I’ve heard from US Airways/American maintenance personnel that the E190s always seem to be broken and I’ve read on here similar accounts from B6. I assume this is the reason (among others) the E190 is on its way out of both fleets.

However, the E175 seems to be one of the most desirable jets among regional carriers, currently.

Is the E175 more reliable than the E190? If so, what differences cause this? Is it just because regional carriers have lower utilization than mainline carriers?

Thanks!

Here in Europe LOT operates all 4 variants, E70, E75, E90 and E95, 34 airframes all together. There does not seem to be any particular maintenance difference or irregularity between the different models.

IAmGaroott wrote:

I’ve heard from US Airways/American maintenance personnel that the E190s always seem to be broken and I’ve read on here similar accounts from B6. I assume this is the reason (among others) the E190 is on its way out of both fleets.

However, the E175 seems to be one of the most desirable jets among regional carriers, currently.

Is the E175 more reliable than the E190? If so, what differences cause this? Is it just because regional carriers have lower utilization than mainline carriers?

Thanks!

The reason the E175 sells like hot cakes in the US has to do with the scope clause with the mainline pilots' unions. The E190 is too big for US carriers whose 75 and above seat planes are constrained by the pilots' scope clause. It has nothing to do with one model being more maintenance prone than the other.

Don't know the answer to your question, but I have a friend that works or B6. His comments are that the E190's have constant issues. Especially in the electronics. Reboot, reset, re-program, etc. etc.

CF34-8 vs CF34-10?

The -10 was developed specifically for the 190, 195, and lineage and has a very different architecture. It's not unheard of for variants of engines to be significantly less reliable. In addition, the -8 being more widely adopted, the maintenance and parts may be cheaper.

There is no difference, the Ejets all have a bad reputation in the maintenance department.
The only difference is in perception. The regional airlines deal with it like it's business as usual, mainline carriers with fleets of reliable mainline jets get to compare and become frustrated because the little ones need so much more care and take up hangar space.

Air Canada is in the process of dumping their relatively young E190 fleet. They are keeping their E175's.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

There is no difference, the Ejets all have a bad reputation in the maintenance department.
The only difference is in perception. The regional airlines deal with it like it's business as usual, mainline carriers with fleets of reliable mainline jets get to compare and become frustrated because the little ones need so much more care and take up hangar space.

Do you have the numbers or your afirmation is based just in your personnal perception?

Cause I got the numbers and they are very good and realiable !!!

EMBSPBR wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

There is no difference, the Ejets all have a bad reputation in the maintenance department.
The only difference is in perception. The regional airlines deal with it like it's business as usual, mainline carriers with fleets of reliable mainline jets get to compare and become frustrated because the little ones need so much more care and take up hangar space.

Do you have the numbers or your afirmation is based just your personnal perception?

Cause I got the numbers and they are very good and realiable !!!

Can you share the numbers? That’d help put the topic to rest.

smallmj wrote:

Air Canada is in the process of dumping their relatively young E190 fleet. They are keeping their E175's.

The E190 is being replaced in favour of the A220. (And currently by the A319 and A320).

Air Canada has stated that it’s maintenance dispatch reliability is no different from the A320 series. But, what it takes or what it costs to do that is anyone’s guess.

The aircraft made sense in 2005. It no longer does. During it’s time at AC, the passengers loved it. However, with fuel burns about the same as the 737Max, it’s an expensive boat to operate.

The E175 is no longer flown by Air Canada. It is flown by SkyRegional Airlines under the Air Canada Express brand. 10 more have been added.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Can you share the numbers? That’d help put the topic to rest.

This is a.net. No amount of numbers will put any topic to rest.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

EMBSPBR wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

There is no difference, the Ejets all have a bad reputation in the maintenance department.
The only difference is in perception. The regional airlines deal with it like it's business as usual, mainline carriers with fleets of reliable mainline jets get to compare and become frustrated because the little ones need so much more care and take up hangar space.

Do you have the numbers or your afirmation is based just your personnal perception?

Cause I got the numbers and they are very good and realiable !!!

Can you share the numbers? That’d help put the topic to rest.

Yep. Compare the E75 and E90s, and both to 737NG and A319/320.

buzzard302 wrote:

Don't know the answer to your question, but I have a friend that works or B6. His comments are that the E190's have constant issues. Especially in the electronics. Reboot, reset, re-program, etc. etc.

I've heard that's an Embraer issue in general. The E135/145 is affectionately nicknamed "the Windows 98 plane" because the pilots supposedly spend more time rebooting it and waiting for things to load up than they do flying it.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

EMBSPBR wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

There is no difference, the Ejets all have a bad reputation in the maintenance department.
The only difference is in perception. The regional airlines deal with it like it's business as usual, mainline carriers with fleets of reliable mainline jets get to compare and become frustrated because the little ones need so much more care and take up hangar space.

Do you have the numbers or your afirmation is based just your personnal perception?

Cause I got the numbers and they are very good and realiable !!!

Can you share the numbers? That’d help put the topic to rest.

"Quote =" PlanesNTrains "] [quote =" EMBSPBR "] There is no difference, all Ejets have a bad reputation in the maintenance department.
The only difference is in perception. Regional airlines deal with this as normal business, mainline carriers with reliable jet fleets can compare and be frustrated because little ones need a lot more care and take up space in the hangar. [/ Quote]

Do you have the numbers or is your statement based solely on your personal perception?

Because I have the numbers and they are very good and reliable !!! [/ quote]

Can you share the numbers? This would help put the topic to sleep. [/ Quote]

Numbers (I like numbers):

For E1 E170 / E175: 99.8%
For E1 E190 / E195: 99.4%
For E2 E190: 99.9%

From time to time a comment like "I've heard of ..." appears without actually providing any basis or source. The numbers they want are there to show and they are very different from what they say.

There has been a learning curve from the first delivered models (problem babies) to the numbers we reach today.

Just read the comments above about who actually works with the aircraft. They attest to what I say and present in numbers.

And, if anything that is undisputed, it is the after sales support of the Embraer team.

Airliners always migrate from one model airplane to another, as their business case also changes and evolves.

And the second-hand market for the E190 / E195 has always been fruitful, making models always find new customers willing to operate them.

As an example, if we consider the current production of E190 / E195 E1, we will have the following numbers:

Total produced and delivered to date:
764 units (-) 8 (prototypes or lost in accidents) = 756
In operation: 697, or 92.19% of the total produced.

Just to remind you that the first E190 sn 004 was delivered to JetBlue on December 19th., 2005 ...

And the numbers for the 170/175 E1 family are even better:
- Of the total of 769 produced, 737 are in operation, or 96%.

Numbers, numbers ...

KentB27 wrote:

buzzard302 wrote:

Don't know the answer to your question, but I have a friend that works or B6. His comments are that the E190's have constant issues. Especially in the electronics. Reboot, reset, re-program, etc. etc.

I've heard that's an Embraer issue in general. The E135/145 is affectionately nicknamed "the Windows 98 plane" because the pilots supposedly spend more time rebooting it and waiting for things to load up than they do flying it.

They have heard again ...

I’m speaking now as a pilot with 1000+ hrs on the 134/145 series and 2000+ hrs on the 170/190 series. There are no particular issues with these aircraft.

The 135/145 in 2 years I had no significant issues. Never had a flight cancelled due tech. Occasional electrical reset required.

The 170/190 are quite different to each other. Different engines. Different wing. Different Horizontal stab. Different Landing Gear.
This is a far more electronic aircraft than its predecessors. Still, it’s very reliable. The occasional electronic issue happens, normally a full de-power, re-power on stand will fix it, resulting in an on time departure. There is best-practice that avoids most of the nuisance warnings that I assume experienced operators follow. Again, don’t recall any tech cancellations.

Having flown the E170/190 series for 4+ years I’m puzzled where the unreliability claims come from. In Europe Air France, Alitalia, Austrian, BA, KLM, LOT and Lufthansa have all built significant fleets of these aircraft in the last 10 years.

I seem to recall parallels with AA claiming the A300 was unreliable. Where Lufthansa operated the type without complaint over a much longer period. Somemtimes it comes down to your companies pilots/engineers total experience with a particular type that can have an impact on reliability.

I’d say in general, serious tech on any type, affects all types. The minor tech issues (reset etc) will have their impact determined by the people on the ground and their experience on type.

If a type represents a small proportion of your overall fleet, although you will have engineers trained on type, if they spend most of their time working other types, when they have issues they may not have the detailed experience dedicated engineers may have. The engineers I work with don’t deal with any other aircraft types. As such, any issues are dealt with pretty quickly. The occaisonal tech delay is most often related to passenger convenience items (armrests/recline/toilets etc) rather than anything fundamental with the aircraft.

Regards
CROSSWIND

Crosswind wrote:

I’m speaking now as a pilot with 1000+ hrs on the 134/145 series and 2000+ hrs on the 170/190 series. There are no particular issues with these aircraft.

The 135/145 in 2 years I had no significant issues. Never had a flight cancelled due tech. Occasional electrical reset required.

The 170/190 are quite different to each other. Different engines. Different wing. Different Horizontal stab. Different Landing Gear.
This is a far more electronic aircraft than its predecessors. Still, it’s very reliable. The occasional electronic issue happens, normally a full de-power, re-power on stand will fix it, resulting in an on time departure. There is best-practice that avoids most of the nuisance warnings that I assume experienced operators follow. Again, don’t recall any tech cancellations.

Having flown the E170/190 series for 4+ years I’m puzzled where the unreliability claims come from. In Europe Air France, Alitalia, Austrian, BA, KLM, LOT and Lufthansa have all built significant fleets of these aircraft in the last 10 years.

I seem to recall parallels with AA claiming the A300 was unreliable. Where Lufthansa operated the type without complaint over a much longer period. Somemtimes it comes down to your companies pilots/engineers total experience with a particular type that can have an impact on reliability.

I’d say in general, serious tech on any type, affects all types. The minor tech issues (reset etc) will have their impact determined by the people on the ground and their experience on type.

If a type represents a small proportion of your overall fleet, although you will have engineers trained on type, if they spend most of their time working other types, when they have issues they may not have the detailed experience dedicated engineers may have. The engineers I work with don’t deal with any other aircraft types. As such, any issues are dealt with pretty quickly. The occaisonal tech delay is most often related to passenger convenience items (armrests/recline/toilets etc) rather than anything fundamental with the aircraft.

Regards
CROSSWIND

Thank youuuu !!! Amém !

Crosswind wrote:

I’m speaking now as a pilot with 1000+ hrs on the 134/145 series and 2000+ hrs on the 170/190 series. There are no particular issues with these aircraft.

The 135/145 in 2 years I had no significant issues. Never had a flight cancelled due tech. Occasional electrical reset required.

The 170/190 are quite different to each other. Different engines. Different wing. Different Horizontal stab. Different Landing Gear.
This is a far more electronic aircraft than its predecessors. Still, it’s very reliable. The occasional electronic issue happens, normally a full de-power, re-power on stand will fix it, resulting in an on time departure. There is best-practice that avoids most of the nuisance warnings that I assume experienced operators follow. Again, don’t recall any tech cancellations.

Having flown the E170/190 series for 4+ years I’m puzzled where the unreliability claims come from. In Europe Air France, Alitalia, Austrian, BA, KLM, LOT and Lufthansa have all built significant fleets of these aircraft in the last 10 years.

I seem to recall parallels with AA claiming the A300 was unreliable. Where Lufthansa operated the type without complaint over a much longer period. Somemtimes it comes down to your companies pilots/engineers total experience with a particular type that can have an impact on reliability.

I’d say in general, serious tech on any type, affects all types. The minor tech issues (reset etc) will have their impact determined by the people on the ground and their experience on type.

If a type represents a small proportion of your overall fleet, although you will have engineers trained on type, if they spend most of their time working other types, when they have issues they may not have the detailed experience dedicated engineers may have. The engineers I work with don’t deal with any other aircraft types. As such, any issues are dealt with pretty quickly. The occaisonal tech delay is most often related to passenger convenience items (armrests/recline/toilets etc) rather than anything fundamental with the aircraft.

Regards
CROSSWIND

From a Tech Support point of view (as an OEM Tier-1 or Tier-2 supplier), the E170/190 series have been much more demanding than 737/A320: with an E170/190 fleet much smaller, the volume of request was almost similar, which says a lot.
As you said, maybe it was the airlines Maintenance Department that was lacking; Embraer wasn't helpful for neither the Operator nor the OEM's, always trying to be the "mailbox" adding nothing but time and frustration on both sides.

As far as AA and the A300-600: AA claimed reliability issues as they did not fully use the auto-test function of some of the systems (which Airbus clearly indicated in their troubleshooting manuals), on top of modifying some of the systems, yet blaming the OEM for reliability issues (even after said OEM warned against those mods). It might not be for all the systems, but I know it didn't help.

EMBSPBR wrote:

Numbers (I like numbers):

For E1 E170 / E175: 99.8%
For E1 E190 / E195: 99.4%
For E2 E190: 99.9%

From time to time a comment like "I've heard of ..." appears without actually providing any basis or source. The numbers they want are there to show and they are very different from what they say.

Your numbers show that the E190 is 3 times more unreliable than the E175 - 0.6% vs 0.2%.

buzzard302 wrote:

Don't know the answer to your question, but I have a friend that works or B6. His comments are that the E190's have constant issues. Especially in the electronics. Reboot, reset, re-program, etc. etc.

I know a couple B6 FAs that are on the 190. They refer to it as the E-180 due to the numerous software glitches. This nickname has also spread to other carriers. I have heard it used at AA and AC as well.

lowfareair wrote:

EMBSPBR wrote:

Numbers (I like numbers):

For E1 E170 / E175: 99.8%
For E1 E190 / E195: 99.4%
For E2 E190: 99.9%

From time to time a comment like "I've heard of ..." appears without actually providing any basis or source. The numbers they want are there to show and they are very different from what they say.

Your numbers show that the E190 is 3 times more unreliable than the E175 - 0.6% vs 0.2%.

Still great numbers ...

UPNYGuy wrote:

buzzard302 wrote:

Don't know the answer to your question, but I have a friend that works or B6. His comments are that the E190's have constant issues. Especially in the electronics. Reboot, reset, re-program, etc. etc.

I know a couple B6 FAs that are on the 190. They refer to it as the E-180 due to the numerous software glitches. This nickname has also spread to other carriers. I have heard it used at AA and AC as well.

Numbers ???
People here like numbers, as me ...

EMBSPBR wrote:

Numbers (I like numbers):

For E1 E170 / E175: 99.8%
For E1 E190 / E195: 99.4%
For E2 E190: 99.9%

Numbers are good. Expected is 99.7%. But maintenance costs are high. JetBlue has complained forever:

http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... -190-costs

Azul is replacing theirs by 2021 (fast turnover):

viewtopic.php?t=1403409

AC within 18 months (accelerated retirement):
https://airlinegeeks.com/2018/02/22/air ... 190-fleet/

JetBlue is starting replacement in 2020, pretty fast too, 4 years (gone by YE 2024):
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/j ... -a220-jet/

With AA, AC, B6, and Azul replacing the E-190/195, 158 examples are hitting the market fast of 697 active. There were 764 delivered, why so many (67) of a young fleet inactive?

https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-e190.htm

I am impressed by the E2-190. The performance has been spectacular. Sad so few orders.

The need for economy of scale has increased. I hope many more are sold.

Lightsaber
Late edit. Unfortunately the E-190 is going to suffer the same fate as the A319. With the A319, when easyJet and Cebu Pacific (#1 and iirc #2 operator) announced phase out, resale prices dropped. We now have the #1 and #2 of the E-190/195 phasing out the type (plus AC and AA). That has spooked the second hand market.

EMBSPBR wrote:

UPNYGuy wrote:

buzzard302 wrote:

Don't know the answer to your question, but I have a friend that works or B6. His comments are that the E190's have constant issues. Especially in the electronics. Reboot, reset, re-program, etc. etc.

I know a couple B6 FAs that are on the 190. They refer to it as the E-180 due to the numerous software glitches. This nickname has also spread to other carriers. I have heard it used at AA and AC as well.

Numbers ???
People here like numbers, as me ...

Hell, all you have to do is search for e180 in HERE to verify that...

EMBSPBR wrote:

UPNYGuy wrote:

buzzard302 wrote:

Don't know the answer to your question, but I have a friend that works or B6. His comments are that the E190's have constant issues. Especially in the electronics. Reboot, reset, re-program, etc. etc.

I know a couple B6 FAs that are on the 190. They refer to it as the E-180 due to the numerous software glitches. This nickname has also spread to other carriers. I have heard it used at AA and AC as well.

Numbers ???
People here like numbers, as me ...

As an engineer, I appreciate that you like numbers. But I do not have them. I only have feedback from a friend who works with these aircraft daily. He has been with B6 for 10 years and is a technical person. I trust when he says the E190's received lots of software updates over the years to fix problems, only to introduce a new and different problem. He says the planes need constant control resets and re-powers in between flights. His main comparison is to the A320's side by side in the B6 fleet.

Does this prove that the E190 is "unreliable"? No. It simply provides insight that the E190 is possibly more finicky compared to the A320.

WayexTDI wrote:

From a Tech Support point of view (as an OEM Tier-1 or Tier-2 supplier), the E170/190 series have been much more demanding than 737/A320: with an E170/190 fleet much smaller, the volume of request was almost similar, which says a lot.
As you said, maybe it was the airlines Maintenance Department that was lacking; Embraer wasn't helpful for neither the Operator nor the OEM's, always trying to be the "mailbox" adding nothing but time and frustration on both sides.

As far as AA and the A300-600: AA claimed reliability issues as they did not fully use the auto-test function of some of the systems (which Airbus clearly indicated in their troubleshooting manuals), on top of modifying some of the systems, yet blaming the OEM for reliability issues (even after said OEM warned against those mods). It might not be for all the systems, but I know it didn't help.

What you say to a certain extent attests to what the member "Crosswind" (reply #17) claims and this tends to be more subtle (or not) from an airline to another.

"The minor tech issues (reset etc) will have their impact determined by the people on the ground and their experience on type.

If a type represents a small proportion of your overall fleet, although you will have engineers trained on type, if they spend most of their time working other types, when they have issues they may not have the detailed experience dedicated engineers may have."

UPNYGuy wrote:

EMBSPBR wrote:

UPNYGuy wrote:

I know a couple B6 FAs that are on the 190. They refer to it as the E-180 due to the numerous software glitches. This nickname has also spread to other carriers. I have heard it used at AA and AC as well.

Numbers ???
People here like numbers, as me ...

Hell, all you have to do is search for e180 in HERE to verify that...

Real numbers pal !
Good jock anyway ...

EMBSPBR wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

From a Tech Support point of view (as an OEM Tier-1 or Tier-2 supplier), the E170/190 series have been much more demanding than 737/A320: with an E170/190 fleet much smaller, the volume of request was almost similar, which says a lot.
As you said, maybe it was the airlines Maintenance Department that was lacking; Embraer wasn't helpful for neither the Operator nor the OEM's, always trying to be the "mailbox" adding nothing but time and frustration on both sides.

As far as AA and the A300-600: AA claimed reliability issues as they did not fully use the auto-test function of some of the systems (which Airbus clearly indicated in their troubleshooting manuals), on top of modifying some of the systems, yet blaming the OEM for reliability issues (even after said OEM warned against those mods). It might not be for all the systems, but I know it didn't help.

What you say to a certain extent attests to what the member "Crosswind" (reply #17) claims and this tends to be more subtle (or not) from an airline to another.

Hence why I quoted Crosswind when I responded...

EMBSPBR wrote:

If a type represents a small proportion of your overall fleet, although you will have engineers trained on type, if they spend most of their time working other types, when they have issues they may not have the detailed experience dedicated engineers may have.

I disagree with that. The airlines I worked with had dedicated engineers for the Embraer fleet.
But, on our end, the volume of tech support calls/emails for the E170/190 fleet was almost as big as for the 737 & A320 fleets combined, despite the fact that the E170/190 fleet was much smaller than the 737 & A320 fleets combined and that the E170/190 had less of our equipment that the 737 or A320. That spoke volumes for the quantity of requests received for less component flying.

EMBSPBR wrote:

Numbers ???
People here like numbers, as me ...

And experience has shown you can make those numbers say whatever you want. As lowfareair pointed out, per your own numbers:

lowfareair wrote:

Your numbers show that the E190 is 3 times more unreliable than the E175 - 0.6% vs 0.2%

lightsaber wrote:

Numbers are good. Expected is 99.7%. But maintenance costs are high. JetBlue has complained forever:
http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... -190-costs
Azul is replacing theirs by 2021 (fast turnover):
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1403409
AC within 18 months (accelerated retirement):
https://airlinegeeks.com/2018/02/22/air ... 190-fleet/
JetBlue is starting replacement in 2020, pretty fast too, 4 years (gone by YE 2024):
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/j ... -a220-jet/
With AA, AC, B6, and Azul replacing the E-190/195, 158 examples are hitting the market fast of 697 active. There were 764 delivered, why so many (67) of a young fleet inactive?
https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-e190.htm
I am impressed by the E2-190. The performance has been spectacular. Sad so few orders.
The need for economy of scale has increased. I hope many more are sold.
Lightsaber
Late edit. Unfortunately the E-190 is going to suffer the same fate as the A319. With the A319, when easyJet and Cebu Pacific (#1 and iirc #2 operator) announced phase out, resale prices dropped. We now have the #1 and #2 of the E-190/195 phasing out the type (plus AC and AA). That has spooked the second hand market.

I understand your point of view.

But if we look at the date these models were produced - from 2006 to 2009 - many of them will have reached around 15 to 17 years for example. And, in many cases, these airplanes are used in a turnover up to 8 hours per day.

Cost of maintenance: yes, that says it all, in particular the GE engines used in the fleet of the E190 / 195 E1 ...

Anyway, I must make a confession here:

- In 1999, we launched a line with four bold products for the size of Embraer at the time and in a market where few were daring or some of them were leaving, four products at the magic cost of $ 850 million for development, prototype constructions, certification and production for the whole family.

Many were the challenges and still are.

There are 1,533 aircraft produced with a backlog of firm orders to deliver up to the present moment of the E1 family of 214 units.

From these produced, they are proudly stamped, to name a few, in the colors of Air France, Alitalia, Air Canada, American Airlines, Aeroméxico, Blue, Austrian, British Airways, Delta, Finnair, JAL, JetBlue (yes!!!), KLM, LOT, Lufthansa, TAP Air Portugal, United, again, among others ...

And that makes me very proud of the work and effort made so far and it does not matter with the usual "I've heard ..." sometimes it seems to annoy me !!!

A hug to all members ...

Crosswind wrote:

I’m speaking now as a pilot with 1000+ hrs on the 134/145 series and 2000+ hrs on the 170/190 series. There are no particular issues with these aircraft.

The 135/145 in 2 years I had no significant issues. Never had a flight cancelled due tech. Occasional electrical reset required.

The 170/190 are quite different to each other. Different engines. Different wing. Different Horizontal stab. Different Landing Gear.
This is a far more electronic aircraft than its predecessors. Still, it’s very reliable. The occasional electronic issue happens, normally a full de-power, re-power on stand will fix it, resulting in an on time departure. There is best-practice that avoids most of the nuisance warnings that I assume experienced operators follow. Again, don’t recall any tech cancellations.

Having flown the E170/190 series for 4+ years I’m puzzled where the unreliability claims come from. In Europe Air France, Alitalia, Austrian, BA, KLM, LOT and Lufthansa have all built significant fleets of these aircraft in the last 10 years.

I seem to recall parallels with AA claiming the A300 was unreliable. Where Lufthansa operated the type without complaint over a much longer period. Somemtimes it comes down to your companies pilots/engineers total experience with a particular type that can have an impact on reliability.

I’d say in general, serious tech on any type, affects all types. The minor tech issues (reset etc) will have their impact determined by the people on the ground and their experience on type.

If a type represents a small proportion of your overall fleet, although you will have engineers trained on type, if they spend most of their time working other types, when they have issues they may not have the detailed experience dedicated engineers may have. The engineers I work with don’t deal with any other aircraft types. As such, any issues are dealt with pretty quickly. The occaisonal tech delay is most often related to passenger convenience items (armrests/recline/toilets etc) rather than anything fundamental with the aircraft.

Regards
CROSSWIND

Thanks.
A.net desperately needs more people like you.....

WayexTDI wrote:

And experience has shown you can make those numbers say whatever you want. As lowfareair pointed out, per your own numbers:

lowfareair wrote:

Your numbers show that the E190 is 3 times more unreliable than the E175 - 0.6% vs 0.2%

The same proportion would be if the figures were only 0.4% to 0.8% ...

But they are not ... check it out!

EMBSPBR wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

And experience has shown you can make those numbers say whatever you want. As lowfareair pointed out, per your own numbers:

lowfareair wrote:

Your numbers show that the E190 is 3 times more unreliable than the E175 - 0.6% vs 0.2%

The same proportion would be if the figures were only 0.4% to 0.8% ...

But they are not ... check it out!

0.4% to 0.8% is single to double; not single to triple...

In any case, as I and lowfareair pointed out, you can make numbers say whatever you want, depending on the approach you want to take.
Dispatch reliability of 99.4% (E1 E190/195) or 99.8% (E1 E170/175) are impressive numbers in themselves. That means that, respectively, 6 flights in 1,000 and 2 flights in 1,000 are cancelled for ops issue; not bad at all.
Still means that, if you spin them around, you have 3 times as much "chances" to end up on an ops cancelled flight if you're supposed to take an E1 E190/195 than an E1 E170/175. See what we did here?

OP's question was "Is the E175 more reliable than the E190?". Per your own numbers (which I assume are Embraer's official numbers), the answer is "yes, by a factor of 3".

The E-Jets were the first aircraft to employ some new technology. The E1 were the first to use:
- Integrated Pitotstatic Airdata Probes (E-Jets E1 and E2 are the only commercial aircraft that do not use Angle of Attack vanes)
- Digital Secondary Distribution Electrical System
- Integrated Modular Avionics with Flight Control Modules integrated in the avionics cabinets (E2 has segregated Flight Controls Computer from Avionics which has increased reliability a lot).

All these came with a price of the first one, with several maturity issues related to early software versions. Almost all problems were sorted out nowadays, and the aircraft is very reliable. But due to the high level of integration, occasionally resets are required. But they are very fast and do not result in cancellations or delays.
You can do all your research, but you will not find any commercial aircraft in the world, even in the newest ones where you have so much integration. Almost everything, including Flight Controls, are inside the Modular Avionics Cabinets. And this is why troubleshooting was very hard in the beginning.

EMBSPBR wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Numbers are good. Expected is 99.7%. But maintenance costs are high. JetBlue has complained forever:
http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... -190-costs
Azul is replacing theirs by 2021 (fast turnover):
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1403409
AC within 18 months (accelerated retirement):
https://airlinegeeks.com/2018/02/22/air ... 190-fleet/
JetBlue is starting replacement in 2020, pretty fast too, 4 years (gone by YE 2024):
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/j ... -a220-jet/
With AA, AC, B6, and Azul replacing the E-190/195, 158 examples are hitting the market fast of 697 active. There were 764 delivered, why so many (67) of a young fleet inactive?
https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-e190.htm
I am impressed by the E2-190. The performance has been spectacular. Sad so few orders.
The need for economy of scale has increased. I hope many more are sold.
Lightsaber
Late edit. Unfortunately the E-190 is going to suffer the same fate as the A319. With the A319, when easyJet and Cebu Pacific (#1 and iirc #2 operator) announced phase out, resale prices dropped. We now have the #1 and #2 of the E-190/195 phasing out the type (plus AC and AA). That has spooked the second hand market.

I understand your point of view.

But if we look at the date these models were produced - from 2006 to 2009 - many of them will have reached around 15 to 17 years for example. And, in many cases, these airplanes are used in a turnover up to 8 hours per day.

Cost of maintenance: yes, that says it all, in particular the GE engines used in the fleet of the E190 / 195 E1 ...

15 to 17 is young for an aircraft. Bombardier just extended the CRJ line to 80,000 cycles.

While good aircraft, the E1, in particular the E-190/195 take too much care and feeding. Now the E2, A220, NEO, and MAX with predictive maintenance raises the bar.

8 hours a day isn't much. 737s and A320s are routinely pushed 11+. This pushed up costs on a frame with high fuel per passenger (again, the CF34-10). I was at Pratt when they tried to bid for the E-199 engine (GE had the E-170/175). We were shocked at what Embraer accepted. Winderoe is thrashing the E2-190 and they like it! That is well done.

But the reality is E-190/195 maintenance is high. Too high. That will result in a faster retirement. The E-190/195s are already being parked in quantity. That isn't healthy for longevity. When I design systems for Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, or Embraer's, I take pride knowing most will be in service long after I'm dead 40+ years from now. That will probably not be the case for parts I consulted on a PIP for the E-190/195. That saddens me. Now, another company replaced the subsystem on the E2 jets, but I have a few parts on that I would like to see fly for the rest of my life.

But I don't favor a design just because I worked on it. E.g., I worked the Pearl, but I rooted for the PW816 to take that airframe. Ironically, I worked the exact same subsystem on both engines and RR definitively was ahead in thinking on that subsystem concept.

What matters is a good business case. I see that for the E2-195. I know it is harsh, but I am not enthusiastic on the other E2 prospects nor E-190/195 time in the fleet. It is my interpretation of the economics. To be fair, I have been too bearish on the A319/73G and not realizing until late the potential in high yeild low utilization duty (e.g., Allegiant) where purchase price and variable costs really matter.

So what Embraer has done with the E2 is reduce the variable costs. Next is a race to certify for 80,000 cycles and 120,000+ Flight hours. A race with the A220. This would reduce maintenance costs in service about 10% assuming no bad findings.

Unfortunately, most E-190 will be withdrawn early. Do you know the fleet leader cycles and hours? On the JetBlue wingspar issue, it was found at a heavy C, IIRC as I'm going from memory, at about 50% of Airframe hours (less on cycles). IIRC, about 44,500 FH, but under 23,000 FC. This implies issues.

I'm not saying a bad concept, but as we talk in the TXWB engine thread, expectations are so much higher today. Longer maintenance intervals, fewer findings, less fuel burn, better dispatch reliability.

Being 0.3% worse in dispatch means about $150,000 per month for a fleet of 20 for expenses such as lower utilization, food vouchers plus lost business. For JetBlue, that is about 2,500 added customers impacted per month vs. A320CEO reliability.

About half was GE's fault. I say was as there was a reliability PIP. But I know the E-jets still have software bootup issues. My sister recently missed a connection because of an E-jets freezing up at an out station. I realized Embraer's outsourced, but they failed to put in the right incentives to their vendors. e.g., Honeywell. Yes, fixed with E2.

I write from a perspective on the expectations on my work. The E-190 would have been great in the 733 era. The NG/A320 just raised the bar.

To think, when it entered service, 99.2% dispatch reliability was outstanding! Not in 2019.

Lightsaber

I was at AE when we only had the first 12 crj700s and we usually had two or three RONs at my station. It was not unusual at all for one of them to be down for mtx in the morning and at least once I saw all 3 down at once. We hated the things(rebooking pax bc of the first flight of the day) but they seem to be working out ok now

EMBSPBR wrote:

From these produced, they are proudly stamped, to name a few, in the colors of Air France, Alitalia, Air Canada, American Airlines, Aeroméxico, Blue, Austrian, British Airways, Delta, Finnair, JAL, JetBlue (yes!!!), KLM, LOT, Lufthansa, TAP Air Portugal, United, again, among others ...

And that makes me very proud of the work and effort made so far and it does not matter with the usual "I've heard ..." sometimes it seems to annoy me !!!

The E190s are fine airplanes. I flew them at Air Canada, when a Project Pilot for the introduction of the E175/E190 into the fleet.

The passengers loved them, the pilots loved them and with 3 F/As for 93 passengers (legal crew compliment at the time), the Flight Attendants loved them as well. The performance was slightly better than Embraer promised .. (fuel burn and range). In the mid 2000s, it satisfied Air Canada's need for a trans-con capable aircraft that could trail-blaze new routes. All while offering a comfortable cabin comparable to larger narrow body aircraft.

While the seat/mile costs were higher than anything else in the fleet (not a surprise for a small aircraft), if you were only carrying 90 or so passengers anyway, the "per aircraft" costs were less than then next smallest, the 120 seat A319. I often flew them on long flights ... YYZ-SAN, YYZ-SEA, YYZ-SNA ... not to mention two delivery flights. SJK-BGI-YUL.

Like any new aircraft, there was a learning curve. Yes, they were referred to as 180s 13 years ago, but I haven't heard that term (from anyone that knows any better) in years!

But I'll tell you, the E175/E190 intro was a cake walk compared to the A320 15 years before. Not only was there a learning curve there too, but there were also three high profile A320 crashes around the same time. With any maintenance delay, it was all we could do to keep the passengers from running off the aircraft!

Air Canada's desire to retire the E190 has less to do with reliability of the aircraft, than more about no longer needing a (now) 97 seat airplane in the mainline fleet.

At B6 within the past six months or so I read a memo that dispatch reliability on the E90 fleet actually surpasses that of the 320 currently.