Ding, ding, ding!

Too bad only you and one other person on this thread seems to agree with YOU. Everyone one hates them or likes them but only in very proscribed circumstances.

One thing for sure... It's better than the Turboprop.... Worst plane experience ever from PVD to IND when I had to ride it from PVD to LGA. Pretty sure I was going to puke if I was on the plane a bit more since it was shaking like crazy on turbulence.

Honestly, I think the coach seats in the E90 and E75 are better than most others on US Airways. Unfortunately, US doesn't config the E75 with FC.

Count me as another who likes the E175 (at least the NW/DL version). So there!

The CRJs are another matter entirely.....

+1

I am a huge fan of the E75s and E90s in ACs fleet. They are great aircraft to fly on, even transcon. If I have a choice between flying on a full A319 or a full E90, I'll take the E90 any time.

What are you talking about? Those planes are considered quiet.

The E-190 is a good little aircraft. I'm not sure what the Canadair is doing in not having a product to compete with it. AC uses these and I found it comfortable on a reasonably long flight.

I like the E170 / E190 a lot. It's wrong to lump them in with the narrowest, tightest Barbie jets -- the pax experience is entirely different. Can easily do two or three hours in one of those, while a Canadair or EM145 with 2-1 seating, etc. is a trial.

I flew Embraer 175/190s with RJ while I was living in the Middle East. They were configured with business class and economy and I always found the seats to be comfortable and spacious. I'm not sure, but it seems RJ gives more leg room than US carriers.

I think the OP was agreeing with me regarding Brancatelli's general level
of cluelessness. On the other hand, it would seem to me that most of the
posters here agree that the E75 and E90 (this latter being the aircraft
in question) are reasonably nice to ride in. Sorry to feed the troll, but
sometimes cluelessness should be stood up to.

Building a better product for years. And before this, persuading airlines for years to buy this product.

How does the comfort of CS100 compare against Superjet 100-95?

I love the E-Jets - with the air carriers I use it is typically the E-170 or E-175.

I have no problems flying in an E-175 for 3 hours, even in coach. FWIW, I had a 4+ hr ride in economy on an E-175 just this year. I was flying JFK to MEM, about a 2 hr flight but we circled for an hour, and then diverted for a gas N' go because of a t-storm cell sitting over MEM. Once we did reach MEM I had been on the plane for just over 4 hours and I found the ride quite comfortable, even with the diversion.

Most of my E-175 flights are about an hour to 90 minutes in length, but I honestly don't mind longer flights on this particular bird. It's no different than a mainline bird in many respects and if I'm not upgraded, the 2x2 seating in economy is quite nice.

Only drawback is overhead space when you have a roll-a-board and are the last passenger to board, but this can be a problem on a mainline jet as well.

As usual, Joe doesn't have a bloody idea what he's talking about.

The E-Jet's are the E-170/175/190 and are much larger than the ERJ's. The only "single" seat you'll find on these is in the First / Business class cabin which is usually 1 x 2. The engines are wing mounted and seating in Y is 2x2.

When it comes to the ERJ's (E135/E140/E145), which is what I think you're talking about, anything more than an hour is too long!