Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?  
User currently offlinecaleb1 From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 353 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14333 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I read on the forum about a year ago that B6 was still experiencing some reliability and dispatch issues with the E190. Just wondering if this is still the case, or are these problems mostly a thing of the past. The 190 is one of my favorite aircraft and I hope any difficulties, whether perceived or actual, that jetBlue had with this plane have been resolved. Any info?

[Edited 2012-08-18 17:57:53]

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3377 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 14053 times:

The plane is a dog.

C and D checks are expensive

Reliability is spotty at best

Seat mile costs are higher than an 320 737 sized aircraft

There's a reason the 190 niche market is so small


User currently offlineKDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 13926 times:

That doesn't sound like a great aircraft to me.

User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3114 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13708 times:

Isn't this the same plane that California Pacific aspires to? If this plane is as jfklganyc describes it, why would a carrier want to operate such a plane? Is this the best in it's category, or are there other contenders that may be better suited for B6's needs?


AA-AC-AQ-AS-BN-BD-CO-CS-DL-EA-EZ-HA-HP-KL-KN-MP-MW-NK-NW-OO-OZ-PA-PS-QX-RC-RH-RW-SA-TG-TW-UA-US-VS-WA-WC-WN
User currently offlineredrooster3 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 229 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13472 times:

The E190 will continue to be a key plane for new route openings. They did cancel their top up order of 100 E190's to only 75. But B6 sees better growth using the A320/321, and the neo.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 3):
Isn't this the same plane that California Pacific aspires to?

They will be using the E170. Which is the perfect plane for what short runway they will be taking off from.



The only thing you should change about a woman is her last name.
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12962 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sounds like the Sukhoi SuperJet..

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 3):
If this plane is as jfklganyc describes it, why would a carrier want to operate such a plane?

Because it still has it's own niche. Also, B6 placed the original 100 frames, +100 options, E-190 order in June of 2003 (that order has since been reduced). E-Jets didn't enter commercial service until '04, so the issues jfklganyc brought up wouldn't have been realised until considerably after..

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 3):
Isn't this the same plane that California Pacific aspires to?

Nope, I think that was just a hypothetical RFP.

Quoting redrooster3 (Reply 4):
Which is the perfect plane for what short runway they will be taking off from.

AFAIK, the E-190 with it's bigger wing can takeoff from CLD as well.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12903 times:

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 3):
If this plane is as jfklganyc describes it,

I don't know whether it's as bad as he describes it or not, but I do know that I check avherald.com daily. And the E-Jets do seem to have a disproportionate number of flap issues inflight. Granted, you also see a lot of 737s with flap issues.. but there are SIX THOUSAND of those airplanes around, compared to far fewer ERJ-170/190 series.
The CRJ's don't seem too far behind, I'm afraid...


User currently offlineflyby519 From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 1124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12557 times:

Jfklganyc speaks the truth, I've heard these same points directly from the VP of maintenance while I was at the schoolhouse for training.

I say we replace them all with A319s, save on training and maintenance costs!  Smile

[Edited 2012-08-19 04:33:21]


These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
User currently offlinebos2laf From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 374 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 11775 times:

Quoting redrooster3 (Reply 4):
They did cancel their top up order of 100 E190's to only 75.

IIRC, they didn't cancel any orders per se, they're just selling off some of the aircraft. I could be mistaken though.

Also look at AC who let all their options for the E-jets lapse back around 2008/2009, well before the arbitrator threw ACPA's scope clause out the window. The teething problems at AC were so bad that the minimum turn time had to be increased to 50-55 minutes from what some of my former coworkers have told me. The 175 is normally a 30-minute turn.

The E-jet family just wasn't built for the high utilization of an LCC like B6.

From a passenger perspective, it's a great plane. 2x2 seating, large windows, and decent sized overhead bins for an aircraft that for all intents and purposes is a regional jet.

From a reliability perspective, its atrocious.

If B6 really really wants to have a 100-seater in the fleet, they might be wise to evaluate the CS100 as a replacement for the 190s.


User currently offlinexdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 631 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10871 times:

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 7):

Never really understood why not A318


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12333 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10503 times:

Quoting bos2laf (Reply 8):
From a reliability perspective, its atrocious.

Does EMB have programs in place to address this?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10504 times:

Once the C-series launches and proves it self, I see bombardier will began a marketing campaign focusing on customers who arent to happy with the performance of their e190s to include jetblue and try an convince them to dump their e190/195 for their cs100. I feel we will see several airlines jumpship including jetblue

User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4912 posts, RR: 43
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10353 times:

Most aircraft are a goat-show at best when introduced. I recall the A320 when introduced ... it was about the same as the Ejets, but added that there were also three very high profile crashes, and rumours of "the computers took over the aircraft" and it was all we could due to keep passengers on the airplane every time we had a mechanical delay. Which, like the EJets, was quite common!

About a year ago, I recall reading a maintenance revue, and it showed that (at AC) the E175/190 had a dispatch reliability rate about the same as the A320 series. So it would appear that like the A320, things eventually settled down.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 1):
Seat mile costs are higher than an 320 737 sized aircraft

That would make sense.

It is very very rare for a smaller aircraft to even equal a larger aircraft at seat mile costs. Seat mile costs of the A319 are higher than the A320, which are higher than the A321, etc etc etc. That being said though, AC announced a while back, that the E190 seat mile costs are "about the same" as the A320. Likely due to lower pilot wages and low initial purchase price.

What the E190 does offer though with respect to cost, is lower total cost for the trip. So ... if you were only going to sell say 90 seats anyway ... the per seat cost of those 90 passengers would be less than an A320.

Quoting xdlx (Reply 9):
Never really understood why not A318

The fact that current A320 series airlines are scrapping their A318s should be a good indication.

[Edited 2012-08-19 09:11:05]


Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinexdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 631 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10257 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 12):

chiken & egg scenario... if B6 would have order 100 A318.... they would not be closing the line would they?


User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2862 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Doesn't the whole E170-195 have a very good safty record? I am on them all the time.


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3866 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9750 times:

Quoting bos2laf (Reply 8):
The teething problems at AC were so bad that the minimum turn time had to be increased to 50-55 minutes from what some of my former coworkers have told me. The 175 is normally a 30-minute turn.

Apologies for my seeming ignorance, but why is the 175 more reliable than the 190 when they are essentially the same aircraft--only the 190 has a lengthened fuselage?


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4912 posts, RR: 43
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9665 times:

Quoting bos2laf (Reply 8):
The teething problems at AC were so bad that the minimum turn time had to be increased to 50-55 minutes from what some of my former coworkers have told me. The 175 is normally a 30-minute turn.

Current minimum planned turn times are 30 minutes for the 175 and 35 minutes for the 190.

Quoting us330 (Reply 15):
Apologies for my seeming ignorance, but why is the 175 more reliable than the 190 when they are essentially the same aircraft--only the 190 has a lengthened fuselage?

The 190 requires a longer turn mostly due to baggage loading and unloading. I hear it is very cumbersome.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4912 posts, RR: 43
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9582 times:

Quoting xdlx (Reply 13):
chiken & egg scenario... if B6 would have order 100 A318.... they would not be closing the line would they?

Or more that there is a reason very few ordered them. The economics just weren't there.

Look at Frontier, a low cost A320 series airline. If any airline could make them economical, they would. And as we know, Frontier's A318s are not just being retired, they are being scrapped ... no one wants them, even current A318 operators.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9500 times:

Quoting xdlx (Reply 9):
Never really understood why not A318

The a318 is the same plane as the a319/320, but with a shorter fuselage. By same plane I mean same fuel,same engines, same maintenance. Due to its shorter fuselage, like the 737-600, it has a much higher CASM then the larger a320 variants. They are able to sell less seatys on the plane, increasing their overhead. The only way B6 could have made the a318 profitable for what they do is charge ludacris prices to cover the overhead costs. It seems that the only airline that has found the right niche for the a318 is BA with the all business TATL flights.

Personally, I never want the E190 to stop flying. It is the most beautiful plane in the skies, but airlines need to make money. And it seems that is becoming harder with the E190.

On a side note, how is AM doing with their E-Jets?


User currently offlineflyBTV From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9187 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting longhauler (Reply 16):
The 190 requires a longer turn mostly due to baggage loading and unloading. I hear it is very cumbersome.

Tell me about it. Back when I was in college, I worked the ramp for B6. I loved the 190s as a passenger, but I hated loading and unloading them. The 190 has two long, narrow bins, which provide minimal space for maneuvering around and make it nearly impossible for more than one person to climb into the bin until a number of bags have been removed. With the 320, I was able to work fairly efficiently, mostly from a crouched position. With the 190, being on one's hands and knees was the only thing possible. Additionally, there were anti-slip mats on the bottom of the bins (these may have since been removed, there was talk of it when I was still there). The mats prevented one from sliding the bags down the bin (which was very necessary given how long and narrow the bins were) and generally slowed the whole process down.

Essentially, the rear bins in the 320 have the door in the middle of the bins, so one can load bags on both sides of the door (thus reducing the distance one must move the bag to get it to the belt). The 190's doors are at the end of the bin, increasing the amount of distance each bag must be moved to get it off the aircraft.


User currently offlinejblua320 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3179 posts, RR: 19
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9035 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bos2laf (Reply 8):
The E-jet family just wasn't built for the high utilization of an LCC like B6.

Then what was it built for?? These planes are perfect for long thin routes as well as 'shuttle' ops like BOSDCA. If you want to talk about an airplane not being used for what it was originally built to do, just look at the A320 ops for us as well as UA and VX!

Quoting xdlx (Reply 9):
Never really understood why not A318

Too heavy, poor economics.


--

As a flight attendant at B6, I can say that I strongly prefer working the E190 to the A320. The plane has its quirks - but from a dispatch reliability perspective, while it may not be as good as the Airbus, it's pretty solid. There are quite a few MX related challenges which stem mainly from little indication faults and other items involving the computers/electrics. Often, a reset of the airplane (which takes ~20 minutes) tends to fix it. The airplane seems to age faster than some of its competitors, especially from a cosmetic perspective, but don't forget that it has state of the art avionics including a really neat HUD for the pilots.

The one thing about the E190 that I have noticed consistently is that it doesn't really like cold weather. If you take one in February that's been sitting overnight in BTV out for its fleet launch to JFK, you might have a few issues that need to be sorted out, again usually coming back to the computers.

In my experience, the E190 has a higher rate of "silly" things that take 30-60 minutes to fix. The Airbus almost never breaks... but good Lord when the Airbus does break, it really breaks!! I fly the 190 almost exclusively and have found it's an easier airplane to manage in the cabin. No middle seat somehow makes for less drama, I suppose! Customers really love the airplane, too. Big windows, big seats and large overhead bins. It's really a great airplane and while we won't take as many as we thought we once would, they serve a perfect niche in our fleet and I hope they stay with us for a long time!

[Edited 2012-08-19 11:41:52]

User currently offlinenasula From Finland, joined Sep 2010, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8985 times:

Quoting xdlx (Reply 9):

One reason for preferring the E-190 could be landing weight. I remember an article about the E-190s, when Finnair got them. They stated something in the lines, that since the landing weight is much lower, it saves a lot of money per landing as the prices per landing are based on the weight of the airframe and not the amount of passengers.

So for routes, where the capacity of an A319/320/321 is not needed, the lower weight of the E-190 saves not only fuel, but money per landing. If I remember the article correctly, it was not chump change. It seems to be a reasonably popular plane in Europe.

One of the teething problems Finnair had was freezing of doors etc. during winter conditions. Finnair together with Embraer did solve those issues (at least that's what the public is lead to believe).

Regs, Jarkko


User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2872 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8557 times:

This topic seems to get brought up every few months in some way, shape or form. But to answer the OP's question, they really aren't "teething" issues anymore as the plane has been in service for nearly 7 years now. However, you need to remember that B6 operates the OLDEST ones flying and does fly the snot out of them. As new issues arise with certain components as the cycles and hours on the aircraft get higher up there, B6 is most likely going to be the first to start experiencing the issue.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 14):
Doesn't the whole E170-195 have a very good safty record? I am on them all the time.

Safety and reliability are two different things. Just because a component fails or experiences technical glitches doesn't mean the aircraft isn't safe (there are a few exceptions obviously) because redundancy is built into the aircraft and its systems. If something fails and it falls outside the MEL limits, the plane doesn't go.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):
Does EMB have programs in place to address this?

Yes, of course. The airlines, aircraft manufacturers and OEMs work very closely once a pattern starts to show and things are put into motion to rectify it, normally though an EO or SB, unless it gets all the way up to an AD.

Quoting us330 (Reply 15):
Apologies for my seeming ignorance, but why is the 175 more reliable than the 190 when they are essentially the same aircraft--only the 190 has a lengthened fuselage?

It's been flying longer and has more commonality with the 170 which was flying longer than the 175. While there are certain commonalities between the 175 and 190, there were plenty of differences especially when you look at "what makes the plane tic" as quite a few internal components were designed to support specifically the larger aircraft (190/195) and its engine variant. Also, the 190 series has different wings than the 170 series so its not just making the fuselage longer, and that comes with a lot of changes too.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 12):
About a year ago, I recall reading a maintenance revue, and it showed that (at AC) the E175/190 had a dispatch reliability rate about the same as the A320 series. So it would appear that like the A320, things eventually settled down.

It comes and goes. B6 has also had its E190s match and exceed the dispatch reliability of the A320s. BUT, the issue is when you have so many aircraft deliveries right next to each other, you will have a bunch of planes around the same age, hours and cycles. If there is something that goes wrong with a component right around a certain number of hours or cycles, it'll hit like a ton of bricks and tank the reliability for that fleet for a little while. The peak and valley scenario has leveled out significantly though.

One thing that everyone has to remember is that right now, all airlines are flying their fleets to the max. This is the high season. That more flights, more hours, more cycles, more people beating it up, less rest time, and less spare aircraft. You'll typically see more minor technical glitches right now because everyone is beating the crap out of their planes to make their big summer profits before going into the low season.

Hope that helps answer most of the questions. I'm tired and it's my day off so I'm getting back to some down time. Enjoy the rest of your weekend all.

~H81



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24998 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8451 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bos2laf (Reply 8):
The E-jet family just wasn't built for the high utilization of an LCC like B6.

  

About the middle of last year, Republic did an analysis of the various aircraft in their fleet. Using oil at about $110 a barrel and Frontier's average fares, the break even load factor of the E190 came in at about 95%.

Obviously, this improves if an airline, any legacy, say, or probably JetBlue, can charge any kind of premium on the fares - or if the airline is fuel hedged to the positive - but as a comparison, the break even load factor of the A320 came in at 82%.

This is why the E190's flying for Frontier are gone or going, back to contract work.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8193 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8219 times:

Quoting xdlx (Reply 9):
Never really understood why not A318

Because it's a ridiculous airplane. It has the same economics as an A319/320, so why not just fly an A319/320? Whether or not you fill the extra seats doesn't matter, it costs the same, and at the very least they're there if you need them!



This Website Censors Me
25 N766UA : You mean you DIDN'T like smashing your head constantly on those little cages around the fire suppression system and interior lights? And you DIDN'T l
26 FI642 : B6 is always late from my city where all they operate the E190. It's a real shame. What should be a great bird for them really isn't.
27 Post contains images lightsaber : Allegiant bought A319s as the resale value has dropped more than the a320. Why? The cost to fly an A319/A320 is about the same. So why consider the A
28 STT757 : I started a thread back in April or May but I can't seem to find it. I was questioning whether the ERJ-190 had some quirks with it's flight characteri
29 NASBWI : I'm guessing that the city you're referring to is the same city I commute from *wink*. The only flight I've noticed to leave somewhat consistently la
30 panais : Can you please expand more on this statement? Do you mean that the E-190 is sized right, but the payload that it can carry is low? Does it need more
31 KDAYflyer : Likewise for me as well. I would be interested in hearing the answer to these questions.
32 Post contains images bos2laf : Correct. I should have clarified that the longer turn times were only during the initial teething problems with both the 190 and 175 at AC to allow E
33 Post contains images lightsaber : I mean that the payload per mission is too low. In other words, for the LCC model, it is just too small of a plane. It pains me to write this as I wa
34 panais : Many thanks for the response. Isn't this the E195?
35 bjorn14 : Yeah but then we're talking about the same payload as a 319 and roughly have the range. But then again the 319 is roughly double the price. So take y
36 Burkhard : Lufthansa currently operates 27 E190/E195 - there are not many complaints afaik. In september 2011 they ordered another 5 no signs of a real dog...
37 Post contains images lightsaber : LH will have more down time for the E190. For a network carrier, with the higher CASM afforded by being a 'one stop shop' for all destinations, the E
38 PPVRA : Having a huge fleet like the 737 and 320 have is going to justify certain added investments that a smaller fleet won't. No surprise you said the CRJs
39 CRJ900 : Austrian LCC FlyNiki has 112 seats in their E190 and is apparently doing well. European carriers also cram in 118-122 seats in their E195s. But I gue
40 steex : That all makes sense, but there is a sizable gap in seat count between the two. While 95% is obviously hard to accomplish, the E190 is going to be a
41 mariner : I fully understand why JeBlue has the E190. As I said, the survey was made using Frontier's average fare - and JetBlue's average fares are, generally
42 xdlx : Part of the problem on metrics is that you can focus on so many variables. The CASM is higher compared to the E-JET, but the savings on crew training
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...
Piedmont And PSA Still Flying? posted Sun Jul 22 2012 15:24:53 by olddominion727
B6 And LH Flights Hit Heavy Turbulence posted Sun Oct 2 2011 20:07:12 by EI2KSEA
B6 And Other Airbus Types posted Fri Nov 26 2010 14:10:07 by caleb1
B6 And The Use Of Pesticides On A/C posted Sat Aug 7 2010 16:19:06 by ADiZzy
BR B-16715 And B-16716 Still At PAE? posted Mon Feb 15 2010 01:26:01 by The777Man
DHS And FAA Still Not Sharing Information posted Wed Aug 19 2009 03:49:44 by CALRAMPER
NW DC9 N8920E And N8921E Still Active? posted Fri Feb 6 2009 19:59:47 by CodyKDiamond
B6 And Pit posted Thu Aug 21 2008 17:20:23 by Bmg42000
B6 And FLL posted Sun Jun 15 2008 18:20:17 by Njdevilsin03
DOT Fines B6 And HA For Not Providing On Time Info posted Tue Oct 9 2007 08:18:35 by ThirteenRight