lightsaber wrote:ScottB wrote:MartijnNL wrote:Personally I am very happy that the E190's will stay a little bit longer. It gives me more time to spot them. I suppose New York JFK is a good place to log those aircraft. So are Boston and Washington National I believe. Do anyone of you know other airports where a large part of the fleet can be seeing during a day?
BOS is probably your best bet for seeing B6 E190s. They tend to be used on the thinner business-oriented routes on which an A320 would be far too many seats.MartijnNL wrote:Why are the E190's leaving anyway? Aren't they great machines?
They're not great machines. B6 has been unhappy with reliability and high maintenance costs. Moreover, the incoming A220 will give them ~30-40% more seats for the same trip cost as the e190, if not less.
The wingspar grounded E-190s this summer. Here is a thread.
5 years ago JetBlue had to take a $20 million charge just to return the CF-34-10. Sorry, the phone isn't letting me add multiple links today...
It isn't just fuel burn, it is the fact that the plane/engine combination is as you note is costly.
The E-190 is a good machine. It isn't at A320 or 737 dispatch reliability. It isn't bad, but is is just OK.
I suspect this is a reason the E2 is struggling for sales.
Note:. The E-175 is a great plane. But that is the CF-34-8. The CF-34-10 is a problem child; it is a different engine that was developed on the cheap.
Now think how the MC-21 took the CF-34-10 and starved it of cooling.. oops.
Thanks for explaining about the engines - I always wondered why the E175 had a much better reputation than the 190.
Is there a particular reason the 190 is known as having really bad software issues too? I would have assumed it would be quite similar to what's on the 170.