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?

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.

As far as I understand E190s are notoriously expensive to operate and maintain, simply put.

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

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.

You can put AU and UX on the list as well

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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'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.

(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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

Varsity1 wrote:

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

Source ??? Or it´s just your personal assertion ???

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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""

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)

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

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 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.

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.

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/

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.

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