Embraer’s Slattery named CEO of GE Aviation

By Scott Hamilton

June 15, 2020, © Leeham News: John Slattery, the CEO of Embraer Commercial Aviation, was named CEO of GE Aviation, it was announced today.

John Slattery

Arjan Meijer is the new President and CEO succeeding Slattery. Slattery succeeds David Joyce, who is retiring. Slattery’s appointment is effective July 13.

Slattery devoted much of the last year trying to win approval of the proposed Boeing-Embraer joint venture, Boeing Brasil-Commercial. Boeing terminated the agreement April 25, claiming Embraer failed to meet all required terms and conditions. Embraer claims it met the conditions. Both took the dispute to arbitration.

Slattery had been designated CEO of Boeing Brasil. After the deal’s collapse, his departure from Embraer was expected.

“In order to ensure a smooth and thorough handover, Slattery will fully assume the role of president and CEO of GE Aviation on Sept, 1, at which point Joyce will transition to non-executive chair of GE Aviation through Dec. 31. Joyce also will continue as GE vice chair and advisor to GE Research through Dec. 31, and subsequently will serve as strategic advisor to GE Aviation into 2021,” GE said in a statement.

Big challenges ahead

LNA two weeks ago outlined a litany of challenges facing a new CEO upon Joyce’s retirement. There were a host of challenges before the COVID crisis emerged. The virus crisis exacerbates the task for a new CEO.

Slattery, as ECA CEO, expressed great interest in green aviation research. GEA already pursues green aviation engine technology. Slattery may be expected to push forward at GEA and at CFM, in which GE holds a 50% ownership interest with France’s Safran.

Airbus now wants to develop a replacement for the A320 family with a 2033 EIS that decarbonizes the airplane. France pledged financial support and Safran is developing an eco-friendly engine. CFM provides a majority of the engines on the A320ceo and A320neo. GE and Safran undoubtedly will want to maintain or increase this market share.

Slattery is also likely to see how GEA can improve or provide a powerplant to upgrade the Embraer E175-E1.

With the E2 version too heavy to comply with US Scope Clause weight restrictions in labor contracts, the aging E1 is Embraer’s only choice for US major airlines. The decision by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to suspend work on the M100 SpaceJet program—and, by all appearances, killing it all together—leaves Embraer with a monopoly in the small jet space.

The E1 design dates to 2000, but the engine’s first flight was in 1982. With sales to the US for the E175-E2 non-existent, Embraer wants to enhance the E1. But obtaining as much as 8% operating economics efficiency from the E1 will be a big task.

Turboprops

Developing a new technology turboprop airliner was another pet project of Slattery at Embraer. With the collapse of the Boeing deal, plans for the turboprop also tanked.

GE is developing an advanced technology turboprop engine. Pratt & Whitney Canada dominates the market with its PW120/150 series and has for decades. It, too, is developing an advanced engine. Rolls-Royce also is studying an engine.

Now, as GEA CEO, and knowing the status at competitors due to his own research for an Embraer turboprop, Slattery may be expected to push the GE development and seek a platform, whether at EMB, ATR, De Havilland Canada or some other provider, including China.

18 Comments on “Embraer’s Slattery named CEO of GE Aviation

  1. Mr Slattery leaving behind his trail of success. Persisting the E175-E2 development with absolute zero orders, turboprop, Boeing JV, you name it.

  2. Scott:

    Nit pick police says the end of the first line has a typo :

    ” the CEO if (of) Embraer Commercial ”

    sigh, and I should be the last person to catch it of course.

      • You are welcome, I am almost ashamed to have been the one to notice.

        Grammar check (MS or not) would have killed the soul of Romeo and Juliet!

        Two edged sword, some of my better writings were a result of a typo. You buys your tickets and you takes your chances. Better to be Will than not.

        I love spell check, I turned the grammar checker off.

  3. Talking about the CF34 engine used on the older E series jets.

    They have the same name but the older CF34-8 as used on the CRJ and E170 series doesnt have a lot in common with the later CF34-10- EIS 2005- as used in the E-190 series and was ‘based on’ the CFM56.
    It was developed with GE partners IHI and (Safran) Techspace Aero of Belgium- originally FN Herstal and is 500kg heavier.
    Maybe the -10 engine can be tweaked and its increased fuel efficiency be traded against a lower fuel weight for the E175-2 for US regional carriers who already have the older E175 ?

    https://www.geaviation.com/commercial/engines/cf34-engine
    https://www.aviationpros.com/engines-components/aircraft-engines/press-release/11472844/ge-aviation-cf3410e-engines-outperforming-expectations

    • That is an interesting thought. Or PIP improvement to the -8?

      Or does a regional regional get you into the technical good end?

      https://airinsight.com/scope-clause-and-covid-19/

      There are some exception in the Scope as Messa flies 175 for two big airlines and those technically are over the weight limit as well (89,000 MTOW)

    • The biggest impact on Aircraft performance for a customer are wings and Engines. So the E175-E1 might get a new or revsised with with GE Passport Engines. CF34-8E 2,600 lb mass, 14,500 lbf thrust.
      Passport almost twice the mass 4,554 lb and around 18,000lbf thrust.
      Still a new wing with reduced fuel load could compensate for increased Engine mass due to its lower furl consumption. Still hard to avoid spending less than $1bn to get it certified unless the Japanese pays for the Composite wing.

      • The point is the CF34-10 is only 20-30% heavier than the -8.

        Playing with fuel efficney to ballance a weight issue I believe is nebulous as it wold have to be huge to allow less fuel.

        More workable would be a close engine per the -10 that weights a bit more and also reduces fuel consumption.

        And/ or certify it per an A330 region with enough less range to meet the weight spec.

        Oddly, I have yet to see how Mesa can supply E-175 to American when those are over the weight limit by 3000 lbs

        • the CF34-10E is 11oo lbs heavier (3700 vs 2600 lbs, or 42% heavier), which would make a -175 22oo lbs heavier before accounting for wing and pylon changes, so figure 2500lbs overall. that is a lot of fuel to make up for.

          the PW1700G is only 100 lbs heavier than the CF34-10E and way better on fuel, so slapping a CF34-10E on a -175E1 seems like a non-starter to me.

          similarly the cost of doing “10E” tech insertion on the -8 would be very expensive…

        • Fuel load vs SFC is real and depend on the flight length as you carry all the fuel you burn at the end all the way. That is why Cruise SFC is so important on long range flying as per the Breguet equation.
          http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics//notes/node98.html
          Hence the choice between the CF34-10 and the Passport comes down to cost of Aircraft and fuel, vs. payload/range for different missions, the extra thrust is sometimes very useful at high and hot Airports.

          • No disagreement but it has to be a significant SFC. Regionals are not long range flying. So the structure is a large fraction of the weight equation.

            While lots of thrust is a pilots delight, ATR does not have it vs the Dash 8 and sells well.

            Better SFC economics, engine costs and maint all factor into the ATR to make it more viable though a bit of a dog.

            Its a tough one for Embraer though they set themselves up for it.

          • @TW, Re ATR72 is a success due to its economics and reliability as the ATR72-600 was introduced. Like the VW Beattle of aviation (slow but good). Airbus as part owner of ATR had the muscles to get better components onto the ATR, The Q400 never got the same upgrade and is only competetive on longer flights thanks to its speed and at higher altitude airports thanks to its massive engine power. It is surprising as Canadair/Bombardier could have upgraded with first CRJ and then Challanger/Global and finally C-series derivative components. Saab did the same misstake as Bombardier on the Saab 2000 vs the Saab 340, a “simple stretch” got new powerplans and lots of changes driving cost up making it uncompetetive even though finally a very fine aircraft with a production run of +60 aircrafts.

  4. About New eco hybrid turboprop, Safran also works under Clean Sky umbrella on a 2000 shp engine. An extension or the CFM scope agreement might be a path to explore for a new CEO when R&D budget decreases in all manufacturers.

    • The turbofan, turboprop and UDF might all converge to a 12 bladed design of different rpms. The bigger blades the better “bite in the air” at slow speeds until the airspeed off the blade get close to the flight speed giving no added thrust. Avoiding the Power gearbox with pitch mechnism on the turboprop and UDF saves Money and mass giving the turbofan a heads start.

      • Claes, is there an example or more information for this design or concept anywhere? It’s interesting.

        • The props are getting more blades for higher power applications, 8-bladed Hamilton Sundstrand NP2000 is one. The GE9X have come down to 16 blades, many UDF’s have around 8+9 blades would not surprise if they come to prime numbers 5+7 (you avoid harmoinc resonances by picking prime numbers…)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.