Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

JB 190's

  • Thread starter Thread starter crjdude
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 17

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
B6Busdriver said:
The 190 has turned out to be a very expensive piece of doo doo. The company has finally admitted the future of the 190 is questionable and future delivery numbers will be reevaluated. The airplane can not make money over 800 miles. Also the heavy checks are proving to be more costly than the Airbus. The 319 NEO, albeit only a paper airplane at this time, is expected to have only slightly higher costs than the 190. Interesting times.......
Click to expand...

So what's going on with these planes? Why are they failing?
 
pilot772 said:
I think there is a better chance they were discussing an aircraft swap. We have about the same amount of 190's as Frontier has 319/320's. We are frustrated with the 190's and could off load them to Republic. In turn Bedford (now that he has his concessions)can sell the airbuses and turn Frontier into a single fleet. Do I think this will actually happen? Probably not but that is a more likely scenario then a merger/buyout of Frontier.
Click to expand...

I still think a merger is more likely down the road. Think about it - you get the Airbuses, you get a new West Coastish hub in Denver (without limited LGB slots - you can actually grow the hub a bit), a new mini-hub in MKE, and you have one less low-cost competitor (especially for East-West traffic). It makes sense from a strategic standpoint. Perhaps the E190 trade would still take place as part of the deal...

Regardless, I am sure the Investment Bankers and the high-paid McKinsey consultants will have it all figured out. :crying::laugh::bawling::mad:
 
Last edited:
johnsonrod said:
I still think a merger is more likely down the road. Think about it - you get the Airbuses, you get a new West Coastish hub in Denver (without limited LGB slots - you can actually grow the hub a bit), a new mini-hub in MKE, and you have one less low-cost competitor (especially for East-West traffic). It makes sense from a strategic standpoint. Perhaps the E190 trade would still take place as part of the deal...

Regardless, I am sure the Investment Bankers and the high-paid McKinsey consultants will have it all figured out. :crying::laugh::bawling::mad:
Click to expand...

Nope.

1)Den- An airport hubbed by 3 airlines with crap yield.
2)Mke - same as Den but with less people and 2 airlines.

No thanks, doesn't fit the business model, which is to stay in business.
 
The plane has had multiple electrical issues, structural issues, software issues. Embraer failed to meet certain benchmarks and therefore we were given one a/c. Most of the mx folks will tell you that with certain items Embraer is throwing up their hands.
The aircraft, according to Jetblue, was intended to be a market builder. In reality it has not been deployed that way and is now doing larger stage lengths. We fly the 190 on many seasonal 320 routes and for that distance the plane is no longer as cost effective as originally thought. The issue now is the investment in the training facility and orders. Thats an issue for the bean counters and ours are not that good.
 
n757st said:
Nope.

1)Den- An airport hubbed by 3 airlines with crap yield.
2)Mke - same as Den but with less people and 2 airlines.

No thanks, doesn't fit the business model, which is to stay in business.
Click to expand...

Agree. Im a Denver guy and I want Blue to stay far away from that sinking ship.
 
Anyone (especially management) who has been on the B6 system vs. the RAH system knows exactly why a merger between the two airlines will never happen. The service given to a customer on the B6 system is 100 times better than what is given on the RAH side. A merger won't happen, but a buyout of all of the RAH A320 and 190 assets is a much more likely situation. Bedford and company seem to be on the cusp of jumping off the RAH airplane with there golden parachutes in the near future. RAH is running so understaffed there doesn't seem to be any other way for RAH to stay in business (staffing wise) except to get rid of a lot of planes.
 
n757st said:
Nope.

1)Den- An airport hubbed by 3 airlines with crap yield.
2)Mke - same as Den but with less people and 2 airlines.

No thanks, doesn't fit the business model, which is to stay in business.
Click to expand...

Good points. That said, if JB intends to stay single into the forseeable future (i.e., no merger with a smaller or bigger airline), and growth is critical to Wall Street on a quarterly basis, can you tell me which West Coast locations could serve as potential places for future growth (i.e., no slot constraints like at LGB)?

West Coast is a huge, untapped market for JB - even with its LGB mini-hub. Seems like DEN could provide a place to grow with fewer slot considerations (and acquiring F9 would reduce competitors by one). I ain't making predictions - it just seems like LAX, PHX, LAS, SFO, SEA, SAN and PDX don't offer much in terms of capacity growth opportunities. Maybe ONT (not many slot constraints) could work IF West Coast growth is important? Who knows.... :confused:
 
Last edited:
johnsonrod said:
Good points. That said, if JB intends to stay single into the forseeable future (i.e., no merger with a smaller or bigger airline), and growth is critical to Wall Street on a quarterly basis, can you tell me which West Coast locations could serve as potential places for future growth (i.e., no slot constraints like at LGB)?

West Coast is a huge, untapped market for JB - even with its LGB mini-hub. Seems like DEN could provide a place to grow with fewer slot considerations (and acquiring F9 would reduce competitors by one). I ain't making predictions - it just seems like LAX, PHX, LAS, SFO, SEA, SAN and PDX don't offer much in terms of capacity growth opportunities. Maybe ONT (not many slot constraints) could work IF West Coast growth is important? Who knows.... :confused:
Click to expand...

My Guess on our future next 7-8 years:

LAX/SFO - Mexico (thats my guess, we are at international gates in both now)
NYC/BOS- Carribean (Belize, Trinidad, Antigua, St Croix, Fort O France)
BOS - Buisness Markets (DFW, ATL, CVG, CLE, STL)
BOS - Thinner Leisure ( SAV, CHS )
SJU - Buisness/Pleasure (Cali, Medellin, AUA, STI, BGI, etc)
MCO - Buisness/Pleasure (PVD, ALB, PIT)
MCO/FLL - Deep South (Medellin, Cali, Panama City, Guatamala City, Lima, Quito)
Point to point Carribean ( BDL - STI, SJU, SDQ... SJU - IAD, BWI )
Any DCA slots we can get ahold of and fly to Florida.

Also, we are still trying to get the 190 into LGB under the RJ slots, lets see how well they do persuading them.

Needless to say, this is all a guess, but all these destinations are likely on the radar, and I am sure there are a lot more that I can't think off. There are lots of potential markets for us to enter, especially in the era of M&A's where the legacys will likely consolidate a bit.
 
Last edited:
The 100 seat jet has it's place. The problem with the 190 is the 190. Embrear refuses to or doesn't acnowledge the problems that this plane has. If you had a launch customer return all of your product... what does that say about your company? I have "heard" that we have taken Embrear to the ring with this and given them the ultimatum. Fix them, or take em back.

FWIW
 
I bet Neelman would buy your E190s (at a big discount) for his Azul operation in Brazil. At least he could get some good customer service down the road in country if needed...
 
Interesting quote from Dave during the new airbus order

"The E190 is performing very well as our new, shorter-haul market aircraft, often serving to build the demand in the market for eventual up-gauge to our A320," Mr. Barger said. "We are now at the point where the balance between frequency and capacity is tipping in favor of capacity, and we are exercising our most strategic asset—our order book—to better match capacity with growing network demand."
 
Otto77 said:
Interesting quote from Dave during the new airbus order

"The E190 is performing very well as our new, shorter-haul market aircraft, often serving to build the demand in the market for eventual up-gauge to our A320," Mr. Barger said. "We are now at the point where the balance between frequency and capacity is tipping in favor of capacity, and we are exercising our most strategic asset—our order book—to better match capacity with growing network demand."
Click to expand...

Yes but at what cost? A 98% dispatch rate is costing about 20% more than it should.
 
Cheeta said:
Yes but at what cost? A 98% dispatch rate is costing about 20% more than it should.
Click to expand...

I agree..just an interesting spin he is putting on things. Sounds nice in public, but behind the scenes and in actions it seems JB is trying to cap and end the fleet.
 
Interesting that management says the 190 will be capped at 75 OR SO. OR SO? Hmmm, like maybe 50 or 60 or even less...or so.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top