Talk:Embraer E-Jet E2 family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ILFC[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is true consensus to use the word Company AlbinoFerret 23:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The User User:Onel5969 keeps insisting that I revert my last change (see his talk page) but I don't understand why. The version he wants would be: "ILFC is the launch customer for the Embraer E190-E2, and Embraer E195-E2, with the airline signing a Letter of Intent (LOI) for 100 total." But this sentence would only be correct if ILFC was an airline, which they are clarly not. See: ILFC

So I reverted his change and since he was using STiki, I gave him a warning that he shouldn't do that because STiki policies only allow to use it against vandalism and edits that are clearly unconstructive. I really don't understand how changing airline to lessor in a sentence referring to ILFC can be clearly unconstructive. 95.88.204.167 (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The dispute is over using 'airline' vs 'lessor'? No big deal. Changed the word to 'company', which should be acceptable to all. Darx9url (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, what Darx9url suggested (and implemented) looks good to me. Case closed? If you have any further trouble though then do get back to us. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Company I agree with Darx, just use the word company and be done with it. Damotclese (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Company sounds reasonable to me as well. Elinruby (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relevance: Boeing's choices for 747 or 737 Production[edit]

This is an article whose topic is the E-Jet E2 family, a type of small passenger jet produced by the Embraer company.

Please familiarize yourself with WP:Relevance. Restated for this article: Relevance Level A facts for this topic would be facts directly about the E-Jet E2 Family, including its production on a mixed line Relevance Level B facts could be about Embraer (& Embraer products) or the directly-competing CSeries and maybe facts about the production strategy for other Embraer products or, most tenously, maybe CSeries's production strategy. Relevance level C facts that are 'two steps removed' should usually not be included, such as, in this case, mention of others (neither Embraer nor CSeries) who might be members, fans, or critics of the mixed-assembly line club, such as the Boeing Company.

Boeing is not Embraer. 747 and 737 are not new small families with regional jet heritage. In an article about Embraer E-Jet E2 family, Boeing's 747 and 737 production choices are two-or-more steps remvoed, falling somewhere between Off Topic and WP:Trivia and therefore should be removed. All production-mix facts would obviously be welcome in a Wikipedia article on comparative aircraft production, and were obviously also topical within an industry source that considers production methods worth comparing, but that they'd be relevant those contexts does not mean that the fact is relevant here. Here they are too far off topic to be included. KevinCuddeback (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see it being relevant to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's not relevant to this article. --RickyCourtney (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Relevance is "an essay, not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines". The WP:NOTEWORTHY guideline ("a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow") states "Content coverage within a given article (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies". I understand your willingness to trim excess, but too much trim and you'll have a bald tree. This is in the #Production section. Flight's Stephen Trimble had an article in last October on the switch from E1 to E2 production, and draws interesting comparisons with the auto industry and the generation switches previously done by Boeing. It shows the reader similar things have been done in the past, and Embraer isn't the first to do that. There isn't an Aircraft production article yet, and this E2 article is a good place to explore the E2 production. Your level A,B,C choices are yours. Mine could be "A: E2 jets" "B: airliners" "C: aviation".--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we trim the mentions of Boeing and 737s, we'll still have a rich, full, and BETTER article about the E2 Family. That Flight International finds it relevant in their publication for their readers does not mean that it is relevant here. As time goes on (now 4 years), the asides about competitors look even more out of place in this article. KevinCuddeback (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Development in Competitive Context with CSeries and (and not?) A320 and B737NG (and/and not?) A320neo and 737 MAX[edit]

The opening paragraph in the Development section seeks to describe how Embraer developed the E2 to position itself versus competitive gaps, weaknesses, and emerging strongholds. Embraer apparently compared a possible E2 family versus a re-engined ERJ line, vs other (old) A320 & 737 product lines, vs other direct competitors (CSeries), and vs new strongholds created/redefined as the A320neo and 737 MAX were created. It currently reads,

"In 2010, Embraer could directly challenge the CSeries with a clean-sheet five-abreast design for 100 to 150 passengers but Airbus launched the A320neo in December, including the 124-seat A319neo, and Boeing launched the re-engined 737 MAX the following year, so Embraer kept focusing on the large regional jets and launched an extensive revamp of the E-Jet family beyond a re-engine at the November 2011 Dubai air show."

"Could" seems to have any of 4 meanings between wanted-didn't, wanted-did, wouldn't-didn't, wouldn't-did, and it only gets unclearer as these get multiplied across unexplained dynamics of CSeries, A320neo, 737 MAX, with a could-but-so construction. It is also unclear if the revamp "beyond" re-engine is a "both" or "instead" relationshiop. From the source, it appears the re-engine became an ERJ "might've-didn't", while the extensive revamp became a "did" but this isn't clear, and the re-engine may not even be relevant, since it wasn't the E2 being reengined. KevinCuddeback (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This first paragraph has a ref which states "If you had asked an Embraer executive in early 2010 what the Brazilian manufacturer's next commercial aircraft would be, the answer would probably have been a clean-sheet small narrowbody with a five-abreast cabin seating between 100 and 150 passengers." You're welcome to improve its wording to better represent that. The A320neo launch and subsequent 737MAX launch precipitated Embraer simple re-engine instead of launching a clean-sheet design to avoid facing A&B directly (it burns). Note the header here states "This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale", any improvements are welcome. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

main pic change[edit]

  • current: on ground, Embraer livery
    current: on ground, Embraer livery
  • proposed: in flight, Widerøe livery
    proposed: in flight, Widerøe livery

--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with change. MilborneOne (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much prefer the image in the Widerøe livery. Good pic pick. RickyCourtney (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Order book[edit]

The order book as of Q2 2018 is here: https://daflwcl3bnxyt.cloudfront.net/m/0a99207a7ce2cfc0/original/Deliveries-backlog-2Q18-VRI-Ins-I-18_final_v8.pdf

It doesn't agree with many of the orders listed in the order section in this article. I see no orders for Tianjin Airlines, although there is an order for 10 aircraft from the Chinese leasing company ICBC on almost the same day (17 July 2014), and 2 orders for the related Hainan Airlines (common ownership with Tianjin).

There are also 10 orders from undisclosed customers for the E195-E2.

Azul's last 21 units and Wataniya's 10 aircraft order isn't in the order book, however, those will presumably be in the Q3 order book.

Could some of the order have changed since they were made four or five years ago? Mirza Ahmed (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

updated.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing-Embraer joint venture[edit]

The following [1] should be updated, in regards to recent news [2]:

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family#Boeing-Embraer_joint_venture

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing–Embraer_joint_venture#Termination

Hopefully this is the right place to mention this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.234.7 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carriers[edit]

Belavia also has these in their fleet. I’m sitting on a 195-E2 right now. Deutschmark82 (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family&oldid=1200750118"