That being said, Embraer almost threw in the towel and merged with Boeing had it not been for regulators blocking it.

Wrong. The deal was abandoned by Boeing, as an unfolding of the 737-MAX major fiasco.

And that merge wasn't Embraer "throwing the towel": Bombardier, Embraer's direct competitor, partnered up with Airbus, getting a critical competitive advantage. It was only natural for Embraer too seek a similar partnership.

> Bombardier, Embraer's direct competitor, partnered up with Airbus, getting a critical competitive advantage

They didn't "partner up". They gave up their modern design (C-Series) to Airbus, then had a fire sale of the remaining assets like the CRJ series, all due to Boeing sabotage. Apart from Bombardier, Boeing are the other big losers from the whole debacle, because Airbus got a very good and modern design for "free" (assumes liabilities).

Bombardier sold the C-Series to Airbus. And, even if they had "given up" their design, Embraer would be in trouble to compete with Airbus anyway.

> On 16 October 2017, Bombardier and Airbus announced that Airbus would acquire a 50.01% majority stake in the CSALP partnership, with Bombardier keeping 31% and Investissement Québec 19%. Airbus paid no money, incurred no debt and assumed no liability for its share in the programme,

> After reassessing its participation in January 2020, Bombardier exited the A220 programme in February 2020, selling its share to Airbus for $591 million. Airbus thus owned 75% of the programme; the remaining 25% of shares were held by Investissement Québec. Under the acquisition terms Airbus acquired Bombardier's option to buy out Investissement Québec's share from 2023, with a revised option date of 2026

That's pretty much giving it (majority control) up for free, and the rest for very cheap.

> Embraer would be in trouble to compete with Airbus anyway.

To an extent, but the E2 and the C-Series aren't really in the same segment - one is a regional jet, the other is a short to medium haul one. The Embraer E2s have less capacity and range than the A220, being optimised for shorter and less dense routes, and they have absolutely zero competition in the market today.

> That's pretty much giving it (majority control) up for free, and the rest for very cheap.

It appears that Bombardier took some other financial aspects in consideration before they made that decision. I have no further knowledge, and that would be more than I'm willing to research for this discussion. Besides, this is tangential to the Embraer x Bombardier debate.

> but the E2 and the C-Series aren't really in the same segment

Indeed, but there's some overlap between the largest E2 and the smallest C-Series, while the E2 is much cheaper.

Multiple parts of Bombardier were failing at the time, particularly its trains division which was fire sold to Alstom.

Bombardier's trains division wasn't failing, it was just that Bombardier the company was overleveradged on getting the C-Series out. What that failed, they were massively in debt, and had to do a fire sale on everything of value (CRJ, trains division).

So technically both of these statements are right.

Boeing offered to buy Embraer outright at first, Brazil’s regulators balked at handling over the family jewels, so they came up with an 80% Boeing joint venture for the commercial division. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing–Embraer_joint_venture

Basically a buyout by another name.

Yep, and it would have been tragic to see Boeing kill the last major civilian aircraft manufacturer not named Boeing or Airbus. The sector needs competition and innovation, especially at such a turning point, so Boeing going left and right sabotaging 2/3 (Bombardier, Embraer, with only Mitsubishi remaining, but they shut down their own project in the end) of the remaining manufacturers would have been criminal.

(I'm not counting COMAC because they're a decade behind and will focus on the Chinese market first, and UAC (Russia's various design bureaus) has been crippled by sanctions).