UA looking at the E190-E2
 

No surprise at all. United is looking at the E190-E2 by replacement of 50-seater regional jet.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ctions-413119/

Let the speculation begin.

So its the pilots that are making me ride take 4 four hour rides in 145s? I always knew that there was a relationship between smaller planes and the union. I'm glad I could make busy work for them. Couldn't we just had had a pilot ride dead-head on 175s to keep the jobs program going and we'd all be happier.

I just want more 175. 170s are OK, but 319 are even worse to me with 3x3 and no real chance of upgrades.

Pilots aren't "making" anyone do anything. UA and the pilots union agreed to these negotiated terms.

Yep.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how replacing 145's and 200's with bigger planes is anything but good news. E-190's feel almost like mainline planes. And I'd take a 319 over the 50-seaters any day.

I have a feeling this is just like the A380 thread though. Rainey says they're looking at them, but not really looking at them. The only thing in favor of this rumor is that UA has committed to retiring/replacing the smaller planes with bigger ones, so maybe...

This is a slightly different scenario, as United's long-term UAX strategy includes more 70/76-seaters than are currently on order, but they can't exceed the 2016 cap of 255 frames unless a new small narrowbody is brought on property (additional 737/A32X do not count). So, it is assured that United will be adding a new type, but the question is which. The two realistic options are the E-Jets or C-Series.

The original E190 is widely considered to be underwhelming from an operational standpoint, even though it hits a sweet spot in terms of capacity/range/comfort. For the right price it is an intriguing possibility.

On paper, the best airplane in the category is going to be the Bombardier C-Series, but there are some questions about the P&W Geared Turbofan engine and whether Bombardier can deliver the airplanes up to spec. After the 787, UA is proceeding very carefully with new aircraft/engine technology.

The E2 brings the same engine as the CS, and is considered a 'safer' alternative as it is based on the proven E-Jets. However, projections are that the C-Series will best the E2 operating costs, so it remains to be seen which direction UA will go.

I agree with what is posted above. I also think that this is very different from the A380 thread because that was merely an airliners.net "rumor" that was reposted here, and to which Rainey eventually commented and basically said that of course they've looked at it but that it would never really work for UA.

This is different because this is originating straight from Rainey, and it's already been reported that UA is looking to acquire more mainline aircraft.

If it puts me in more 170/175's and less 145's, I'm all in favor and couldn't be happier.

"E-190 hits the sweet spot for comfort" - Indeed
 

Two by two seating with more headroom than the 50 seater.

If I'm sitting in coach, that's my choice of aircraft for a short or medium haul.
Better than the larger Boeing or Airbus 3x3's.

So long as the pitch is 30 or greater, that is^.

The trend will continue for airlines to increase the size of the aircraft for the indefinite future; the regional airlines cannot find the pilots to fly the aircraft and will not for a long time.

The new ATP minimums, career/income stagnation for the last decade, and finally the massive amount of retirements has created a huge shortage of qualified pilot applicants.

"“In some of those [former 50-seater] markets the flying will go away all together, in some of those markets we will backfill it with mainline flying..."

So, reductions in cities served?

Not at all.

I'm fairly certain that the UAL pilots would gladly fly all planes as mainline, so long as they could work out contract terms with the company.

It looks like they will use the fleet changes as an excuse to prune the network.

We already saw it with the E120 retirements, so I'm sure UA will drop a few more stations at this tier as well. Optimistically, market reductions could also mean feeding certain outstations from one hub instead of two or more. Less convenient for sure, but you can drop a market without abandoning the station entirely.

I like the addition of the E-Jets. I find them to be superior in comfort to the CRJs.

So any addition is a good thing, if United can get more 175's by tossing the 190 bone to mainline pilots, then its a win-win-win.

Lots of carping around here regarding the 50/37 seaters, as far as I'm concerned, they should be used to support markets that can only support small jets , and not to pump up frequent service to larger/midsize markets, particularly from congested airports like EWR, LGA, and ORD.

Superior in comfort to the CRJs? From a comfort perspective, they may be equivalent, if not superior in comfort to mainline.

I'll take an E-175 vs. a slimlined A319/320 any day.

On one hand, I really like the configuration of the EMB 1xx series.
On the other hand, I feel better with a mainline pilot.

Why are Air Canada and Jet Blue unhappy? I dislike the E-Series as they are extremely unstable.

If they were unstable, they would never have earned FAA certification.

Define unstable? Surely you don't mean the ride is not as nice as an E145? :confused:

Definately. The seats are way more comfortable on a 175 than the slimlines, though on the face of it they similar in construction? The 175 seat (I've had only 3-4 flights in the last 300) that I had a month ago was nice.

145s or even 700s over three hour flights is actually one of the stress positions from the CIA that was made illegal.

CSeries plz!!!

IMHO they look so much sexier :rolleyes:

A 175 in a 76-seat config is comfortable. UAX has 175s in a 76-seat config because that's the max allowed for regional carrier ops. One can note that there are major elements of the RJ contract that follow DL 6/2012 pretty closely, including the 'add a new mainline type for more 76-seat RJs' feature.

A 175 in a 76-seat config is comfortable. We don't know how many seats UA might want to cram into a 190 or 90-E2, slimlines or worse. It might well wind up with fewer F seats than today's 175. AA is receiving A319s with just 8F.

the E175 are turning into Air Canada ROUGE a SUPER LOW discount airline.

the E190 are being dumped for 737's.
Hey nobody has ever said Air Canada management is bright.

Pilots have told me the 190 is awful in turbulence. Bad!

It's also being dumped by 2 North American airlines. Its a bad decision.

UA should just get more 737's or 319, 320's. No reason to add the awful 190 or as they call it 180.

The 190 is junk!

It appears the investigation is focused on the 190-E2, not the 190. I have no knowledge about either but the article points out a couple key differences.

They have a harder time in cold weather stations. They are finicky in the winter, and their APUs are routinely started early on STAR flights.

Part of what makes the E190/E-Series comfortable is that Embraer designed it to be 18.5" seats in a 2x2 configuration, and the fuselage isn't wide enough to add another seat. Aside from adding more rows of seats, I don't think UA could do much else to chip away at comfort if they were to buy the E190 for mainline.

It's really a smart design. The A350 was also supposedly designed in the same way.

Completely anecdotal, but I remember B6 struggling mightily when they first brought the E190 online. Lots of operational issues getting that plane functional - it really drove down their dispatch numbers as I recall.

Comparing that vs. the E175 on UX which seems to be pretty smooth (as UX goes, anyway.)

I really enjoy flying the E175... Even the E170. Both are plenty comfy and honestly, I'm having a great time with my CPU's on them this year.

The E2 has the new Pratt & Whitney PurePower geared turbofan which allows the fan to run at a lower RPM than the low-pressure turbine, driving greater efficiency and reduced noise. It's not new technology per se, but it is the largest GTF designed for a commercial jet, so there is some risk that the engine may not be delivered on time or perform up to spec.