Lots of Americans fly the 190 every day. And, as the airlines drop their RJ fleet, they will be buying 190s to replace them, not 737-900s or 787s. In 5 years, there could be 500 190s zipping all around the US.

Why did you drop your 'jumbo jet' qualifier? Your statement before was technically defensible (if a bit hyperbolic), but now you are just blubbering.

I've flown in the 145 3 times in the last month between Birmingham and Glascow on BA Connect. (Would have been a 4th last Saturday morning but that's another story.) No better or worse than any smaller aircraft. I doubt anyone else on the flight knew or cared who made the aircraft.

In what way is the E190 not a passenger jet?

It's just Darwinism applied to civil aviation. There was this ecological niche unoccupied by the dinosaurs, and the E190 species evolved to flourish in it.

And they may be "winged buses", but what Boeing and Airbus are producing are "winged cattle cars". The only thing missing in the latter are the drop floors of real cattle cars that are used for easy cleaning between loads.

"You're not going to get Americans to fly Third World passenger jets..."

That sounds like an GM executive circa 1965 saying, "You're not going to get Americans to drive Japanese cars."

If the price is lower and that translates to a lower ticket price, Americans will fly in them without a moment's hesitation.

Bryan:

No, they won't, which is why the Airlines wouldn't buy them.

By "Americans" OJ means terminally parochial New Englanders that have no expertise or knowledge of the subject at hand but insist on their ability to provide expert prognostication.

Rick:

Exactly. You can get business commuters to board them, not families and folks going on vacation.

robert:

Still waiting for you to explain why none of these Third world companies can compete with Boeing.

And when OJ says that the Airlines won't buy "third world" manufactured jets, and for the terminally parochial New Englander anything manufactured out of the continental U.S. is "third world", what he means is they won't buy any more of those jets since they've already received firm orders for 200 with options on 100 more, half of those orders for American air carriers, since the jet was approved by the FAA in 2005.

jim:

Yes, that is the point. They can occupy a niche, but not sell jumbo jets. That's why Airbus is dying--Americans watch the streets of Paris burn and aren't going to fly their Third World planes.

That's the point at which we began.

*sigh* OJ, prevarication does not become you. You know full well I've never made the claim that third world air manufacturers could compete directly with Boeing, that's always been your contention. Of course I don't consider Airbus a third world company, so we differ on that point.

All I have ever maintained is that, contrary to you beliefs and assertions, Embraer manufactures quality aircraft they've designed themselves, that these designs incorporating some innovations (regarding cabin design) not seen in jet aircraft manufactured by Boeing or Airbus, and that they are more than the group of illiterate third world mud farmers slapping together DC-3 knock offs that you seem to think they are.

Note: Each of these points was in rebuttal to some peice of unlearned tripe you spouted in the Airbus melee.

The fact remains OJ, that you know exactly bubkus about this industry, and everytime you post about it you make an ass out of yourself. Not that I mind anymore, but I do see the need to tilt at the windmill at least once or twice before continuing to La Mancha.

Not too many people like flying in the "puddle jumpers" run by connecting airlines like American Eagle, period, especially in bad weather, when you can really find out what those airsick bags are for. If Embraer made a bigger jet that people felt safe in and wasn't constantly on the news for crash reports like the old Soviet Tupalevs, folks would prefer them over the smaller turboprops, even if they were made in the USA.

Robert:

You lose me after you admit they can't compete with Boeing.

John:

Exactly.

The fact remains OJ, that you know exactly bubkus about this [subject], and everytime you post about it you make an ass out of yourself.

The list of subjects does seem to keep getting longer, doesn't it?

Orrin Judd - Often wrong, never in doubt.

jp:

I certainly defer to Mr. Modean on knowledge of the airplane industry and as he says, no Third World manufacturer can compete with Boeing.

Raoul:

Then why is everyone in complete agreement on this topic...again?

The truth is that Boeing doesn't want to build the 'smaller' planes. Competition isn't even an issue.

Is it innovation? Of a kind. It's not the Aurora, but OJ would certainly rant about people going coast-to-coast in an hour, wouldn't he?

John - evidently you haven't flown on a 190 yet. It's four across and much wider than a CRJ. And I must have missed the reports on the spate of Embraer crashes - just when were they?

I have always liked the 145 for flights of 2 hours or less. The single row on the left is like flying in a corporate jet, much more so if the flight isn't full. And you know what? I can sit in seat 18C and be off the plane in about 2 minutes. Try that from the back of a 757 or an MD-88. Plus, I can pick up my bag at the gate, and not have to deal with baggage claim. Perfect.

In bad weather, not even a 747 is going to be 'smooth', and the RJs these days fly at 30,000+ ft., just like the 'big' boys.

Airbus may be a wallowing dinosaur, but the 190 is not going away.

jim:

Except that the complete lack of competition is the point under consideration. You're right, of course, tha Boeing has none.

Mr. Judd;

Yes, that is the point. They can occupy a niche, but not sell jumbo jets.

AOG:

Now you're making sense. Yes, there is no market because only totalitarian states will allow such enormous planes to land. Airbus is making a Realist bet.

-- Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes SA--

This has been in Investor's Biz Daily's 100 for awhile now, have been thinking about it.

Actually Jim has a point. John, what spate of crashes would that be? So far Embraer has an excellent safety record, with among the fewest crashes in the industry by model and a statistically superior safety record. Not only that but their seats are larger, they have more leg room, more head room, and they're much quieter.

BTW John, having flown in a Beechcraft 1900 on more than one occasion I can only conlcude one of two things - 1) You have never flown on a turboprop before, certainly not in rough weather, or 2) You're a diminutive man who's hard of hearing with poor equilibrium and terrible eyesight, where the travails of sitting in a turboprop; the deafening drone of the engines, the jerky motion of the aircraft, and the dismally cramped interior, aren't as off-putting as they are to the rest of us.

"You're not going to get Americans to fly Third World passenger jets, but you can carve out a niche selling these winged buses for commuters."

RJs are passenger jets. American commuters do fly them and more American commuters will fly them in the future. Including Embraers.

JP

They're commuter planes, not passenger planes.

At 33,000 feet, what's the difference?

Now that Darwin is being inroduced into aviation too, I think I need to upgrade the hazy memories from my high school science classes. Can anyone recommend a "Darwin for Dummies?"

erp:

This is a proper use of Darwinism, occurring in an economic setting where there's obvious intelligent design and no possibility that what happened was natural.

Mr. Judd;

Excellent, we agree that there's no substantive difference between Boeing and Embraer. Both avoided the technologically innovative field of jumbo jets to be niche players, avoiding competition with serious airplane manufacturers.

Do we also agree this makes Americans as likely to fly on Boeing jets as Embraer jets?

There's nothing innovative about making jumbo jets bigger jumbos. No one but us innovates.

No, Americans won't fly Third World planes (or airlines). Embraer and the rest can carve out a niche in commuter or private planes if they want to, but they aren't players. Maybe they will be one day. Brazil and India in particular seem capable of becoming major nations.

If some airlines (Cathay Pacific, KLM, Lufthansa, British Airways, perhaps even good old Varig) flew inside the US, they would get plenty of business, when compared to their domestic colleagues. Only Congress prevents it.

Next time the family Judd goes to Florida, would the Dr. Mrs. Judd request Jet Blue? We could then read about the crazed man running down the jetway, yelling "Nooo, Nooo, not an Embraer!"

Jim, doest thou profane. The Judd family must perforce entrain to Florida.

Like every American family, we take passenger jets, not commuter planes. You'd never get The Wife in anything that small. You demonstrate my point though.

"They're commuter planes, not passenger planes."

That's amazing.

The last time I was forced to travel to your time zone, OJ, my connection was in Dallas. I flew a 767 from OKC to Dallas and a RJ from Dallas to NYC. Who knew that I was "commuting" on the second leg and "passenging" on the first?

That's very cool.

JP

The families around you gripping their trays in terror.

Actually, I think if OJ walked down the jetway and saw an E190, he'd jump out the door and try to drive the family to Florida on the baggage cart.

The point being you and your family never do see them. They aren't there. You and your business associates may.