Consensus on the Embraer?
Jan 12, 2008 | 12:13 am
#32
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YYZ/DLC
Programs: AP, HHonours Diamond
Posts: 3,724
I really like the E90 as a passenger, very roomy and comfortable.
Yes it uses analogue fly-by-wire but that type of flight control system is still inherently more robust (engineering term that means resilient to single component failures) than the conventional flight control system you will find on the CRJ700/705/900/ and ... 1000(
). It was a conservative engineering/business decision from Embraer that made a lot of sense, as going full digital would have likely delayed entry into service by at least several months.
The two main advantages of fly by wire, relaxed stability (leading to a smaller tail and lower fuel burn), and envelope protection are present for both analogue and digital FBW aircraft.
In a few years they will be able to upgrade the family and go digital without too much difficulties if they want to.
Yes it uses analogue fly-by-wire but that type of flight control system is still inherently more robust (engineering term that means resilient to single component failures) than the conventional flight control system you will find on the CRJ700/705/900/ and ... 1000(
). It was a conservative engineering/business decision from Embraer that made a lot of sense, as going full digital would have likely delayed entry into service by at least several months. The two main advantages of fly by wire, relaxed stability (leading to a smaller tail and lower fuel burn), and envelope protection are present for both analogue and digital FBW aircraft.
In a few years they will be able to upgrade the family and go digital without too much difficulties if they want to.
ahhh this is why I love FT! Thanks for the very informative post. I've flown the CRJs a few times before on other US Carriers and every flight left something to be desired, they seemd to ride really rough specially the 700.
I'll definitely try the EMBs next week on the way down to LAX with a little detour.
Jan 13, 2008 | 2:54 am
#33
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: YXE
Posts: 3,050
Tried the E90 in a normal Y seat, an exit-Row Y seat, and Seat 1A (J) in the past week, for the first time on the flight pass.
AC's definitely got themselves a winner here.
Exit Row Y seating provides better legroom than is provided in J.
AC's definitely got themselves a winner here.
Exit Row Y seating provides better legroom than is provided in J.
Jan 13, 2008 | 3:14 am
#34
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Live: HVN -- Work: The World
Programs: DL - exPlat (now Gold) ; AB - Gold ; TK - Gold; BMI - exGold; US - exChairman ; UA-ex1K; NW-exGold
Posts: 1,248
I like the E190. Only flown them twice on AC, but I like them quite a bit.
I am not bothered by the lack of hot meal, I never fly AC in J on North American routes. Some J on over-the-water flights, but never US-CAN/CAN-CAN/CAN-US. I lucked out getting 19A on one flight and was very happy. This Y seats seemed better than the F seats on DL's E170/E190 aircraft.
I am not bothered by the lack of hot meal, I never fly AC in J on North American routes. Some J on over-the-water flights, but never US-CAN/CAN-CAN/CAN-US. I lucked out getting 19A on one flight and was very happy. This Y seats seemed better than the F seats on DL's E170/E190 aircraft.
Jan 22, 2008 | 7:24 pm
#35
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: YOW
Programs: AC*E
Posts: 120
I was on the E190 from YEG to YOW on Friday, exit row 19c nice amount of leg room but a horrible whinning sound from the exit door on take off until level flight.
I've also noticed that the landings on either the E170 or E190 tend to be hard, any one else think this?
I've also noticed that the landings on either the E170 or E190 tend to be hard, any one else think this?
Jan 22, 2008 | 8:08 pm
#37
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Georgetown, ON
Programs: AC 100K SE, SPG Lifetime Gold, HH Diamond, MR Platinum, Natl Car EE
Posts: 13
I'll take the ERJ over the CRJ any day. Being tall and broad-shouldered, I can't comfortably sit in the CRJ window seat due to the cabin curvature. The higher windows are also great. Biggest plus over the CRJ is that the overheads are actually big enough to hold a rollaboard. I avoid CRJ-7s whenever I can due to the lack of a sky check. Yeah, no ovens in J, but I'll take a cold meal to get a single port-side seat. 12C is also a great seat.
Jan 22, 2008 | 8:10 pm
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 25,046
I'll take the ERJ over the CRJ any day. Being tall and broad-shouldered, I can't comfortably sit in the CRJ window seat due to the cabin curvature. The higher windows are also great. Biggest plus over the CRJ is that the overheads are actually big enough to hold a rollaboard. I avoid CRJ-7s whenever I can due to the lack of a sky check. Yeah, no ovens in J, but I'll take a cold meal to get a single port-side seat. 12C is also a great seat.
But the E90?
Jan 22, 2008 | 9:19 pm
#39
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Georgetown, ON
Programs: AC 100K SE, SPG Lifetime Gold, HH Diamond, MR Platinum, Natl Car EE
Posts: 13
Whoops, acronym fatigue.
I was referring to AC's E75 and E90, not the smaller ERJs flown by other carriers. (Although I don't mind the single port-side seats on those...)
I was referring to AC's E75 and E90, not the smaller ERJs flown by other carriers. (Although I don't mind the single port-side seats on those...)
Jan 23, 2008 | 12:00 am
#40
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 464
I would take the E75/E90 over any CRJ Ive been in any day of the week. As far as the airbusses go...Id take it over the 319 non XM but would prefer an XM'd 319 or (perhaps even a non XM'd) 320. Ive found cabin comfort (J) to be pretty comparable between the E75/90 and the XM 320 (the hot meals on the 320 are a definate plus for me on longer flights though). My big plus for the 320 is size. Flying out of YEG (especially the last few trips) Ive had major problems finding seats and AC picking up the smaller E90's instead of possibly 320's (here is where my info is a bit sparse...Im not sure if the 320 was actually a considered alternative) is not so helpful...my $0.02.
Jan 23, 2008 | 1:07 am
#41
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada
Programs: Marriott Plat; Air Canada E75K; Westjet Platinum
Posts: 1,161
I find the 2x2 seating more comfortable. The washroom height is shorter so I have to hunch, the lighter plane gets bounced around more in turbulent weather, does not fly as fast as A320 against headwind, very prone to cold weather problems and we live in a cold country. Someone observed this, by using E190, AC has cut capacity in a lot of routes. That is why their load has gone up, not the only reason but certainly contributing to that.
Jan 23, 2008 | 3:42 pm
#44
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YYZ/DLC
Programs: AP, HHonours Diamond
Posts: 3,724
Well today I had a chance to fly on one of these puppies wearing the US Air livery and as I would have it the weather was turbulent this morning out of ONT. I admit the Biz Jet feeling of the interior cabin was very nice but the ride was anything other than smooth today both during ascent and through some rough patches. I think they would probably ride better than the 2nd. gen 737-300/400/500 but definitely on the rough side compared to the smooth ride of the bigger and more powerful A32X/A31X.