caleb1
Topic Author
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:51 am

B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:57 am

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]
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4018
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:53 am

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
 
KDAYflyer
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:37 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:38 am

That doesn't sound like a great aircraft to me.
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 4475
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:23 am

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?
Next Flights: PDX-HNL-OGG-LIH-PDX On AS, WP & HA
 
redrooster3
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:35 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:25 am

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.
 
ghifty
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:12 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:17 am

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
 
AA737-823
Posts: 4906
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:29 am

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...
 
flyby519
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:28 am

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.
 
BOS2LAF
Posts: 353
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:21 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:20 pm

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.
 
xdlx
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:09 pm

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 7):

Never really understood why not A318
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14030
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:44 pm

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

Does EMB have programs in place to address this?
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 1751
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:45 pm

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 avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4987
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:03 pm

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]
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
xdlx
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:13 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 12):

chiken & egg scenario... if B6 would have order 100 A318.... they would not be closing the line would they?
 
VC10er
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:08 pm

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!
 
us330
Posts: 3413
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 7:00 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:16 pm

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 avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4987
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:27 pm

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.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4987
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:35 pm

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.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
spiritair97
Posts: 1191
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:28 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:43 pm

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?
 
FlyBTV
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:01 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 6:20 pm

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.
 
JBLUA320
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 8:51 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 6:39 pm

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]
 
nasula
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:20 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 6:43 pm

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
 
B6JFKH81
Posts: 1971
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:35 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:34 pm

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 avatar
mariner
Posts: 18263
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:45 pm

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
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:08 pm

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
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:10 pm

Quoting flyBTV (Reply 19):
I loved the 190s as a passenger, but I hated loading and unloading them.

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 love that silly little hook thing that you feel retarded using? I'm shocked.
This Website Censors Me
 
FI642
Posts: 992
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:48 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:18 am

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.
737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11868
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:45 pm

Quoting N766UA (Reply 24):
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?

   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 A318?

In a better way is why the E190

Empty weight E190: 28.08 tons
Empty weight A318: 39.5 tons

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 11):
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
Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 22):
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 bos2laf (Reply 8):
The E-jet family just wasn't built for the high utilization of an LCC like B6.

I wonder why you say that. The design is for high cycle utilization. The engines are the most bullet proof for high ulitization. The CASM issue is different than the design cycle. I believe a re-engined E190/E195 will have a good sales life. That is unless the MRJ is able to sufficiently prove its costs.

The issue is the smaller airframes really do not fit the LCC model. It isn't the E190s design capabilities, it is the design payload.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13227
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:29 pm

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 characteristics. I flew FLL-EWR on a B6 ERJ-190 back in April, it was a smooth flight but every so often the aircraft would start to roll (slightly) from one side to the next and then there would be a fishtail like movement before it subsided. Does anyone have any similar experiences in the ERJ-190?
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
NASBWI
Posts: 922
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:12 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:14 pm

Quoting FI642 (Reply 26):
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.

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 late is the afternoon departure to BOS. My opinion is that the flight coming down from BOS isn't blocked at enough time, and up until recently, that flight has also been scheduled with a 35 minute turn - including a crew swap (yowza!). With both the inbound and outbound flights being full, It's challenging in the best of scenarios, and then throw in a good summer/winter storm, and all bets are off. Also, with afternoon congestion in the airways between the mid-Atlantic and the northeast, ground delays tend to always grab the shorter flights.
Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
 
panais
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:09 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 27):
The issue is the smaller airframes really do not fit the LCC model. It isn't the E190s design capabilities, it is the design payload.

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 powerful engines?
 
KDAYflyer
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:37 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:31 pm

Quoting panais (Reply 30):
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 powerful engines?

Likewise for me as well. I would be interested in hearing the answer to these questions.
 
BOS2LAF
Posts: 353
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:21 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:29 am

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?
Quoting longhauler (Reply 16):
Current minimum planned turn times are 30 minutes for the 175 and 35 minutes for the 190.

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 Embraer mechanics to run diagnostics between each turn (based on what I was told). Speaking of minimum turn times, whats interesting is that B6 expects ground staff to turn the 190 in the same amount of time AC expects to turn a 175. 73 seats in 30 min versus 100 seats in 30 min. And before everyone tries saying AC is just less efficient than B6, I would be more inclined to say that AC is more realistic than B6 when it comes to turn times for the E190.

If an extra 5 minutes is so difficult for B6 to schedule in, they should probably re-evaluate just how tightly they run the fleet.

Quoting jblua320 (Reply 20):
Then what was it built for?? These planes are perfect for long thin routes as well as 'shuttle' ops like BOSDCA.

It was intended for that kind of usage, but my point was that the build quality is not where it should be for a plane intended for high-utilization and frequent cycles.

Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 22):
However, you need to remember that B6 operates the OLDEST ones flying and does fly the snot out of them.

   See my previous point. They beat the living crap out of these planes, and the E-jets just can't take the beating the same way a 737, or even a CRJ can (and don't take that as an endorsement of the CRJ either). Who knows, maybe Embraer will learn from mistakes and the re-engined E-jet will be a more mature design than the current generation.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11868
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:32 am

Quoting panais (Reply 30):
Do you mean that the E-190 is sized right, but the payload that it can carry is low? Does it need more powerful engines?

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 was *incredibly* excited when B6 ordered the E190 and I am a fan of the type. But the E190 is for the network model, not the P2P LCC model.

The E190 has well sized engines. Heck, the CF34s have amazingly low per cycle maintenance costs. The short field performance is adequate too. Better short field performance costs money in terms of putting on a larger wing that would burn more fuel in climb but less in cruise; in my opinion the E190 is at a good compromise point.

For a LCC, they require high aircraft utilization (spread out the monthly fixed costs) and low variable CASM per seat. The high utilization puts a premium on dispatch reliability; hence why the A320 and 737 have done extremely well in that market. Larger airframes will have lower CASM until there is a 'break point.' I put 'break point' in quotes as it is my term that implies one of the cost step functions: gate availability (wingspan), extended turn times, or a step in gauge (narrowbody to widebody or one deck to two). There is also an issue that it is 'cheaper' to extend the range of larger aircraft and that an LCC operating on short routes; while good for long routes, that is weight that doesn't belong on a shorter mission.

The E190 is light. That helps cut the costs per flight.

The E190 should do well with dispatch reliability, but if it still takes 20 minutes to reboot the aircraft, there will be issues. All of that software helps keep the plane functioning. But if the software is still a glitch...

But the E190 will always have a higher CASM is there is a "three for two" rule of scale in aircraft. By that, an aircraft with 3 times the passenger payload should cost twice as much per flight. Now, the 'cost step functions' take some back. e.g., a widebody adds a cost per passenger over a narrowbody. For the E190 to be competitive, it needs to be a bit larger to have the lower CASM. But then it wouldn't be the E190...

The other option is a 'step change' in technology. For example, the CFRP wing on the C-series.

I'm a fan of the E190 and C-series. But they are best in a network airline rather than a LCC airline. Now, there is no reason a network airline couldn't keep costs under control. But having a range of aircraft gauges requires a hub with the 'mixing and matching' of aircraft sizes can be rationalized to adjust for the demand changes on various routes. While B6 does this to a limited extent at BOS and JFK, it is a hybrid model that doesn't fully justify the type.

How could that change for B6? Simple, become a low cost structure networking airline! Ok, I know they connect, but B6 needs TATL connections at BOS and JFK to really benefit from networking passengers. They would also need more space at both airports.

This gets into that discussion of what is truly the LCC model... We could have a drink and discuss, for this isn't a topic any of us here on a.net agree upon.  

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
panais
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:05 am

Many thanks for the response.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 33):
For the E190 to be competitive, it needs to be a bit larger to have the lower CASM. But then it wouldn't be the E190...

Isn't this the E195?
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:09 am

Quoting panais (Reply 34):
Isn't this the E195?

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 your pick.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:23 am

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...
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11868
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:53 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 36):
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...

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 E190 is a great plane.

They also have the 20 minutes to reboot the plane a few times per day.   LCCs do not budget in that amount of gate time.   

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:23 pm

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 6):
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.

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 are not far behind, their fleet is about the same size as the ERJs and E-jets.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
CRJ900
Posts: 1945
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:18 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 33):
But the E190 is for the network model, not the P2P LCC model.

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 guess that is not an option for B6 and other US carriers...
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
steex
Posts: 1331
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:45 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:31 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 23):
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.

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 more profitable plane for a given flight where an airline expects it will fill fewer seats than the E90 has. In your scenario, 99 pax on an E190 would be profitable, whereas that many pax put onto an A320 would only be around a 60% LF and lose money.

I realize that's overly simplistic, but it more or less demonstrates why the E190 exists in the B6 fleet.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18263
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:45 pm

Quoting steex (Reply 40):
I realize that's overly simplistic, but it more or less demonstrates why the E190 exists in the B6 fleet.

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, somewhat higher:

Quoting mariner (Reply 23):
Obviously, this improves if an airline, any legacy, say, or probably JetBlue, can charge any kind of premium on the fares

At the same time, JetBlue has also said that the costs of the E190 are slightly higher than the A320, so I also understand why their E190 fleet is not expanding.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
xdlx
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

RE: B6 And The E190: Still Teething Problems?

Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:52 pm

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 18):

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, rotables, equipment ....etc should offset the CASM. However no one accounts for that .... The benefits of "family fleet" gets lost in the argument.

Who is online