses mean that their regional airline affiliates cannot operate E190’s; however, the major’s themselves are free to operate E190’s. Delta had purchased 20 used E190’s from Boeing before they decided to instead fill their near term 100 seat needs with new Cs-100’s. I read somewhere, I believe in Delta’s briefs or testimony for the C-Series trade case, that Delta had planned to supplement the E190’s purchased from Boeing with additional used E190’s, and that Delta’s decision to abandon the E190 was due primarily to their finding that used E190 prices were higher and availability poorer than they had anticipated.


        Slide 18 (page 19) of the presentation at the link below, given by United Senior VP Gerry Laderman at a J.P. Morgan High Yield and Leveraged Finance conference on 2-27-18, lists the following aircraft as A319/A320/737-700/737-800 “replacement options”.

        Used A319 / A320
        A319neo / A320neo
        Used 737-700 / 737-800
        737 MAX 7 / 737 MAX 8
        E190 / 195 E2
        CS100 / Cs300


      • Hello Anton

        It is not just the 190/195 E2’s that are too large for the scope clause. The E175-E2 is too heavy, and by 10 tons at that. Hard to see a role for it in the US.

        • US airports are overloaded as it is with small planes like the regionals and even larger narrow bodies on high frequency trunk routes. Something has to increase
          Once LaGuardia had DC10s and Tristars and they werent allowed to fly beyond Denver. Now they will fly E75s to Chicago-O’Hare.

          Intriguing that plane code for Boeing Max 8 is B38M.

        • Thanks, does this imply that only CRJ’s (new) will be available to Regional Airlines due to the scope clauses when the E175 goes out of production.

          Maybe time for an all new 50-75 seat aircraft?

          • There is the MRJ70. Also over 76,000lb MTOW but not by much. Perhaps they will certify a lighter weight version. It does seem strange that both the E175E2 and the MRJ were build beyond the scope clauses.

            BBD is talking up the chances of the CRJ’s with a new cabin in the replacement market. Perhaps that will work, they are inexpensive. Embraer is thinking about a new turboprop.

          • The MRJ70 looks good on paper for this application but execution the problem at the moment. If they could certify a lower MTOW version it could do the trick.

            Could be a good move by ATR/(AB) or BBD to get into bed with the MRJ’s? Then AB could have a finger in the pie with smaller jets from 70-130 seats.

          • Embraer started to offer the E175 SC, a 70 seat special configuration of the current E175 to stay within the scope clauses.

  9. Can anyone explain why Hamburg is used as the background city in the graphic?

  10. This seems to be a frequent mistake, considering the SSJ in this category (100-120 passengers). From the outset the Superjet was presented by the manufacturers as competitor of the E190. As far as I know, it is an optimized product with little possibility of growth. The E190 already pays the price of being a heavier platform, aiming to meet the E195 version.

    The current move to produce a 75-passenger version seems to confirm the attempt to compete in the E175 market (except USA), with strong appeal in markets potentially affected by Western technology sanctions.

    I see that Sukhoi has a problem at hand since SSJ competes mainly with secondhand E-Jets.

  11. @dukeofurl,

    Maybe you’re taking the art of interpreting a little far, choosing the “reliable” information. I have reasons to believe that all of these articles are correct, pointing to a successful effort toward a gain by reducing the thickness of the internal panels.

    If you notice the presentations of the Mitsubishi MRJ cabin a lot of effort was made to show a few cm gain in critical dimensions of width (2 cm) and height (3 cm) versus E1 models. It makes sense that Embraer has expended a great effort to show the E2 evolution, both in finishes and in space, reversing the initial disadvantage.

    Positioning the new and larger luggage compartments has certainly been a big challenge, every inch is precious.

  12. The embraer 190 e2 seats 114
    You need to add 120 seats to make

Leave a Reply

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