B-737 vs. Embraer 190

[no1pilot2000]

I was sitting in the observation galery at BWI last night waiting for someone coming in on a flight. I saw a JetBlue Embaer 190 pulling into their gate and a SWA 737 in back of them pulling into their gate. I have never seen a E-190 in real life before and it is a Big Airplane. It looks like it's the same size as a 737. Has anyone ever flown in both aircraft before?

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

The 190s only seat 90 people, so it is quite a bit smaller than the 73s. To compete evenly with a 737, you need a small airbus, or a CS300 (Bombardier C...the larger one, seats 130 in two-class configuration).

For the pax, the 170/190 are LIGHT YEARS more comfortable than any CRJ or ERJ.

cliff
NBO

 

[no1pilot2000]

If the 190 is more comfortable than a 50 seat RJ, why don't regional airlines change over to the larger 170 or 190?

 

[cunchos]

The 190 seat 100 and there is a 195 that sits more..... 737 has better range but the 190 is more economical it its range. In reality they serve different market needs.

 

[no1pilot2000]

It's a nice looking airplane. Has anyone here ever been a pilot on the 170 or 190?

 

[michael707767]

If the 190 is more comfortable than a 50 seat RJ, why don't regional airlines change over to the larger 170 or 190?

many regionals are already flying the 170. Scope prevents them from flying the 190. But nothing prevents the major airlines from flying 190s.

 

[Abernathy]

I've always wondered why the 100-ish seat A318 never caught on as a competitor to the 175-190. I thought the entire A320 series was super economical. Not saying it should, but I don't see much of a difference in pax load between a 318 and a 190.

 

[n757st]

I've always wondered why the 100-ish seat A318 never caught on as a competitor to the 175-190. I thought the entire A320 series was super economical. Not saying it should, but I don't see much of a difference in pax load between a 318 and a 190.

Aircraft that are shrunk are rarely as economical as the base line aircraft, and on the same note a stretched airplane is usually more economical then a shrunk one. (Hence the reason you see more A321 / B737-900ER orders and not as many A319 / 737-700 orders anymore) The A318 burns about the same amount of fuel as a 319/320, but carries far less seats to offset the flights overhead / fuel cost. Simply, the A318 is heavy and costs a lot to operate while not carrying a lot of seats. The one thing it does have over the E190 is range, but it is considerably more expensive to operate.

 

[AKAAB]

If I recall the sales pitch we got when the 190 was announced, the 318 is about 25,000lbs heavier. Airport landing fees are based on max gross weight, thus every landing would cost significantly more and would add to the CASM. Add it up across an entire fleet and the costs were just too much. At least, that's what we were told...

The other part of the JB equation was how management knew they could get away with paying pilots significantly less on a new fleet versus having all of the existing pilots being able to crew any of the A320/A318 flights at the same pay rate.

It's all about the Benjamins!

 

[instructordude]

The other part of the JB equation was how management knew they could get away with paying pilots significantly less on a new fleet versus having all of the existing pilots being able to crew any of the A320/A318 flights at the same pay rate.

It's all about the Benjamins!

JB pays its 190 pilots a pretty high amount of coin. I just can't see that argument.

It also has dual HUDs on it so it is a pretty sweet ride.

 

[say again]

JB pays its 190 pilots a pretty high amount of coin. I just can't see that argument.

It also has dual HUDs on it so it is a pretty sweet ride.

I thought you "disappeared'! Guess not.

 

[Midnight Flyer]

The 170/190's are still RJ's, no matter how you slice it.
Boeing makes a superior product. RJ's are all cheaply made, "throw away" aircraft.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi! The 170s/190s are like the ERJs the same as how the 747 is like the DC-3.

The regionals are transitioning to 70+ seat aircraft as fast as possible.

cliff
NBO

 

[AA717driver]

many regionals are already flying the 170. Scope prevents them from flying the 190. But nothing prevents the major airlines from flying 190s.

The fact that Regionals are flying E-170's keeps the mainline from getting the 190's.

Airline management has wet dreams every night centered around their RJ feeders flying the E-195's.

APA would take them now at JB rates but AMR doesn't want to pay FA's and rampers mainline rates to work on "an RJ".

It's a line in the sand that won't be erased at AA unless they go to Ch. 11.

TC

 

[Sailpilot]

Hi!

The 190s only seat 90 people, so it is quite a bit smaller than the 73s.
cliff
NBO

Wrong on both parts.

Once again, A self-proclaimed expert that has NO idea what he's talking about. View his aircraft flown...

 

[StopNTSing]

**WARNING - TIRED OLD CLICHE AHEAD**



When the last E-jet is finally retired to the desert (or jungle?), the ferry crew will dead-head home on a 737. :beer:

 

[king10pin02]

i am a 190 captain, the 737-700 with 137+1 burns less gas at FL370 and .78 then the E190 does with 99+1 at FL 370 .78.

 

[maxblast72]

i am a 190 captain, the 737-700 with 137+1 burns less gas at FL370 and .78 then the E190 does with 99+1 at FL 370 .78.

Fuel burn per seat or total? Don't 737-700s burn around 4,500 lbs per hour fully loaded (or about the same as 717s with 20 less seats)

 

[maxblast72]

If I recall the sales pitch we got when the 190 was announced, the 318 is about 25,000lbs heavier. Airport landing fees are based on max gross weight, thus every landing would cost significantly more and would add to the CASM. Add it up across an entire fleet and the costs were just too much. At least, that's what we were told...

At Airtran, we have been given numbers that each 1,000 lbs of aircraft weight increase trip fuel burn by approximately .6%. That means a 25,000 lb heavier aircraft would have a trip fuel burn 10-15% higher (if drag force was similar between fleet types). E-190 has to be way better on a per seat fuel cost basis than the Airbus 318.

 

[king10pin02]

Fuel burn per seat or total? Don't 737-700s burn around 4,500 lbs per hour fully loaded (or about the same as 717s with 20 less seats)

190 burns about the same per hr and more per avail seat than the 737-700