BOAT From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 59 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3503 times:
I just found out that my grandaughter is on a JetBlue E-190. I did not know about this plane until she was booked and then I checked it out. I am an old timer and was a passenger in the 60's and 70's on many DC9-10's and 20's and 30's. I found the 190 similiar to the old DC9's. Was wondering what with all detail I see on this site if you all would do a few items of comparison of the DC9's to the new 190's/195's, like range, capacity, ceiling, weights, engine thrust, etc. I know the 190 has wing mtd engines and is by some classified as a commuter jet and the DC9 is not exactly in that category. Did the 190/195 and similiar new "commuter" aircraft kill the 717? Thanks in advance.
AvConsultant From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3412 times:
There are a variety of circumstance that lead the 717 to its fate.
I would start with the design, why MDD chose the DC-9 wing over the MD-80 is confusing. It's like the individual who takes a 20 y/o car valued at $1200 and installs $5000 in stereos, wheels and accessories. Why?
Either way, the wing could have increased the aircraft range making it more attractive to buyers. It was an economical replacement for the DC-9 and potential replacement for the 737-200 had the range been there. The airframe competed in seat category with the 737-600, but not on price or performance.
Again, the EMB has better economics than the 717. The 717 technology is early 90's where as the EMB is more modern. As for the EMB & DC-9 comparison, size it probably the closest similarities with the smaller EMB's edging out on range. Either way, the EMB burns less fuel.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 885 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3366 times:
Quoting BOAT (Thread starter): I know the 190 has wing mtd engines and is by some classified as a commuter jet and the DC9 is not exactly in that category. Did the 190/195 and similiar new "commuter" aircraft kill the 717? Thanks in advance.
The E190 is anything but a commuter aircraft. While the E-jets only seat between 70-110 passengers, the range, performance, and cabin comfort, the new E-jets are really more compatible with mainline aircraft.
Quoting BOAT (Thread starter): Was wondering what with all detail I see on this site if you all would do a few items of comparison of the DC9's to the new 190's/195's, like range, capacity, ceiling, weights, engine thrust, etc.
While it's no knock on A.net, the aircraft database tends to have some inaccuracies. Here's some basic information from other sources that you may like to browse:
Richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4186 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3350 times:
The E190 is considered mainline at JetBlue and most other carriers, but its little brother the E170 is in that fuzzy area in between regional jet and mainline equipment.
Having flown on the E190 a few times, I have to say that it is NO regional jet. And no DC-9, for that matter. (The DC-9 is typically a 2-3 seating config in coach; the E170/E190 is 2-2). The DC-9 was a fine machine in its time, but that time was 30-40 years ago and the torch has passed since then. Although there have been well-documented reliability problems with the large Embraers - they are a relatively new aircraft type - the passenger experience on-board is very good. I'm a very big fan of the large windows and comfortable seats. In my opinion, the E190 seat comfort is as good or better than any other narrowbody equipment (in coach, anyway), and there is no comparison to your average regional jet. JetBlue's comfort level is enhanced by the tv and XM radio, which are great devices for killing the time between takeoff and landing. Or while stuck on the ground waiting for takeoff (which can sometimes be longer than the average flight on the E190!).
Remember that Boeing pulled the plug on the 717 prior to the arrival of the E170 and E190 families. The 717 is a much bigger, heavier aircraft than the E190, and can hold more passengers, yet I believe the E190 has a greater range. With only 15 more seats than a CRJ-900 series regional jet, more and more airlines are shying away from the Greyhound bus seating arrangement of the CRJs and the E170/190 makes a great alternative. I am not knocking the DC-9/MD-80/90/B717 models. They are great aircraft, and the B717 was a much different plane that the first DC-9 that rolled out of Long Beach in the 1960s. But I'd suggest that Boeing killed this model because it potentially interfered with their own 737 models, not really the new wave of 100-seat aircraft such as the E190/195 (and eventually its Canadair challenger).
Considering how much changed in the 40 years of aviation prior to the DC-9 arriving on the scene, it is easy to think that technology has not come very far in the 40 years since. Indeed, we are still flying subsonically in similar seating arrangements, and some would even say that the level of personal service has diminished greatly since the early days of jet-powered aircraft. But this would be oversimplifying things. Aircraft today are much more technologically advanced, with lighter materials, safer and more efficient engines, etc. The E190 is a great example of a light, economical, comfortable airplane, that has the legs to fly 2/3 across the USA.