Can anyone shed some light on the decision to buy the E-190 aircraft over the Airbus 318 ?...... I have never seen a -190, But according to the description of the aircraft, it is very close to the size of the 318..If cost was a factor, would'nt the up front cost, [cheaper] of the -190 be erased over a small amount of time by the added expense of operating 2 types of aircraft vs. operating an all Airbus family fleet ?
E-190 Vs. Airbus 318
- Thread starter insp89
- Start date
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #2
The 318 is much heavier and more costly to operate.
Well... This is my guess:
The A318 has Max Take-Off Weights between 130,000 and 145,000 pounds... The E-190 has a Max Take-Off Weight of 105,000-110,000 pounds... Over time, the lower weights of the E-190 result in significant fuel burn savings, which probably far outweights commonality and training cost savings over time.
Also, its a general rule of thumb in the industry that a economies of scale are reached around 25-40 airplanes... So, with the number of E-190's and A320's JetBlue plans to operate, it will reach economies of scale with both types anyway.
Much is made of Southwest and its single fleet type... But the reality is that its 737-200's (soon to be retired, I know) and -700's are actually rather different from the -300/500's (which are quite similar).
The A318 has Max Take-Off Weights between 130,000 and 145,000 pounds... The E-190 has a Max Take-Off Weight of 105,000-110,000 pounds... Over time, the lower weights of the E-190 result in significant fuel burn savings, which probably far outweights commonality and training cost savings over time.
Also, its a general rule of thumb in the industry that a economies of scale are reached around 25-40 airplanes... So, with the number of E-190's and A320's JetBlue plans to operate, it will reach economies of scale with both types anyway.
Much is made of Southwest and its single fleet type... But the reality is that its 737-200's (soon to be retired, I know) and -700's are actually rather different from the -300/500's (which are quite similar).
Superjames
Member
- Jun 28, 2004
- 17
- 0
:angry: And don't forget, the Ejets allow management to lower the payscale for flightdeck crews...an added bonus! If all you flew were Airbi, you could not have such a payscale differential.
Large cross-section regional jets (like the 318, the 717 and the 737-600) are going nowhere. Not only are they heavier (as mentioned above), their diameter is greater, which requires more fuel to push at 500 knots than does a skinny cross section like the 2 X 2 regional jets. Air provides some substantial resistance. B)
Fuselage diameter of the E190 is 9ft 11in.insp89 said:
Fuselage diameter of the A318 is 13ft 0in.
So it's a three foot difference in diameter. While the shapes of the two aren't exactly round, a close approximation of the difference in frontal area is about 9.5 square feet.
You guys have this all wrong. The Airbus is made by our good buddies, the Frogs over in Francy-Land, and the E-190 in Brazil. Frog pilots make more than Brazilian pilots.
Or maybe Needleman just decided to see how much the JB pilots would roll over for. He obviously set the rate too high.
Or maybe Needleman just decided to see how much the JB pilots would roll over for. He obviously set the rate too high.
coolflyingfool
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,192
- 1
I had always wondered myself, why Jetblue took the -190 route. You provide some valid arguments to the -190 vs. the A318. But as far as spare parts/commonality, pilot flexibility, traing time and materials, aircraft mechanic problem recognition, and aircraft price discount, I would think that Jetblue would be better off with the A318. Just my thoughts.........
Similar threads
- Locked
