← Back to Squawk list
  • 39

Why is the E175-E2 Barely Selling? Scope Clauses Explained

Submitted
The E175 is one of the most popular regional jets in the United States. But why isn't its updated model, the E175-E2, selling in the United States? There's a reason behind it: a concept called scope clauses. (aeroxplorer.com) More...

Dan Mena
Weekly PickNews junkieEnthusiastTrusted friendHonor RollHonor RollDaily PickAmateur PhotographerPromoter

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


boughbw
boughbw 6
I was wondering about this. The number of E2 sales are so low that I questioned whether my base assumption that the A220 (C-Series) was a competitor or just something I imagined. The A220 is selling like hotcakes, but I had no idea why Embraer's numbers weren't comparable given how well the original E-planes sold and continue to sell.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Propwash122
Peter Fuller 1
Not speculating why the A220 outsells the E2, but here are the sales numbers (source: Wikipedia) -

A220-100 101
A220-300 748

E175-E2 zero
E190-E2 34
E195-E2 236

For both types, the market clearly prefers the larger variants, while the smaller variants sell comparatively poorly. (That sales pattern is also seen in other types: 737 MAX, 777, 787, A319/320/321neo, A330neo, A350.)
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tobinsparfeld
Tobin Sparfeld 9
I've seen this discussed but nobody really has any explanation to what's going to happen when all the CRJs and E175s start aging out -- what's going to replace them?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Propwash122
Peter Fuller 5
For now, Embraer continues to build and sell the E170 and E175-E1, which are scope-clause-compliant.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
avionik99
avionik99 0
Ask the Union they are responsible for this mess.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
PlangtoThePlang
John Mattingly 2
Customers mad that Pilots won't relax on scope. Customers also mad when Mainline replaces all their routes with regional aircraft. Which do you want?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
RWSlater
Ron Slater 0
Probably newer E175's or maybe even in the future Boeing will design a 76 seat jet that is just a shrunk down version of a 737
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
erisajd
erisajd 4
You mean like the 737-100? 🤣
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
flyinokie
flyinokie 4
Why didn't the author ask Embraer why the E2 series was developed knowing it wouldn't be clause compliant? Embraer, and all manufacturers, fill market need. Are they selling in other countries? Was E2 designed for mainline service? Were they expecting the unions to raise the weight limitation in their contracts? Since the passenger capacity could remain the same the number of planes, and pilots, remains the same. However, airlines don't want to fuel a heavier plane for the same number of passengers. Embraer knows the answer.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
RevJeffreyNE
Jeffrey Jensen 2
THIS
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
myalias
myalias 1
The E2 is more efficient. It is selling, just not in the US. Porter has 75 delivered or on order for North American operations, with purchase rights to 25 more.

Porter had committed to CS100, planning to operate them out of Billy Bishop, but they were unable to get the jet ban lifted (despite the aircraft being no louder than the Q400s flown there), so it was a bit surprising they went with the E195-E2, and I imagine they got a good deal from Embraer due to slow sales.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
dilkie
dilkie 1
that NIMBY jet-ban on Toronto Island is the dumbest thing ever... what a shame, BB was a great airport to get to Toronto downtown.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
NF2G
David Stark 1
I thought Porter was getting 195-E2s.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
myalias
myalias 1
They are now.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
calpilot787
John Cotter 9
Blame airline management. If they really wanted the E2, they can order as many as they want. They are only required to fly them at the mainline. And don't whine about crew cost as the regionals are now paying similarly to mainline on this size aircraft.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
NF2G
David Stark 3
Adblocker unfriendly site.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
johntaylor571
John Taylor 1
Use the reader view and it bypasses the asblock.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
A6SEA
Bill Butler 3
I'm almost an outsider here, as the "upside down wedding cake" was just coming in as I was going out. But I need to understand this. Some say Unions, but how do Unions set something like this up? And, serious question now, what real purpose does it serve?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
DouglasWahto
Douglas Wahto 2
There is nothing stopping the mainline carriers from adding E2s to their fleets.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
patt46
paul patten 3
We went through this in the late 70s, 80s and 90s. APA and ALPA had their heads so far up their derrieres that they could not see daylight much less the future. This could have been solved long ago.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
bentwing60
bentwing60 3
Thank APA/ALPA for a fraidy' cat response (scope clause) to the fact that airframe manufactures responded to 'airline' requests for larger, longer range commuter aircraft, without a prop.! The airframers responded in spades!

The direct result was regional jets that could compete on long, thin routes and the elite said, holy shit, we can't have these peasants invading the fiefdom!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
DCKOZAK
Donald Kozak 11
And the airlines are free to purchase and fly them. Where is the problem? Oh yea, not having a contractor doing the flying for you! Regional airlines only exist for one reason, and one reason only; to allow the legacy airlines to whipsaw the employees flying the smaller aircraft used by the larger airlines. From the C-suite, it is all about saving $$$ but from the user end, it potential risks/affects safety. Younger, less experienced pilots flying in command position when if they where flying for the main line air carrier (and earning better pay with better T&C) captains on those aircraft would have more experience and seasoning before they could hold the position on these aircraft. As it is now, the regional airlines, due to massive turnover, are hiring captains off the street and upgrading their First Officers as soon as they legally can. If all flying was in-house at the majors, this would be less a problem.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
MichaelColucci
Michael Colucci 1
As an industry outsider, it seems to me that there's more things driving this than just 'scope clauses' in contracts.
Is the author really concluding that going from 50 to 76 passengers doesn't cover the cost difference of two crew members on short flights, if the majors used their own crews? There just has to be more to the decision than pilot cost.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
avionik99
avionik99 -6
Just another Union fail!! Unreal the unions even have the power to make rules like this!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
btweston
btweston 0
You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. I dont know who you’re shilling for, but you’re not helping.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
johntaylor571
John Taylor 0
If this whole convoluted mess is because of union demands, it sounds like it is exactly the union's fault.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
DRissone1
Donna RIssone 0
My Favorite Regional Airlines Craft, especially in First Class!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. 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.
Dismiss