B-737 vs. Embraer 190

[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

 

[dojetdriver]

But nothing prevents the major airlines from flying 190s.

Except for the major airline pilot's egos. I KNOW, that's FINALLY starting to change. But only after terrible consequences.

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.

And if I remember correctly, the A318 has some parts commonality issues as well. The main one being the different size control surfaces on the rear end.

 

[LawReview]

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.

They said that exact same quote in the early 90's about the A320 too.

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas,

It's more than just the number of seats. You have to ask:

Can the aircraft take the bags with the people, or is it regularly weight restricted?

Are you always trading off fuel or reducing range to get everyone on?

Can you ALWAYS have room for underbelly cargo? (this is traditionally VERY high yield).

Many RJs are built to meet the marginal requirements of the type. Sure, it has 70 seats, but can you make the range, with all the seats filled, with everyone's bags AND with 3-4000 lbs of cargo?

If the answer is NO, then it's an RJ. If the answer is YES, then it's probably a brand A or B.

Nu

 

[The Gimp]

Originally Posted by 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.

They said that exact same quote in the early 90's about the A320 too.

Volkswagen also said that about the Beetle in 1938.

 

[Bluestreak]

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.

Yeah,ummm hmmm....Did you see the 737 in South America that collided with an Embraer ? The Legacy took a good hit and held together enough to land.The 737 didn't.

 

[Captzaahlie]

Um gee, one gets hit hard in the gut and another gets hit hard in the temple.....
who is more incapacitated?
(you can come up with a stupid example all day long.....)

 

[StaySeated]

Jetblue should have some similar data, but per RJET (the only operator in the world with 170/175/190's and 318/319/320's)...

The 190's have a lower Direct Operating Cost, per Block Hour, compared to the 319.

The 190's have a higher CASM, compared to the 319.

When adjusted for stage length, the disparity between CASM is even larger.

There is no comparison between 190 and 320/319. The airbus is simply more economical to operate. The 190 is designed for a different mission entirely, that is why Jetblue operates them both profitably and apparently why Rjet is going to attempt to do the same thing. The 318 does not have as large of an advantage, but it still has a lower CASM than the 190 (assuming F9 pay and work rules).

 

[QCappy]

Yeah,ummm hmmm....Did you see the 737 in South America that collided with an Embraer ? The Legacy took a good hit and held together enough to land.The 737 didn't.

What a stupid statement. You do realize that where an aircraft gets hit will determine if it stays in the air?

 

[aewanabe]

Heyas,

It's more than just the number of seats. You have to ask:

Can the aircraft take the bags with the people, or is it regularly weight restricted?

Are you always trading off fuel or reducing range to get everyone on?

Can you ALWAYS have room for underbelly cargo? (this is traditionally VERY high yield).

Many RJs are built to meet the marginal requirements of the type. Sure, it has 70 seats, but can you make the range, with all the seats filled, with everyone's bags AND with 3-4000 lbs of cargo?

If the answer is NO, then it's an RJ. If the answer is YES, then it's probably a brand A or B.

Nu

Nu,

True enough statement for the 170/175 series. Embraer fixed the ZFW issue and put a bigger wing with slightly bigger motors on the 190, so those issues largely do not exist with the super-stretch bamboo bomber. For example, I've done JFK-SDQ with an alternate (full tanks), and pushed right at MRW (114,550) with 100 people and the cargo bins bulked out. The only thing that makes the 190 version an RJ is management's desire to pay it like one. (And I'd still rather fly the Bus or a Douglas, but that's another story....).

The issue we have vis-a-vis cargo is the bins bulk out before we run out of weight capacity. That has lead a few of our island routes to start on the Embraer and later be upgraded to the 320 as cargo demand develops, which is actually a good use of the aircraft IMO.

 

[aewanabe]

Wrong on both parts.

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

I didn't think he was that far off. Only 10 wrong on the seats, and the 737 is a bigger, heavier jet that is far more substantially engineered than our bamboo bomber. To the OP, the E190 can look a bit bigger at the gate because it sits tall on the gear for tail-strike and engine clearance, whereas the 737 is a bit more 'squat' in appearance.