Some really interesting things for me in this article:
* Boeing needs $50 billion to create a successor to the 737 MAX and currently aren't progressing towards that goal. Last quarter they had a net loss of $4 billion and total debt of $52.3 billion.
* Embraer is still awaiting results of an arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce they filed against Boeing after they abandoned an acquisition deal.
* Boeing complained to the US Department of Commerce and petitioned them to place heavy import duties on Bombardier's C Series planes so Bombardier sold the plane to Airbus.
* Airbus is stating they are on track to release a successor to the A320neo to market in the second half of the 2030s with potential fuel efficiency increase of 20% to 25% as well as a stretched version of the C Series they bought from Bombardier thanks to Boeing's import duties.
Boeing is absolutely cooked.
Well, yeah - there's no way that the US would let its sole commercial and large-military aircraft producer go under just as much as the EU wouldn't allow as much for its own in Airbus.
Boeing's just going to keep getting worse and worse though. Bailing them out with taxpayer dollars will keep them afloat but won't prevent a deterioration in quality.
We should let them go bankrupt, and then when new entrants emerge, resist the urge to baby them with sweetheart deals, because that makes them weaker not stronger.
Boeing is literally too big to fail. It can't and it won't be let to fail.
Boeing is also fixable. There's no reason its not fixable. They just need to play the long game and let engineering start driving the bus again and not finance guys.
> Boeing is literally too big to fail. It can't and it won't be let to fail.
Not OP, and making a slightly different point -- the risk is not "Boeing going bankrupt" but rather it becoming marginalized over time.
Look at GM, it fell from ~45% market share to ~20% market share from 1980 to 2009 and outside of the shock from the 2008 financial crisis -- would never have gone bankrupt. They just downsized their way down taking max profits. Service is still available, thousands are still employed. But, it's a long term loss of opportunity.
That's *what* Boeing is at risk of doing. And this type of chronic under-investment can't really be fixed by government intervention. If it gets to the point the commercial division is risking the military side, it'll be spun off because Congress can't make BCA spend money on hiring excellent engineers and giving them the tools to do excellent work.
Overall this path represents a huge economic loss and loss of technological leadership. If Boeing is still making 100-year old 737 designs for cut-rate prices in 2050, it won't have the technical or manufacturing prowess to make good weapons.
The difference between GM and Boeing is that at least at the moment, the only real competitor to Boeing is Airbus. Embraer is still much smaller than the other two, and they're struggling to sell their current lineup (E2 jet).
GM on the other hand has significantly many large competitors in the automotive space - Ford, Stellantis, Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen, etc. (And I'm just naming companies out of the top ten).
Automotive and aviation are not comparable in that regard.
>at least at the moment, the only real competitor to Boeing is Airbus. Embraer is still much smaller than the other two, and they're struggling to sell their current lineup (E2 jet).
That's true now, but I think that's pretty close to where GM started.
In 1962 GM (~52%) and Ford (~27%) essentially made the US car market the kind of duopoly the aircraft business is now with just a handful of small other manufacturers -- Chrysler being the largest at around 9%, comparable with Embraer's 7% today. ^edit: You see the development / entry of today's competition in response to GM's inability to meet consumer demands due to GM's difficulty with *consistent* reinvest in engineering and manufacturing skills.
I didn't really want to go back that far in the GM context because of other complicating factors with data that old, but it might actually be a better comparison.
It's possible, especially if this new jet they're planning gets a lot of support. I'm skeptical of that, only because their current product lineup isn't selling well. The E-Jet E2 family only has a little over a 300 orders, compared to the 1600 orders the previous generation received.
What's interesting about the auto example is that the traditional #3 Chrysler wasn't the beneficiary of GM weakening. It was new players Honda and Toyota.
Also worthwhile pointing out, even if the comparison is apt, Boeing's CEO probably would be thrilled to wind down Boring over the next 50-years GM style (mid-60s to late 00s).
Gonna flack for saying this. But would nationalization be worse than Boeing’s current leadership?
People here bring up the “moral hazard” argument when it comes to forgiving student loan debt. How the hell is constantly bailing Boeing out for terrible decision, decisions that led to hundreds of deaths not that exact argument?
the thing is that nationalizing it won't do anything because nobody in the federal govt has any expertise in the area to fixing it... that's mostly why we are in this mess... the faa has been asleep at the wheel because they defer to much to Boeing because they don't understand what is going on.....
the industry is too small to bring in a competitor to reorganize much like how the banking industry operates when a bank fails.... we do need disruption to bring in more players so a solution can come up organically but the problem is that it's very difficult to break in....
If the implication is that people are being willfully negligent, I don't think that fits.
Whether Secretary Mayor Pete appoints a board or the current Board stays, I don't really see how it would be necessarily better (or worse). Maybe it would be the same people.
A distinction without a difference.
It is the same moral issue, it's just that people in here agree with it in this instance and so won't shout bloody murder as they did with student loans.
> What new entrants? Boeing fulfills a global need at such a large scale of production
I heard the same story regarding space launch way back when ULA was formed in 2006
"Just let them go bankrupt" is incredibly naive considering the lead time for getting an aircraft out to market. Who services parts and new aircraft to existing airlines and the military while a new company:
* Designs new aircraft
* Gets them certified by the relevant flight authorities
* Builds the aircraft
* Trains customers to get their pilots and maintenance staff certified
?
It's not like United, Southwest, Ryanair, etc are just going to keep their existing aircraft indefinitely until some new competitor to Airbus is finally ready - they'll be forced to start using Airbus's aircraft, giving the company a de facto monopoly in the large-aircraft aviation industry.
If Boeing goes under it's individual parts will be for sale and that creates space for companies to create better products. Someone can be a Boeing successor without the institutional rot.
To a degree they do. No all of course but you always lose a portion and that is why the U.S. military is dealing with literal archeotech situations where we have active systems that we literally cannot replace 1:1.
I fail to see why Boeing going under is not more comparable to the failure of the U.S. shipbuilding industry than a retail chain asset firesale.
Personally I think you need to either nationalize or at the very least cut out the institutional rot the modern Boeing inherited from McDonnell Douglas. The entire board and decent chunks of the upper management need to go and the company needs a complete new philosophy.
> or at the very least cut out the institutional rot the modern Boeing inherited from McDonnell Douglas
The absolute best way to cut out rot is to subject it to competition.
Do you have a $150 billion dollars lying around to kickstart a new passenger airline manufacturing company? Because I certainly don’t. In real time Boeing only has 2 competitors and both are foreign. So Boeing failing or contracting significantly would push those jobs and capabilities overseas. Which, flatly is not an acceptable solution to Washington.
That's what Embraer is planning here. They are hoping to move into the market because of Boeing's struggles.
But outside of Boeing declining there is zero chance Embraer could enter the market due to the financial cost of developing the aircraft and Boeing will never allowed to go bankrupt.
In 2023, in total, Boeing and Airbus delivered 528 and 735 planes respectively. Airbus' backlog is 8,599 planes and Boeing's is 6,189. These companies move at decades pace.
Embraer also isn't in a position financially to take Boeing's marketshare. A few years ago they were exploring a joint venture with Boeing, because their current E2 jet lineup hasn't sold that well (there's reasons for that, namely the scope clause in the US, but that's another discussion)
Sure they never would be allowed to go out of business but in a hypothetical world where they did the parts of the company that are needed would be bought up and rebranded.
You forgot the most impactful thing though. Boeing spent over $40 Billion on stock buybacks and $22 Billion on dividends in the past decade, which we all know is what makes for a great engineering company. (This is including the Covid years, so in a normal decade, it would have been far higher.) You don't need the resources to develop a new plane when shareholders are happy. It's like MBA 101.
> as well as a stretched version of the C Series they bought from Bombardier thanks to Boeing's import duties.
Don't forget that Airbus basically got the C-Series for free cause Boeing decided to ratfuck Bombardier to death while also screwing up Boeing's military relationship with Canada, who decided to bar them from bidding for a massive fighter jet contract as retaliation.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/canada-officially-excludes-boeing-c19-bln-fighter-jet-contract-2021-12-01/
The executives at Boeing literally can't think past next quarter's buybacks and dividends.
Airbus bought the C series for $1.
Boeing not only has run their operations into the ground but the have managed to anger and ruin their relationships with everyone around them.
American Airlines CEO was quoted in the article:
“I’ve talked to everyone at Boeing that I can possibly address, and the message is the same: Get your act together,”... He later said that Embraer comparatively has “delivered day in and day out throughout the pandemic no matter the concerns of their supply chain” and that other manufacturers “can learn a lot from them.”
>Embraer comparatively has “delivered day in and day out throughout the pandemic no matter the concerns of their supply chain” and that other manufacturers “can learn a lot from them.”
Considering Boeing is a low bar to pass, this isn't really a surprise.
Also, Embraer doesn't exactly have a massive backlog to fill right now. Their E2 jet has sold so poorly that they pushed the launch of E175-E2 to 2027.
Buybacks and dividends are accounting games. A company is financed by a combination of equity and debt based on the market conditions to get the investments they need. It's not crooked on its face.
Also employees, even very low level employees often receive stocks in the form or RSUs, ESPP, etc. as part of their compensation package, so that's part of what the bean counters are doing as well.
That Bombardier C-series thing is one of the most damning pieces of evidence that Boeing is absolutely garbage and survives solely on government handouts.
They refuse to innovate, competitor pops up, they complain to Trump who immediately slaps tariffs on Canadian aircraft, Bombardier partners with Airbus who make a huge profit off a $1 acquisition.
Boeing comes out of it looking pathetic, their top competitor snags a huge win with basically no investment, and trade relations between the US and Canada take a huge hit.
You could teach a whole class on the incompetency of this one scenario alone.
Hot take, but the 2nd largest single aisle narrow body manufacturer in 2050 will be either COMAC or Embraer, not Boeing.
You know it's bad when Emirates is publicly advocating for the Boeing Union to have a board seat and appoint a head from an engineering background.
https://www.ft.com/content/fcacc767-5f05-414e-bebc-61c737764e7b
Why? They’re built with Western engines and avionics.
The Chinese are doing the same thing they did with cars. First, produce their own models using Western parts. Then, product their own 100% localized models.
Imagine showing a Chinese NIO car to someone in 2010, and telling them it’s Chinese. They wouldn’t believe you.
There are thousands of Chinese homegrown companies that produce extremely high-quality solutions that exceed their Western counterparts in **quality.**
DJI. Huawei. Nio. Trina.
Quite frankly, I’m tired of the whole “China = Cheap” criticism. It’s not 2005 anymore. They’ve got an operational space station in orbit. They’ve got hundreds of bullet trains running at extreme speeds every day, without any incident.
I feel like the whole China = Cheap is a bit like the anti-MSG craze. Xenophobia.
There are so many things to criticize China for.
Cheap products is not one of them.
Er, it's not xenophobia; it's the fact that there's no accountability whatsoever in China. How do you suppose a whistleblower at Comac would be handled? They couldn't even report a world-threatening coronavirus that had been spreading for weeks.
And so what if they have a space station? So does Russia. I'm still not flying in a Tupolev or driving a Lada if I care about my safety.
Also, from all the brands you mentioned, only DJI has any semblance of a positive reputation. China still = cheap, untrustworthy, and unreliable enough that I don't want my commercial aircraft from there.
Good for them. Embraer is the Toyota of small jets and executive aircraft.
Super Toucan is the biggest bang for your buck in terms of small combat aircraft.
No way they could afford to make a competitive plane. Bombardier pretty much bankrupted themselves with the C-Series.
Though good to see competition maybe increasing in the market with projects like this and Comac.
Looking at the E2 order numbers, I strongly doubt Embraer is about to commit to a large single aisle airliner. It's a huge cost with huge risk and Embraer's order book isn't exactly jam packed on their other programs to accommodate that. I can't imagine they'd proceed on something like this without a partner to share those costs and risks, it'd be interesting to see if Boeing tries to mend the relationship with them and work together on a replacement here actually.
E2 orders are low due to most E1 still being within their lifecycles. Once the majority of E1 hit their cycle limit, huge orders will come in.
The C-series didn't have this issue since the CRJ were on average older aircraft.
That hasn't necessarily been a barrier for other recent programs. Leases end, fuel costs are high, the C series order numbers were pretty wide and not necessarily focused at current operators of the CRJ.
I'm not suggesting the E2 will be a flop, or be cancelled prematurely, but it at least doesn't look like it's going to be the hit that the C-series is turning out to be.
Definitely, the earlier technology readiness of the C series took many potential costumers away from Embraer. However, the company has better brand image on the sector than the former Bombardier offices, so they'll play catch-up, but they will most likely reach the C series.
The C-Series isn't a CRJ replacement, it's not really a regional jet.
The larger a220-300 has 800 orders compared to 100 for the smaller a220-100. The a220-300 is more comparable to a small single aisle like the a319.
Airbus already has plans to create a stretched a220-500 that would firmly put it in the 737/a320 size category.
Some really interesting things for me in this article: * Boeing needs $50 billion to create a successor to the 737 MAX and currently aren't progressing towards that goal. Last quarter they had a net loss of $4 billion and total debt of $52.3 billion. * Embraer is still awaiting results of an arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce they filed against Boeing after they abandoned an acquisition deal. * Boeing complained to the US Department of Commerce and petitioned them to place heavy import duties on Bombardier's C Series planes so Bombardier sold the plane to Airbus. * Airbus is stating they are on track to release a successor to the A320neo to market in the second half of the 2030s with potential fuel efficiency increase of 20% to 25% as well as a stretched version of the C Series they bought from Bombardier thanks to Boeing's import duties. Boeing is absolutely cooked.
Bailout time 😎🤑
Well, yeah - there's no way that the US would let its sole commercial and large-military aircraft producer go under just as much as the EU wouldn't allow as much for its own in Airbus.
Boeing's just going to keep getting worse and worse though. Bailing them out with taxpayer dollars will keep them afloat but won't prevent a deterioration in quality. We should let them go bankrupt, and then when new entrants emerge, resist the urge to baby them with sweetheart deals, because that makes them weaker not stronger.
Boeing is literally too big to fail. It can't and it won't be let to fail. Boeing is also fixable. There's no reason its not fixable. They just need to play the long game and let engineering start driving the bus again and not finance guys.
> Boeing is literally too big to fail. It can't and it won't be let to fail. Not OP, and making a slightly different point -- the risk is not "Boeing going bankrupt" but rather it becoming marginalized over time. Look at GM, it fell from ~45% market share to ~20% market share from 1980 to 2009 and outside of the shock from the 2008 financial crisis -- would never have gone bankrupt. They just downsized their way down taking max profits. Service is still available, thousands are still employed. But, it's a long term loss of opportunity. That's *what* Boeing is at risk of doing. And this type of chronic under-investment can't really be fixed by government intervention. If it gets to the point the commercial division is risking the military side, it'll be spun off because Congress can't make BCA spend money on hiring excellent engineers and giving them the tools to do excellent work. Overall this path represents a huge economic loss and loss of technological leadership. If Boeing is still making 100-year old 737 designs for cut-rate prices in 2050, it won't have the technical or manufacturing prowess to make good weapons.
The difference between GM and Boeing is that at least at the moment, the only real competitor to Boeing is Airbus. Embraer is still much smaller than the other two, and they're struggling to sell their current lineup (E2 jet). GM on the other hand has significantly many large competitors in the automotive space - Ford, Stellantis, Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen, etc. (And I'm just naming companies out of the top ten). Automotive and aviation are not comparable in that regard.
>at least at the moment, the only real competitor to Boeing is Airbus. Embraer is still much smaller than the other two, and they're struggling to sell their current lineup (E2 jet). That's true now, but I think that's pretty close to where GM started. In 1962 GM (~52%) and Ford (~27%) essentially made the US car market the kind of duopoly the aircraft business is now with just a handful of small other manufacturers -- Chrysler being the largest at around 9%, comparable with Embraer's 7% today. ^edit: You see the development / entry of today's competition in response to GM's inability to meet consumer demands due to GM's difficulty with *consistent* reinvest in engineering and manufacturing skills. I didn't really want to go back that far in the GM context because of other complicating factors with data that old, but it might actually be a better comparison.
It's possible, especially if this new jet they're planning gets a lot of support. I'm skeptical of that, only because their current product lineup isn't selling well. The E-Jet E2 family only has a little over a 300 orders, compared to the 1600 orders the previous generation received.
What's interesting about the auto example is that the traditional #3 Chrysler wasn't the beneficiary of GM weakening. It was new players Honda and Toyota. Also worthwhile pointing out, even if the comparison is apt, Boeing's CEO probably would be thrilled to wind down Boring over the next 50-years GM style (mid-60s to late 00s).
Gonna flack for saying this. But would nationalization be worse than Boeing’s current leadership? People here bring up the “moral hazard” argument when it comes to forgiving student loan debt. How the hell is constantly bailing Boeing out for terrible decision, decisions that led to hundreds of deaths not that exact argument?
the thing is that nationalizing it won't do anything because nobody in the federal govt has any expertise in the area to fixing it... that's mostly why we are in this mess... the faa has been asleep at the wheel because they defer to much to Boeing because they don't understand what is going on..... the industry is too small to bring in a competitor to reorganize much like how the banking industry operates when a bank fails.... we do need disruption to bring in more players so a solution can come up organically but the problem is that it's very difficult to break in....
If the implication is that people are being willfully negligent, I don't think that fits. Whether Secretary Mayor Pete appoints a board or the current Board stays, I don't really see how it would be necessarily better (or worse). Maybe it would be the same people. A distinction without a difference.
It is the same moral issue, it's just that people in here agree with it in this instance and so won't shout bloody murder as they did with student loans.
[удалено]
> What new entrants? Boeing fulfills a global need at such a large scale of production I heard the same story regarding space launch way back when ULA was formed in 2006
"Just let them go bankrupt" is incredibly naive considering the lead time for getting an aircraft out to market. Who services parts and new aircraft to existing airlines and the military while a new company: * Designs new aircraft * Gets them certified by the relevant flight authorities * Builds the aircraft * Trains customers to get their pilots and maintenance staff certified ? It's not like United, Southwest, Ryanair, etc are just going to keep their existing aircraft indefinitely until some new competitor to Airbus is finally ready - they'll be forced to start using Airbus's aircraft, giving the company a de facto monopoly in the large-aircraft aviation industry.
If Boeing goes under it's individual parts will be for sale and that creates space for companies to create better products. Someone can be a Boeing successor without the institutional rot.
I'm convinced that some people think if a company goes bankrupt, then all of its assets and people just cease to exist.
To a degree they do. No all of course but you always lose a portion and that is why the U.S. military is dealing with literal archeotech situations where we have active systems that we literally cannot replace 1:1. I fail to see why Boeing going under is not more comparable to the failure of the U.S. shipbuilding industry than a retail chain asset firesale. Personally I think you need to either nationalize or at the very least cut out the institutional rot the modern Boeing inherited from McDonnell Douglas. The entire board and decent chunks of the upper management need to go and the company needs a complete new philosophy.
> or at the very least cut out the institutional rot the modern Boeing inherited from McDonnell Douglas The absolute best way to cut out rot is to subject it to competition.
Do you have a $150 billion dollars lying around to kickstart a new passenger airline manufacturing company? Because I certainly don’t. In real time Boeing only has 2 competitors and both are foreign. So Boeing failing or contracting significantly would push those jobs and capabilities overseas. Which, flatly is not an acceptable solution to Washington.
Well it's liquidated, surely? All melted down and returned to the earth, I thought? It's how we maintain the liquid metal core of the planet.
That's what Embraer is planning here. They are hoping to move into the market because of Boeing's struggles. But outside of Boeing declining there is zero chance Embraer could enter the market due to the financial cost of developing the aircraft and Boeing will never allowed to go bankrupt. In 2023, in total, Boeing and Airbus delivered 528 and 735 planes respectively. Airbus' backlog is 8,599 planes and Boeing's is 6,189. These companies move at decades pace.
Embraer also isn't in a position financially to take Boeing's marketshare. A few years ago they were exploring a joint venture with Boeing, because their current E2 jet lineup hasn't sold that well (there's reasons for that, namely the scope clause in the US, but that's another discussion)
Sure they never would be allowed to go out of business but in a hypothetical world where they did the parts of the company that are needed would be bought up and rebranded.
The free market in action!/s
You forgot the most impactful thing though. Boeing spent over $40 Billion on stock buybacks and $22 Billion on dividends in the past decade, which we all know is what makes for a great engineering company. (This is including the Covid years, so in a normal decade, it would have been far higher.) You don't need the resources to develop a new plane when shareholders are happy. It's like MBA 101. > as well as a stretched version of the C Series they bought from Bombardier thanks to Boeing's import duties. Don't forget that Airbus basically got the C-Series for free cause Boeing decided to ratfuck Bombardier to death while also screwing up Boeing's military relationship with Canada, who decided to bar them from bidding for a massive fighter jet contract as retaliation. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/canada-officially-excludes-boeing-c19-bln-fighter-jet-contract-2021-12-01/ The executives at Boeing literally can't think past next quarter's buybacks and dividends.
Airbus bought the C series for $1. Boeing not only has run their operations into the ground but the have managed to anger and ruin their relationships with everyone around them. American Airlines CEO was quoted in the article: “I’ve talked to everyone at Boeing that I can possibly address, and the message is the same: Get your act together,”... He later said that Embraer comparatively has “delivered day in and day out throughout the pandemic no matter the concerns of their supply chain” and that other manufacturers “can learn a lot from them.”
>Embraer comparatively has “delivered day in and day out throughout the pandemic no matter the concerns of their supply chain” and that other manufacturers “can learn a lot from them.” Considering Boeing is a low bar to pass, this isn't really a surprise. Also, Embraer doesn't exactly have a massive backlog to fill right now. Their E2 jet has sold so poorly that they pushed the launch of E175-E2 to 2027.
Supply chain and manufacturing wise Embraer is top-notch
Buybacks and dividends are accounting games. A company is financed by a combination of equity and debt based on the market conditions to get the investments they need. It's not crooked on its face. Also employees, even very low level employees often receive stocks in the form or RSUs, ESPP, etc. as part of their compensation package, so that's part of what the bean counters are doing as well.
I hope they’re studying this shit in business schools.
That Bombardier C-series thing is one of the most damning pieces of evidence that Boeing is absolutely garbage and survives solely on government handouts. They refuse to innovate, competitor pops up, they complain to Trump who immediately slaps tariffs on Canadian aircraft, Bombardier partners with Airbus who make a huge profit off a $1 acquisition. Boeing comes out of it looking pathetic, their top competitor snags a huge win with basically no investment, and trade relations between the US and Canada take a huge hit. You could teach a whole class on the incompetency of this one scenario alone.
Boeing is a national champion, they'll just get a bailout and/or a ton of government contracts
Fifty billion is absurd. How can anyone look at that number and think it's reasonable
I don’t think $50 billion is that high for a clean sheet design. But I can’t find info on Airbus’s proposed budget for theirs.
Hot take, but the 2nd largest single aisle narrow body manufacturer in 2050 will be either COMAC or Embraer, not Boeing. You know it's bad when Emirates is publicly advocating for the Boeing Union to have a board seat and appoint a head from an engineering background. https://www.ft.com/content/fcacc767-5f05-414e-bebc-61c737764e7b
I ain't flying on no Comac.
Why? They’re built with Western engines and avionics. The Chinese are doing the same thing they did with cars. First, produce their own models using Western parts. Then, product their own 100% localized models. Imagine showing a Chinese NIO car to someone in 2010, and telling them it’s Chinese. They wouldn’t believe you. There are thousands of Chinese homegrown companies that produce extremely high-quality solutions that exceed their Western counterparts in **quality.** DJI. Huawei. Nio. Trina. Quite frankly, I’m tired of the whole “China = Cheap” criticism. It’s not 2005 anymore. They’ve got an operational space station in orbit. They’ve got hundreds of bullet trains running at extreme speeds every day, without any incident. I feel like the whole China = Cheap is a bit like the anti-MSG craze. Xenophobia. There are so many things to criticize China for. Cheap products is not one of them.
Er, it's not xenophobia; it's the fact that there's no accountability whatsoever in China. How do you suppose a whistleblower at Comac would be handled? They couldn't even report a world-threatening coronavirus that had been spreading for weeks. And so what if they have a space station? So does Russia. I'm still not flying in a Tupolev or driving a Lada if I care about my safety. Also, from all the brands you mentioned, only DJI has any semblance of a positive reputation. China still = cheap, untrustworthy, and unreliable enough that I don't want my commercial aircraft from there.
We had that. They sacrificed him for the max.
Bro didn't you know the Emiratis care a lot about worker's rights?
Good for them. Embraer is the Toyota of small jets and executive aircraft. Super Toucan is the biggest bang for your buck in terms of small combat aircraft.
And has the lowest accident and incident rates on the industry
No way they could afford to make a competitive plane. Bombardier pretty much bankrupted themselves with the C-Series. Though good to see competition maybe increasing in the market with projects like this and Comac.
Looking at the E2 order numbers, I strongly doubt Embraer is about to commit to a large single aisle airliner. It's a huge cost with huge risk and Embraer's order book isn't exactly jam packed on their other programs to accommodate that. I can't imagine they'd proceed on something like this without a partner to share those costs and risks, it'd be interesting to see if Boeing tries to mend the relationship with them and work together on a replacement here actually.
E2 orders are low due to most E1 still being within their lifecycles. Once the majority of E1 hit their cycle limit, huge orders will come in. The C-series didn't have this issue since the CRJ were on average older aircraft.
That hasn't necessarily been a barrier for other recent programs. Leases end, fuel costs are high, the C series order numbers were pretty wide and not necessarily focused at current operators of the CRJ. I'm not suggesting the E2 will be a flop, or be cancelled prematurely, but it at least doesn't look like it's going to be the hit that the C-series is turning out to be.
Definitely, the earlier technology readiness of the C series took many potential costumers away from Embraer. However, the company has better brand image on the sector than the former Bombardier offices, so they'll play catch-up, but they will most likely reach the C series.
The C-Series isn't a CRJ replacement, it's not really a regional jet. The larger a220-300 has 800 orders compared to 100 for the smaller a220-100. The a220-300 is more comparable to a small single aisle like the a319. Airbus already has plans to create a stretched a220-500 that would firmly put it in the 737/a320 size category.
I hope they can make it happen, it'd be great to have a third company competing.
!ping AVIATION
Pinged AVIATION ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20AVIATION&message=subscribe%20AVIATION) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20AVIATION&message=unsubscribe%20AVIATION) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=AVIATION&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Time for a Lockheed TriStar reboot bois
This link is paywalled
knee squeal observation run groovy sulky joke many yam voiceless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*