<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by AC_flyer:
For 70 seat aircraft CRJ700s are being considered
For 90 seat aircraft CRJ900s are being considered
For 100 seat aircraft, A318-100s and B717-200s are considered
For 120 seat aircraft, A319-100s and B717-300X (Latter is being pushed at Boeing) are considered.
Embraer's ERJ 170/175/190/195 I believe were not in the running. But things may have changed after a big order cancellation of Embraer jets from Swiss.
With regards to AC, I suspect they will likely be looking at 20-40 aircraft total as replacements. And will likely be ordering what the other STAR carriers will be ordering. But at the same time, I doubt AC will order the B717-300X if LH pushes for them and orders them.
I do believe AC will order RJs. Likely even the 70 seat variety as well. But For the 90/100 seat aircraft AC will likely look at the CRJ900, B717-200 and the A318-100 and likely order 1 of them as replacements for their B737-200.
Anyway with the B747-400 expecting to be sold off/retired will it mean advancing the delivery dates of the A340-600s?
Wonder if the AC fleet structure will look this in the future:
50 seats CRJ 100/200
70 seats (If needed CRJ700 replaces some Bae146 ajnd replaces the 90/100 seat category)
90/100 seats CRJ900/B712/A318 replaces B732s and Bae 146s
120/130 seats A319
140/150 seats A320
160/170 Seats A321
180-230 seats B763ERs (For domestic and international)
260-280 seats A343 very long haul
A345 Ultra long haul
A333 Transatlantic
310-340 seats A346</font>
I really think that Embraer does not have the firepower to play ball in this deal - the Ottawa Advantage for the 70 to 90 seat airframes means that it is CRJ territory, with the exception of a breakthrough price on A318 or Boeing 717 that would lead to only 70 seat CRJ's being bought.
It's interesting to note that LH is a pretty big fan of the CRJ product - but in terms of a category of regional jet, I think they could also be very happy with ERJ 175's.
The A318 is a widebody, and is a totally different product from a RJ when you look at it that way. It uses the same CFM56-5's as the larger siblings, and it would complete the "adjustable yield response" concept that Airbus is so keen on to compete against Boeing's better operating costs.
What Airbus points out is that as you have demand shifts on certain routes, you simply shift aircraft from one route to another, enabling the airline to capture potentially "lost" revenue in the form of passengers turned away due to oversold flights. The pilot shows up knowing he is flying an Airbus 320 "family" plane, either a shorter or longer fuselage, that's all.
What the model does not take into account is that an airline usually has much lower pilot costs to seat someone up front in a RJ versus an A320 family craft.
Boeing is loathe to go ahead with the 717 upgrade - the 300, out of fear of eating "real Boeing" aircarft sales, but they need to get over that quick. ATA wants the product - very, very much - and the hesitation is giving Airbus the opportunity to slam the A318 into the market in such a way as to kill the 717 product entirely.
Boeing still has the mentality of "You want red roses? How about these tulips instead?" while Airbus is taking out its pink roses and saying, "We got roses."
Airbus, I think, will price the product in such a way as to make both the 717 and the stretch RJ's uneconomical both on a purchase and resale basis. They will likely also get guarantees on engine maintenance pricing and other odds and sods so as to make the operating advantage of the Boeing look less important.