Embraer decides in favor of EJet's

Embraer decided to abandon plans for a new 5 abreast aircraft for now and instead opted to reengine to EJet's in the latter half of the decade - EIS could be in 2018. Given that Embraer could not do both at the same time - financially, but also due to manpower restrictions, as the KC-390 is in development also, this seems to be a wise decision.
Let us look at the timeline: in 2018 all new engines currently under development for the MRJ, CSeries, the A320neo, the B737MAX, the C919 and the MS-21 will be in service. Of course one could ask at least in case of the latter two if the EIS dates for these will stay where they are now. But Embraer will have a good idea how the engines - two versions of the LEAP (the C919 LEAP-1C will have the same turbo machinery as the A320neo LEAP-1A) and three types of the GTF (MRJ, CSeries and A320neo/MS-21) - are doing during development. An EIS in 2018 would probably mean an engine selection about 5 years earlier, around 2013, maybe 2014. By that time the PW1200G and PW1500G are flying at least on the respective aircraft prototypes and the first PW1100G engine should run on ground (the LEAP-1A seems to be a bit behind).
The MRJ90 will enter airline service in 2014, the MRJ70 in 2015, if Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp. can stick to their timeline. But output levels will probably remain comparatively low in the first two or three years, as MITAC is a new OEM in the market and a steep ramp-up would risk quality issues.
The Bombardier CRJ family has been seen it's best years - the backlog is thin, especially compared to the backlog of the EJet family. As Bombardier has their hands full with development of the CSeries and the Global 7000/8000 business jets it is unlikely that BBD can do something spectacular with the CRJ family. Of course, a reengining remains a possibility, but the fuselage of the CRJ seems outdated.
The Sukhoi Superjet does not look like a real competitor to western markets today and output levels seem to stay low in the coming years.
So 2018 seems to be a good timepoint for introducing the next generation of EJets. They could use engines which are just a little bit better than those for the MRJ and the CSeries, as 5 more years of technology can be put into them: 2% better SFC seems possible.
With that, the next generation of EJets could be a real threat to the MRJ and the CSeries. The MRJ70 for example has excess empty weight, as the aircraft will have the same wing as the larger and heavier MRJ90, whereas the E170/E175 today have a smaller wing than the E190/E195. A stretched E195 could beat the CS300 in seat mile costs easily, as the whole aircraft is designed for 2200nm. If Embraer keeps with that strategy instead of boasting the range to CSeries-like 3000mn, the E195 would be much lighter on a per-seat basis and with an even more efficient engine burn less fuel than the canadian newcomer.
The next engine battle begins now: GE and PW will definitely fight for it - maybe also Rolls Royce? The JV between RR and PW does not include the MRJ and the CSeries engines, so we could see a three-way competition here...

Projected fuel burn/pax for reengined EJet family versus MRJ and CSeries


  1. Olla!
    I think going to 140 seats on a 4-abreast really stretches the limits. However, stretch aircraft usually have better weight per pax ratio.
    I really think the MRJ will be a big disappointment in the market: it has much more technology inside than the EJet (which is a rather simple design), but regional aircraft markets don't value that.
    Imagine the Do728 and 928 would still be around, easily stretchable to 140 seats, then equipped with GTF engines.
    Concerning SSJ100: I also think that Suchoi will not break into Western markets. The product seems to be reasonable, but it just doesn't fill a niche. The opposite is true: the 70-120 seat "niche" is crowded with aircraft, and second hand aircraft are plentiful (think of all the Fokker Eindecker).

  2. Question: How many pax in each aircraft you have used to compare E-Jet with CSeries/MRJ ?

  3. There are airlines flying the E195 with 122 pax today. The red line is an interpolation "created" by Excel. Th maximum seat number I used was 140 seats.

  4. My point is if you use a 122 pax E-195, you must compare with the CS110 with 125 pax or CS300 with 145 pax. The real single class capacity of the E-195 is 108-110 pax (98-100 for E-190)

  5. Nicolas, from the rend line you can see where the CSeries would end up at a comparable number of pax...

  6. This analysis doesn't obviously consider it but what you can't get away from with the E-Jets is their abysmal quality and very high maintenance costs. JetBlue has been working for years with Embraer to resolve these issues but the ongoing problems and operational costs that are well north of what Embraer advertises finally have led to the end of the program as evidenced by the decision to cap the fleet at 75 and terminate existing options.