E-190 Vs. Airbus 318

[JetClipper]

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).

Southwest is rumored to be looking very closely at the EMB-190 as well.

 

[coolflyingfool]

I don't see SWA going with the -190s, but rather the 737-600 if they want a smaller a/c. Just my thoughts......

 

[FWAAA]

I don't see SWA going with the -190s, but rather the 737-600 if they want a smaller a/c. Just my thoughts......

I disagree (much as I like larger cross-section airplanes).

WN currently flies 25 737-500s, and the 737-600 is essentially the same size and capacity. WN's only Boeing orders right now are for 737-700s (roughly the same size as the 737-300s). WN probably won't order any -190s, but it probably won't order any -600s, either.

 

[SVQLBA]

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.........

Both the A318 and the 737-600 have done very poorly in the market. I believe SAS is already looking at ditching there -600s. Shrunk designs are rarely efficient -- the whole structure was optimized for a bigger plane and it's tough from an engineering point of view to get out the weight without adding a lot to the development costs -- exactly what you don't want for a product line extension. 747-SP was another example -- it filled a very small niche for a while (longer range routes than the 747-200 could do) but didn't seel in huge numbers.

The exception to the "don't shrink" rule is the A330-200 which hit a market sweet-spot. However, it look slike it's run may be over with the 7E7 -- it'll be interesting to see how Airbus responds.

Back to the -190, I think Embraer have dones the right thing. The 70-110 seat market is potential huge -- there are a lot of OD pairs for which this is the right size of aircraft (especially when served direct rather than via hubs). The market 5 years ago was constrained by a) uneconomic pilot costs on mainline and B) scope clauses restricting growth of the fleets above 50 seats. With both these constraints gone, the market will be very large in this size category. EMB did the right thing design an aircraft optimized for the market.

 

[ramper_in_las]

photo of e190
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/621220/L/

 

[WorldTraveler]

The exception to the "don't shrink" rule is the A330-200 which hit a market sweet-spot. However, it look slike it's run may be over with the 7E7 -- it'll be interesting to see how Airbus responds.

The A330-200 has done well because it is really the baseline aircraft, not the A330-300. The A330-300 is not a hugely competitive international aircraft from a performance perspective. The A330-200 has the range and payload to be a true international aircraft; the A330-300 is really designed to serve only the shortest transatlantic routes - regardless of what NW is doing.

 

[Whadayano]

What's goiong to be interesting is to see what the 190 does to regionals flying 50 and 70 seaters with seat costs 50% higher. Though I don't think iAir is going to succeed, I admire that they saw the problem and tried to do something about it, rather than just sit by and watch it happen.

 

[wontflyforfood]

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.........

I have to agree with your point....How about a pilot's progression in a company..Hired as a 190 FO..Upgrades to A320 FO...Upgrades to 190 Cpt...Upgrades to 320 Cpt...This will happen in the future (5-10 yrs?) and it costs time and money...I'm thinking this is a big mistake by Neelman...we shall see

 

[Whadayano]

When they're scheduled to add 17 320's a year there's going to be alot of movement up from 190's. So no one is going to be flying a 190 for that long.

 

[AA80Driver]

When they're scheduled to add 17 320's a year there's going to be alot of movement up from 190's. So no one is going to be flying a 190 for that long.

They need a finite amount of pilots to fly the 190 regardless of the prospect of upgrade to a larger plane. I guess you're saying that some pilots will move up and get their's before the music stops.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

So no one is going to be flying a 190 for that long.

Maybe this is my naivete showing, but I would think that would make the training costs even worse.

I guess you could always get everyone certified for both aircraft beforee they started, but....

then you have the internal dissent and discord associated with folks who are equally well trained but one is making about 60% more because he is flying around a larger plane.

 

[Whadayano]

[then you have the internal dissent and discord associated with folks who are equally well trained but one is making about 60% more because he is flying around a larger plane]

Like every other airline is different? From a training point of view there is an issue but not being union I think that jetblue might have some way of dealing with that--requiring a 2 year commitment to the smaller jet before changing planes, say.

 

[mweiss]

Maybe this is my naivete showing, but I would think that would make the training costs even worse.

Well, there are two sides to that equation. If you pay less, you have to move the pilots up pretty quickly, causing more training costs. Which is greater, the savings in pay scale, or the increase in training costs?

 

[FM2436]

The following is taken from the August 2004 issue of Air Transport World (page 10).

JetBlue Airways' 100-seat Embraer 190s, which begin arriving next year, "will offer better cockpit/seat economics" than larger Frontier Airlines A-319, AirTran 717s and Southwest 737s' according to JP Mogan analyst Jamie Bakers. In a report released last month, Baker said that three-year seniority rates for jetBlue 190 captins will be $74 per hour, or $80 when adjusted for overtime. A 12-year captin on a jetBlue 190 will earn $96 including ovetime, representing a 33% cost-per-seat advantage versus Southwest's 137 seat aircraft when adjusted for planned pilot pay increases at Southwest. Also, according to Baker, American Airlines would require a 757 to approach jetBlue's cockpit/seat economics based on planned third-quater 2005 AA pay rates.

 

[FWAAA]

JetBlue Airways' 100-seat Embraer 190s, which begin arriving next year, "will offer better cockpit/seat economics" than larger Frontier Airlines A-319, AirTran 717s and Southwest 737s' according to JP Mogan analyst Jamie Bakers. In a report released last month, Baker said that three-year seniority rates for jetBlue 190 captins will be $74 per hour, or $80 when adjusted for overtime. A 12-year captin on a jetBlue 190 will earn $96 including ovetime, representing a 33% cost-per-seat advantage versus Southwest's 137 seat aircraft when adjusted for planned pilot pay increases at Southwest. Also, according to Baker, American Airlines would require a 757 to approach jetBlue's cockpit/seat economics based on planned third-quater 2005 AA pay rates.

Jamie Baker is pretty good at stating the obvious: B6 already has a 33% cockpit cost advantage on a per-seat basis with its 320s compared to WN with its 737s. The proposed 190 pay scales are nothing groundbreaking - in fact, they reflect proportionality with the current 320 pay scales (about 70.5 cents per pax capacity per hour).