Talk:Embraer/Archive 1

Vandalism
I cant find anything about the E561-300 neither on Embraers homepage nor elsewhere at reliable source, I think its vandalism, any opinions? RGDS Alexmcfire (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture of EMB-110
Can we have a picture somewere of an EMB-110? I think it is a very important plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyesus (talk • contribs) 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Old talk
OK...SABEMOS QUEM TEM 20%..E OS OUTROS 80%
 * English is the only language permitted here. No Portuguese,please. Thanks -Joseph (Talk) 03:56, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

IT IS AN ACRONYM, BUT.....For sure Embraer is an acronym, but it has been assimilated as a word for a long time. If you consult the word Petrobras (Petróleo Brasileiro S/A), that is another acronym, you will see such thing. More serious than that it is the fact that, in Portuguese, the word is Petrobrás.The last syllable "bras" is accented because is stressed according to the Portuguese rules. Thus it is treated as a word, not acronym. This "brás" refers to "Brasileiro", which has no accents. Same happens with the local missile producer Avibrás. Scuba and laser are another acronyms as well, assimilated as words. Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica is just a mere formality. Nobody uses that in the streets. Brazilian newspapers - locals and nationals - refer to the company as "Embraer", using that as a normal word and writing in that way. Wall Street Journal and NYT do that as well. Also, in Sao Jose dos Campos, all the traffic indications mention "Embraer". The company calls itself as "Embraer" as youn can see in the site http://www.embraer.com/english/ in the section "The Company". Please watch over the name of the site. Using Embraer gives the article elegance.

Agreed on Embraer. However, Petrobras is not the best example for the same branding rules: though widely known as "Petrobrás", with the accent, the company is now officially named "Petrobras", without the accent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.157.150.3 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Under those circumstances, this and al related articles about the company's specific products should be renamed "Embraer". Gene Nygaard 00:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move
Many articles with EMBRAER in caps should move to Embraer in normal formatting per Manual of Style (trademarks). List of affected pages: EMBRAER, EMBRAER ERJ 135, EMBRAER EMB 120 Brasilia, EMBRAER EMB 110 Bandeirante, EMBRAER EMB 121 Xingú, EMBRAER ERJ 140, EMBRAER E-Jets, EMBRAER R-99, EMBRAER Legacy, EMBRAER Light Jet, EMBRAER Very Light Jet. Dragons flight 05:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with move. --Dali-Llama 17:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup. If you look at google or their website, "Embraer" is currently the most common usage. Niteowlneils 01:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Move Gene Nygaard 22:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through and moved them all. I've fixed all the double-redirects, but someone might wish to update the links in the articles to avoid the EMBRAER-->Embraer redirect. violet/riga (t) 22:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion
I suggest we add a "Safety Record" section (or something similar) to all main articles for manufacturers of midsize-to-large passenger aircraft (currently this would mean Embraer, Boeing & Airbus). It should be a brief section near the end focusing on one statistic. I'm not sure what the best stat would be. Perhaps "Accidental Deaths per Delivered Planes", or maybe "Accidental Deaths Per Million Air Miles"... something that relates raw fatalities to company size and yields a number validly comparing all companies for crash frequency and severity. Of course, fatalities due to purposeful acts should not be included.. I'd do this myself, but it would take a whole lot of work just to acquaint myself with the sources and the industry. Hopefully one of the primary writers of this article will take it upon themselves. This single statistic would be very meaningful to many, many readers. JDG 14:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. I assume you're aiming for a single-point statistic that shows how "safe" a given aircraft manufacturer's planes are, but I'm not sure whether such a complex issue can be boiled down so far - the devil is in the "validly". Two Boeing 747s collided in Tenerife in 1977 killing almost 600 people due to human error - should that count as a statistic against the 747? I could imagine that you're imagining a statistic which captures only the "faults" with the aircraft. That's laudable, but aircraft accidents so often involve a fairly complex causative chain (the "swiss cheese" model or "Reason model" after its proponent) that it is hard to pin all the blame on a single cause. Not trying to dismiss the idea out of hand, just pointing out the difficulty in coming up with something reasonable. Ecozeppelin 11:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead
The last paragraphs of the lead read like a laundry list, and some of the milestones listed really aren't important enough to appear in the lead. They should be moved to the body of the article, and the lead would be just fine if it was shorter.--Gloriamarie 05:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EMB R-99A.jpg
Image:EMB R-99A.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Superfluous Spaces
For some reason, BilCat added some empty spaces uncalled for by style. Please explain why here before adding them back. Thanks! --91.55.219.83 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I added empty spaces? That's misleading - I just reverted a n0n-productive, unexplained edit by a user with no edit history before today. I ahve rechecked your edit at your (whoever you are) request, one of the spaces was superfluous, so I removed that one. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you assumed bad faith and added some uncalled spaces.
 * Whatever, you (whoever you are) missed some. To unify the article a bit I removed them. Upon close examination you will find that they add nothing to the text (not even visible spacing) but are inconsistent style. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

EMBRAER IN NUMBERS (STATISTICS)

According to the link "Embraer in Numbers (Statistics)" (3), 2009 REVENUES of Embraer were just $ 5,4 bn. not $26 bn. (probably this number is in Brazilian Real)--88.23.27.199 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

By 2010 Embraer revenues were $5.25 bn. You can add Brazilian Real, but with the symbol $ it means for the public U.S. Dollar.--79.154.37.197 (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Subsidy controversy
As mentioned in reference WT/DS222/R 28 January 2002 (02-0153) Original: English CANADA - EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT; Report of the Panel wto.org,) : " (g) ...that the EDC Corporate Account financing to Comair in July 1996, August 1997 and February 1999 constitutes a prohibited export subsidy..."[13] So WTO ruled that the subsidy occurred in 1996, 1997, 1999, plus the 2002 Air Nostrum ruling : "(f) ...that the EDC Canada Account financing to Air Nostrum constitutes a prohibited export subsidy." So it's not true that the Bombardier aircraft sales illegally subsidized only twice, as currently written in the article. Correcting this and the other articles references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.240.109 (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious
Who is really the 3rd largest?  ** Topic posted on both Talk:Bombardier Aerospace and Talk:Embraer ** 

The articles for Bombardier Aerospace and Embraer both cite recent articles to claim that their subject is the 3rd largest aircraft manufacturer.

Bombardier: Wall Street Journal article from 29th July 2011 "The world's third-largest airplane manufacturer" Embraer: Reuters article from 14 February 2012 "the world's third-largest commercial planemaker,"

Does the fact that the Reuters article is more recent prove Embraer is bigger? Could we find a third source that would be able to set the record straight? Samuell Lift me up or put me down 06:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Embraer has 17,265 employees versus 33,600 for Bombardier Aerospace. Bombardier is definitely bigger - I will change this.24.108.61.172 (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Professional journalist often make mistakes and contradict each other. It's our responsibility to objectively view the data and select the valid source, discounting errors. In this case Bombardier Aerospace is obviously much larger, in both employees and revenue. Reuters, like the Associated Press, is a wire journal and is far more prone to these type of errors. The Wall Street Journal should be viewed as a more reliable source, with better fact checking.Jadon (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously Bombardier is much bigger. I wonder why a lot of statements about Brazil and Brazilian companies are just plain wrong. I remember my Brazilian friend telling me about how Brazilians manipulate every information and corrupt everyone... Just saying. Why it's still not fixed? I don't think it can get more obvious that Embraer is (much) far from the 3rd larger company. Just the aircrafts division of Bombardier have almost twice the employees.


 * There are many international impartial sources stating Embraer is indeed the third largest aircraft manufacturer, sources which were provided (there are many others), so I don't see why sourced information should be arbitrarily removed.Grenzer22 (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Bombardier is the biggest. If we check the total aircraft built for 2016, we have 249 for Bombardier and 225 for Embraer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.170.40 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100
This (inofficial) voting about flags and country info in orders might concern even this article. It is proposed to remove about 10.000 flags related to aircraft orders and articles including country info. Tagremover (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC) =={{DCTA and ITA???? No mention of the two most importat entities in the foundation of the company. The article is a piece of shit.
 * Relevance? this article doesnt use flags. MilborneOne (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This concerns all readers of aircraft articles as it might result in an removal of 10.000 flags including country info. Tagremover (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

SONACA connection
I seem to remember a certain degree of collaboration between Embraer and Belgian SONACA aircraft factory - there was even a building on the north side of Charleroi Gosselies Airport (at that time not yet called Brussels-South ) with Embraer titles on it. But it was never clear to me how far this was meant to go, even less how far it actually got. More info would be most welcome in the article! Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

EMB 110 Bandeirante
I'll take personally a picture of the Embraer EMB 110 Bandeirante (the second prototype), produced in 1969 and insert in the article. Will be a much more emblematic image of early Embraer.PauloMSimoes (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC).

History
This source (archived page) published by CTA/ITA, give some further details about early Embraer. First Bandeirante prototype was produced by CTA (where Embraer was "incubated") and flown ten months before Embraer was formally established.PauloMSimoes (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Messed it up somehow
In trying to get rid of what were unnecessary periods in the infobox I somehow messed up the infobox so that it doesn't display right & I don't see how to simply revert what I did. Nothing I try makes it any better. William Sherman, Esq. (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised
Why the title "Embraer" was redirected to "Boeing Brasil"? The Embraer company still continues to manufacture defense & security and executive aircraft. The new company was created to produce the commercial line. By the way, the correct name of the new company is "Boeing Brasil - Commercial"; Boeing drops Embraer name from Brazil commercial jet division ("After the deal with Boeing, Embraer will still exist as a company focused on executive jets and defense").--PauloMSimoes (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

✅ I've reverted the incorrect move and edits. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Boeing Brasil – Commercial
translation of voandojuntas.com.br: "The shareholders approved the proposal that will establish a joint venture comprised of Embraer's commercial aircraft and related services operations. Boeing will own 80% of the new company and Embraer the remaining 20%". Embraer still exist and still producing military&defense and executive products. An article "Boeing Brasil - Commercial" needs to be created. Please, discuss here these issues.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC) .--PauloMSimoes (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There's already an article at Boeing–Embraer joint venture which will no doubt need to be renamed to "Boeing Brasil–Commercial" in the future, once the deal is finalised and the name change becomes effective. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)