July 5, 2018: Boeing and Embraer announced an agreement to create a new company with EMB’s commercial aircraft unit and intent to create a second JV for its defense unit.
The full press release is below the jump.
CHICAGO and SÃO PAULO, July 5, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — Boeing (NYSE: BA) and Embraer (B3: EMBR3, NYSE: ERJ) announced they have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to establish a strategic partnership that positions both companies to accelerate growth in global aerospace markets.
The non-binding agreement proposes the formation of a joint venture comprising the commercial aircraft and services business of Embraer that would strategically align with Boeing’s commercial development, production, marketing and lifecycle services operations. Under the terms of the agreement, Boeing will hold an 80 percent ownership stake in the joint venture and Embraer will own the remaining 20 percent stake.
“By forging this strategic partnership, we will be ideally positioned to generate significant value for both companies’ customers, employees and shareholders – and for Brazil and the United States,” said Dennis Muilenburg, Boeing’s Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. “This important partnership clearly aligns with Boeing’s long-term strategy of investing in organic growth and returning value to shareholders, complemented by strategic arrangements that enhance and accelerate our growth plans,” Muilenburg said.
“The agreement with Boeing will create the most important strategic partnership in the aerospace industry, strengthening both companies’ leadership in the global market,” said Paulo Cesar de Souza e Silva, Embraer Chief Executive Officer and President. “The business combination with Boeing is expected to create a virtuous cycle for the Brazilian aerospace industry, increasing its sales potential, production, creating jobs and income, investments and exports, and in doing so, adding more value to customers, shareholders and employees.”
The transaction values 100 percent of Embraer’s commercial aircraft operations at $4.75 billion, and contemplates a value of $3.8 billion for Boeing’s 80 percent ownership stake in the joint venture. The proposed partnership is expected to be accretive to Boeing’s earnings per share beginning in 2020 and to generate estimated annual pre-tax cost synergies of approximately $150 million by year three.
The strategic partnership will bring together more than 150 years of combined leadership in aerospace and leverage the two companies’ highly complementary commercial product lines. The partnership is a natural evolution of a long-standing history of collaboration between Boeing and Embraer over more than 20 years.
On finalization, the commercial aviation joint venture will be led by Brazil-based management, including a President and Chief Executive Officer. Boeing will have operational and management control of the new company, which will report directly to Muilenburg.
The joint venture will become one of Boeing’s centers of excellence for end-to-end design, manufacturing, and support of commercial passenger aircraft, and will be fully integrated into Boeing’s broader production and supply chain.
Boeing and the joint venture would be positioned to offer a comprehensive, highly complementary commercial airplane portfolio that ranges from 70 seats to more than 450 seats and freighters, offering best-in-class products and services to better serve the global customer base.
In addition, both companies will create another joint venture to promote and develop new markets and applications for defense products and services, especially the KC-390 multi-mission aircraft, based on jointly-identified opportunities.
“Joint investments in the global marketing of the KC-390, as well as a series of specific agreements in the fields of engineering, research and development and the supply chain, will enhance mutual benefits and further enhance the competitiveness of Boeing and Embraer,” said Nelson Salgado, Embraer’s Executive Vice President, Financial and Investor Relations.
Finalization of the financial and operational details of the strategic partnership and negotiation of definitive transaction agreements are expected to continue in the coming months. Upon execution of these agreements, the transaction would then be subject to shareholder and regulatory approvals, including approval from the Government of Brazil, as well as other customary closing conditions. Assuming the approvals are received in a timely manner, the transaction is expected to close by the end of 2019, 12-18 months after execution of the definitive agreements.
“This strategic partnership is a natural evolution of the long-standing history of collaboration between Boeing and Embraer on a range of aerospace initiatives over almost three decades,” said Greg Smith, Boeing Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of Enterprise Strategy & Performance. “It is aligned with Boeing’s enterprise strategy of pursuing strategic investment opportunities where they demonstrate real value and accelerate our organic growth plans. This partnership will strengthen the vertical capabilities of Boeing and enhance value for our customers through the full lifecycle of industry-leading products and services.”
Boeing and Embraer will benefit from a broader scale, resources and footprint, including global supply chain, sales and marketing, and services network, which will enable them to capture benefits from best-in-class efficiencies across the organizations. Additionally, the strategic partnership will provide opportunities to share best practices in manufacturing and across development programs.
The transaction will have no impact on Boeing and Embraer financial guidance for 2018 or Boeing’s cash deployment strategy and commitment to returning approximately 100 percent of free cash flow to shareholders.
Sad to see both Bombardier and Embraer commercial go this way.
Anyway, any surprise at the % ownership stakes Scott?
Interesting – I thought the rumbling was that Boeing and Embraer were going to merge both their commercial aircraft businesses in to a jointly owned business. This looks like Boeing is outright buying 80% of Embraer’s commercial aircraft business without giving up any ownership of their own business.
I said a number of times that was wrong. A JV made more sense.
I also said that Boeing was not the least interested in small Business Jets.
So now we have a break off, a JV and not business jets.
The rest is press making whoopee without assessment.
I think LM will scratch their head on the long term prospects of the excellent, irreplaceable 60 yr old C130.
No, the KC-390 is just a sort of Tactical.
Nothing is going to replaced C-130. A few sales around the edge but those so far are by non combatant types.
Obviously turbo are the way to go for a true tactical type airlifter, that’s why A400 did that.
you are making a rather large assumption that any thought other than how to blow the most government money went into A400 design decisions. and calling the A400 a tactical airlifter is a stretch too. hell, calling it an airplane is a stretch. The A400 was a jobs program created to keep the European governments from replacing their Transalls with herks or c-17s (which better met their needs, but hey, what’s $30B in unnecessary development spending between friends to get an aircraft that doesn’t actually do what it is supposed to do)
I am curious what your technical basis is for the “Obviously turbo are the way to go for a true tactical type airlifter”?
the ‘390 can land on short dirt strips, take off from short dirt strips, fly low and slow, refuel helicopters (huh, A400 can’t do that either)
hell, the C-17 can land on 3500’ dirt strips, I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
Well, having some own competence and capabilities in Europe developing and building a military transport aircraft containing only parts European decide who to sale them and relying not too much on the “goodwill” of other governments, that may have their own agenda, should be worth some taxpayers money….
No disagreement that the A400 was an excersize in self fulfillment for Europe (part of it) .
That said, if you want rough nasty dirt strips ops, a turbo prop is the way to go, not jet engines.
You can land a C-17 in nasty stuff, or a C-5 (it acualy has better ops than a C-17) but you don’t want to risk those birds in that threat and bad stuff.
The A400 tries to combines both worlds. I don’t think it was the right way to go but that was their choice.
Its a relatively long range turbo prop that can do what the Herc can.
I would not risk one at 200 Million US +, but in an emergency you can.
For sure you can land a C-17 in nasty stuff. The problem is, can you use the aircraft next day?
An A400M at MTOW is slightly heavier than an empty C-17 but they share the same amount of tires. Requirements for runway strength is about the same as for a 777-300ER. Even an A380 due to far more tires has less requirements.
The engine core of any jet engine is roughly between the wing and the runway. The engine core of a turbo prop is close to the wing. Therefore it is less possible to suck in dirt for a turbo prop.
The Herc is no comparison with the A400. Its all 50s build and systems with just new engines. The straight wing gives good takeoff but is slow for medium range flight at lower altitudes. ( That was one of its original design criteria for large scale parachute drops, no longer required) Even the US Army found it ‘too big’ as a tactical lifter and pushed for the C27J but the USAF made sure that was dumped. The KC-390 is more a match for the Herc with none of the disadvantageous for route flying and just loses some competitiveness for the rough/short field takeoffs
You really blew the comments on the Herc.
Current Herc has no more in common than a Ford 500 does with a Model A.
Its been on on going evolution that has only a form in common with the original Herc. Fuselage is new, wings are new, engines are new, all systems are new with the latest greatest whiz bang. It also works unlike the A400 which is still figuring it out.
The Herc is optimized for in theater operations. The A400 tries to be a somewhat tactility transport with turbo props with in theater capability (at a huge cost of 200+ million and going up)
The US gave up on that idea with the C-133 back in the early 60s and never were silly enough to try (nor design it) to land it at a forward combat base.
The US did use the Para-drop in Northern Irag. Its still an Army Specifically and they train in the Herc and C-17.
Active para drops into combat are a thing of the past, it never was all that successful for any force that did it. It does provide a useful combat boost if you can drop near a combat zone. Nothing on the Herc was compromised to allow it. Its all about short field and cargo.
I have yet to see an A400 launch off a Carrier!
(or land on one)
As for the C-27, I agree. Its a very good aircraft and its perfect for Army missions.
Unfortunate the USAF in its gross stupidity will not operate it, nor will they let the Army.
As the A330MRT thing all over again, the USAF wants the biggest stuff, not the most useful.
Sadly the Army has lost that argument but that i a political issue not a technical one.
It speaks of how pathetic the USAF leadership is, not anything to do with the Herc itself and what it can do and is very good at.
Sort of re-kills the ‘Boeing is running out of engineers’ idea, I suppose, if they have 80% of the Embraer commercial aerospace engineering workforce.
The KC390 I admit to not being very familiar with, but it does offer an interesting long term alternative to the Herc, for 40MM less per copy it would seem, pending whatever Boeing does to lobby/Americanize for it. The V2500’s I assume are just the ‘starter’ engines.
No, the KC-390 is started with a electrical or pneumatic air spin the turbine starter.
2 x V2500 is the engine that propels the aircraft.
Respectfully, I intended that this was just the initial engine offering, as the V2500 was run initially in the 1980’s, and seems to be quite dated with no future great competitiveness vs. other options.
As a high wing (military) jet, it would seem to be capable of alternative powerplants in future versions, I would think (with no ground clearance issues for higher bypass ratios). The Brazilians I guess wanted to go the safe/non-GTF route initially.
As for military aircraft low fuel burn is not the highest priority, but robustness, availability (of spare parts etc.) and”sale-ability” (of “old” technology is less restricted) there is no need to change that in the next 20 years?!
I agree. I think a GTF or CFM alternative is in the KC-390’s immediate future…
So, you think they are going to certify it with one engine and then turn around and put a different one on it?
I think the Brazilians knew exactly what they were doing – …………………….
Does this mean the 797 will be designed and built in Brazil?
Regarding: “Does this mean the 797 will be designed and built in Brazil?”
My guess is that this is not very likely.
According to Boeing’s press release, the joint venture will “offer a comprehensive, highly complementary commercial airplane portfolio that ranges from 70 seats to more than 450 seats and freighters”.
My prediction is that this range of 70 to 450 seats will de divided up as follows.
Boeing – Brazil : 70 to 160 seats (i.e. anything smaller than 737-800).
Boeing – USA: 160 to 450 seats (i.e. 737-800 and larger).
I would predict the 737-700 will stay in Renton, but that any new designs of this seating capacity would be the primary responsibility of Boeing-Brazil. Boeing’s future single aisle plans will now likely include both a 737-8/9/10 replacement for which Boeing – USA has primary responsibility, and a smaller aircraft for which Boeing – Brazil will have primary responsibility.
Hi AP, some chess going on here but think AB got it covered from 100-160 seats with the CS100/300 and hypothetical CS500.
In the medium term the 320-family covers the 160-220 seat market. AB has big challenges when it comes to 220-280 seats.
The future 50-100 seat market could depend on open rotor and electrical engines? Interesting that BBD said they are not interested in re-engine the CRJ’s, maybe something new along the above mentioned in mind.
Open rotor is as dead as a rock
Electrical is never going to fly, its the new open rotor.
From the Seattle Times today:
Embraer brings engineering talent that Boeing could tap for the new midrange jet on its drawing board, dubbed the 797 by analysts. Embraer also has lower-cost production capabilities that the Chicago-based planemaker could use to build components such as actuators and landing gear as it brings more supplier work in-house, said Canaccord Genuity analyst Ken Herbert.
Crazy… All those guys (and gals) that have worked on smaller wide-bodies like the 767-200, 300, 400, KC and freighters??? They have all the knowledge to work on the 797! Where’re they going to find work? Or are wages lower in South America, like the Carolinas?
this is Boeing’s chance to break SPEEA once and for all.
Does Embraer make landing gear?
It’s common mistake to think the E series is mostly made in Brazil. It’s not, with most major assemblies coming from the usual places. Japan, US, Korea, France, Portugal. Then there’s the non airframe systems from engines to undercarriage etc. All not Brazil
Most of the engineers who were working on the 767 during its development are probably retired or quickly approaching retirement.
Yea all us older people are looking at our options and its how soon can we run vs how much we can live on.
If I can I am going to join them, laugh as I watch it cost them big bucks to try to re-build what they have lost.
Sure I can be replaced, it won’t be cheap and they will suffer disruptions they never had before.
Thats why the 787 guys all quit after they empty roll out, they saw the train wreck a coming and they got out while the getting was good.
Its a common mistake to believe The A330 or the 767 are made in one place.
All of them have significant non US, no European parts.
Airbus is something like 40% US parts as I recall and Boeing does significant buying from European suppliers on systems.
note: I don’t know if that includes engines.
Yes. They need the double bubble fuselage design of the E-Jets to meet the weight requirement of the 797 and they need the Embraer cost base to meet the purchasing cost requirement of the 797 airlines.
What Embraer cost base ?.
Like every other airliner components and sub-Assemblys come from major suppliers around the world,
AERnnova(Spain) Rear fuselage & pressure bulkhead;: Horizontal & vertical empennages, including rudders & elevators
Daher, Rear fuselage
Kawasaki Aerospace,Forward fuselage,Main wing fixed trailing edge; centre wing & control surfaces
Korean Air Aerospace Division ,Fuselage
Latecoere,Fuselage Sections: Barrel sections
Sonaca SA, Wing leading edge slats, Fuselage panels & subassemblies including keel beam
Triumph (USA), Centre fuselage section III, rear fuselage section, Rudder & elevator
Out of interest Aernnova also supplies Boeing 747 assemblies . Primary wing structure, Forward fuselage
Boeing has the design full in hand. They don’t need Embraer any more than Airbus needs C series wing tech.
They both get access and viable programs in the just trans continental range product lines. Add another 200-300 mile range to the E series and you have a viable trans con with reserves.
Long term they either have (C) or get a better fit product for 180 seats and under and can focus on the 180 and above as the main ops product.
Embraer would clearly design and maybe build large parts if not assemble the true 737RS.
Embraer hardly builds much of its own E-series itself, major parts are even built at Everett and Texas now, its mostly the
designer and system integrator.
NSA will be Brazilian for sure, and EIS about 2025-2028? Airbus need to get moving on the A250?
Think the problem with an NSA/FSA for both companies are the engines. The quantum leap only 2030-2035?
No quanta Leap (GE) needed.
Just keep advancing the GTF tech.
There is nothing on the horizon that works that does not have a GTF per NASA study.
Did they not learn the big lesson from B787 Dreamliner? That if you design major components and manufacture them out of country, you just might find yourself putting a square peg in a round hole? That the investment costs could triple?
Clearly that is not right.
It was not having parts made out of country, it was having those Tier 1/2/3 design their own stuff.
They had no monitoring or controls in place to watch and mange it.
They wanted a free lunch and found out there is no free lunch.
Conversely, you can do the mfg next door and have one team to monitor ops, not 30 scattered all over the globe.
The problem with outsource though is no one is going to fess up they are screwing up until its beyond obvious.
By then the program is impacted.
The 787 Batery was the perfect example.
1. Thales was the lead
2. BAE had no battery experience for the charger but got the contrtact so they used a thing called Secura Plane to base it off of and hired pople (how about SAFT who does build battery charge? han) They then burned down their building (along with a bad charger)
3. Obscure Japan compmany had the monitor board. Lets not have it all done by one repuataible known provne operaiton for our Gold Project, lets pick people who have no connection with each other, havn’g done this before and it will be fine
4. Yuasa got the battery contract (have to give the Japanese this because they are our buddies). When all was said and done it was the filthiness battery mfg plant it h world for a type that requires clean room, they hand bent form (no control in the badly needed consistent quality) and they passed 890% of the batteries in a industry that is lucky to get 60% passed.
And no central authority managed or monitored any of it, all by phone.
What could possibly go right?
Re your point 2, the head company is Meggitt, not BAE. “a thing called Secura Plane” is actually their subsidiary business called Securaplane, not some gadget as you seem to suggest. And, although I don’t know they didn’t, why would Thales go via Meggitt to be able to contract with Securaplane rather than simply going to Securaplane directly?
Re your point 3, possibly internationally obscure but not domestically obscure.
Re your point 4, are you suggesting the contract should only have been available to contractors from the USA?
Woody: Some of the players wrong name wise, but Thales was the overall.
Don’t loose the point in details (agreed important and it matters on the micro level but the story does not change, scattered firms and responsibility with no one having the hammer)
You should read what I wrote. SAFT if French. They make the finest batteries and charging equipment for same in the world.
I had the pleasure of working with one of the only domestic type (Fire Panel power backup) battery systems. NICADs that needed no discharge cycle the way they designed it. Sweet.
My brother worked Avionics and the ones that stood out and by far were the best were also SAFT.
While its not validated (I will ask) my 99.9% expectation was that SAFT also makes their own detector boards (or has them build to their specs)
So rather than go to a solid top of the filed in new tech, you scatter all the responsibility around to people that never built batteries, charger or monitor boards FOR AIRCRAFT.
Been there done that and see that. Its a guaranteed recipe for disaster.
The highly sophisticated and hugely subject drive a nail into the battery as a test? Really? Pull the other one.
That is why the program went form 5 billion Boeing investment to a 30 billion dollar disasters.
I don’t suggest SECURE PLANE is a gadget, its claim to fame is it puts security system on Private Aircraft (mostly jets)
So, what in any ones peak picking mind would give them cause to think that is the place to design a battery charger for the most volatile chemistry in LI bats?
Want to read the case the nut job who did the charger brought? After he burned down their building with his testing. Reads like a mad scientist building Frankenstein.
Read the filthy Yuasa battery plant report.
No one was watching the whole thing and that is point, that went with the rest as well.
Boeing thought they could pull a fast one and not cost them, it clearly was a stupid thing to see in action and the results speak for themselves.
TransWorld: Don’t “LOSE” the point.
The 787 shew that you can’t build a plane by handing napkin doodles around between the PHB elements of the involved companies.
i.e. the 787 stumbled over badly defined interfaces.
Just reading the link below gives me the feeling EMB gets dissolved? McDonald Douglas here we come?
Would it be a bad thing for the Brazillions to run Boeing?
I agree (based on someone else prediction) that Boeing will launch the 797 at Farnboroughgh
This adds to the reasoning.
Boeing suddenly wanted the engine options available, the now have engineering resources that need to be put to work so it all makes sense.
So it looks like Airbus got the sick company and Boeing got the healthy one.
Well that’s an interesting insight… Time will tell… But a case could be made for Airbus getting the better opportunity with the CSeries. I think the World economy is going to dictate which and what survives.
Airbus definitely got he better airplane, but Boeing got themselves a nice airplane and company. I still think Boeing messed up by not taking the C-Series when it was offered to them on a platinum platter.
Airbus got what it wanted without the rest of the issues.
Boeing now has a vast excess of production and issues to deal with.
We will have all those surplus US engineers when the 797 is done won’t we .
Any chances of the E-series going a bit longer to yield 130+ seats?
E2-195 is a bit longer than its predecessor, so can carry 146 pax , single class at a tight pitch
Which is the company which has produced a carbon fiber wing and empenage and Al Li fuselage along with full fly by wire. And which company is making traditional riveted Al lager structures and part fly by wire
AirBus paid a dollar, Boeing 3.8 billion
Does not 3.8 billion for 80-% seem incredibly low?
C Series alone has that much investment, this picks up 3 aircraft.
And what kind of joint venture has 80/20 split and the 80 part controlling the JV via an upper structure. More like an out of Joint venture
The KC-390 looks to be a true JV.
I think the gab between the E2 195 and 737-800 is bigger and harder to fill than the gab betweenCS300-A320. ( Assuming A319/737-7 sales will remain like over the last 5 years.)
Boeing is buying itself into the regional segment.
For gab I suggest to kiss the Blarney Stone.
He certainly doesn’t have the “gift of the gab”. LOL
“This important partnership clearly aligns with Boeing’s long-term strategy of investing in organic growth and returning value to shareholders, complemented by strategic arrangements that enhance and accelerate our growth plans,” Muilenburg said.
This could very well lead to organic growth, but a take over (80%) is not organic growth.
Also interesting they call it a joint venture, while it seems to be a take over.
Valuation of Embraer commercial division at $ 4,75 billion seems relatively low (current market/stock value of the entire company is over $ 20 billion) and a good deal for Boeing.
On the surface it seems a good deal for Boeing. As Scott Hamilton has mentioned in previous articles, Embraer’s engineering at significantly lower cost could be a great asset for Boeing.
You are missing key parts.
JV is the A390
Merge (buyout) is the regional jet operation (that is not trans con without fuel reserves)
Left alone is the rest of the military stuff and the Small Business Jets.
I was wrong. They are calling the E series a JV, it does not pass the JV smell test.
The KC-390 looks to be that.
The rest of Embrarer defense and business jets are kept fully Brazillion.
Im my view Boeing is getting 80% of the E-series FAL. Thats all. Major assemblies arrive from all over the world from the suppliers as they have always done. This would seem to be the only way they can do a JV but without the Business and Military sides.
What ever happened to the 4 french aerospace firms that used to have a 20% stake in Embraer ?
I doubt they’d pay that for 80% of the E-serie FAL.
Isn’t the whole point of this take over (or JV, whatever you want to call it), to get (part of) the production AND engineering capacity of Embrear?
Pretty cheap,maybe less than Airbus corruption fines.Boeing has so much money to fling around for anything other than developing new products that they are probably only doing this for another angle on trade complaints and tariffs.
No, its so they car write it off on our taxes
IMHO, an other strategic question is: now that Boeing clearly covers the global regional market, will Airbus expend its offer as well? By taking over CRJ program for example?
No, Boeing is only after the E Series as a trans con capable aircraft.
The regional thing is a myth.
Long term its the full 737RS.
Regional be what is is or is not will be allowed to die.
Airbus really wants nothing to do with the ATR either.
Where the so called regional comes in will see but I expect it just bumps up to 150 seats and more trans con and both let the lower end go long term.
Seems to be a marriage made in hell.
EMB — 4 wide platform that has been stretched well beyond its comfort zone.
It’s numbers highlight the poor state of the platform vs the C Series.
It has the floor area — long and thin.
But it is carrying a lot of timber — OEW looks high — and the range numbers are poor.
Consequently at the top end of the range the E Jet is a bit of a dog.
Uncannily similar to the B737 if truth be told.
AB is in a much better place.
The C Series is a much more modern and capable platform.
The A32X architecture can cope with the mainstream while it is in pole position regarding the growth flank of the product space.
Modern wing offers huge potential.
While true on the 737, it was never intended to be what its been turned into.
A320 had a lot more design growth built in.
It seems the E can grow more, the C has 5 seat width and has to get a lot longer per pax increase.
There may be an E-200 in the works!
Nice thing about the GTF is it can be power increased.
No question the C is well done but I do question the 5 seat limitation.
Not quite. The CSeries has one wing which is optimized for the CS300.
Each member of the E2 family (which is 3 variants, not 4) has its own, optimized wing, so no variant is carrying more weight than it needs.
The E2 wings are also the highest aspect ratio in the entire single-aisle sector. Completely different to those of the E1. Yes, CS has a bit more range, but that is not widely needed.
The range issue is a puzzler.
737-X and the A320NEO have much longer ranges than needed as well.
They still buy them.
That is where it gets tricky, you really have to know the whole airline route structure to know if they jump from A to B at 300 miles, B to C at 500 Miles, C to D at 500 Miles, D to E at 800 miles and wind up on the West Coast, then fly back to Baltimore (range needed) and then repeat a hop scotch across the country.
As has laid out, you need a longer range than a paper route says to be able to go Trans Con US.
Weather, reserves and alternative takes another 200-400 miles off the top.
To do Trans Con US you need 3200 to 3400 realistically.
@Fat Bloke on Tour
The E190-E2 and E195-E2 (the second one hasn’t EIS yet) offer numbers that aren’t far off the CS100.
The E190-E2 has an equal range, a bit less seating capacity (around 10% difference at equal seat pitch), and lower OEW (94%) and MTOW (93%) than the CS100. Take off length at MTOW and landing length at MLW are almost identical.
The E195-E2 will have less range, a bit more seating capacity (around 10% more at equal seat pitch), and sliglty higher MTOW (around 1% difference) than the CS100. Take off length at MTOW is considerably longer, but around the same as the CS300.
Note: these numbers don’t include the 3% efficiency gain Airbus has announced.
I’m not sure about the seat mile costs, but I suspect the CS100 to be ahead.
The CS300 being the optimised version offers more efficiency than the CS100, and would be (far) ahead of any E2.