Compass, Republic, Airways, Jetblue.........

I've been on the 170/75s for over four years with only two cancellations for maintenance. I'd wager that that is as reliable as any other platform out there. Sure it had teething pains like any new platform. Pretty minor compared to others such as catastrophic uncommanded rudder displacements on the 737s. As a coast to coast commuter, I've been delayed on every type of jet imaginable for maintenance. Still, I'd rather be flying a Boeing. Best built transport planes flying.

As far as airplanes go its not bad. In over 4 years I have had 2 cxls for maintaince. I have never had to bump a passenger or deny a jumpseat for weight and balance.

Agreed. This is a huge factor. An aircraft which is unreliable, such as the MD-11 hydraulic issues, quickly gains a reputation for such. While an airline might blame the aircraft, my experience is that it is mostly a matter of maintenance expertise. Like pilots, this might be the quality of personnel hired, but most likely it is the level of training (i.e., lack of) given to them for their job.

It's noticeably less reliable than the Airbus, at least in JetBlue's fleet. Overall dispatch rate varies, sometimes nearly the same and sometimes 1-2 percentage points lower. I haven't personally had a jet be completely unflyable in 3 years here (other than an air turn-back for hydraulic failure), but the percentage of nuisance faults and glitches that cause delays and headaches is plenty high.

I like the jet well enough when it works, and customers generally rave about it (except when the Tvs break, which is also at a higher rate than Fifi). I just wish Embraer had done a better job engineering the thing, and whoever designed the seats should be shot.

And the immature dude has shown up. Don't worry, you'll get the chance to fly one out of PHL or PIT.

Uh, you sure about that? He sure touted his Catholicism when I worked there.

From a MX viewpoint

WEll i hope the E170s/190 anti ice loops are more reliable then the CRJ700/900s. I always hated dealing with those "Duct Mon Faults" on the CRJ700/900s. It's a big issue with that plane.

I never worked on the E-jets. But the E-145s seem to be reliable.

I flew E145s for about 5 years, and other than the APUs they seemed pretty bulletproof. I haven't seen any ice system issues with the 190; lots of issues with brake faults, and slat harnesses that are wearing out after about 2 years of service (had a neat presentation from our Tech Ops guys at recurrent about why that happens).

The E170/190 series has been very reliable since mid 2006 from my experience. The first two years yielded a lot of bugs, any many of those were a result of excessively tight software tolerances (too narrow of a window of time for the multiple computers to report back and agree). Flight Control No Dispatch was the big whammy, but spurious versions of that message are really just something to look back fondly on.

I can't speak for the other E-jet operators, but at Republic there may be a few reasons that the OP may have noticed poor reliability. One is lack of familiarity with the type. There has been a fair amount of inter-certificate movement lately, and a good number of 145 and CRJ guys from CHQ are just coming onto the E170 now. The E-jet needs the pilots to do things in order, or else it can freak out. Older airplanes are generally more forgiving, and allow pilots to develop "techniques" for things like start up. The E-jet doesn't take kindly to pilots inventing their own flows or techniques. I have observed many pilots unknowingly create a list of EICAS messages early on in their 170 experience.

Another contributing factor may be the 190 and its relative youth in terms of software development. The E190 basically started with the original E170 software, and E190 operators have had to go through many of the early teething problems the 170 had. The 170 is further along in software revisions than the 190. Also, the 190 introduced a few new software features that needed some reworking.

One final reason you may see more return to gates on the 170 these days at RAH is you have more unhappy pilots who are less willing to troubleshoot a minor problem over the phone with maintenance while off the gate. i am not advocating using a personal cell phone for company business, but I am saying that over time, you learn what EICAS messages are real no brainers, and can be solved with a 2 minute phone call to MX rather than taking a 45 minute delay or worse. It is all preference, but more pilots are fed up with management and really don't feel like helping anyone out by making that quick phone call.

The plane has treated me well, and the MX cancellations have been less than one per year for me. That seems to be the rule, rather than the exception.