E2

[khedrei]

The jet doesn't have the range, and it's barely ETOPS. We'd need something bigger - and if that's in the works, we certainly don't know about it. E190 might be an option...but I don't see them hitting a tarmac until 2027+

We currently operate it (195) on some of it's longest routes, and those trips, comparatively, would barely cross the Atlantic Eastbound out of Toronto. Perhaps Montreal or Halifax, but then the business of flying westbound doesn't work terribly well with any sort of realistic wind.

The E2 is great for trans-continental. That's where it lives.

As I say this, it'd be funny if the powers that be send out an e-mail saying we're starting service to Heathrow, Dublin or Glasgow. Considering we haven't tried our hand at Carribean yet, and - I'm guessing - only 20% or less of current batch of pilots have gone NAT/WATRS, we'll have another learning curve coming up shortly.

I definitely read that wrong and confused it with a message above talking about purchasing TS or the jets. You simply said the routes. I knew the 195 was a bit limited I was thinking of bigger planes coming down the road. My mistake.

[Bede]

Considering we haven't tried our hand at Carribean yet, and - I'm guessing - only 20% or less of current batch of pilots have gone NAT/WATRS, we'll have another learning curve coming up shortly.

It's not rocket science. A ground school session and 1 sector and you'll have it figured out.

[RoAF-Mig21]

Having over 1000 hrs on the E1, I can tell you I like the plane. I bet the E2 is even better. The question I have. Who the hell decided to design that yoke? It's the most idiotic thing I've had the "pleasure" to fly.

1. It's shape stupid (I get why. It's supposed to match your hands when they're "at rest" with a 45 degree angle to the horizon), but nobody holds it with two hands, especially on landing... and crosswinds.

2. Why is so stiff? There's a lot of force in that yoke and I don't understand why?

3. Why didn't they make the E2 with a sidestick? Does a "sidestick" vs "yoke" really change the "commonality" with previous models? Can't that be just taught as a "differences course"? (Both for pilots and AMEs)

[8895]

Having over 1000 hrs on the E1, I can tell you I like the plane. I bet the E2 is even better. The question I have. Who the hell decided to design that yoke? It's the most idiotic thing I've had the "pleasure" to fly.

1. It's shape stupid (I get why. It's supposed to match your hands when they're "at rest" with a 45 degree angle to the horizon), but nobody holds it with two hands, especially on landing... and crosswinds.

2. Why is so stiff? There's a lot of force in that yoke and I don't understand why?

3. Why didn't they make the E2 with a sidestick? Does a "sidestick" vs "yoke" really change the "commonality" with previous models? Can't that be just taught as a "differences course"? (Both for pilots and AMEs)

1) yeah I agree, you get used to it but it’s dumb.

2) never flew the E1 but I wouldn’t say the yoke is stiff in the E2. Maybe that’s the difference in having fly by wire in the E2’s?

3) I imagine it’s mostly because of the costs incurred associated with not having commonality. Countless aircraft models had design decisions made with this in mind. But I agree that a side stick would’ve been way nicer.

[yowflyer23]

Having over 1000 hrs on the E1, I can tell you I like the plane. I bet the E2 is even better. The question I have. Who the hell decided to design that yoke? It's the most idiotic thing I've had the "pleasure" to fly.

1. It's shape stupid (I get why. It's supposed to match your hands when they're "at rest" with a 45 degree angle to the horizon), but nobody holds it with two hands, especially on landing... and crosswinds.

2. Why is so stiff? There's a lot of force in that yoke and I don't understand why?

3. Why didn't they make the E2 with a sidestick? Does a "sidestick" vs "yoke" really change the "commonality" with previous models? Can't that be just taught as a "differences course"? (Both for pilots and AMEs)

1) yeah I agree, you get used to it but it’s dumb.

2) never flew the E1 but I wouldn’t say the yoke is stiff in the E2. Maybe that’s the difference in having fly by wire in the E2’s?

3) I imagine it’s mostly because of the costs incurred associated with not having commonality. Countless aircraft models had design decisions made with this in mind. But I agree that a side stick would’ve been way nicer.

E1 has FBW except for mechanical ailerons.

[BTD]

I have 3000 hrs in the E1s. I was told by a embraer rep, that it is so you can feel like you are flying the Concorde.

[withaflash]

I have 3000 hrs in the E1s. I was told by a embraer rep, that it is so you can feel like you are flying the Concorde.

Interesting.

The Embraer 120 (Turbo-prop) has the same controls, built in the 80's and before the ERJ and E-jets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_120_Brasilia

[cjp]

Considering we haven't tried our hand at Carribean yet, and - I'm guessing - only 20% or less of current batch of pilots have gone NAT/WATRS, we'll have another learning curve coming up shortly.

It's not rocket science. A ground school session and 1 sector and you'll have it figured out.

For sure. Just saying most of the experience is continental or Pacific, so it would be a quick pivot. a ground school for 500+ pilots starts to become a half a million dollar plus affair to get them equipped to fly NATs.

This aircraft should have come with a sidestick, not a bull horn. Common type rating strikes again.

[Inverted2]

I just pretend I’m flying the Concorde every time I fly my Embraer.

[Inverted2]

It’s just a little slower.

[dontcallmeshirley]

It’s just a little slower.

The originals return to gate just as quick as the Concorde.

[flyinhigh]

The jet doesn't have the range, and it's barely ETOPS. We'd need something bigger - and if that's in the works, we certainly don't know about it. E190 might be an option...but I don't see them hitting a tarmac until 2027+

We currently operate it (195) on some of it's longest routes, and those trips, comparatively, would barely cross the Atlantic Eastbound out of Toronto. Perhaps Montreal or Halifax, but then the business of flying westbound doesn't work terribly well with any sort of realistic wind.

The E2 is great for trans-continental. That's where it lives.

As I say this, it'd be funny if the powers that be send out an e-mail saying we're starting service to Heathrow, Dublin or Glasgow. Considering we haven't tried our hand at Carribean yet, and - I'm guessing - only 20% or less of current batch of pilots have gone NAT/WATRS, we'll have another learning curve coming up shortly.

I definitely read that wrong and confused it with a message above talking about purchasing TS or the jets. You simply said the routes. I knew the 195 was a bit limited I was thinking of bigger planes coming down the road. My mistake.

Also add in the fact that the 1:50 FA rule does not apply for European means we would have to install another JS.

It took Porter 17 years to get to were it is today, and still awaiting a minimum of 35 more tails. We need to stabilize this operation before we talk about going bigger.

I’d say if it occurred it would be via wetlease, which would be limited by the CBA.

[AirInter]

Having over 1000 hrs on the E1, I can tell you I like the plane. I bet the E2 is even better. The question I have. Who the hell decided to design that yoke? It's the most idiotic thing I've had the "pleasure" to fly.

I have 3000 hrs in the E1s. I was told by a embraer rep, that it is so you can feel like you are flying the Concorde.

Well since Concorde is mentioned, perhaps I can suggest you a "clue" regarding the origin of the design of the yoke :

https://youtu.be/KqJaRa4jdHo?si=p9deitOIV5ggWRcM
starting from 0:50

(personal translation) "... so it's the last flightdeck that was arranged in the most modern way for the time - but that is still old though; with particularities : for instance, the wheel here has a special shape, which is my own drawing - to clear view of the instruments of the dashboard. It was quite criticized at first but in the end everyone was satisfied with it."
(Regarding the last sentence I guess Romanian MiG-21 will beg to differ)

André Turcat, Concorde chief test pilot

[AmNotAnonymous]

Having over 1000 hrs on the E1, I can tell you I like the plane. I bet the E2 is even better. The question I have. Who the hell decided to design that yoke? It's the most idiotic thing I've had the "pleasure" to fly.

I have 3000 hrs in the E1s. I was told by a embraer rep, that it is so you can feel like you are flying the Concorde.

Well since Concorde is mentioned, perhaps I can suggest you a "clue" regarding the origin of the design of the yoke :

https://youtu.be/KqJaRa4jdHo?si=p9deitOIV5ggWRcM
starting from 0:50

(personal translation) "... so it's the last flightdeck that was arranged in the most modern way for the time - but that is still old though; with particularities : for instance, the wheel here has a special shape, which is my own drawing - to clear view of the instruments of the dashboard. It was quite criticized at first but in the end everyone was satisfied with it."
(Regarding the last sentence I guess Romanian MiG-21 will beg to differ)

André Turcat, Concorde chief test pilot

I think the Bristol Britannia had the M shape before.
The drawing/Shape Andre Turcat referred to is the weird U shape connecting the handles.

That being said, EMB introduced it in the 120 I think, inspiration from the concorde could be it.

[330heavy]

It doesn't make sense at all to send the E2 across the pond. It simply can't compare to the 321N or 737Max, on those segments financally. Nor was it designed to conduct such an operation. It's powerhouse is short segments with high ultilization, with the flexibility to do some longer transcon.

[rudder]

It doesn't make sense at all to send the E2 across the pond. It simply can't compare to the 321N or 737Max, on those segments financally. Nor was it designed to conduct such an operation. It's powerhouse is short segments with high ultilization, with the flexibility to do some longer transcon.

The suggestion that an E2 fly ‘overseas’ is a joke. Except perhaps some of the shorter WATRS routes to the Caribbean.

[yowflyer23]

Any updates on the benchmarking? Also have any of the growing pains subsided now that deliveries have slowed down? And on that topic, is it a temporary slow down in deliveries or will PD not take the rest of the options? Seemed like there were like two or more tails a month being delivered at one point.

[330heavy]

It doesn't make sense at all to send the E2 across the pond. It simply can't compare to the 321N or 737Max, on those segments financally. Nor was it designed to conduct such an operation. It's powerhouse is short segments with high ultilization, with the flexibility to do some longer transcon.

The suggestion that an E2 fly ‘overseas’ is a joke. Except perhaps some of the shorter WATRS routes to the Caribbean.

Yes some of us anticipate some more of our routes to Porter, such as CUN, PUJ, POP etc., like FLL, MCO, etc from YYZ that was given to them. Hope that's not the case, but rather an enhancement of frequency to our operation. As always, time will tell. Overall, the JV is great and beneficial to both operations.

[CaptDukeNukem]

It doesn't make sense at all to send the E2 across the pond. It simply can't compare to the 321N or 737Max, on those segments financally. Nor was it designed to conduct such an operation. It's powerhouse is short segments with high ultilization, with the flexibility to do some longer transcon.

The suggestion that an E2 fly ‘overseas’ is a joke. Except perhaps some of the shorter WATRS routes to the Caribbean.

Agreed. Not happening. Carib routes maybe. With planning from the JV with Transat. No one is trying to steal routes.

The E2 is a continental machine. Finding a spot for life rafts would even be tough. I’m sure they have spots for them, but it’s not what these things designed to do

[cjp]

It doesn't make sense at all to send the E2 across the pond. It simply can't compare to the 321N or 737Max, on those segments financally. Nor was it designed to conduct such an operation. It's powerhouse is short segments with high ultilization, with the flexibility to do some longer transcon.

The suggestion that an E2 fly ‘overseas’ is a joke. Except perhaps some of the shorter WATRS routes to the Caribbean.

Yes some of us anticipate some more of our routes to Porter, such as CUN, PUJ, POP etc., like FLL, MCO, etc from YYZ that was given to them. Hope that's not the case, but rather an enhancement of frequency to our operation. As always, time will tell. Overall, the JV is great and beneficial to both operations.

Yeah I think all this over thinking came about with the horrible thought of losing Transat with the current state of affairs.

They're an amazing partner. Nothing but respect for you guys. Love traveling with you, and likewise, the odd time when you guys are onboard, returning the favour.

[BTD]

I confess. I never talked to an embraer rep. I made it all up.

Except my embraer time. I do have that.

The old crosswind takeoff, rowing the canoe.

[flyinhigh]

Yes some of us anticipate some more of our routes to Porter, such as CUN, PUJ, POP etc., like FLL, MCO, etc from YYZ that was given to them. Hope that's not the case, but rather an enhancement of frequency to our operation. As always, time will tell. Overall, the JV is great and beneficial to both operations.

Personally I do not think we will be hitting the Caribbean from YYZ unless it is the less desirable locations. When you can fill a 330 to CUN, why operate an E2. What I could see is YYZ-Tulum, YQT/YXE - CUN etc. But not from the main established hubs.

[cjp]

Yes some of us anticipate some more of our routes to Porter, such as CUN, PUJ, POP etc., like FLL, MCO, etc from YYZ that was given to them. Hope that's not the case, but rather an enhancement of frequency to our operation. As always, time will tell. Overall, the JV is great and beneficial to both operations.

Personally I do not think we will be hitting the Caribbean from YYZ unless it is the less desirable locations. When you can fill a 330 to CUN, why operate an E2. What I could see is YYZ-Tulum, YQT/YXE - CUN etc. But not from the main established hubs.

You just do it in higher frequency. Costs for an E2 are about 1/3rd of the 330, perhaps slightly less. If we've got more birds and pilots to throw at the problem, problem solved as long as we can secure airport slots.

[Me262]

Yes some of us anticipate some more of our routes to Porter, such as CUN, PUJ, POP etc., like FLL, MCO, etc from YYZ that was given to them. Hope that's not the case, but rather an enhancement of frequency to our operation. As always, time will tell. Overall, the JV is great and beneficial to both operations.

Personally I do not think we will be hitting the Caribbean from YYZ unless it is the less desirable locations. When you can fill a 330 to CUN, why operate an E2. What I could see is YYZ-Tulum, YQT/YXE - CUN etc. But not from the main established hubs.

You just do it in higher frequency. Costs for an E2 are about 1/3rd of the 330, perhaps slightly less. If we've got more birds and pilots to throw at the problem, problem solved as long as we can secure airport slots.

A330 can seat as much as 3 E2's can. You are now paying for 2 extra slots, 2 extra crew, maintenance, etc to move the same amount of pax.

[cjp]

Personally I do not think we will be hitting the Caribbean from YYZ unless it is the less desirable locations. When you can fill a 330 to CUN, why operate an E2. What I could see is YYZ-Tulum, YQT/YXE - CUN etc. But not from the main established hubs.

You just do it in higher frequency. Costs for an E2 are about 1/3rd of the 330, perhaps slightly less. If we've got more birds and pilots to throw at the problem, problem solved as long as we can secure airport slots.

A330 can seat as much as 3 E2's can. You are now paying for 2 extra slots, 2 extra crew, maintenance, etc to move the same amount of pax.

It would be just the extra slots technically if a 330 costs (wet) 3 times the E2 to operate. Again I don't have much more than Google searchable numbers (that's the level of effort I put in). I don't know what slots go for in Pearson or Cancun so tough to really measure.