Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why E190 And Not E195?  
User currently offlineLogos From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 795 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 7406 times:

It seems that airlines are going for the E190 in much greater numbers than the E195. Considering that there are usually better economies to be found in the stretch version (and these are relatively small aircraft to begin with), I'm wondering why the scale has tipped so heavily toward the E190, particularly in North America (no customer as of yet, if I'm not mistaken).

The only things I can think of is that airlines are pretty sure they don't need the excess capacity and they're trying to keep the passenger count under 100 to avoid the additional flight attendant. Anyway, any more thoughtful input would be appreciated.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando


Too many types flown to list
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25999 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 7348 times:



Quoting Logos (Thread starter):
The only things I can think of is that airlines are pretty sure they don't need the excess capacity and they're trying to keep the passenger count under 100 to avoid the additional flight attendant.

For carriers like AC that operate their E-190s close to the limits of their range on many routes, the 190's longer range over the 195 (about 200 nm per the Embraer website) is probably another factor.


User currently offlineAirbuster From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 454 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 7331 times:



Quoting Logos (Thread starter):
The only things I can think of is that airlines are pretty sure they don't need the excess capacity and they're trying to keep the passenger count under 100 to avoid the additional flight attendant.

Don't know about other airlines, but the ones ordered bij KLM are going to have just over a 100 seats thus requiring the 3rd FA.

Interesting post though, i can't give you a direct answer for the question though maybe the 190 is a perfect replacement (capacity wise) for older 100 seat aircraft, the 195 lends moer towards the 737-600 and A318 with a higher capacity.

rgds

ab



FLY FOKKER JET LINE!
User currently offlineCM767 From Panama, joined Dec 2004, 655 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6811 times:

I believe range, was the reason CM chose the 190 over the 195.

CM will become legendary for squeezing the millage on small planes.



But The Best Thing God Has Created Is A New Day
User currently offlineLarSPL From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6670 times:



Quoting Airbuster (Reply 2):
Don't know about other airlines, but the ones ordered bij KLM are going to have just over a 100 seats thus requiring the 3rd FA.

Interesting post though, i can't give you a direct answer for the question though maybe the 190 is a perfect replacement (capacity wise) for older 100 seat aircraft, the 195 lends moer towards the 737-600 and A318 with a higher capacity.

No.
The KLM ones will have 100 seats. so only 2 FA's needed.
However, for pax convenience their will be 3.



facebook.com/ddaclassicairlines
User currently offline787KQ From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 549 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6319 times:

The question remains, why 190 over 195?

In most cases, its clearly not range: US Airways large fleet, Jet Blue's, etc. While there are a few flights that push the range limit, most would work well with 195's also.

Maybe not needing another flight attendant is what makes the difference.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6306 times:



Quoting 787KQ (Reply 5):

Maybe not needing another flight attendant is what makes the difference.

I'm at a loss for an answer, but I don't think this is it. Look at the CR7 versus the CR2.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineLogos From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6303 times:

Well, I don't feel so bad that I couldn't figure it out, either. Frankly, I would think the 195 would be an attractive addition to the fleet of many carriers who have a gap in the 100 seat category. It could seat nearly as many as a 73G or 319 with much lower operating costs (albeit without the range). Unlike the C-series, it's available today and has many of its teething problems behind it.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando



Too many types flown to list
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6271 times:

I tend to think it is a combination of these:

Quoting 787KQ (Reply 5):
Maybe not needing another flight attendant is what makes the difference.



Quoting Airbuster (Reply 2):
the 195 lends moer towards the 737-600 and A318 with a higher capacity.

The E190 is just the perfect size aircraft to replace existing 100 seaters, and as well the E190 offers even more than 100 seats if an airline really needs the extra 8 seats or so. Range is possibly a factor in some cases, but the vast majority of E190 operators currently don't use the E190s range advantage over the E195.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineOOer From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1507 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6182 times:

Its probably a combination of range, staffing req, and mainline scope clause!

User currently offlineEI A330-200 From Sweden, joined Apr 2001, 409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6164 times:



Quoting OOer (Reply 9):
mainline scope clause!

At least here in the US, this is most likely answer! I know we hear about it all the time with most of the majors on this side of the pond.



Long live Aer Lingus, the Flying Shamrock!
User currently offlineLogos From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6130 times:



Quoting OOer (Reply 9):
mainline scope clause!

I thought about that, but then US operates the E190 as mainline and I would assume that others would do the same with the E195. In that sense, either of these aircraft could be used to ease scope clause tensions as it gives some of that sort of flying back to mainline.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando



Too many types flown to list
User currently offlineImapilotaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6100 times:



Quoting OOer (Reply 9):
Quoting OOer (Reply 9):
mainline scope clause!

At least here in the US, this is most likely answer! I know we hear about it all the time with most of the majors on this side of the pond.

Not true at all. All 190s flown in the US are flown by "mainline" pilots. US Airways operates them mainline and JetBlue does as well.

I would point to who is buying these 190s. They are all mainline airlines that for the most part have aircraft that are in the 130-150 seat range. Do they really need to add a subfleet at 125 seats? Although the CASM may be lower on the 195 than the 190... it doesnt do you any good if you cant fill the 25% more seats in the market. ie, when you can carry 85 people from JFK-PWM, you would likely lose money flying a 125 seater at a 68% LF, while very likely making money with a 85% LF on a 100 seater.

Again, these aircraft are designed for thinner routes, and in many cases, if you could support a 125 seat aircraft, there is virtually no difference to jump up to a 737-300, A319, A320 or 737-700, etc, and all of these airlines already have the very costly infrastructure in place to support one or more of those fleet types.

Again, there is more to running an airline than DOC's (Direct Operating Costs), there is the entire support network from MX, Crew Training, Parts, Stations, etc. These costs can add up to millions more each year.


User currently offlineMKENut From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 699 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 6011 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
For carriers like AC that operate their E-190s close to the limits of their range on many routes, the 190's longer range over the 195 (about 200 nm per the Embraer website) is probably another factor.

I agree..... If Midwest decides to go all Embraer for their fleet, I think the E-190 for range would be the deciding factor


User currently offlineLogos From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5783 times:



Quoting Imapilotaz (Reply 12):
I would point to who is buying these 190s. They are all mainline airlines that for the most part have aircraft that are in the 130-150 seat range. Do they really need to add a subfleet at 125 seats? Although the CASM may be lower on the 195 than the 190... it doesnt do you any good if you cant fill the 25% more seats in the market. ie, when you can carry 85 people from JFK-PWM, you would likely lose money flying a 125 seater at a 68% LF, while very likely making money with a 85% LF on a 100 seater.

Again, these aircraft are designed for thinner routes, and in many cases, if you could support a 125 seat aircraft, there is virtually no difference to jump up to a 737-300, A319, A320 or 737-700, etc, and all of these airlines already have the very costly infrastructure in place to support one or more of those fleet types.

Again, there is more to running an airline than DOC's (Direct Operating Costs), there is the entire support network from MX, Crew Training, Parts, Stations, etc. These costs can add up to millions more each year.

This was essentially what I was saying when I listed their knowledge that they would not often enough fill the additional seats (about 10) to make it worth it. The additional infrastructure argument doesn't entirely wash because you'd have to establish an infrastructure whether it was the 190 or the 195 you chose.

It just seems odd to me that so many have leaned toward the 190. I could see a 195 filling in below a 319 or 73G nicely as it has the range to handle 80% (or more) of their missions, has 80% of their capacity, but probably 65% of their DOC's. It would be a good substitute for a lot of airlines.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando



Too many types flown to list
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5704 times:



Quoting Logos (Reply 14):
It just seems odd to me that so many have leaned toward the 190. I could see a 195 filling in below a 319 or 73G nicely as it has the range to handle 80% (or more) of their missions, has 80% of their capacity, but probably 65% of their DOC's. It would be a good substitute for a lot of airlines.

Certainly part of the reason that the 318 and the 736 are poor sellers is that they are heavy. I wonder if the 195's experience demonstrates that their absolute size is another reason-- maybe most airlines simply don't need an aircraft of that size.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineImapilotaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5621 times:



Quoting Logos (Reply 14):
It just seems odd to me that so many have leaned toward the 190. I could see a 195 filling in below a 319 or 73G nicely as it has the range to handle 80% (or more) of their missions, has 80% of their capacity, but probably 65% of their DOC's. It would be a good substitute for a lot of airlines.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando

The way US and WN have their 319 and 73Gs are seating roughly 137 pax. A 195 seats roughly 120-125 (depending on config)... these airlines already have invested tens of millions in infrastructure on their current fleets, and they would be virtually the same sized aircraft.

In case you didnt realize, thats why US and UA are completely removing their 737s, because they are virtually identical to their Airbus cousins, but those Airbus fleets are substantially larger and spread the fixed cost of operating a fleet across many more hulls. The last thing an airline needs is a aircraft 12 seats different from their workhorse just because it would be cool to have it in their fleet.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5580 times:



Quoting Imapilotaz (Reply 16):
In case you didnt realize, thats why US and UA are completely removing their 737s, because they are virtually identical to their Airbus cousins, but those Airbus fleets are substantially larger and spread the fixed cost of operating a fleet across many more hulls. The last thing an airline needs is a aircraft 12 seats different from their workhorse just because it would be cool to have it in their fleet.

How many does a UA 735 seat? I count 16 fewer seats than on the 319 and 36 seats fewer than on the 320. That's a far different animal than US' situation-- where the difference between the 733 (East) and the 319 is 2 seats and the difference between the 734 and the 320 is 6 seats. There may be an argument here about one carrier or the other, but UA and US are in vastly different situations vis a vis the 737 fleets.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineLogos From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 4 days ago) and read 5447 times:



Quoting Imapilotaz (Reply 16):
A 195 seats roughly 120-125 (depending on config)

Actually, that's not so. FlyBE has 118 all coach (31 inch pitch), which is about the limit. Embraer's website has the capacity at 108 with a 2 class configuration. As I said, this aircraft has about 80% of the capacity of a 319 or 73G, give or take.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando



Too many types flown to list
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why A330's And Not 777's! posted Sat Apr 22 2006 20:38:09 by American777
Why JAA And Not JAL To Taiwan? And Why Not Arabs? posted Thu Jul 29 2004 19:43:53 by Airmale
Boeing At Farnborough: Why A 747 And Not A 777 posted Mon Jul 26 2004 13:12:16 by Tolosy
Why Song And Not AirTran Codeshare? posted Tue Feb 18 2003 15:25:12 by Ciro
WHy DTW And Not MSP (NWA) posted Tue Oct 30 2001 01:01:23 by Zeus01
Why Dorval And Not Mirabel? posted Sat Mar 10 2001 11:33:43 by Lewis
Why KD And Not YC In Queensland? posted Sat May 27 2000 08:04:20 by Macair SAAB
Why Is Sawyer Intl Called MQT And Not SAW? posted Fri Mar 16 2007 04:08:27 by Katwspotter
Why Does LH Serve NCL From DUS And Not FRA? posted Mon Feb 12 2007 01:55:26 by 8herveg
Why All The 5191 Speculation And Not Others posted Thu Aug 31 2006 16:29:05 by Skibum9