Boeing 717 x Embraer 190/195.

[Guest Carioca]

Is It Boeing Affraid with Embraer growing up ??Watch this presentation..http://www.newairplane.com/en-US/Connect/P...s/Boeing717.htm

[Guest ba747heavy]

Not really sure what you point is.

[BobK 0]

It's called advertising. And, as the ad suggests, Embraer needs to work on that dispatch reliablility. Reports are that it's not too good, right now.

[Guest Carioca]

Embraer Regional jets are increasing and Boeing feeling this, make that comparisons between Embraer 190 and Boeing 717.But the sales of Embraer aircraft in this regional jets segment are growing, Bombardier are running against time to develop a jet to fight against Embraer 170 family but, it's too late.att

[CF104 0]

It's called blind Nationalistic posting ;-)Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg

[Guest Carioca]

Don't start a nationalistic war please...Embraer made comparisons between legacy versus some executive jets, but not like boeing in this presentation.http://www.legacybyembraer.com/english/content/home/

[Shaka 2]

>Embraer Regional jets are increasing and Boeing feeling this,>make that comparisons between Embraer 190 and Boeing 717.I'm not so sure about this. It is true that Embraer has sold more of the earlier RJ models than Boeing, but the 717 isn't exactly Boeing's "Bread and Butter" if you know what I mean. Checking their website, it looks like they have had only 6 orders this year, to add to the 8 orders they took last year. Sometimes, I'm not even sure how aggresively they have marketed this airplane, since just over 100 have been delivered. My thinking was that they had inherited this from the McDonnell Douglas side of the house, and somehow felt compelled to continue with the program. Or maybe it is just profitable enough that it's worthwhile to keep the run open. I'm not sure, but when you compare the 131 (or so) 717s that have been delivered to the 4236 737s (all model) that have been delivered, then I start to think that Boeing isn't too worried about Embraer.The RJ market seems to be a lot smaller than I thought - I did a quick check on ANet, and noticed that the orders for the "big planes" always surpassed those for the "small planes". I think the big airplane companies are happy selling those big planes, and that leaves room for companies like Embraer and Bombardier to fill that niche in the RJ market.- Martin

[Guest Carioca]

>>Embraer Regional jets are increasing and Boeing feeling>this,>>make that comparisons between Embraer 190 and Boeing 717.>>I'm not so sure about this. It is true that Embraer has sold>more of the earlier RJ models than Boeing, but the 717 isn't>exactly Boeing's "Bread and Butter" if you know what I mean. >Checking their website, it looks like they have had only 6>orders this year, to add to the 8 orders they took last year. >Sometimes, I'm not even sure how aggresively they have>marketed this airplane, since just over 100 have been>delivered. My thinking was that they had inherited this from>the McDonnell Douglas side of the house, and somehow felt>compelled to continue with the program. Or maybe it is just>profitable enough that it's worthwhile to keep the run open. >I'm not sure, but when you compare the 131 (or so) 717s that>have been delivered to the 4236 737s (all model) that have>been delivered, then I start to think that Boeing isn't too>worried about Embraer.>>The RJ market seems to be a lot smaller than I thought - I did>a quick check on ANet, and noticed that the orders for the>"big planes" always surpassed those for the "small planes". I>think the big airplane companies are happy selling those big>planes, and that leaves room for companies like Embraer and>Bombardier to fill that niche in the RJ market.>>- Martin>>I agree in all of your considerations.Thanks.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I had a chance to look at the link today. There's several things I found that were worthy to note:~They allude to the 717 being a "Regional Jet". To me it's still basically a DC-9. What's interesting is many have noted that Boeing doesn't have a regional jet--so you just call a tried and true airliner a regional jet, and you compete?~They say the 717 has "big jet comfort which passengers love". As a business traveler, I've flown in DC-9's and the MD-8/9x series often. Often business travel means last minute bookings. In 3x2 seating or 3x3, this almost always means getting stuck in a middle seat. Sorry Boeing, I don't care much about getting sandwiched in those seats. I'll go out of my way to book a 170 or 190 flight now that Jet Blue is coming to Phoenix. Now compare the 717 to a CRJ-200 and the 717 wins hands down, but you likely wouldn't see the 717 on routes the CRJ-200 flies.~How can Boeing comment on dispatch reliability vs. the Embraer? The Embraer 170 is new to the market, and the 190 isn't there yet. Give the 170 and 190 a year, and I am sure the kinks will be worked out. I'd suspect the 717 was less than perfect when it was first released.~Fuel cost/efficiency is a selling point. Bottom line is whether these costs are indeed lower than the EMB-190, since such costs really drive airline decisions. Yet if an airline knew it would become a preferred carrier by pax because every seat was a guaranteed window or aisle, that could offset fuel cost if the airline gets more business. I would have no qualms about flying on a 170 or 190 that's 100 pct. full.Bottom line is nationalism has little to do with this--many people who fly often like myself would prefer the 170 or 190/195 because it's more friendly and more spacious when you're sitting down. Boeing's cross-section comparison was a real cheap shot in my opinion, since the EMB has 2x2 seating. Of course it's a smaller cross section, but you've somewhere to put your elbows too.If Boeing designed a new regional jet with 2x2 seating, I'd be singing its praises. The Boeing 767 still ranks as my favorite aircraft for transatlantic hops and transcon hops, although sadly it's not used much in that role.... That aircraft was really designed with pax comfort in mind. But no ad can convince me that the 717 is as comfortable as the 170 or 190. That ad sells to airlines, not to the passengers that have the final say in how they travel.-John

[Guest MidnightMike]

Well, the 717 certainly has better operational numbers than the EMB190/195 will have, no questions about that. As far as being a Regional Jet, that was McDonnell Douglas intention, until Boeing took over.There is a big difference between the 717 & DC9, the 717 is about 20-30% more fuel efficient than the DC9, & that is according to Airtran which has about 80 of the 717's so far.

[Guest Erick_Cantu]

~They allude to the 717 being a "Regional Jet". To me it's still basically a DC-9.That's correct, because the DC-9 is a regional jet, as is the 737. Bombradier's marketing of the CRJ as the 'first RJ' isn't correct just because they say it is. The DC-9 and 737 were designed to be regional jets and always have been. That's why they were marketed under the very term. Look at old advertising for the 737 or DC-9 - you will find them referred to as 'regional jets.'~They say the 717 has "big jet comfort which passengers love". As a business traveler, I've flown in DC-9's and the MD-8/9x series often. Often business travel means last minute bookings. In 3x2 seating or 3x3, this almost always means getting stuck in a middle seat. Sorry Boeing, I don't care much about getting sandwiched in those seats.Whether an aircraft has a middle seat or not is irrelevent to whether or not the seating is comparable to a larger aeroplane.Now compare the 717 to a CRJ-200 and the 717 wins hands down, but you likely wouldn't see the 717 on routes the CRJ-200 flies.Uh, yes, you would.If Boeing designed a new regional jet with 2x2 seating, I'd be singing its praises. The Boeing 767 still ranks as my favorite aircraft for transatlantic hops and transcon hops, although sadly it's not used much in that role....Why would Boeing design an RJ with 2x2 seating when they can get 2x3 on the DC-9-95, seat more per flight meaning more revenue, maintain some commonality with the DC-9 family, and so on?

[Guest ChrisTrott]

Add to this list the F-28, F-70, and F-100, the first PURPOSE BUILT regional jets. Fokker marketed them as regional jets too, which was a first. Douglas caught onto this and started marketing the DC-9 in the same segment of the market. They had originally seen the DC-9 as a replacement to the Constellation and DC-4 in the domestic services area, which wasn't quite a Regional Jet, but rather a jet-powered trunk-liner in a time when the trunk-liners didn't have much more than 100 seats because they flew point-to-point-to-point-to-point, etc. in a linear route structure. Then Fokker came up with this idea of the "Regional Jet" and Douglas bought into it and started marketing the DC-9 as a "Here to There" Regional Jet instead of a "Here to There via 5 stops in between" aircraft.Also, I think everyone is forgetting the number of seats in the plane. The ERJ-190 has 75 seats. The 717 has 106 if you pack them tight. But the DC-9-30 (which is the same cabin length as the 717) operated quite profitably with as few as 80 seats. You need to remember that the ORIGINAL "RJs" were -DC-9-10/15/20/30Fokker 28/70/100BAe-146-100/200/300 / Avro RJ-80/85/100737-100/200These aircraft were designed to operate where Convair Pistonliners and Turboliners (CV-580) aircraft had operated previously with greater capacity (more stops from the origin city) and with more economy by being able to make multiple stops on a single tank of fuel.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"Whether an aircraft has a middle seat or not is irrelevent to whether or not the seating is comparable to a larger aeroplane."Erick,I think you miss my point completely... The point is--and I say this having logged well over one million miles as a business pax--passenger comfort is one of the selling points of the 17x/19x. You show some inexperience with the above comment--it is very relevant when you are seated between a couple of linemen for a football team on a two hour flight.You are looking at this from the perspective of the airline as a customer, and I look at it from the perspective of the pax as the customer--because ultimately, we are.I still think Boeing's add is an attempt to say they are part of a market that they really sit on the cusp of. Airlines don't simply choose aircraft based on the number of seats--they choose aircraft based on other factors--otherwise you'd see a 717 flying the PHX-Fresno route, or the PHX-Monterey which is instead the domain of CRJ's... If a 717 is more efficient (and it stands to reason it would be per seat mile), why are smaller jets used? Because it is more cost efficient to fly a 90 seat jet on a route where you're likely to fill 90 seats. You lose the efficiency of larger jets like the 717 or 737.Whatever was called what and when, aircraft like the CRJ, ERJ, and now the E-17x/19x have taken over the realm of regional jets. The 717 and 737 are better used on those higher density routes not served by "regional jets".-JohnEdit: I should add that I have no issue with people considering the DC-9, BAE-146, BAC-111, etc.. the regional jets of their day. I posted a screenshot of the BAC-111 with that caption, in fact. I'm just looking at present day, and the type of customer that might weigh a 717 vs. a 170 or CRJ-700/900...-John

[Roger Mazengarb 0]

G'day all,Every little bit lost should be worrying Boeing. Ten years ago Boeing had about 80 odd percent of the market. Today it has only 50% of the market. The main contender is Airbus Industries but the trend should have Boeing thinking long and hard. I just happened to hear an interview re the A380 and all Boeing have to say is that there's no market for such an aircraft. Well they said that about every Airbus ever built. And were wrong every time :-lol I wouln't believe too much of what line the PR spin doctors try to push. Aircraft are bought by hard headed accountants and profit generation is the bottom line. Only time will tell.Cheers,Roger

[Guest Kingair315]

There are a -lot- of people who know nothing about aircraft, who never consider seating when buying a ticket. They just check for the cheapest prices for a seat going from their nearest airport, to the destination. If possible I always get a window seat, by the leading edge of the wing, as I never plan to get up during a flight. That way I dont have to move to let others get up. I've flown in many different aircraft, and never had a problem with seating, regardless of what it was. My sister, her husband, and children (9) have been flying from the east coast to Brazil 3-4 times a year, since 1958, and price has always been their only consideration. As I come from a large family with a Website (177 cousins) think I'll run a Poll there about this, to see what they say...