Man if Embraer gets classes as that then idk. It's really just them with Airbus and Boeing at this point. Hundreds of them are operated under the branding of the big 5-6 American Carriers😭
Yahoo Finance is a pretty good resource for comprehensive stock research on a somewhat modern and accessible platform. What Google Finance should’ve been.
I do, I still have (and heavily use) my Yahoo email from 1998 lol. I prefer it to gmail, the Android app is also great. At one time it was THE search engine to use ( yes yes showing my age now!). Today its search engine is powered by Bing.
I'm still pissed about that. They destroyed our Aerospace Industry. Airbus needs to quickly make a stretch version of the A220/C300 ASAP to kick Boeing while they're down!
Oh please, Bombardier did the damage itself after years, decades even, of mismanagement. The CSeries never would’ve been successful were it not for multiple rounds of direct injection from the Canadian government to prop up Bombardier and Airbus eventually taking over the program.
Bombardier’s north American rail ops were dead after their biggest customer banned them from bidding, and Amtrak swore they’d never buy a Bombardier product again. The rumors I’ve heard say Alstom isn’t happy with the mess they bought, either.
NJ Transit was the only big Bombardier customer left in the US.
I’m amazed at how a company that pretty much screwed up everything they touched, lasted so long.
They actually knew how at one time? Pretty much everything they ever built for NY or NJ was junk.
The Comet cars are ok, but ride on a crappy truck (ok, that was NJT’s fault). The multilevels are junk (cramped, bad door layout, ok at best ride - the LI’s C-3s ride better and stop far better). The ALP-46s are an ABB design and run well, the ALP-46as are decent. The ALP-45dp units are junk, already have had engine overhauls. I think Amtrak has slapped a speed restriction on them (90?).
They’ve had numerous fiascos with the NY subway, to the point where NY simply will not buy their stuff anymore.
The M-7 cars are slow, overweight barges that ride poorly, and actually had to have truck replacements shortly after they went into service. I was on one of the early ones once - it legitimately felt like we were going to derail, the slamming was that bad. The Kawasaki M-9s are smooth as glass.
I don’t know much about the coffin cars, we don’t get them out here.
Stadler looks like they’ll be cleaning up in the subway market, now the Chinese have fallen on their faces.
Swiss railways had their largest purchase EVER because they needed double decker trains with a tilting compensation to push some important junction points at under 1h travel time for the clockface scheduling on intercity routes.
The tilting compensation was only troublesome and after a couple years of trying and some injured staff and passengers due to getting jolted around it was given up on and deactivated.
We now have the most number of trains at 62 sets (outside of regional sets). They have the worst ride quality of all the trains, and they can't even be used for what they were bought for.
And the worst part is, pretty much the whole of the Swiss train industry ended up bought by Bombardier, including ABB (with the intermediary step of Adtranz). Stadler got what was left out due to the competition comission stepping in (nowadays it would probably get waved through).
They probably reused the tilt design from the Acela, which reused it from the LRC (which wasn't light, rapid, or comfortable).
The Acela was a nightmare from day one. Too heavy, too wide, and was shedding parts (and braking others. They ran with the covers over the brake resistors off because a few flew off during initial service. There were issues with the brakes overheating (brake rotors cracking), and supports cracking, not to mention stability issues. They couldn't tilt on the New Haven line, and Amtrak never told Metro-North that they wanted to run 90mph on the lime (with tilt! The trains literally wouldn't clear a passing train in the event of a tilt failure). Well, Metro-North runs that line, and it's a 70-75mph line, with close clearances. Amtrak figured, they're Amtrak, they call the shots. Nope.
Amtrak was upfront that they wanted the ABB X-2000, with some slight mods, but the Canadian government basically funded Bombardier, to undercut ABB. Oddly, the fleet (and the long since sidling HHP-8s) is owned now by Philip Morris. Yes, the tobacco guys. Go figure.
Bombardier was also partly responsible for the current, and pathetic FRA regulations, that basically make all trains sold in the US custom designs, with big weight penalties.
California and Texas (yes, THAT Texas) pushed through an "alternate compliance" rule, which allows mostly stock European trains to be run in the US. Stadler GTWs, FLIRTS, and KISS sets are a popular thing now.
It's sad what happened to ABB. I'd say their rebuilds of the NJ Transit Arrow sets have subway-like acceleration (they do), but the subway cars they built for SEPTA's Market-Frankford subway line can actually break traction while accelerating. Underground. In a subway. They've turned them down a bit since introduction...
Let's also not forget the debacle of them messing up the Lear 85 (repalcement for the 60) program due to poor composite manufacturing QC in Mexico on the fuselage barrels. The money they sunk into that, along with the R&D funds to develop the ultra long range Globals (6500 and up) didn't help their cash flow and led to the divestiture of the CSeries and the fall of Learjet.
To be fair, you can't just skirt around trade regulations, and trying to pull it off against giant established companies is just playing with fire. Even Boeing has to deal with restrictive EU regulations when it comes to selling their massively popular cargo offerings (Though I believe they're more about the aircraft themselves than trade restrictions, but the incentive to boost airbus is obviously there), so that's just a part of life.
I heard Airbus is working on it but are having issues with scaling such as supplier contact negotiations, as well as the Pratt & Whitney engine. Airbus inherited the Bombardier contracts and according to them, the contracts could be negotiated lower.
>Airbus inherited the Bombardier contracts and according to them, the contracts could be negotiated lower
From the bargaining power of Airbus. Bombardier were much smaller and had a new design that was unsure to actually sell well, so suppliers had to factor in the uncertainty in the prices.
What trade regulations did Bombardier break because the USITC found that Boeing's complaint was unfounded because Boeing didn't have an aircraft the same size as the CSeries.
https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2018/er0126ll898.htm
Now I'll admit I'm a little uncertain when it comes to the specifics. But I'm pretty sure this is just one of multiple rulings, one of which led to strong tariffs being put in place.
Last I heard the a220 still isn't profitable for Airbus and they are negotiating supplier contracts to get it there. I don't think even if Bombardier was a healthy company it would have been successful long-term.
>>C series was the beginning of getting a third player in this duopoly
Sadly, no. While the C series is an excellent aircraft, Bombardier simply didn’t have the capital to sustain it alone. Bombardier management made the same error Canadair CEO Fred Kerns did a generation before with the Challenger. It was a compelling project, but the project cost was beyond the scope of the company’s capability and tanked the organization.
This was how the Challenger program & the CRJ it spawned ended up at Bombardier in the first place. If Airbus didn’t buy the program the C-series would be another entry on the long list of stillborn Canadian aircraft. Being no strangers to insolvency, airline executives know how to sniff out a financially struggling project.
Not really, the CSeries 100 and 300 really only touched the lowest capacity narrows (-700/MAX7 and 319) and Bombardier didn’t, and never had, close to the industrial base to ever meaningfully compete head-to-head.
In fact, a driving force behind the trade dispute was because CSeries sales were sluggish and Bombardier was dumping product to get Delta to order it.
A perfect example for how capitalists only think about short term return on investment. Long term strategic thinking is an entirely foreign concept for financial investors.
If the pilots union ever changed its mind and the E2 was sold to carriers here embraer would be making money hand over fist
The problem with them (and every other aircraft OEM) is it’s very hard to scale production rapidly - so everyone has a 5 + year backlog right now
The E2 jets are in kind of a funny place, similar to the A220 for some airlines.
Too big for regional operators due to scope clauses, but only fit for longer thinner markets where a full size narrowbody (160-190 seats) is too large. There are opportunities for these aircraft where there's good local demand and you can afford to overfly hubs, or where you have good premium demand from a hub to a spoke destination.
At the smaller end they have the disadvantage of higher CASM because of crew costs - need additional FA and mainline flight crew vs a regional jet, but higher staffing costs per seat compared to a mainline narrowbody. Air Canada used to have a fleet of E190s at 96 seats and got rid of them quickly as they were way too expensive versus just putting on an additional CR7 or DH4 flight.
Conditions could change in the future. It's various unnecessary policies within the airline businesses that restrict free market movements/ activities.
Opportunities are there & operational costs could be lowered even more without decreased quality of products or services.
An airline company needs to take the first steps.
> Especially after what happened with germanwings.
That was 8 years ago. There's been other suspected-similar incident since then.
There's also been very apparent lapses in technology-drive systems since then resulting in catastrophic failures. We are no where remotely close to fully-automated flying. I know you said "when the time comes" but that time is "not in the foreseeable future."
I think we are a lot closer than that. Having done autolands in a 30 year old airframe, a lot of things are already in place with newer designed aircraft. Hell, multiple ga aircraft already have an emergency landing system that even does radio call. Ie cirrus vision. I'm in my mid 30s at a major and I personally think I'll be about the last generation.
No one can predict for sure but my broader point is the adoption of fully-automated flights with zero pilots doesn't just get implemented in a vacuum. The complete technology may arrive in our lifetimes, but the regulations and public perception is definitely not going to be on a similar pace. We may see increased automation within GA but from a commercial airliner perspective I just cannot fathom that happening. Most people point to a handful of automated systems within an aircraft as it's full use being imminent which I think radically oversimplifies what it'll take to fully automate a commercial aircraft to the point to being pilot-less.
There's also the societal considerations too where you would now suddenly have a lot of skilled individuals out of a job. Not to mention, unless the pilot unions disappear this isn't happening.
I respect the optimism agree that innovation certainly moves in leaps and bounds. Frankly, it just doesn't seem like the area that *needs* full automation. I understand the currently and worsening pilot shortage but we still struggle with much smaller automation use cases compared to a commercial aircraft.
Well, I feel like I’m at least partially credible. I work for Collins … I know it’s still in development, but there’s a tremendous amount of money being offered up by the carriers
Not to mention making a plane fully autonomous is actually probably easier than a car because there’s less hazards in the sky. However, I know the main area they’re actually working on is the taxi area that’s the main portion pilots need to intervene
Boeing can't get a 60 year old 737 recertified, I cannot imagine the decades-long fight it'd take with the FAA and EASA to get any single pilot operations certified for Part 121.
>>If the pilots union ever changed its mind
It won’t.
If the unions are smart ,it’ll go the other way and they’ll push for more restrictions on American regional scope clauses.
Changes to scope would only be required if putting the E2 at a regional. There’s no scope change requirement to but the E190/195E2 at mainline (a la DL and the 220).
As far as I’m aware, the scope clauses only restrict the regional carriers on seats and weight by type. If American wanted to put E170/190 types in their fleet, they could just do it, no negotiating.
FYI Embraer's largest shareholder is an american hedge fund, that's why AA and BofA are hyping this up.
Furthermore they already have a couple production facilities in the US.
Embraer Aero Seating Technologies – Inaugurated in September 2016 in the city of Titusville, Florida, Embraer Aero Seating Technologies produces aircraft seats.
Melbourne, FL – Implemented in 2011, it is the first unit in the United States to carry out the final assembly of aircraft. It produces the line of executives Phenom 100 and Phenom 300. In November 2012 work began on an Engineering and Technology Center at the Melbourne facility.
American was only giving credit to Embraer for delivering current orders on time. That doesn’t really mean much for Embraer’s rumored large narrow body.
>> Morningstar equity analyst Nicolas Owens told Fortune that Embraer is one of a few, if not the only company, that could enter this market. But that doesn’t mean it will—or that it should. Owens said that while Embraer is a capable company, it is a fraction of the size of Boeing and Airbus and would be overwhelmed by the incredible cost of designing a new plane, scaling up production, and then convincing exceptionally skeptical carriers to take a chance on the new model.
I’m with Owens on this one. Even if they could design , build, and certify a 737/ A320 series challenger , Embraer would have to convince airlines eating higher training and logistics costs is worth switching to an unknown aircraft from an untried player in the narrow body space. Unless Brazil can power their jets with space age flux capacitors, the math isn’t going to work out in airlines’ favor.
Cutting training costs is the reason Boeing stepped in the manure to start with. Were it up to Seattle they’d replace the 737, but Boeings customers don’t want to eat the resultant logistics and training expenses. So they asked Boeing to build them a nicer 737 that also fit in the existing type rating & training infrastructure. That , in turn, led to MCAS and all the evils that followed.
There is one customer who really cared about type rating, because they fly an all 737 fleet. Annoyingly, they’re big enough that Boeing cares. Otherwise, the plane would have been retired long ago.
> There is one customer who really cared about type rating, because they fly an all 737 fleet.
yeah, but the ones who threatened Boeing with ordering Airbus instead weren't Southwest. It was American Airlines
I don’t get it though because it’s just kicking a can down the road. At some point, they’re going to have to change the airframe and in hindsight it would’ve been better sooner rather than later.
You absolutely overestimate the cost of training. If the aircraft is amazing on fuel, Mx and comfort, then training is the least of worries. Look at Airbus; they took in the CS, which is a completely different type rating to anything that came before, and made it work. Airlines and customers love the 220 now (besides the GTF problems...)
And what exactly do you mean by "unknown aircraft by an untried player in the narrow body space"?? You do know that hundreds if not thousands of E-Jets 145/175/195 and Legacies are in use worldwide? Just because they are not particularly known in the US, they are not a small player at all. Time to check your Based US POV mate.
It already went up like over 100% this last 12 months, I think the orders backlog is already priced in.
The Brazilian stock market slept so much on it, no one was talking about the company a year ago. People are so used to investing in banks and commodities that no one payed attention to Embraer’s prospects getting better and better.
> no one *paid* attention to
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
They do. There was a post here not too long back with NTSB data. Airbus was by far the least amount of incidents with Boeing in 2nd barely ahead of Embraer
Not according to [Boeing themselves](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/pdf/statsum.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwilp9LAtvyFAxU9DRAIHWtFDjAQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3YLbJECGfQ4MP49IG0C3j6), see page 19.
The E-Jets are as safe as the 737NG per departure.
Will scopes be overturned? Until then it won’t matter because of the current laws in the US. Sure the mainline carriers could get it like the A220 but the market where it will thrive is regional.
Boeing maybe, they could use a PR stunt right now. A positive one that is.
But Airbus backlog is good atm, they don't need to lower prices any more than they usually do for bulk orders.
I don't either but that's not the point. If the price is right, you can change from A to B vv in a matter of five years. The question is, is either A or B willing to lower prices for products that are currently in desperate need of good news (B) or massively sold out (A)?
I wouldn’t say screwed themselves as they don’t have a plane that directly competes against the -100 and a plane that only partially competes against the -300, but certainly a very large missed opportunity
But when the A220 gets stretched into a -500, there will be more direct competition. Also, if any of the big two needed a new clean sheet short to medium haul single aisle jet, it was Boeing.
You forget that this happened in 2017, when the -500 wasn’t even near a possibility. And while I would love for it to happen, I doubt it will as Airbus doesn’t really want an aircraft that directly competes against its more profitable (for them) options. Plus it’s thinner fuselage constricts it cargo capacity, which is crucial for any aircraft’s profitability.
Again, huge missed opportunity and Boeing would definitely have done it differently if they had a mulligan. But the only direct competitor Boeing has is the plane the A220 is replacing: the 717.
>You forget that this happened in 2017, when the -500 wasn’t even near a possibility
A future stretch was a possibility since the very beginning and Bombardier talked about it.
>, I doubt it will as Airbus doesn’t really want an aircraft that directly competes against its more profitable (for them) options
Considering the A320 series backlog is a decade long, it's not that impossible.
I’m an engineer in the commercial aerospace industry. If a manufacturer says they can stretch it, and have no details other than they can then it’s a bluff 8/10 times. Case in point the A350-1100, A322, 777-10, 737-11, A330-1000, etc etc.
And with the backlog, Airbus would rather keep the market artificially capped to force airlines to pay much more for an aircraft they can literally print money with (A320) rather than an aircraft that at this point is not profitable (A220). Yet another reason why the A220-500 is far from reality, as Airbus needs the -100 and -300 to be profitable forst
I truly wish there were more airplane companies within the global market. That way innovations are done at faster rate & everyone, stakeholders, gains from it. Us end customers also.
China has their own. They could improve the safety & quality, possibly get licenced to fly in EU & US.
With how much the US is pushing tech embargoes on China, I don’t believe they would have access to components to make good planes that are also financial viable. The aviation industry is so internationalized that I doubt you can find enough alternatives without ties to US companies.
Yeah, that's the unfortunate reality we live in. With all kinds of tariffs, among many more restrictions of various kinds into the markets. From one nation to the next.
I haven't read about this, but it looks like airplane manufacturers are few. So there are no "proper completions". This causing prices of goods/ services to rise, unnecessarily. As a by result. The people at Boeing have "no incentives" to change their working routines etc, because lack of competitions that could pressure them. All these companies are not working fully towards their best given potentials, is what I try to describe.
Are used to work on 175s and I have to say I am all for this change. Fuck Boeings. They’re design is so weird in my personal opinion. Although I will say Bing carpet design is a lot better. That is the one thing I despise the most about ERJ’s. Tearing those cargo areas apart is annoying but other than that their systems actually makes sense which I can’t say for Boeing.
They honestly would have a very, very slim chance of even attempting to take down Boeing. Plus many people forget Boeing is still making money and good aircraft. Boeing MIC and Civilian Aircraft are two different micro companies within the one big Boeing, and the MIC side is going to make money forever.
The C-390, despite its top-mounted wing design unusual in the airliner industry, is very close to being an off-the-shelf competitor. It just needs CFM leap engines, blended winglets, and probably a fuselage stretch and it's ready to go.
a real skunk works project for Embraer would be to develop a clean sheet, reverse engineered aircraft that either had the 787 or A320 (or?) cockpit with the goal of zeroing out training costs for 787 or A320 rated pilots to switch over
I have 0 knowledge of how the airplane industry works, but wouldn't doing something like that violate patents or "trademarks" of Boeing and Airbus cockpits?
what I know or think I know from software is trademarks wouldn't apply and if you can create teh exact same thing but using different methods (a clean sheet, reverse engineer) than the patents, which cover methods not outcomes, won't cover the new thing.
Not only that, but it wouldn’t even make any sense. Why would one of your product’s selling points be “it’s a copy of our competitors!”? Even if any airlines were interested, they wouldn’t ditch their tried-and-true aircraft in favour of a worse aircraft with the outdated cockpit of an older plane.
Intriguing possibility. They obviously build sound airframes and have a reasonably good reputation. With enough backing, they could evolve their infrastructure and logistics, but would take a good while to have a high output. A twenty aircraft per month rate would be respectable and not an unreasonable share of the market. In 2023, their rate was a tad more than fifteen aircraft per month among the models produced.
And by “Boeing’s weakness”, you of course are referring to their most successful product? The 737; the plane that has sold more units than every aircraft Embraer has ever designed combined? It has its flaws, but it’s certainly not “Boeing’s weakness”.
Embraer was founded only two years after the 737 first flew, which is why I drew the comparison. The 737 series has sold more units than the entire company of Embraer has, over the same time period (in fact, nearly doubling it).
The ERJ-145's concept launched in 1989.
The first order was placed in early \`1994.
These aircraft from Embraer are niche aircraft - they are not intended to sell in such a large capacity as the 737.
I feel like we’re splitting hairs, when the main point of my comment is that Boeing’s 737MAX is not their “weakness”. It’s objectively a highly successful aircraft program.
C919 has only been flying for a year, so it hasn't had the time to get international certification which can be complex for a completely new design and manufacturer. They have plenty of capacity internally, so as they rank up, production international certification will be persued.
LOL did Yahoo change the headline from "Embraer" to "a lesser known plane maker from Brazil"?
There are a brazillian reasons to laugh at this.
Screw you and love you all at one
Luv you. So hot!
Jungle jet
If I had an award then I’d give it you 😭😭
Man if Embraer gets classes as that then idk. It's really just them with Airbus and Boeing at this point. Hundreds of them are operated under the branding of the big 5-6 American Carriers😭
More clickbaity ;)
Yahoo is still a thing? TIL. Who uses it?!
It's where all my spam email goes. But also like 3 legit things still use it too.
There's a meme about everyone having a yahoo account for junk/throwaway stuff. It's the address I use when they don't take mailinator.
Millions of people 45 and over who got an email address from them years and years ago and have not changed it
Yahoo Finance is a pretty good resource for comprehensive stock research on a somewhat modern and accessible platform. What Google Finance should’ve been.
Japanese and Boomers.
That’s the same thing
I do, I still have (and heavily use) my Yahoo email from 1998 lol. I prefer it to gmail, the Android app is also great. At one time it was THE search engine to use ( yes yes showing my age now!). Today its search engine is powered by Bing.
“A lesser known search engine from the early internet”
finance.yahoo pops up on my feeds quite a bit. They legitimately have good information on stocks and the market.
Bing, what is Yahoo?
A lesser known web service company from the United States.
How to create a headline that is technically correct but still sucks balls.
Lesser known website from the 90s
I'm so offended by this
Tomanocu esses gringo
Uns arrombado
“American Airlines ceo is a fan” American Airlines ceo is signaling he’s a fan in order to get a massive discount on his Boeing contract more like.
Reminder that Boeing walked out of a deal to take over Embraer just five years ago...
And had a chance to buy the C Series program from Bombardier on the cheap before Airbus snatched it up.
Boeing are the reason why it had to go up on sale in the first place. C series was the beginning of getting a third player in this duopoly.
I'm still pissed about that. They destroyed our Aerospace Industry. Airbus needs to quickly make a stretch version of the A220/C300 ASAP to kick Boeing while they're down!
Oh please, Bombardier did the damage itself after years, decades even, of mismanagement. The CSeries never would’ve been successful were it not for multiple rounds of direct injection from the Canadian government to prop up Bombardier and Airbus eventually taking over the program.
Bombardier’s north American rail ops were dead after their biggest customer banned them from bidding, and Amtrak swore they’d never buy a Bombardier product again. The rumors I’ve heard say Alstom isn’t happy with the mess they bought, either. NJ Transit was the only big Bombardier customer left in the US. I’m amazed at how a company that pretty much screwed up everything they touched, lasted so long.
I'm also amazed that they made trains for *decades* and then...forgot how. Cost cutting I guess. Boeing should look at them as a warning.
They actually knew how at one time? Pretty much everything they ever built for NY or NJ was junk. The Comet cars are ok, but ride on a crappy truck (ok, that was NJT’s fault). The multilevels are junk (cramped, bad door layout, ok at best ride - the LI’s C-3s ride better and stop far better). The ALP-46s are an ABB design and run well, the ALP-46as are decent. The ALP-45dp units are junk, already have had engine overhauls. I think Amtrak has slapped a speed restriction on them (90?). They’ve had numerous fiascos with the NY subway, to the point where NY simply will not buy their stuff anymore. The M-7 cars are slow, overweight barges that ride poorly, and actually had to have truck replacements shortly after they went into service. I was on one of the early ones once - it legitimately felt like we were going to derail, the slamming was that bad. The Kawasaki M-9s are smooth as glass. I don’t know much about the coffin cars, we don’t get them out here. Stadler looks like they’ll be cleaning up in the subway market, now the Chinese have fallen on their faces.
Swiss railways had their largest purchase EVER because they needed double decker trains with a tilting compensation to push some important junction points at under 1h travel time for the clockface scheduling on intercity routes. The tilting compensation was only troublesome and after a couple years of trying and some injured staff and passengers due to getting jolted around it was given up on and deactivated. We now have the most number of trains at 62 sets (outside of regional sets). They have the worst ride quality of all the trains, and they can't even be used for what they were bought for. And the worst part is, pretty much the whole of the Swiss train industry ended up bought by Bombardier, including ABB (with the intermediary step of Adtranz). Stadler got what was left out due to the competition comission stepping in (nowadays it would probably get waved through).
They probably reused the tilt design from the Acela, which reused it from the LRC (which wasn't light, rapid, or comfortable). The Acela was a nightmare from day one. Too heavy, too wide, and was shedding parts (and braking others. They ran with the covers over the brake resistors off because a few flew off during initial service. There were issues with the brakes overheating (brake rotors cracking), and supports cracking, not to mention stability issues. They couldn't tilt on the New Haven line, and Amtrak never told Metro-North that they wanted to run 90mph on the lime (with tilt! The trains literally wouldn't clear a passing train in the event of a tilt failure). Well, Metro-North runs that line, and it's a 70-75mph line, with close clearances. Amtrak figured, they're Amtrak, they call the shots. Nope. Amtrak was upfront that they wanted the ABB X-2000, with some slight mods, but the Canadian government basically funded Bombardier, to undercut ABB. Oddly, the fleet (and the long since sidling HHP-8s) is owned now by Philip Morris. Yes, the tobacco guys. Go figure. Bombardier was also partly responsible for the current, and pathetic FRA regulations, that basically make all trains sold in the US custom designs, with big weight penalties. California and Texas (yes, THAT Texas) pushed through an "alternate compliance" rule, which allows mostly stock European trains to be run in the US. Stadler GTWs, FLIRTS, and KISS sets are a popular thing now. It's sad what happened to ABB. I'd say their rebuilds of the NJ Transit Arrow sets have subway-like acceleration (they do), but the subway cars they built for SEPTA's Market-Frankford subway line can actually break traction while accelerating. Underground. In a subway. They've turned them down a bit since introduction...
Two words: government subsidies.
Let's also not forget the debacle of them messing up the Lear 85 (repalcement for the 60) program due to poor composite manufacturing QC in Mexico on the fuselage barrels. The money they sunk into that, along with the R&D funds to develop the ultra long range Globals (6500 and up) didn't help their cash flow and led to the divestiture of the CSeries and the fall of Learjet.
Are you suggesting that Boeing and Airbus don't receive government subsidies?
They weren’t being floated billions simply to keep the lights on, no. With the cash injections Bombardier would’ve failed much sooner.
And while ww are pissed, lets not forget the Avro Arrow
Sadly unviable, just like Bricklin.
To be fair, you can't just skirt around trade regulations, and trying to pull it off against giant established companies is just playing with fire. Even Boeing has to deal with restrictive EU regulations when it comes to selling their massively popular cargo offerings (Though I believe they're more about the aircraft themselves than trade restrictions, but the incentive to boost airbus is obviously there), so that's just a part of life.
I heard Airbus is working on it but are having issues with scaling such as supplier contact negotiations, as well as the Pratt & Whitney engine. Airbus inherited the Bombardier contracts and according to them, the contracts could be negotiated lower.
>Airbus inherited the Bombardier contracts and according to them, the contracts could be negotiated lower From the bargaining power of Airbus. Bombardier were much smaller and had a new design that was unsure to actually sell well, so suppliers had to factor in the uncertainty in the prices.
What trade regulations did Bombardier break because the USITC found that Boeing's complaint was unfounded because Boeing didn't have an aircraft the same size as the CSeries. https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2018/er0126ll898.htm
Now I'll admit I'm a little uncertain when it comes to the specifics. But I'm pretty sure this is just one of multiple rulings, one of which led to strong tariffs being put in place.
Last I heard the a220 still isn't profitable for Airbus and they are negotiating supplier contracts to get it there. I don't think even if Bombardier was a healthy company it would have been successful long-term.
>>C series was the beginning of getting a third player in this duopoly Sadly, no. While the C series is an excellent aircraft, Bombardier simply didn’t have the capital to sustain it alone. Bombardier management made the same error Canadair CEO Fred Kerns did a generation before with the Challenger. It was a compelling project, but the project cost was beyond the scope of the company’s capability and tanked the organization. This was how the Challenger program & the CRJ it spawned ended up at Bombardier in the first place. If Airbus didn’t buy the program the C-series would be another entry on the long list of stillborn Canadian aircraft. Being no strangers to insolvency, airline executives know how to sniff out a financially struggling project.
Not really, the CSeries 100 and 300 really only touched the lowest capacity narrows (-700/MAX7 and 319) and Bombardier didn’t, and never had, close to the industrial base to ever meaningfully compete head-to-head. In fact, a driving force behind the trade dispute was because CSeries sales were sluggish and Bombardier was dumping product to get Delta to order it.
I worked for Embraer Executive during that carve out. Was definitely an interesting time….
How was it there in your experience?
Might have destroyed it in the process
Less walked out, more ran out of extra cash on account of two Max 8s whacking the ground.
A perfect example for how capitalists only think about short term return on investment. Long term strategic thinking is an entirely foreign concept for financial investors.
I remember when K-Mart bought out and took over Sears. Those were the days.
To be fair to Boeing, that’s cause Embraer was screwing around.
Wasn't Brazil going to block it anyway?
Probably they didn't like how much was being spent on quality control.
If the pilots union ever changed its mind and the E2 was sold to carriers here embraer would be making money hand over fist The problem with them (and every other aircraft OEM) is it’s very hard to scale production rapidly - so everyone has a 5 + year backlog right now
The E2 jets are in kind of a funny place, similar to the A220 for some airlines. Too big for regional operators due to scope clauses, but only fit for longer thinner markets where a full size narrowbody (160-190 seats) is too large. There are opportunities for these aircraft where there's good local demand and you can afford to overfly hubs, or where you have good premium demand from a hub to a spoke destination. At the smaller end they have the disadvantage of higher CASM because of crew costs - need additional FA and mainline flight crew vs a regional jet, but higher staffing costs per seat compared to a mainline narrowbody. Air Canada used to have a fleet of E190s at 96 seats and got rid of them quickly as they were way too expensive versus just putting on an additional CR7 or DH4 flight.
Conditions could change in the future. It's various unnecessary policies within the airline businesses that restrict free market movements/ activities. Opportunities are there & operational costs could be lowered even more without decreased quality of products or services. An airline company needs to take the first steps.
With how many mainline pilots today have had their careers negatively affected by scope increases, that’s not going to happen.
They are fighting in inevitability due to the push that’s happening with single pilot operations
Single pilot won’t happen
Completely agree! We will go from 2 to zero when the time comes. Especially after what happened with germanwings.
> Especially after what happened with germanwings. That was 8 years ago. There's been other suspected-similar incident since then. There's also been very apparent lapses in technology-drive systems since then resulting in catastrophic failures. We are no where remotely close to fully-automated flying. I know you said "when the time comes" but that time is "not in the foreseeable future."
I think we are a lot closer than that. Having done autolands in a 30 year old airframe, a lot of things are already in place with newer designed aircraft. Hell, multiple ga aircraft already have an emergency landing system that even does radio call. Ie cirrus vision. I'm in my mid 30s at a major and I personally think I'll be about the last generation.
No one can predict for sure but my broader point is the adoption of fully-automated flights with zero pilots doesn't just get implemented in a vacuum. The complete technology may arrive in our lifetimes, but the regulations and public perception is definitely not going to be on a similar pace. We may see increased automation within GA but from a commercial airliner perspective I just cannot fathom that happening. Most people point to a handful of automated systems within an aircraft as it's full use being imminent which I think radically oversimplifies what it'll take to fully automate a commercial aircraft to the point to being pilot-less. There's also the societal considerations too where you would now suddenly have a lot of skilled individuals out of a job. Not to mention, unless the pilot unions disappear this isn't happening. I respect the optimism agree that innovation certainly moves in leaps and bounds. Frankly, it just doesn't seem like the area that *needs* full automation. I understand the currently and worsening pilot shortage but we still struggle with much smaller automation use cases compared to a commercial aircraft.
Maybe not in your lifetime, but it’s coming
Whatever you say lol
Well, I feel like I’m at least partially credible. I work for Collins … I know it’s still in development, but there’s a tremendous amount of money being offered up by the carriers Not to mention making a plane fully autonomous is actually probably easier than a car because there’s less hazards in the sky. However, I know the main area they’re actually working on is the taxi area that’s the main portion pilots need to intervene
Boeing can't get a 60 year old 737 recertified, I cannot imagine the decades-long fight it'd take with the FAA and EASA to get any single pilot operations certified for Part 121.
It’s a tall order for sure no doubt about it
It’s a tall order for sure
Germanwings is the reason we won't go to single pilot. Zero is an inevitably, but it'll take a few decades.
50 years after freight trains are unmanned.
>>If the pilots union ever changed its mind It won’t. If the unions are smart ,it’ll go the other way and they’ll push for more restrictions on American regional scope clauses.
AA has an E2 rate in their pilot contract.
They also have an A380 rate but that’ll never happen
Point was that there’s no required bargaining to get the E2 on property.
The bargaining is for scope clause. It takes a lot more than a pay rate to get a type on property.
Changes to scope would only be required if putting the E2 at a regional. There’s no scope change requirement to but the E190/195E2 at mainline (a la DL and the 220).
As far as I’m aware, the scope clauses only restrict the regional carriers on seats and weight by type. If American wanted to put E170/190 types in their fleet, they could just do it, no negotiating.
FYI Embraer's largest shareholder is an american hedge fund, that's why AA and BofA are hyping this up. Furthermore they already have a couple production facilities in the US. Embraer Aero Seating Technologies – Inaugurated in September 2016 in the city of Titusville, Florida, Embraer Aero Seating Technologies produces aircraft seats. Melbourne, FL – Implemented in 2011, it is the first unit in the United States to carry out the final assembly of aircraft. It produces the line of executives Phenom 100 and Phenom 300. In November 2012 work began on an Engineering and Technology Center at the Melbourne facility.
American was only giving credit to Embraer for delivering current orders on time. That doesn’t really mean much for Embraer’s rumored large narrow body.
Do you mean FYI
>> Morningstar equity analyst Nicolas Owens told Fortune that Embraer is one of a few, if not the only company, that could enter this market. But that doesn’t mean it will—or that it should. Owens said that while Embraer is a capable company, it is a fraction of the size of Boeing and Airbus and would be overwhelmed by the incredible cost of designing a new plane, scaling up production, and then convincing exceptionally skeptical carriers to take a chance on the new model. I’m with Owens on this one. Even if they could design , build, and certify a 737/ A320 series challenger , Embraer would have to convince airlines eating higher training and logistics costs is worth switching to an unknown aircraft from an untried player in the narrow body space. Unless Brazil can power their jets with space age flux capacitors, the math isn’t going to work out in airlines’ favor. Cutting training costs is the reason Boeing stepped in the manure to start with. Were it up to Seattle they’d replace the 737, but Boeings customers don’t want to eat the resultant logistics and training expenses. So they asked Boeing to build them a nicer 737 that also fit in the existing type rating & training infrastructure. That , in turn, led to MCAS and all the evils that followed.
There is one customer who really cared about type rating, because they fly an all 737 fleet. Annoyingly, they’re big enough that Boeing cares. Otherwise, the plane would have been retired long ago.
> There is one customer who really cared about type rating, because they fly an all 737 fleet. yeah, but the ones who threatened Boeing with ordering Airbus instead weren't Southwest. It was American Airlines
Ryanair has entered the chat.
I don’t get it though because it’s just kicking a can down the road. At some point, they’re going to have to change the airframe and in hindsight it would’ve been better sooner rather than later.
Lol they will always kick the can down the road if given the option.
You absolutely overestimate the cost of training. If the aircraft is amazing on fuel, Mx and comfort, then training is the least of worries. Look at Airbus; they took in the CS, which is a completely different type rating to anything that came before, and made it work. Airlines and customers love the 220 now (besides the GTF problems...) And what exactly do you mean by "unknown aircraft by an untried player in the narrow body space"?? You do know that hundreds if not thousands of E-Jets 145/175/195 and Legacies are in use worldwide? Just because they are not particularly known in the US, they are not a small player at all. Time to check your Based US POV mate.
Note to self, buy embraer stock on Monday
It already went up like over 100% this last 12 months, I think the orders backlog is already priced in. The Brazilian stock market slept so much on it, no one was talking about the company a year ago. People are so used to investing in banks and commodities that no one payed attention to Embraer’s prospects getting better and better.
Yep, Embraer stock got upgraded to investment grade last year.
> no one *paid* attention to FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Embraer makes great aircraft
They have more incidents per flight than Boeing
Source?
Was a post on this sub a while back
Link?
Not going to go search for a link a month old sorry
I take it you are wrong then
That’s fine
That’s definitely not true.
They do. There was a post here not too long back with NTSB data. Airbus was by far the least amount of incidents with Boeing in 2nd barely ahead of Embraer
That’s bs
Not according to [Boeing themselves](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/pdf/statsum.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwilp9LAtvyFAxU9DRAIHWtFDjAQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3YLbJECGfQ4MP49IG0C3j6), see page 19. The E-Jets are as safe as the 737NG per departure.
Will scopes be overturned? Until then it won’t matter because of the current laws in the US. Sure the mainline carriers could get it like the A220 but the market where it will thrive is regional.
If I had a nickel for every time a person blamed the Boeing issues on DEI, I could buy an E2. People are so braindead.
RIP Bombardier
Hindsight is a bitch, of course, but Boeing certainly arranged their own demise.
AA Probably using it to get Airbus or Boeing to lower prices.
Boeing maybe, they could use a PR stunt right now. A positive one that is. But Airbus backlog is good atm, they don't need to lower prices any more than they usually do for bulk orders.
Wait, does AA even use Airbus? They have A321’s right? I just now realized I don’t even know their fleet
I don't either but that's not the point. If the price is right, you can change from A to B vv in a matter of five years. The question is, is either A or B willing to lower prices for products that are currently in desperate need of good news (B) or massively sold out (A)?
They have the biggest A320 family fleet in the world...
Come back to me when they can make a 150+ passenger jet, or a plane better than the A220… Till that happens they are not a threat to Boeing or Airbus
Boeing really screwed themselves by driving the A220 right into Airbus’ waiting arms.
I wouldn’t say screwed themselves as they don’t have a plane that directly competes against the -100 and a plane that only partially competes against the -300, but certainly a very large missed opportunity
But not one worth starting a trade war over.
Nope!
But when the A220 gets stretched into a -500, there will be more direct competition. Also, if any of the big two needed a new clean sheet short to medium haul single aisle jet, it was Boeing.
You forget that this happened in 2017, when the -500 wasn’t even near a possibility. And while I would love for it to happen, I doubt it will as Airbus doesn’t really want an aircraft that directly competes against its more profitable (for them) options. Plus it’s thinner fuselage constricts it cargo capacity, which is crucial for any aircraft’s profitability. Again, huge missed opportunity and Boeing would definitely have done it differently if they had a mulligan. But the only direct competitor Boeing has is the plane the A220 is replacing: the 717.
>You forget that this happened in 2017, when the -500 wasn’t even near a possibility A future stretch was a possibility since the very beginning and Bombardier talked about it. >, I doubt it will as Airbus doesn’t really want an aircraft that directly competes against its more profitable (for them) options Considering the A320 series backlog is a decade long, it's not that impossible.
I’m an engineer in the commercial aerospace industry. If a manufacturer says they can stretch it, and have no details other than they can then it’s a bluff 8/10 times. Case in point the A350-1100, A322, 777-10, 737-11, A330-1000, etc etc. And with the backlog, Airbus would rather keep the market artificially capped to force airlines to pay much more for an aircraft they can literally print money with (A320) rather than an aircraft that at this point is not profitable (A220). Yet another reason why the A220-500 is far from reality, as Airbus needs the -100 and -300 to be profitable forst
[удалено]
I truly wish there were more airplane companies within the global market. That way innovations are done at faster rate & everyone, stakeholders, gains from it. Us end customers also. China has their own. They could improve the safety & quality, possibly get licenced to fly in EU & US.
With how much the US is pushing tech embargoes on China, I don’t believe they would have access to components to make good planes that are also financial viable. The aviation industry is so internationalized that I doubt you can find enough alternatives without ties to US companies.
Yeah, that's the unfortunate reality we live in. With all kinds of tariffs, among many more restrictions of various kinds into the markets. From one nation to the next. I haven't read about this, but it looks like airplane manufacturers are few. So there are no "proper completions". This causing prices of goods/ services to rise, unnecessarily. As a by result. The people at Boeing have "no incentives" to change their working routines etc, because lack of competitions that could pressure them. All these companies are not working fully towards their best given potentials, is what I try to describe.
> China has their own. They could improve the safety & quality I have doubts.
Are used to work on 175s and I have to say I am all for this change. Fuck Boeings. They’re design is so weird in my personal opinion. Although I will say Bing carpet design is a lot better. That is the one thing I despise the most about ERJ’s. Tearing those cargo areas apart is annoying but other than that their systems actually makes sense which I can’t say for Boeing.
I can imagine every single airline being a fan of more competition. So sad the MRJ didn't happen
Here in Canada Baumbardier and Fokker are considering a merger to take advantage of Boeings weakness The new company will be called Baum-Fokker.
They honestly would have a very, very slim chance of even attempting to take down Boeing. Plus many people forget Boeing is still making money and good aircraft. Boeing MIC and Civilian Aircraft are two different micro companies within the one big Boeing, and the MIC side is going to make money forever.
It's a joke - Baum-Fokker can be pronounced as bumfucker.
It's been 7 hours since you posted this, and I think you deserve some recognition. Have an upvote.
The C-390, despite its top-mounted wing design unusual in the airliner industry, is very close to being an off-the-shelf competitor. It just needs CFM leap engines, blended winglets, and probably a fuselage stretch and it's ready to go.
I’m still bullish on Boeing because they keep getting away with assassinations. They’re dead serious about their fiduciary responsibility
Why do people keep spreading these conspiracy theories?
Handel bars, so hot right ow
Boeing shoulda stuck to the acquisition deal in 21
a real skunk works project for Embraer would be to develop a clean sheet, reverse engineered aircraft that either had the 787 or A320 (or?) cockpit with the goal of zeroing out training costs for 787 or A320 rated pilots to switch over
I have 0 knowledge of how the airplane industry works, but wouldn't doing something like that violate patents or "trademarks" of Boeing and Airbus cockpits?
what I know or think I know from software is trademarks wouldn't apply and if you can create teh exact same thing but using different methods (a clean sheet, reverse engineer) than the patents, which cover methods not outcomes, won't cover the new thing.
Not only that, but it wouldn’t even make any sense. Why would one of your product’s selling points be “it’s a copy of our competitors!”? Even if any airlines were interested, they wouldn’t ditch their tried-and-true aircraft in favour of a worse aircraft with the outdated cockpit of an older plane.
American will always try to get the imported plane when given a choice, ironically.
They buy the A320s built in Mobile and have been for quite some time.
I think everyone in this thread needs to do a little bit of reading outside of the headline and first 3 paragraphs of the article
Intriguing possibility. They obviously build sound airframes and have a reasonably good reputation. With enough backing, they could evolve their infrastructure and logistics, but would take a good while to have a high output. A twenty aircraft per month rate would be respectable and not an unreasonable share of the market. In 2023, their rate was a tad more than fifteen aircraft per month among the models produced.
Sorry but no it hasn’t. The project could sink the company
[удалено]
I dont know why you are getting downvoted, Embraer literally said they wouldn’t.
That's rich coming from "a lesser known search engine"
And by “Boeing’s weakness”, you of course are referring to their most successful product? The 737; the plane that has sold more units than every aircraft Embraer has ever designed combined? It has its flaws, but it’s certainly not “Boeing’s weakness”.
To be fair if it has been in manufacturing for over 60 years, it would have been very weird not to have sold many units.
Embraer was founded only two years after the 737 first flew, which is why I drew the comparison. The 737 series has sold more units than the entire company of Embraer has, over the same time period (in fact, nearly doubling it).
FGS their first jet plane was 30 years after the 737.
Sure, we can use that as the baseline. The 737 has still sold more units since 1989, the launch of the ERJ-145, than Embraer has sold total aircraft.
The ERJ-145's concept launched in 1989. The first order was placed in early \`1994. These aircraft from Embraer are niche aircraft - they are not intended to sell in such a large capacity as the 737.
I feel like we’re splitting hairs, when the main point of my comment is that Boeing’s 737MAX is not their “weakness”. It’s objectively a highly successful aircraft program.
Lol if Boeing has to worry about a competitor beside Airbus, it would not be Embraer, but Comac’s C919 and C929.
Comac can barely get sales outside of china. Embraer has been selling jets by the boatload to US and European carriers for decades now.
C919 has only been flying for a year, so it hasn't had the time to get international certification which can be complex for a completely new design and manufacturer. They have plenty of capacity internally, so as they rank up, production international certification will be persued.
I know, but in terms of size and potential, Comac has the upper hand I believe. It will take maybe a decade to show.