Back to Squawk list
  • 19

I went onboard one of Embraer's newest yet worst-selling jets and can't understand why more airlines aren't buying it. See inside the Embraer E195-E2

Aircraft manufacturers in the past decade have found success in revitalizing their best-selling aircraft and incorporating new technologies to increase efficiency and performance capabilities. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Jeff Phipps 6
Another manufacturer getting screwed by Boeing. Embraer should never have talked to Boeing and because they also screwed Bombardier, they forced them into Airbus' arms, who are now eating their lunch. Embraer in a way, got screwed twice by Boeing.
I have found this debate very interesting, within the wider concept of global trade.

The country of Wales (to the west of England on the island of Great Britain within the United Kingdom) makes every Airbus wing (along with factories in Northern Ireland - another part of the UK - which contribute many parts to the A220 programme).

Well, I hope that the USA (a strong proponent of "globalisation/globalization") will think twice before trying to browbeat Canada again. At least Airbus can now sell a global product (including using its globalised FAL in Mobile) to deliver world-leading products into ALL markets.

If anything proves the "law of unintended consequences" it was this attempt to frig the marketplace. I found it interesting that American (as in "registered, capitalised and operated within the CONUS") airlines got around the "new aircraft" tariffs by flying their new aircraft around the world (away from the USA) then registering them as old airframes.

I wish Boeing well - but they need to understand that the world has changed, is more open and that the investigative industry is WAY more able to dig out dirt. When you launch a poorly-developed, inadequately tested product, where safety-critical functions are re-labelled as "optional", people are likely to die.

Competition should raise standards and is to be encouraged - that has been the cornerstone of global commerce for decades.

Build the best product and the world will buy it.
Happy New Year to one and all.
patrick baker 7
hard to imagine this aircraft's profile of performance fits so few operators. There is a long waiting line for the airbus A220, and probably less waiting for this.
21voyageur 5
the gravitation towards the A220 could be fueled by the simple fact that the A220 was a clean-sheet design and takes advantage of as many efficiencies as available vs the Embraer which has followed Boeing down the path of often stretching the lifespan of 25-year-old technology (if not older - ex" 737) by bolting on upgrades (ex: NEO). In this segment, Airbus was able to leapfrog Boeing and even themselves by securing majority ownership of the Bombardier technology.
James Cox 5
Still sad how the C-series got shafted by all the tariffs and political bs, now we're more or less down to one less aircraft manufacturer and thus less competition.
Karluz Heiz 1
You're right
mimana 3
Great product affected by a market that is driven by money more than quality. Embraer makes planes that are the best for short and medium markets.
Ron Thompson 3
I've flown in a Embraer, with Alaskan Airlines. Very comfortable, I like the 4 seat rows, divide two each side.
Alaska Airlines :-)
flown those aircraft numerous times lived it
I'm all for fleet renewals - anything to rid the skies of CRJ200's!
It was a blessing when DL took over the leases of the 80+ 717's from WN. The CRJ200 was a miserable experience.

The article states the E195-E2 has smooth skin for fuel efficiency.
How much drag is added and how does fuel economy suffer once the addition of IFE antennas (DirecTV antennas for instance) are installed?
James Cox 7
You all clearly don't understand the word miserable, try flying on some Beech 1900s or Jetstream 31s or 41s and then see how 'MISERABLE' you think the CRJ is.
Don’t forget the Fairchild Metros.
21voyageur 4
"The CRJ200 was a miserable experience." I am assuming that you are not speaking commercially. With close to 1,000 built it has allowed many airlines and countries (including those in the third world) to extend jet service to smaller and less served geographies. There is a bigger world out there.
Andy Bowland 1
.48% increase in fuel burn per flight for the large domes. 39 lbs per flight.
.27% increase in fuel burn per flight for the smaller blister domes. 22 lbs per flight.

On a stage length on 750 NM, of a narrow body aircraft.
Anton1 0
Agree, as a tall person I could hardly look outside of the windows of a CRJ100/200, I had to bend downwards just to look out. Not fun if you like to watch and shoot photos. Plus tiny luggage bins. The Embraer 190 (only flew first generation) are so much spacier and more pleasant. The small EMB145 are also pretty crap from pax perspective.I avoid the CRJ & EMB145 where possible!
Cleffer -3
> ...anything to rid the skies of CRJ200's!

Awful things. Almost worse than Embraer's 145.
They are not regional Jets - main line crews are flying the A220 - it's beautiful as all all jets the help serve smaller airports including the 200, 700, 145 etc. Those who know ... KNOW
Stewart Smith 3
Depending upon what union agreement restrictions that a given airline has in place, I could imagine that the shorter A220-100, seating about 108 passengers, could fit nicely into regional routes, whereas the longer A220-300 seating 130 to 160 would be appropriate for main-line routes and operators.
bentwing60 1
A major part of US ALPA scopes clause issues with the Bombardier product was Range, not just seating capacity, to prevent the introduction of low seat count so-called RJ's from displacing main line pilots on 73's, MD's Et.Al. on thin but longer city to city pairs.
bentwing60 1
Oh, and by the by, "Those who know ... KNOW", and knew then that the 100 was the 'Camels nose under the tent' and the 300 and 500 were the real mission as evidenced by the huge disparity of 100 Vs. 300 sales and order books. AB bought the product for a song because they could 'do it in french' and to gain a very advanced NextGen aircraft while burying the next iteration 500 which would have become a direct compete with a320, 737. Clearly a concern that prompted the Boeing lawsuit, tariff debacle. As usual, since the Move to chitcago, Boeing effed up. Imagine that, Wharton bean counters in control!
I think I flew on one of these earlier this spring. Can't remember the airline (Delta or United).
No complaints here.
masonite 2
Delta and United don’t have E2s or the older E190s.
Maybe Embraer is overreaching and trying to get in a market niece they are not ready for. I believe the Airlines are about to require smaller but faster as the market shifts from the 747 and A380 size down to the more versatile 737/A220 but in the Mach 1+ range of speed and 40K+ altitudes. The new actor is SpaceX with the Starship Atmosphere/near orbital Passenger transporter, New York to Tokyo in under an hour. Speed is coming back as a driver for the Airlines as the internet has stollen many a business Traveller the need for speed will become a must for those business travelers who need to travel. In short less seats are going to be the norm especially long haul, 3000+ miles. I also see that like the 1950s rail passenger serves die due to Air travel and now Air passenger Travel is giving up seats to the Internet and virtual Face to Face. Air Freight will become the new mainstay of Airline companies and speed and versatility drives that business even today.
Karluz Heiz -4
I'll rather buy an airplane that I can switch for a longer range flight than buy one that doesn't have this versatility or convergence...Embraer projects manager doesn't know nothing about aviation.
alex hidveghy 0
Doesn't know nothing about?
Double negative makes no sense here because it basically rejects your original assertion!
What you meant to say is they don’t know ANYTHING about aviation……🤦‍♂️👍🤣
Karluz Heiz 1
Yeah they don't's like buy a cellphone without camera in the 21 th century. The A220 has its convergence, versatility, I meant longer range than E-jets.
Wayne Fox -4
Thanks to an Embraer I missed my Flight to Sydney, Australia February 2020. We were booked on a United Flight from LAX to Syd but needed to take a United Express flight from PHX to LAX for the connection. Unfortunately, the Embraer E175 was late arriving from LAX. By the time it arrived we had missed the late evening Sydney flight. When it did arrive and we were all loaded aboard, they couldn't get it started for reasons unknown. I thought that it's electronics might be Microsoft because they had to power the aircraft completely down and "reboot it" After they got it started when were furnished an overnight stay in LA and caught the Sydney flight the next evening. Fortunately the ship we were cruising on was actually departing the day we arrived but we missed a full day in Sydney and the first night aboard the ship. As a side note, the Norwegian Cruise Line ship Jewel on which we disembarked at Sydney two weeks later, was forced to stay at sea due to listed ports refusing it docking rights due to the COVID-19 pandemic that was just becoming a serious threat.

The plane itself was a comfortable trip but I just question it's dependability.
Peter Creary 3
All modern airlines have computers. Since the days of vacuum tube computers sometimes the only fix is turn it off then turn it back on. Ex-computer tech since 1965.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.