Jetsouth
Topic Author
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 12:59 pm

Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:59 pm

Forgive me if this topic has already been discussed, I cannot find any similar topics upon searching this site, but why are so many airlines getting rid of their E190's on a premature basis? Air Canada is phasing out theirs, JetBlue seems unhappy with theirs. Any China Southern is considering getting rid of theirs and replacing them with the CSeries.

Is there a fundamental problem with the E 190 that causes so many airlines to get rid of their E 190 fleets early?
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3105
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:05 pm

It just appears that they just don't work well in some fleets.

Anecdotally, it appears that their are some maintenance issues (higher costs) and also trip costs that are not too dissimilar to A320 and 737 fleets.

To some airlines the benefits of operating the model just aren't there anymore and they have moved on.
 
GianiDC
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 6:30 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:07 pm

As far as I understand E190s are notoriously expensive to operate and maintain, simply put.
 
N757ST
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:19 pm

Extremely high costs for C and D checks, and engine mx costs.
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:23 pm

N757ST wrote:
Extremely high costs for C and D checks, and engine mx costs.


I would be interested in knowing why the costs are so much higher for this particular aircraft.
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1216
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:23 pm

You can put AU and UX on the list as well
 
User avatar
FlyRow
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:05 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:24 pm

And still some airlines can't seem to get enough of them, like KLM. What makes them different?
F70-F100-RJ85-RJ70-E190-319-320-321-733-734-735-737-738-752-753-763-764-772-744-380
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8174
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:40 pm

Both JetBlue and AC have some of the earliest built E190s around. This size aircraft is also a tough market in North America - it's above scope clauses so the regionals can't fly them, but the aircraft is also a bit small for the labor rates the major airlines pay.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
a320fan
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:04 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:44 pm

FlyRow wrote:
And still some airlines can't seem to get enough of them, like KLM. What makes them different?

KLM operate them through their regional affiliate, so I expect operating costs would be significantly reduced.

Add Virgin Australia as another phasing out their E-190 fleet. Their oldest will only just be nearing 10 years.
A319, A320, A321, A330-200, A380, 737-700, 737-800, 777-200ER, 777-300, 777-300ER, 787-8, Q300
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:35 pm

Maintenance costs and general reliability are quite convincing reasons why they would want to retire the E190 especially when you consider that the E190 E2 is far more than just a re-engine and close to a full reinvention of the E190. Of course, one of the main culprits for maintenance trouble on the 190 is the CF34-10E engines which are largely seen as a mediocre product compared to the smaller CF34s, the E170 is free if this issue.

Size might mean something too for some airlines. And example of this is Air Canada straight up replacing them with the significantly larger CS300.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1216
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:41 pm

767333ER wrote:
Size might mean something too for some airlines. And example of this is Air Canada straight up replacing them with the significantly larger CS300.


And UX going to B738 straight away!
 
NZ321
Posts: 978
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:41 pm

This is an indictment on Embraer. South young aircraft being retired and the mx costs not having been adequately factored in.
Plane mad!
 
Wayfarer515
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:54 pm

NZ321 wrote:
This is an indictment on Embraer. South young aircraft being retired and the mx costs not having been adequately factored in.


Also add AV and CM into the list, they are sick anf tired of them.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9238
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:02 pm

ILNFlyer wrote:
N757ST wrote:
Extremely high costs for C and D checks, and engine mx costs.


I would be interested in knowing why the costs are so much higher for this particular aircraft.


There is a relatively small population of CF34-10E engines. Poor economies of scale.

Edit: typo.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
AAvgeek744
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:08 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:04 pm

I'm curious to see what will happen with the E2-195. It's pax capacity is getting close to the 319, 73G, and C-series. If early customers find the same issues, it's could spell trouble.
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2752
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:08 pm

(E)verything
(M)echanically
(B)roken
(R)equires
(A)n
(E)lectrical
(R)estart

I know up here in Canada, the jungle jets didn't like the winters too much at the beginning. Initial issues were corrected with modifications, mostly software related.

At one point the crews had fondly re-designated the E170/190s as the E180.

That is....taxi from the gate to runway, only to have to do a 180 degree turn and return to the gate !

Article about JetBlue's discontent back in 2013.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... -190-costs
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
 
PI4EVER
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 10:29 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:12 pm

AA is phasing out the 20 E-190's inherited w/the US merger. A319's an easy replacement.
Expensive to operate as a mainline aircraft w/crew costs, dispatch reliability and maintenance burden.
Originally designed as an ideal aircraft to operate the DCA-LGA-BOS shuttle routes w/a one class configuration, hence the US order for only 20 aircraft.
A passenger and customer friendly airplane, but operationally not up to par with other airline fleets of Airbus's and Boeing's.
I believe B6's concept was to use the E190 to open new markets and as they grew move to the A320.
watch what you want. you may get it.
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:57 pm

The Ejets are not cheap to buy, maintain nor operate. They re quite heavy compared to the pax capacity.
The backlog is small and the E2 has only Skywest as a sure customer, and even that i doubt when Skywest starts receiving MRJ's.
 
Antarius
Posts: 1032
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:08 pm

Article sums up many of the issues as felt by B6
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rn-435199/
2018: AUA CLT IAH HOU DFW COS DEN CLL ORD PEK PVG PHX SFO SJC OAK PHL YYC STL DTW HNL OGG JFK LGA EWR GIG GRU IGU CWB SDU MDW BOS IAD DCA PBI FLL MIA
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:29 pm

ive said it before and i'll say it again, the e190 is a superior plane as far as crew and customer comfort. They can be turned far quicker then a 320/21 too. I dearly hope the manufacturer will give JetBlue a wildly good deal to stick with the e190. The e190 can open up whole regions to new JetBlue expansion that would not be worth it with a 162 seat 320 that requires 4 FAs vs. just 2 for the e190.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1711
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:34 pm

Doesn't have the dispatch reliability of it's Airbus/Boeing/CRJ counterparts.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
User avatar
knope2001
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:54 pm

1. Are the maintenance and reliability issues notably worse for the E190 than the E175? The E175 is rather popular, though the good ol' scope clause might be making a star out of an aircraft which would otherwise be unremarkable.

2.Are E195 economics decent and the E190 is essentially a shrink of an economically-respectable E195?
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2293
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:17 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
ILNFlyer wrote:
N757ST wrote:
Extremely high costs for C and D checks, and engine mx costs.


I would be interested in knowing why the costs are so much higher for this particular aircraft.


There is a relatively small population of CF34-10E engines. Poor economies of scale.


The GE CF34-10E was seen as a great engine because it was derived from the CFM56 engine, which has been an amazing engine, so funny that it has been costly and finicky. Is it too advanced for being a small engine?

Embraer must have sold around 2,000 E-jets, but the E2 versions are selling very poorly. I have read comments from E195 operators that the E195 is tail-heavy due to its length. This will probably become worse with the E195-E2 which is even longer, like a mini-version of the DC-8-63.
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:24 pm

I am honestly curious what direction B6 is going to take with the E190's. IMHO either they are going to order E2's due to price and familiarity with flying them/maintenance or they are going after the C-Series, whether that is a current type or a future type Bombardier hasn't released yet. I know many B6 employees would love the C-Series but see them sticking with the E2 due to Embraer wanting to keep B6 as a customer.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
787kq
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:52 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:22 pm

Antarius wrote:
Article sums up many of the issues as felt by B6
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rn-435199/


Thanks for the link. “We look at the E190 issue not as a CASM issue, but a return issue.” What does that mean? If the cost per available seat mile is good, that is a good thing. How is return affected?
 
Antarius
Posts: 1032
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:38 pm

787kq wrote:
Antarius wrote:
Article sums up many of the issues as felt by B6
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rn-435199/


Thanks for the link. “We look at the E190 issue not as a CASM issue, but a return issue.” What does that mean? If the cost per available seat mile is good, that is a good thing. How is return affected?


My understanding is that the overall return isn't as they expect. Meaning the total capital cost + operating cost is too high relative to the income. What that says to me is the aircraft might be too small or too expensive for how small it is, reducing their rate of return.
2018: AUA CLT IAH HOU DFW COS DEN CLL ORD PEK PVG PHX SFO SJC OAK PHL YYC STL DTW HNL OGG JFK LGA EWR GIG GRU IGU CWB SDU MDW BOS IAD DCA PBI FLL MIA
 
ScottB
Posts: 6362
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:49 pm

CRJ900 wrote:
but the E2 versions are selling very poorly.


The issue for the E2 in the U.S. is legacy carrier scope. The E175-E2 is heavier than the limits for outsourcing to regional carriers as prescribed in the legacy carriers' contracts with their pilots. The E190-E2 and E195-E2 likely don't offer enough of an operating cost advantage up against A320/737 family aircraft when the costs of mainline crews come into play along with the revenue potentially foregone by using the smaller aircraft.
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:37 pm

From time to time someone opens up a topic here wondering why airlines are getting rid of their Embraer E190 / 195 fleets.
And the answers are always the same: costly expensive operation and maintenance, expensive C / D checks, dispatch problems, maintenance costs for GE turbines and such, the fame of the aircraft being "E180" due to software problems and there it goes ...
There is a respectable fleet of 726 aircraft of the E190 / 195 models built. Of these, 92% or 666 remain in operation (source: http://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-e190.htm).
There is also a backlog of 124 aircraft to be delivered (source: http://ri.embraer.com.br/listresultados ... bNAc2ESQ==), totaling a respectable number of 850 aircraft only for the E190 / 195 models.
The E-Jets fleet has more than 70 million hours flown by more than 70 operators worldwide in the last 13 years since the start of its operation. The index of dispatch of this fleet reached respectable 99,62% (source: https://www.journal-aviation.com/en/new ... es-support).
The numbers speak for themselves.
It is only natural that airline fleets adjust throughout their operations. Just as it is natural for some models to leave fleets, as in the case of Virgin Australia, while others add more models to it, such as the orders made by KLM, J-Air and Belavia at the recent Le Bourget aerospace show.
It is known by everyone here that each aircraft is designed for a specific market and with typical costs of that operation.If at any given time, as it was with JetBlue, the market requires that type of aircraft, it may be that in the future it no longer meets the needs and costs for that market that has evolved and grew and whose aircraft has become small and costly for it.
But, contrary to what they try to affirm here, little or almost nothing has to do with the aircraft itself ...
Embraer has a respectable support network and its aircraft a respectable safety index.
And orders continue to come, slowly I must admit, but always attesting to the quality of the Embraer product.
Greetings from Brazil to everyone ...
 
User avatar
Rajahdhani
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:45 pm

Also, as essentially Regional Jets - wouldn't most older E190s have high cycles on them?

I mean this may contribute to the logic that if there were not significantly good economies of scale (and/or facilities to do so) that it would create higher (than better available Boeing, Airbus, and perhaps Bombardier facilities/certified mechanics et al) C and D check costs.

For an LCC - the increased cost, to the airline not only diminishes their key advantages against competitors (and increases pressure on the aircraft/fleet and routes served) but is further complicated by reliability issues (due to the bottleneck created by Embraer's supposed limited support network) but also then increasingly dulls the shine of the 'mainline' fleet with their common crew core. Specifically for B6 - their understanding of it is that there are perhaps simply one too many, a complication for it to work against their capabilities of the A320/A321/A321Mint capabilities. Hell, I could well see why A319s might indeed be appetizing as it would rid the entire exercise of a mixed fleet.

B6, though chose another tactic that perhaps best demands the issue of 'returns'; do we even need these markets (where the E190 is even necessary at all?)?
Considering all the trends in the markets, in the past decade;
- Consolidation of most major players in the nation, thus creating the recent 'up-gauging' trend, and not only an increase in demand for, but a matched increase in capabilities of; larger aircraft.
- B6's expansion not only into the Caribbean, Central and South America; but also their expanded use of the range (and upcoming benefits of the NEO).
- B6's consolidation towards core markets and providing greater network access as an interline/code-sharing partner, focus on their hubs, and product specification (such as Mint) towards 'premium', not lower costing products/demands.
- B6's benefit of crew costs and allocation, providing a significant cost (and operational flexibility) advantage to the A32X family.
- A general trend, noting the examples of key market competitors (such as WN, or AS - who have both consolidate their operations, and reaped the benefits of no longer needing to work with smaller airports and/or a smaller 'contentment level' with specific routes, markets and yields) - and can either be viewed as a contributing, or combining - concurrent trend with the 'up-gauging effect.

All in all, B6 may have rightly assumed that the 'return' of maintaining the higher costs of the E190, and the crew complications/costs - amid a less dependable, or capable supply chain of support - was not worth it, especially when it was a 'niche' to serve not only what their A32Xs operations had now 'grown' to handle quite well, at better costs - but also, that perhaps B6 were no longer in that mode of growth, where they needed those capabilities/at that cost anymore. As far as B6 might be concerned, there may not be the markets needed for those E190s to serve exclusively anymore.
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:51 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
Doesn't have the dispatch reliability of it's Airbus/Boeing/CRJ counterparts.

Source ??? Or it´s just your personal assertion ???
 
User avatar
n797mx
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:40 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:59 pm

CRJ900 wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
ILNFlyer wrote:

I would be interested in knowing why the costs are so much higher for this particular aircraft.


There is a relatively small population of CF34-10E engines. Poor economies of scale.


The GE CF34-10E was seen as a great engine because it was derived from the CFM56 engine, which has been an amazing engine, so funny that it has been costly and finicky. Is it too advanced for being a small engine?

The CF34-10 series took two great and well proven engines and mixed the worst elements about them.

You got a heavier engine with a lower thrust to weight ratio than the predecessor CF34 while making it radically different by introducing CFM56 elements.
Clear skies and strong tail winds.
 
tofur
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:51 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:08 pm

CobaltScar wrote:
ive said it before and i'll say it again, the e190 is a superior plane as far as crew and customer comfort. They can be turned far quicker then a 320/21 too. I dearly hope the manufacturer will give JetBlue a wildly good deal to stick with the e190. The e190 can open up whole regions to new JetBlue expansion that would not be worth it with a 162 seat 320 that requires 4 FAs vs. just 2 for the e190.


Yes, the E190 seat is comfortable for passengers. There are a few problems though. The overhead bins are tiny and there are always huge cabin baggage issues on the E190 flights. If the flight is long haul, the complaints become more frequent. The J flight attendant has an extended service to provide which the Y flight attendant has to cook and transfer to J, no oven up front at least on our E190, while the Y flight attendant has 88 passengers to deal with on their own until the J flight attendant finishes their service. I completely understand the complaints from Y class.

From an in flight perspective, the aircraft arming/disarming procedures are ridiculously archaic. It is the most disliked aircraft among cabin crew at my airline. It is on my avoid list on my bid sheet, thankfully I can avoid it. I flew the aircraft 9 times and lost a finger nail on 3 separate occasions due to the arming/disarming procedures. The mechanisms are far too stiff. I followed all sop's, it is a quite frequent occurrence according to our company/union health and safety reports. The E190 cannot leave the fleet fast enough! I wish I could like the E190 but there are far too many negatives to make that a possibility.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 4460
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:10 pm

knope2001 wrote:
1. Are the maintenance and reliability issues notably worse for the E190 than the E175? The E175 is rather popular, though the good ol' scope clause might be making a star out of an aircraft which would otherwise be unremarkable.


That's a good question. U.S. carriers' scope clauses would favor the CR9 in the same way as an E75. Hasn't the E75 outsold the CR9 pretty handily in the last five years?
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8169
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:38 pm

If I put it to you in this way.
If an E190 costs $5800 per hour and an A320 $7900.On a 2 hour flight, Let's say each seat averages about $200 in revenue, but the E190 can only take 100Y vs 168Y on the A320.
The E190 (if full) will cost $11600 and generates max $20000. The A320 (if full) will cost $15800 but generate max $33600 - in fact even an A320 with only 120 seats filled will generate similar cost revenue to an E190 without the operational complexity of another fleet, and offer more ability for cargo/mail revenue on top. I know of several airlines that evaluated the E190 but didn't order based on sums like that. It seems it is a goldilocks aircraft, Put it on a market that has low demand, the operational cost remains high, put it in a market that demands frequency per day and it is better to grow the market using larger aircraft, like A320s and actively promote a few limited specials with the extra seats you have to fill.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
Ramprat212
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:05 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:31 am

I think B6 was also banking on LGB classifying the E190 an RJ therefore getting slot exemptions to open up a true west coast hub.
 
AtomicGarden
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:57 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:48 am

aerorobnz wrote:
If I put it to you in this way.
If an E190 costs $5800 per hour and an A320 $7900.On a 2 hour flight, Let's say each seat averages about $200 in revenue, but the E190 can only take 100Y vs 168Y on the A320.
The E190 (if full) will cost $11600 and generates max $20000. The A320 (if full) will cost $15800 but generate max $33600 - in fact even an A320 with only 120 seats filled will generate similar cost revenue to an E190 without the operational complexity of another fleet, and offer more ability for cargo/mail revenue on top. I know of several airlines that evaluated the E190 but didn't order based on sums like that. It seems it is a goldilocks aircraft, Put it on a market that has low demand, the operational cost remains high, put it in a market that demands frequency per day and it is better to grow the market using larger aircraft, like A320s and actively promote a few limited specials with the extra seats you have to fill.


Those are basically the reasons why AR (OK technically AU) is trying to get rid of them. Better to standarize an all-737 fleet that can match the (fortunately!) rising Argentinian demand. Also, they were bought in a very shady operation back then.

I also know some cabin crew who would love to switch to a bigger aircraft.

Lovely planes, but didn't work too well.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 16276
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:13 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
ILNFlyer wrote:
N757ST wrote:
Extremely high costs for C and D checks, and engine mx costs.


I would be interested in knowing why the costs are so much higher for this particular aircraft.


There is a relatively small population of CF34-10E engines. Poor economies of scale.

Edit: typo.

It isn't just poor economies of scale. The CF-34 is beating guarantee barely on overhaul intervals, but missed promise. So barely that even for the small fleet, it was worth it to PIP the engines or otherwise they retirement rate would accelerate.

When Embraer selected the CF-34, we we're surprised at the poor fuel burn. Once (if) the MRJ enters service, the E-jets will be retired even faster.
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:14 am

Why are they getting rid of them?

1. The E-190 is ugly as sin (the E2 is an improvement, however)

2. Feels like you're riding in a creaky plastic toy airplane
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:31 am

tofur wrote:
CobaltScar wrote:
ive said it before and i'll say it again, the e190 is a superior plane as far as crew and customer comfort. They can be turned far quicker then a 320/21 too. I dearly hope the manufacturer will give JetBlue a wildly good deal to stick with the e190. The e190 can open up whole regions to new JetBlue expansion that would not be worth it with a 162 seat 320 that requires 4 FAs vs. just 2 for the e190.


Yes, the E190 seat is comfortable for passengers. There are a few problems though. The overhead bins are tiny and there are always huge cabin baggage issues on the E190 flights. If the flight is long haul, the complaints become more frequent. The J flight attendant has an extended service to provide which the Y flight attendant has to cook and transfer to J, no oven up front at least on our E190, while the Y flight attendant has 88 passengers to deal with on their own until the J flight attendant finishes their service. I completely understand the complaints from Y class.

From an in flight perspective, the aircraft arming/disarming procedures are ridiculously archaic. It is the most disliked aircraft among cabin crew at my airline. It is on my avoid list on my bid sheet, thankfully I can avoid it. I flew the aircraft 9 times and lost a finger nail on 3 separate occasions due to the arming/disarming procedures. The mechanisms are far too stiff. I followed all sop's, it is a quite frequent occurrence according to our company/union health and safety reports. The E190 cannot leave the fleet fast enough! I wish I could like the E190 but there are far too many negatives to make that a possibility.


I must correct you on one aspect. The E190 seats look comfortable, but they're really not. You are sitting lower and that seems to feel nice at first, until you realise that you can't find a sweetspot for your back and behind. They're not ergonomic.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 4:59 am

Waterbomber wrote:
tofur wrote:
CobaltScar wrote:
ive said it before and i'll say it again, the e190 is a superior plane as far as crew and customer comfort. They can be turned far quicker then a 320/21 too. I dearly hope the manufacturer will give JetBlue a wildly good deal to stick with the e190. The e190 can open up whole regions to new JetBlue expansion that would not be worth it with a 162 seat 320 that requires 4 FAs vs. just 2 for the e190.


Yes, the E190 seat is comfortable for passengers. There are a few problems though. The overhead bins are tiny and there are always huge cabin baggage issues on the E190 flights. If the flight is long haul, the complaints become more frequent. The J flight attendant has an extended service to provide which the Y flight attendant has to cook and transfer to J, no oven up front at least on our E190, while the Y flight attendant has 88 passengers to deal with on their own until the J flight attendant finishes their service. I completely understand the complaints from Y class.

From an in flight perspective, the aircraft arming/disarming procedures are ridiculously archaic. It is the most disliked aircraft among cabin crew at my airline. It is on my avoid list on my bid sheet, thankfully I can avoid it. I flew the aircraft 9 times and lost a finger nail on 3 separate occasions due to the arming/disarming procedures. The mechanisms are far too stiff. I followed all sop's, it is a quite frequent occurrence according to our company/union health and safety reports. The E190 cannot leave the fleet fast enough! I wish I could like the E190 but there are far too many negatives to make that a possibility.


I must correct you on one aspect. The E190 seats look comfortable, but they're really not. You are sitting lower and that seems to feel nice at first, until you realise that you can't find a sweetspot for your back and behind. They're not ergonomic.

I've only ever flown on Air Canada's E-Jets and whatever seats they are using are exactly what you describe. They are nice and wide, but they really are terribly uncomfortable for much more than an hour's worth of sitting. The last time I flew on an E90 was on a 4 hour flight in an extra legroom row and after about an hour I was feeling quite miserable, to add to my misery I was supposed to be on a 767. From a passenger standpoint it would be quite good if it had better designed seats, but maybe there are other airlines out there that do have better seats, I just wouldn't know.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
BA
Posts: 10397
Joined: Fri May 19, 2000 11:06 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:18 am

Are the maintenance burden/cost issues with the E190/195 compared to the E170/E175 due to the GE CF34-10E engine?

If not, then why is the E190/E195 a maintenance burden while the E170/E175 is not?
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
 
Someone83
Posts: 4048
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:06 am

BA wrote:
Are the maintenance burden/cost issues with the E190/195 compared to the E170/E175 due to the GE CF34-10E engine?

If not, then why is the E190/E195 a maintenance burden while the E170/E175 is not?


The E170/E175 uses the CF34-8E engines, which are much smaller than the -10E, and AFAIK has more in common with the -8C, used on the CRJ-700/9""
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7921
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:39 am

Trip costs and lease costs.

If you have a fleet of A320/737-8 already and with the reduced costs for getting a 737-7 or A319 the business case for the E190 becomes difficult as the trip cost delta is often smaller than the potential revenue advantage of the A319/737-7. The CF34-10E is also not one of the best members of the CF34 family.

We will see if the the E2 version will reverse the trend. (which seems likely as the orders for the A319NEO / 737-7MAX are few, but the competition has become stronger with the CSeries and the MRJ)
 
grjplanes
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:52 am

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:53 am

Is this now making second-hand E190s cheaper on the market and leases more attractive for a few new operators...like Airlink of South Africa only now starting E190 service, with 10 expected
 
zkncj
Posts: 3064
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:44 am

a320fan wrote:
Add Virgin Australia as another phasing out their E-190 fleet. Their oldest will only just be nearing 10 years.


Depends on the region that the airline operates in, for example 10 years old is an pretty old aircraft for an mainline carrier in the Asia Pacific market and is nearing the end of its like with its first airline.

Commonly you'll see aircraft in the Aisa Pacific Region leased or financed over an 12 year period, so once that is up the aircraft is replaced.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3064
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:46 am

zkncj wrote:
a320fan wrote:
Add Virgin Australia as another phasing out their E-190 fleet. Their oldest will only just be nearing 10 years.


Depends on the region that the airline operates in, for example 10 years old is an pretty old aircraft for an mainline carrier in the Asia Pacific market and is nearing the end of its like with its first airline.

Commonly you'll see aircraft in the Aisa Pacific Region leased or financed over an 12 year period, so once that is up the aircraft is replaced.


In Virgin Australia case they should of never brought the E190/170 to start with, there we're as playing around with using them on there New Zealand Domestic network when they first got them. Although NZ brought into VA, and then make VA stop flying within New Zealand.
 
rrlopes
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:37 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:05 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
If I put it to you in this way.
If an E190 costs $5800 per hour and an A320 $7900.On a 2 hour flight, Let's say each seat averages about $200 in revenue, but the E190 can only take 100Y vs 168Y on the A320.
The E190 (if full) will cost $11600 and generates max $20000. The A320 (if full) will cost $15800 but generate max $33600 - in fact even an A320 with only 120 seats filled will generate similar cost revenue to an E190 without the operational complexity of another fleet, and offer more ability for cargo/mail revenue on top. I know of several airlines that evaluated the E190 but didn't order based on sums like that. It seems it is a goldilocks aircraft, Put it on a market that has low demand, the operational cost remains high, put it in a market that demands frequency per day and it is better to grow the market using larger aircraft, like A320s and actively promote a few limited specials with the extra seats you have to fill.


Your math is correct, though that can be said in general about any aircraft. As seat count goes up, unit costs go down.
Using your own numbers, if a route only supports 90 pax, then an E190 would generate a $6400 profit, while the A320 would generate a $15600 loss. That doesn't mean that the A320 is a bad plane, just that the E190 is the better plane for this route.

Furthermore, cost is one very important aspect considered by an airline, but not the only one. I remember an interview by Air Canada's CEO at the time they announced the purchase. When asked why they decided on the Ejet when operational costs were obviously higher than the CRJs he replied that he wanted to purchase the aircraft that would make them the most money, not the one that would be the cheapest to operate. He believed that the passenger appeal and product consistency would allow them to attract and keep more customers and command a higher fare.

Markets have changed since the original acquisition of the E190's by some of the airlines, and it might not be the better plane for them anymore.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2921
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:29 pm

Doesn't the E2 fix the above issues in the thread? Engine issues,seats, overhead bins and old disarming switches?

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... rcial-jet/
 
KICT
Posts: 735
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:11 pm

Regarding B6, they have already gotten rid of at least one full flight simulator (down to 2 from 3); one fixed based trainer (also used for pilot training) has been deactivated due to the cost of maintaining it. I would say the long-term prospects for the E190 at B6 aren't very good.
 
Jetsouth
Topic Author
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 12:59 pm

Re: Why are airlines getting rid of their E190's prematurely?

Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:02 pm

How does the operating cost per seat mile compare between the E190 and the CS100?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos