Hey guys. I just saw that bombardier is selling its cs100 almost at twice the price of its sukhoi competitor. Is this justified? Anybody on leaseprices of these birds?

Are you talking about their listed price?

Yes

Quick Tip: Selling Price of AI B787 is $117 million, against listed price of $224.6 million.

List price is useless!

You know what the cs100 selling price per unit was for Delta?

embraer175e2 wrote:

You know what the cs100 selling price per unit was for Delta?

Reports are DL will pay $25 million per unit.

Is it justified?!? The planes are not the same design. This is not like Best Buy selling a TV for $219.99 and WalMart selling the same exact model for $169.99.

Spacepope wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

You know what the cs100 selling price per unit was for Delta?

Reports are DL will pay $25 million per unit.

The big difference being that most likely the SSJ100 can be sold for less than that and still be profitable for UAC, while BBD made little or no profit by selling them at that price. IIRC Aeroflot got their SSJ100's somewhere around 16-18million a piece, and IAJ got theirs somewhere around 20M each and recently renegotiated their financial lease to much better terms and with a guaranteed residual value. I also read that with the current backlog the SSJ already reached it's breakeven point(somewhere around 200 orders or even slightly less), that means the program cost itself was low and with very few cost overruns and delays, something we all know did not happen to BBD and the C-series program.

Spacepope wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

You know what the cs100 selling price per unit was for Delta?

Reports are DL will pay $25 million per unit.

Woww. And where did you get this report? This is very cheap compared to the list price.

csturdiv wrote:

Is it justified?!? The planes are not the same design. This is not like Best Buy selling a TV for $219.99 and WalMart selling the same exact model for $169.99.

Not the exact same model indeed, but comparable. More or less the same size, same range, same fuel burn, etc. The Embraer E-Jets also belong in this comparison since they're also comparable. Differences are just details, nothing major.

Of course nobody pays the list price, discounts are always given. That goes for both Bombardier and Sukhoi (and Embraer too), so not much difference in that either. I guess the fact that the Sukhoi is a Russian-built aircraft has something to do with it, some airlines may not want to have Russian equipment in their fleet. That makes them prefer Embraer or Bombardier eventhough they're more expensive.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

csturdiv wrote:

Is it justified?!? The planes are not the same design. This is not like Best Buy selling a TV for $219.99 and WalMart selling the same exact model for $169.99.

Not the exact same model indeed, but comparable. More or less the same size, same range, same fuel burn, etc. The Embraer E-Jets also belong in this comparison since they're also comparable. Differences are just details, nothing major.

I don't think the SSJ comes close in range to the CS100. The CS100 has over 600nm more range than the longer range SSJ130 and nearly twice the range than the SSJ100. The SSJ uses a much less efficient engine as well. It is a very nice jet and cheap to fly, but more importantly cheap to buy. I think part of the reason for the much lower listed price is the much lower production and development costs.

Just because the SSJ100 can be sold for less and still be profitable for UAC doesn't mean it's a better or worse plane for the operator. Really depends. For one SSJ still wants to do a bigger version while CS already has one that outsells the CS100s 2:1.

Cheap acquisition cost doesn't always equal cheap operating cost, high dispatch reliability, the payload you want, etc.

Plus on the SSJ side it might also be a favor to the Russian government if you order one, at the very least if you're a Russian airline flying on government subsidies, not so much vis-à-vis CS but vs. E-Jets.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Not the exact same model indeed, but comparable. More or less the same size, same range, same fuel burn, etc. The Embraer E-Jets also belong in this comparison since they're also comparable. Differences are just details, nothing major.

Are you asserting that the SSJ is comparable to the CS100? You can compare the SSJ with the E-Jets but definitely not the CS100.

For range, the CS100 (3100 nm) has almost twice the range of the SSJ-100 (1645 nm). Infact it has 20% more range than the SSJ LR. Don't even start on the fuel burn.

golfradio wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Not the exact same model indeed, but comparable. More or less the same size, same range, same fuel burn, etc. The Embraer E-Jets also belong in this comparison since they're also comparable. Differences are just details, nothing major.

Are you asserting that the SSJ is comparable to the CS100? You can compare the SSJ with the E-Jets but definitely not the CS100.

For range, the CS100 (3100 nm) has almost twice the range of the SSJ-100 (1645 nm). Infact it has 20% more range than the SSJ LR. Don't even start on the fuel burn.

The SSJ100 is a regional jet, while the CS100 is more of a hybrid between a narrowbody and a regional jet, maybe that's the problem with the CS100 in the first place, it is a very expensive plane for a regional but too small of a plane for a main line jet. As for fuel burn I've yet to see real numbers for the CS100, but for sure the CS100 should have better performance on longer routes, on short hops I am pretty sure the SSJ should give the CS100 a run for its money.

Wayfarer515 wrote:

golfradio wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Not the exact same model indeed, but comparable. More or less the same size, same range, same fuel burn, etc. The Embraer E-Jets also belong in this comparison since they're also comparable. Differences are just details, nothing major.

Are you asserting that the SSJ is comparable to the CS100? You can compare the SSJ with the E-Jets but definitely not the CS100.

For range, the CS100 (3100 nm) has almost twice the range of the SSJ-100 (1645 nm). Infact it has 20% more range than the SSJ LR. Don't even start on the fuel burn.

The SSJ100 is a regional jet, while the CS100 is more of a hybrid between a narrowbody and a regional jet, maybe that's the problem with the CS100 in the first place, it is a very expensive plane for a regional but too small of a plane for a main line jet. As for fuel burn I've yet to see real numbers for the CS100, but for sure the CS100 should have better performance on longer routes, on short hops I am pretty sure the SSJ should give the CS100 a run for its money.

Agree

To break the selling chain Bombardier should have built a 80 seat cs series to compete with the e175. (Commonweality) making this whole series more attractive.

And also the cs500 competing better with Airbus and Boeing. I also think bombardier has enough capibilities to build a mom model too.

Boeing move to this would be to give the mom cockpit and maintenance commonwealithy to the 787 .

embraer175e2 wrote:

I also think bombardier has enough capibilities to build a mom model too.

Capabilities ? definitely not, BBD just spend more than $5 billions for the Cseries, they don't have any money for a new program right now. Anyway, they have to modernize their bizav aircrafts portfolio first.

I don't know where you see a problem with the Cseries sales, the production line is booked until 2020, especially if you compare with the SSJ backlog. And compare the SSJ95 with the CS100 is an apple to orange comparison: not the same size, not the same range, not the same mission and even not the same generation.

queb wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

I also think bombardier has enough capibilities to build a mom model too.

Capabilities ? definitely not, BBD just spend more than $5 billions for the Cseries, they don't have any money for a new program right now. Anyway, they have to modernize their bizav aircrafts portfolio first.

I don't know where you see a problem with the Cseries sales, the production line is booked until 2020, especially if you compare with the SSJ backlog. And compare the SSJ95 with the CS100 is an apple to orange comparison: not the same size, not the same range, not the same mission and even not the same generation.

Modernize the q400? Wider cabin. First fly by wire turboprop with sidestick. Avionics upgrade. Composite wings. Better landing gear design.

Modernize the crj with more efficient engines.? I still think thar embraer beats them in the 70 to 110 seat choice of aircraft commonwealthy

Queb irkut spent 4.6 billion devolping the regional mc21 project. That's not far from Bombardier.

[quote="embraer175e2"][/quote]

it's me or you're totally off topic.? Where did you see me talking about Q400 modernisation and Irkut? Anyway, the MC-21 is build by UAC, owned and funded by the russian government.

6

queb wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

it's me or you're totally off topic.? Where did you see me talking about Q400 modernisation and Irkut? Anyway, the MC-21 is build by UAC, owned and funded by the russian government.

You were talking about modernizing the B ombardier portofolio. That is why I brought up the q400

embraer175e2 wrote:

To break the selling chain Bombardier should have built a 80 seat cs series to compete with the e175. (Commonweality) making this whole series more attractive.

And also the cs500 competing better with Airbus and Boeing. I also think bombardier has enough capibilities to build a mom model too.

Boeing move to this would be to give the mom cockpit and maintenance commonwealithy to the 787 .

- even their current CRJ would probably compete better against ERJ than a 80-seat version CSeries given how they're developed
- CS500 would compete better with airbus and boeing but it's not like what they are currently aiming at
- mom is totally irrelevant

embraer175e2 wrote:

queb wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

I also think bombardier has enough capibilities to build a mom model too.

Capabilities ? definitely not, BBD just spend more than $5 billions for the Cseries, they don't have any money for a new program right now. Anyway, they have to modernize their bizav aircrafts portfolio first.

I don't know where you see a problem with the Cseries sales, the production line is booked until 2020, especially if you compare with the SSJ backlog. And compare the SSJ95 with the CS100 is an apple to orange comparison: not the same size, not the same range, not the same mission and even not the same generation.

Modernize the q400? Wider cabin. First fly by wire turboprop with sidestick. Avionics upgrade. Composite wings. Better landing gear design.

Modernize the crj with more efficient engines.? I still think thar embraer beats them in the 70 to 110 seat choice of aircraft commonwealthy

they still have that CRJ1000 but the amount of buyers are limited

The mom is an excellent open market. Why is it irrelevant?

embraer175e2 wrote:

The mom is an excellent open market. Why is it irrelevant?

because the threat title does neither mention the mom, nor any type that would be in the same class as that?

best regards
Thomas

I have to ask. Can a US Airline purchase/lease a SSJ?

F9Animal wrote:

I have to ask. Can a US Airline purchase/lease a SSJ?

Probably not.

That likelihood would become even smaller if they were to look finance for it.

The Sukhoi is a awesome little aircraft. It was built with the 2 to 2 1\2 hour mission. Its very slick and that makes is very efficient using a older technology engine, with a reported CAPM of around $12.00. O and its a lot cheaper then any of its competition list price or real price (ide love to know what interjet payed for theirs). The CS100 is a great plane as well, but i think it was designed more for the Canadian market with more of a 3 to 5 hour mission. Most passengers are not going to want to be in a large regional aircraft for 5 hours. Its my opinion that the CS100 is just to much airplane for the job. Also i don't trust the PW engines PW has a long history of takes years to work the bugs out on an engine. Just ask the design team that work on the 747 they were ready to pull their hair out. We probably will never see the Suhoki in service in the US do to the fact that it has not been faa approved, and the anti Russian sentiment in this country right now ........too bad O-yea don't forget the 1000lb gorilla in the corner the E2's

n5u wrote:

The Sukhoi is a awesome little aircraft. It was built with the 2 to 2 1\2 hour mission. Its very slick and that makes is very efficient using a older technology engine, with a reported CAPM of around $12.00. O and its a lot cheaper then any of its competition list price or real price (ide love to know what interjet payed for theirs). The CS100 is a great plane as well, but i think it was designed more for the Canadian market with more of a 3 to 5 hour mission. Most passengers are not going to want to be in a large regional aircraft for 5 hours. Its my opinion that the CS100 is just to much airplane for the job. Also i don't trust the PW engines PW has a long history of takes years to work the bugs out on an engine. Just ask the design team that work on the 747 they were ready to pull their hair out. We probably will never see the Suhoki in service in the US do to the fact that it has not been faa approved, and the anti Russian sentiment in this country right now ........too bad O-yea don't forget the 1000lb gorilla in the corner the E2's

The Superjet can be found in San Antonio, operated by Interjet...albeit rarely according to this Reg. tracker

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/XAJLG

n5u wrote:

Most passengers are not going to want to be in a large regional aircraft for 5 hours.

Why do you say that? In a two class config, for a Y class passenger, a pitch of 30" and a width of 18.5" (19" middle seat) is a better experience than any medium or long haul equivalent config.

BT is going to launch CS300 on RIX - AUH.

embraer175e2 wrote:

Hey guys. I just saw that bombardier is selling its cs100 almost at twice the price of its sukhoi competitor. Is this justified? Anybody on leaseprices of these birds?

Of course sukhoi is going to be significantly cheaper since it's a Russian made. Basically the equivalent of being made in China i.e. cheap.

WorldFlier wrote:

n5u wrote:

quote]

The Superjet can be found in San Antonio, operated by Interjet...albeit rarely according to this Reg. tracker

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/XAJLG

And at Miami,Huston,Dallas as well. Foreign carriers aren't required to has FAA approved aircraft to fly to the U.S. Domestic carriers are. Im sorry for not being clear. I ment that we wont see the Sukhoi in domestic service.

golfradio wrote:

n5u wrote:

Most passengers are not going to want to be in a large regional aircraft for 5 hours.

Why do you say that? In a two class config, for a Y class passenger, a pitch of 30" and a width of 18.5" (19" middle seat) is a better experience than any medium or long haul equivalent config.

BT is going to launch CS300 on RIX - AUH.

For the same reason the using a 757 on a transcontinental flight sucks. To much traffic in the single aisle and not enough restrooms. It makes life to hard on the cabin crews and makes them testy. Trust me my wife's best friend is a 30 vet AA international flight attendant I hear all the horror stories

SSJ has EASA certification.
FAA just validates the EASA certificate.
Neither Airbus aircraft did another round of certification process.
Politics - yes.
And we would better not even start talking about subsidies.

n5u wrote:

The Sukhoi is a awesome little aircraft. It was built with the 2 to 2 1\2 hour mission. Its very slick and that makes is very efficient using a older technology engine, with a reported CAPM of around $12.00. O and its a lot cheaper then any of its competition list price or real price (ide love to know what interjet payed for theirs). The CS100 is a great plane as well, but i think it was designed more for the Canadian market with more of a 3 to 5 hour mission. Most passengers are not going to want to be in a large regional aircraft for 5 hours. Its my opinion that the CS100 is just to much airplane for the job. Also i don't trust the PW engines PW has a long history of takes years to work the bugs out on an engine. Just ask the design team that work on the 747 they were ready to pull their hair out. We probably will never see the Suhoki in service in the US do to the fact that it has not been faa approved, and the anti Russian sentiment in this country right now ........too bad O-yea don't forget the 1000lb gorilla in the corner the E2's

That's great but the CS isn't a regional jet and surely isn't configured as such inside. The CS100 is a shrink of the baseline CS300 sacrificing some economics for field performance and range much like the A319 is so of course it will be "too much airplane for the job". If it WS a regional jet it would be set up like the SSJ with lower range/payload and likely cheaper price. As for the engines, the CS's version of the PW1000G has a clean record so far with the only issue being slow production. People seem to fly on 757s, and soon 737s and A321s overseas whether it is perceived by most to be uncomfortable or not otherwise those routes would be gone. Considering the CS is more spacious than any of those, why would anyone have a problem flying on it over one of those?

[/quote]That's great but the CS isn't a regional jet and surely isn't configured as such inside. The CS100 is a shrink of the baseline CS300 sacrificing some economics for field performance and range much like the A319 is so of course it will be "too much airplane for the job". If it WS a regional jet it would be set up like the SSJ with lower range/payload and likely cheaper price. As for the engines, the CS's version of the PW1000G has a clean record so far with the only issue being slow production. People seem to fly on 757s, and soon 737s and A321s overseas whether it is perceived by most to be uncomfortable or not otherwise those routes would be gone. Considering the CS is more spacious than any of those, why would anyone have a problem flying on it over one of those?[/quote]




with only 2 restrooms and no full galley yes it is the seat pitch is up the the airlines and my at 6 foot and 170 pounds a 30* pitch is very uncomfortable, and im not a big person...The pw 1000's on the bus just got limited to fl300 or below. The only reason you havent seen any probs with the cs's pw1000's is there is only a hand full of cs's in service yet.
Look Im not knocking the cs's its a great aircraft and i think the cs'300 and 500 will give airbus and boeing a run for their money, and its about time somebody did. If you read my post you notice that i said its my opinion the the cs100 is just to much ac for the 98-120 seat mission

pylon101 wrote:

SSJ has EASA certification.
FAA just validates the EASA certificate.
Neither Airbus aircraft did another round of certification process.
Politics - yes.
And we would better not even start talking about subsidies.

They both are subsided out the ying yang. The Canadian tax payers built the cs and the Russian gov built the sukhoi no shock there. As far as the EASA and FAA i don't think that the faa will rubber stamp a russian aircraft like you said "Politics yes"

With regard to purchase price, I am guessing the assumption is that airlines are paying list price ... they aren't!

Many years ago, I flew a delivery flight of a new E190 SJK-BGI-YUL and got to watch the financial transaction. Apparently for tax reasons, it is advantageous to complete the transaction on Brasilian soil. While it would improper for me to say what Air Canada paid for the E190s, I will say that it was so much less than list, I was shocked!

n5u wrote:

Most passengers are not going to want to be in a large regional aircraft for 5 hours.

Air Canada noticed that shortly after the introduction of the E175/190, there was a marked passenger preference for that aircraft over other narrow bodied aircraft, among those that "know better", namely frequent fliers.

While seat pitch and lav configuration is up to the airline as you state, like the EMBs, seat width is more or less cast in stone .... much like the CS100/300 ... and an improvement over other airframes like the 737. If the passenger experience is better on the CS100/300, then I see no reason why this preference should not also occur. Or ... if it is not worse, then passengers likely wouldn't even notice.

longhauler wrote:

With regard to purchase price, I am guessing the assumption is that airlines are paying list price ... they aren't!

Many years ago, I flew a delivery flight of a new E190 SJK-BGI-YUL and got to watch the financial transaction. Apparently for tax reasons, it is advantageous to complete the transaction on Brasilian soil. While it would improper for me to say what Air Canada paid for the E190s, I will say that it was so much less than list, I was shocked!

n5u wrote:

Most passengers are not going to want to be in a large regional aircraft for 5 hours.

Air Canada noticed that shortly after the introduction of the E175/190, there was a marked passenger preference for that aircraft over other narrow bodied aircraft, among those that "know better", namely frequent fliers.

While seat pitch and lav configuration is up to the airline as you state, like the EMBs, seat width is more or less cast in stone .... much like the CS100/300 ... and an improvement over other airframes like the 737. If the passenger experience is better on the CS100/300, then I see no reason why this preference should not also occur. Or ... if it is not worse, then passengers likely wouldn't even notice.

The DL purchase of the C-series and offer to UA (matched by Boeing then converted to MAX -8) show the market is brutal.

What it comes down to for Su-100 vs. C-series is utilization. Too low of utilization and a used E-jet wins. High utilization the C-series wins, but only if enough of the added seats are full. The Su-100 loses every order that a substantial part of the sub-fleet needs the range of the CS100.

Then eventually we bring the MRJ into this discussion.

I agree with your point on comfort. Too many here want a big plane for size sake. I prefer an A32X or 73X with a non-stop over any widebody. I prefer certain airlines based on seat type and pitch. But not so much that I do not change who I fly often as my time is valuable to me.

The C-series has everything needed to do well. The issue for the Su-100 is that the engines and aerodynamics are a half generation behind. Cest la vie (The ARJ-21 is a full generation behind with a poor cross-section for it's capacity, 5-across makes no sense below a hundred passengers).

Lightsaber

n5u wrote:

with only 2 restrooms and no full galley yes it is the seat pitch is up the the airlines and my at 6 foot and 170 pounds a 30* pitch is very uncomfortable, and im not a big person...The pw 1000's on the bus just got limited to fl300 or below. The only reason you havent seen any probs with the cs's pw1000's is there is only a hand full of cs's in service yet.
Look Im not knocking the cs's its a great aircraft and i think the cs'300 and 500 will give airbus and boeing a run for their money, and its about time somebody did. If you read my post you notice that i said its my opinion the the cs100 is just to much ac for the 98-120 seat mission

Well that's based on the airlines that are currently operating the plane because it does have the capability of 2 lavs and full galley in the back and the lav and closet by door 1L and galley by door 1R. This is a configuration you see on A320s and people don't complain on those and with a CS100/300 you have less people using the same facilities. In that case, it is not a regional jet. There was another thread where people were discussing a regional jet and the consensus was that it is defined payload/range/capacity and in that case he CS definety is not a regional jet and other mentioned scope clause and it doesn't come close into fitting into that either.

And for the PW1000G, the A320's had trouble from before EIS to now. Saying that the PW1500G is only more reliable than the 1100 is because there are only a handful in service is a very weak argument as it was having issues when there were only a handful of of those engines in service. For example, Airbus had a test frame get stranded because it needed a new engine, I don't remeber that happening to the CS.

The CS100 is a bit too much for that mission as it is a shrink just like the A319 is too much for the 120-140 seat mission. I think just like the A319 it will take quite some time for that to become a problem.

longhauler wrote:

While seat pitch and lav configuration is up to the airline as you state, like the EMBs, seat width is more or less cast in stone .... much like the CS100/300 ... and an improvement over other airframes like the 737. If the passenger experience is better on the CS100/300, then I see no reason why this preference should not also occur. Or ... if it is not worse, then passengers likely wouldn't even notice.

One thing passengers will notice over the A320 or 737 right away is that there is only 1 middle seat per row. Much like the 767, it allows an operator to fill more of the plane before filling middle seats and it means half the people sitting in middle seats if it's full. Another thing is that people like quiet and they also like larger windows and the CS is the best narrow body at both of those things too. And with 18.5"-19" seat if an operator puts the same pitch as they would on a 737, what's not to love over the 737?

767333ER wrote:

Another thing is that people like quiet and they also like larger windows and the CS is the best narrow body at both of those things too. And with 18.5"-19" seat if an operator puts the same pitch as they would on a 737, what's not to love over the 737?

Interestingly Air Canada will get brand new B737-MAX and CS300 concurrently, which are respectively the narrowest and largest narrow bodies *per seats*. Are there any other airlines following that strategy?
It'll be interesting to see what the average Joe, the frequent flyers and mainstream medias will say when comparing a flight that went from A320 to B737 (worst?) or to CS300 (better?).

-Dash9

. The issue for the Su-100 is that the engines and aerodynamics are a half generation behind. Cest la vie (The ARJ-21 is a full generation behind with a poor cross-section for it's capacity, 5-across makes no sense below a hundred passengers).

Lightsaber[/quote]
I agree with all you said but the aerodynamics the sjj 100-95b was optimized for a long range cruise of .78 . That's with older engines underpowered engines and no winglets. and still has a cpsm of $12.00. The one point nobodys has made is the Sukhoi was designed to compete against the e190 with a 15.00 cpsm and a lrc of .74 or less. Lets face facts the CS is the superior ac. The Sukhoi will never be a threat to anybody. The 737 is a old airframe that dates back to the 1960's "and has tiny flight deck. The A320 is the first fly by wire airliners with first gen soft and hard wear issues.
Now as far as pricing goes that's depends on the buying power of each airline. I saw on a cnn news ticker in july that united payed $20m us for there last batch of 737-700's. Now that's hard to compete with no matter who you are
The main reason that i like the Sukhoi is its built like a brick outhouse. It reminds me the 727-200 i grew up on. I love the interjet pilots nickname for the Sukhoi is "the little tank" i think that says it all

n5u wrote:

The Sukhoi is a awesome little aircraft. It was built with the 2 to 2 1\2 hour mission. Its very slick and that makes is very efficient using a older technology engine, with a reported CAPM of around $12.00. O and its a lot cheaper then any of its competition list price or real price (ide love to know what interjet payed for theirs). The CS100 is a great plane as well, but i think it was designed more for the Canadian market with more of a 3 to 5 hour mission. Most passengers are not going to want to be in a large regional aircraft for 5 hours. Its my opinion that the CS100 is just to much airplane for the job. Also i don't trust the PW engines PW has a long history of takes years to work the bugs out on an engine. Just ask the design team that work on the 747 they were ready to pull their hair out. We probably will never see the Suhoki in service in the US do to the fact that it has not been faa approved, and the anti Russian sentiment in this country right now ........too bad O-yea don't forget the 1000lb gorilla in the corner the E2's

InterJet operates SSJ's from Mexico to the US. So It would have to have FAA approval.

rbavfan wrote:

n5u wrote:

The Sukhoi is a awesome little aircraft. It was built with the 2 to 2 1\2 hour mission. Its very slick and that makes is very efficient using a older technology engine, with a reported CAPM of around $12.00. O and its a lot cheaper then any of its competition list price or real price (ide love to know what interjet payed for theirs). The CS100 is a great plane as well, but i think it was designed more for the Canadian market with more of a 3 to 5 hour mission. Most passengers are not going to want to be in a large regional aircraft for 5 hours. Its my opinion that the CS100 is just to much airplane for the job. Also i don't trust the PW engines PW has a long history of takes years to work the bugs out on an engine. Just ask the design team that work on the 747 they were ready to pull their hair out. We probably will never see the Suhoki in service in the US do to the fact that it has not been faa approved, and the anti Russian sentiment in this country right now ........too bad O-yea don't forget the 1000lb gorilla in the corner the E2's

InterJet operates SSJ's from Mexico to the US. So It would have to have FAA approval.

NO NO NO non us carries dont have to have faa approved a/c Domestic carriers do i think i hear a echo in here

n5u wrote:

. The issue for the Su-100 is that the engines and aerodynamics are a half generation behind. Cest la vie (The ARJ-21 is a full generation behind with a poor cross-section for it's capacity, 5-across makes no sense below a hundred passengers).

Lightsaber

I agree with all you said but the aerodynamics the sjj 100-95b was optimized for a long range cruise of .78 . That's with older engines underpowered engines and no winglets. and still has a cpsm of $12.00. The one point nobodys has made is the Sukhoi was designed to compete against the e190 with a 15.00 cpsm and a lrc of .74 or less. Lets face facts the CS is the superior ac. The Sukhoi will never be a threat to anybody. The 737 is a old airframe that dates back to the 1960's "and has tiny flight deck. The A320 is the first fly by wire airliners with first gen soft and hard wear issues.
Now as far as pricing goes that's depends on the buying power of each airline. I saw on a cnn news ticker in july that united payed $20m us for there last batch of 737-700's. Now that's hard to compete with no matter who you are
The main reason that i like the Sukhoi is its built like a brick outhouse. It reminds me the 727-200 i grew up on. I love the interjet pilots nickname for the Sukhoi is "the little tank" i think that says it all[/quote]
The su100 is a very good design against the E1-175 and E1-190. That is very true. But it is a half generation better. The E2-190 will best the per passenger costs of the Su-100. The MRJ-900 will also.

It is a half generation behind because underside laminar flow is on newer wings. It isn't just wingtip treatment that defines the aerodynamics of a wing. All the prior laminar flow wings had dirty underside due to the nasty stall characteristics of laminar flow, in particular underside laminar flow. The evolution of laminar flow wings has been the evolution of stall control features. I do not see those features on the underside of the su-100. I do with the MC-21 and some with the MRJ and C-series.

Lightsaber

We will still have to see how the E2 will perform. The normal EMJ is a piece of crap, the only airliner you can overload with normal bags. It has no lashing points for additional cargo and if somebody poops in the rear lavatory, you might be out of trim. If the E2 also has to leave behind constantly cargo and bags, you would rather fly something else.

The SSJ and as far as I know the CS1/3 don't have such issues. Again, the EMJ is not a real aircraft, it's a nice little regional jet with limitations when it comes to more than basic ops.

I don't like to fly on them because I know how often ther are overloaded for trim reasons.

Ty134A wrote:

We will still have to see how the E2 will perform. The normal EMJ is a piece of crap, the only airliner you can overload with normal bags. It has no lashing points for additional cargo and if somebody poops in the rear lavatory, you might be out of trim. If the E2 also has to leave behind constantly cargo and bags, you would rather fly something else.

The SSJ and as far as I know the CS1/3 don't have such issues. Again, the EMJ is not a real aircraft, it's a nice little regional jet with limitations when it comes to more than basic ops.

I don't like to fly on them because I know how often ther are overloaded for trim reasons.

Interesting comments. I've been dispatching and load planning for the 190/195 for years, and I have nothing but praise for them. I've never had any weight problems, you simply fill it to the gills and it will still fly a good distance. I also found it very difficult to put out of balance..the smaller Embraers however...

opticalilyushin wrote:

Ty134A wrote:

We will still have to see how the E2 will perform. The normal EMJ is a piece of crap, the only airliner you can overload with normal bags. It has no lashing points for additional cargo and if somebody poops in the rear lavatory, you might be out of trim. If the E2 also has to leave behind constantly cargo and bags, you would rather fly something else.

The SSJ and as far as I know the CS1/3 don't have such issues. Again, the EMJ is not a real aircraft, it's a nice little regional jet with limitations when it comes to more than basic ops.

I don't like to fly on them because I know how often ther are overloaded for trim reasons.

Interesting comments. I've been dispatching and load planning for the 190/195 for years, and I have nothing but praise for them. I've never had any weight problems, you simply fill it to the gills and it will still fly a good distance. I also found it very difficult to put out of balance..the smaller Embraers however...

That was very diplomatic of you, opticalilyushin. Allow me to be less diplomatic:

Even if Ty134A is knowledgeable about ERJ's, the lack of specificity in their comment, and use of a nonstandard abbreviation, does not lend much credibility to the opinion. What even is a "normal EMJ?" Is there and "abnormal EMJ?" Are we talking about a 145 family? If you want to try to draw any conclusions to compare with the CS100, then the only reasonable comparison would be the 190/195 versus the E2.

opticalilyushin wrote:

Ty134A wrote:

We will still have to see how the E2 will perform. The normal EMJ is a piece of crap, the only airliner you can overload with normal bags. It has no lashing points for additional cargo and if somebody poops in the rear lavatory, you might be out of trim. If the E2 also has to leave behind constantly cargo and bags, you would rather fly something else.

The SSJ and as far as I know the CS1/3 don't have such issues. Again, the EMJ is not a real aircraft, it's a nice little regional jet with limitations when it comes to more than basic ops.

I don't like to fly on them because I know how often ther are overloaded for trim reasons.

Interesting comments. I've been dispatching and load planning for the 190/195 for years, and I have nothing but praise for them. I've never had any weight problems, you simply fill it to the gills and it will still fly a good distance. I also found it very difficult to put out of balance..the smaller Embraers however...

Yep... that is the fun thing with the EMJ, especially if your netting section is good for a VOLUME of about 40 bags, depending on the configuration you might be able to load about 450kg of WEIGHT into this section. So whenever your bags weigh less than 11kg on average, you're fine.Two or more sections will make up for the hold which will give you the trim section. And if you fly wiht an empty business class on a tailheavy aircraft, and you need to counter by filling up the front of an aircraft that can't take a lot of loading for structural reasons, you have a fun problem. Especially on destinations were pax can't afford a business class ticket but travel with 2 or more bags each and there is more volume of bags than forward hold. You cant load it into the rear because of the trim and you cant use the front because of the weight limits. so you leave it where it is...

opticalilyushin wrote:

Ty134A wrote:

We will still have to see how the E2 will perform. The normal EMJ is a piece of crap, the only airliner you can overload with normal bags. It has no lashing points for additional cargo and if somebody poops in the rear lavatory, you might be out of trim. If the E2 also has to leave behind constantly cargo and bags, you would rather fly something else.

The SSJ and as far as I know the CS1/3 don't have such issues. Again, the EMJ is not a real aircraft, it's a nice little regional jet with limitations when it comes to more than basic ops.

I don't like to fly on them because I know how often ther are overloaded for trim reasons.

Interesting comments. I've been dispatching and load planning for the 190/195 for years, and I have nothing but praise for them. I've never had any weight problems, you simply fill it to the gills and it will still fly a good distance. I also found it very difficult to put out of balance..the smaller Embraers however...

Yep... that is the fun thing with the EMJ, especially if your netting section is good for a VOLUME of about 40 bags, depending on the configuration you might be able to load about 450kg of WEIGHT into this section. So whenever your bags weigh less than 11kg on average, you're fine.Two or more sections will make up for the hold which will give you the trim section. And if you fly wiht an empty business class on a tailheavy aircraft, and you need to counter by filling up the front of an aircraft that can't take a lot of loading for structural reasons, you have a fun problem. Especially on destinations were pax can't afford a business class ticket but travel with 2 or more bags each and there is more volume of bags than forward hold. You cant load it into the rear because of the trim and you cant use the front because of the weight limits. so you leave it where it is...

In my experience I have never had any of these problems. Granted the airframes I have worked on don't have a dedicated business cabin, but I found it to be a very difficult aircraft to bulk out or put of out of balance. The central-to slightly rear balance meant it was not only easy to balance, but to keep within the optimal trim, which some airlines like. I especially like the 195, where we could easily fit more bags in the hold than passengers, there was simply so much space to play with (say 150 bags for 100 passengers- no problem). Please don't think I am disputing or refuting your comments, I can only speak from my experiences.