Talk:Embraer E-Jet family

Main picture
The current main picture shows the smallest and rare E170 (191 delivered), flying right, of launch operator LOT. A left-flying one is preferred. The E175 (531) and E190 (551) are much more widespread and should be more representative. The largest E170/175 operator is Republic (185) followed by SkyWest (107), and for the E190/195 Azul (88) and JetBlue (60), which is also the E190 launch operator. Republic and SkyWest may not be simple to understand as the fly for US Airways/American or United. Here are some left flying ones over a clean sky:

I think the "JetBlue, almost clean, frame filling" is fitting, but I'd like some input! cheers.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

redacted
 * No personal attacks. You should consider removing your comment.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

What I am saying is, there should be common sense when picking an image to represent an aircraft and its types. Your choosing an image in which you cant see the plane. That's why I changed it to something 10x better. No offense but why would you add an image of an aircraft you cant see? It's like me putting my hand over a photo and despite my hand obscuring the photo, and then saying that is quality? I am annoyed at the fact you think that image is acceptable? And for you to say I am attacking you. Look I don't want to attack anyone as I love being here. But ask yourself this honestly, is that image acceptable for an article about a plane, in which A) you cant see it, B) your seeing the underside of the aircraft, C) there are better photos. I will apologie but please choose something that you can see. Its common sense, when you see a plane what do you see? 90/100 times you'll see the side of it or the middle/top side of the aircraft. It's hard to explain but your image is silly. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Personal choices. Stay concise, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks? Look do you not understand that even I had struggled with that image ages before I changed it. How do you like something you can’t properly see? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Change main iamge
Can we use this image File:N247JB KJFK (37103752403).jpg

As you can only see the underside of the current image. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The names of the aircraft
I wanted to ask this question for some time now. Basically, I noticed this little thing about the names of this series' aircraft that's just really weird and confusing.

This article's name, and the name of the aircraft family is "Embraer E-Jet Series" (the "E-" part is important). Then, when talking about a specific variant, "E1[variant]" is used (for example, E170, notice that there is no dash here). Then finally, when talking about the variant, but using the manufacturer's name "Embraer [variant]" is used (for example, Embraer 195, notice the lack of the "E" or a dash).

This is what I find confusing:

Why is it "E170", but it can't be "Embraer E170"? I sometimes change it to "Embraer E1[variant]", but that tends to be reverted / changed back to the version without the "E". Why is it "Embraer E-Jet series", but not "E-1[variant]"?

In case of any confusion, I'll try to illustrate it simpler without using the "[variant]". On Wikipedia, this is how the names of E-Jet series aircraft usually look like:

Embraer E-Jet series → E175 → Embraer 175

Now, what would make sense to me would be:

Embraer E-Jet series → E175 → Embraer E175

or...

Embraer E-Jet series → E-175 → Embraer E-175

I hope I made myself clear, and I hope someone knows the answer to this. Thanks in advance! EnjoyingMyProblems (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Some confusion is caused by the use of marketing names and official names at the same time and some unoffical names based on the ICAO Aircraft Type Designators:

The E1XX numbers are just unofficial shorthand based on the ICAO Aircraft type designators (E170, E175, E190, E195, E290, E295) strictly speaking they are all variants of the ERJ 170 so the "E-jet family" has just been made up to encompass them all and made even worse by the sister article being called "Embraer E-Jet E2 family". MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Embraer ERJ 170-100 is marketed as the Embraer 170
 * Embraer ERJ 170-200 is marketed as the Embraer 175
 * Embraer ERJ 190-100 is marketed as the Embraer 190
 * Embraer ERJ 190-200 is marketed as the Embraer 195
 * Embraer ERJ 190-300 is marketed as the Embraer 190E2
 * Embraer ERJ 190-400 is marketed as the Embraer 195E2

OK, so I still had some trouble understanding what you meant, but I read it one more time, and I think I finally get it. Thanks for the help! I really appreciate it! 🤗 EnjoyingMyProblems (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

KLM Embraer Fleet
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLM_Cityhopper#Current_fleet KLM Cityhopper also operates Embraer E175 and has orders for Embraer E195-E2. 77.241.232.28 (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Wording of introduction
Hi, I'm new to "Talk" pages, so maybe this is a non-issue, or not the right forum. If not, please delete this.

This bit feels a little bit like marketing-speak and a little non-specific - "Initial teething issues" seems a little colloquial and "were quickly overcome..." feels a bit vague and marketing-y (How quickly, what does this mean?)

Initial teething issues, including hydraulic and engine-specific ones, were quickly overcome, and Embraer rapidly expanded its product support division for better global coverage. Bjtplett (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest this rewording:
 * (The reason I'm not just doing it, is that I'm not an aviation expert - I was just reading the page and it looked off. This feels a little less advertising and a little more factual.)
 * There were some initial issues, including hydraulic and engine-specific ones. As these were overcome, Embraer expanded its product support division for better global coverage. Bjtplett (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)