Flybe to purchase 12 319's
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe to purchase 12 319's
Flybe are in final talks with Airbus and are about to sign a letter of intent to purchase 12 319's. The company are said to prefer the 319 in the 154 seat configuration over the 737. The company are concluding the deal and the confirmed order is expected before Christmas. The deal which is similar to that of Easyjet are said to be delighted with the offer that Airbus has put on the table. The Bae146 will be phased out and returned back to BAe systems as part of the deal.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That'd be the 156 seat (not 154) seat "easyJet" version then, with extra emergency exits.
Bet they pick the CFM engined version. Now why would that be? And it not just because I live on the flightpath. (The V2500 is significantly noisier)
Bet they pick the CFM engined version. Now why would that be? And it not just because I live on the flightpath. (The V2500 is significantly noisier)
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe is apparently denying the rumour (although, before it's officially announced, it's a case of "they would, wouldn't they").
However, I'm troubled about Flybe passengers; the shock of moving from 146s to 319s might be too much (although the 154 seat config will compensate a bit). It just won't be the same, flying Flybe and being able to use one's elbows.
I'm not holding my breath on this; there have been so many rumours in the past, but I do hope it's true. It's really past time that they got rid of those
146s.
With rumours also circulating about a Flybe/bmibaby merger, there might be some sense in this; bmibaby will need a 737 replacement at some stage and with parent (still?) company operating 319s already, the microbus is probably a good bet for baby too.
However, I'm troubled about Flybe passengers; the shock of moving from 146s to 319s might be too much (although the 154 seat config will compensate a bit). It just won't be the same, flying Flybe and being able to use one's elbows.
I'm not holding my breath on this; there have been so many rumours in the past, but I do hope it's true. It's really past time that they got rid of those
146s. With rumours also circulating about a Flybe/bmibaby merger, there might be some sense in this; bmibaby will need a 737 replacement at some stage and with parent (still?) company operating 319s already, the microbus is probably a good bet for baby too.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not my imagination, but sometime during this week, the Flybe web site was showing a picture of a twin engined jet on one of its pages. Have had a quick look this evening but can't see it anymore!!
Are they getting ready for the big announcement?
aa
Are they getting ready for the big announcement?
aa
The Aquatone Article
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptJ
I'm mystified by your comment. From the very first time the V2500-powered aircraft (which would have been using the dreadful -A1) first appeared at Farnborough, I've always thought the V2500 aircraft was noticeably quieter.
And if this is not the case, then the IAE brochure needs to be reported to the Advertising Standards Authority! No less than three pages are devoted to demonstrating that the V2500 is quieter than the CFM, whether Takeoff, Sideline or Approach, and both inside and outside the aircraft. In fact the claim is made that the cumulative margin above Stage III compliance compared to the CFM is no less than 18 EPNdB.
Bet they pick the CFM engined version. Now why would that be? And it not just because I live on the flightpath. (The V2500 is significantly noisier)
And if this is not the case, then the IAE brochure needs to be reported to the Advertising Standards Authority! No less than three pages are devoted to demonstrating that the V2500 is quieter than the CFM, whether Takeoff, Sideline or Approach, and both inside and outside the aircraft. In fact the claim is made that the cumulative margin above Stage III compliance compared to the CFM is no less than 18 EPNdB.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to believe the blurb that the V2500 is the quieter until I had first hand experience both as passenger and on the ground.
For a long time I had only flown (as a passenger) on A320/321 of bmi and BA. I couldn't believe the difference when I first flew in a CFM engined A321 of Aer Lingus. The fan buzz being significantly less during full power and climb. I've confirmed this with easyjets new A319s.
I'm quite prepared to accept that it's subjective, but then perception is what matters with noise, figures mean nothing.
The article of the supposed superiority of the V2500 is interesting. I recall reading recently that A321 with V2500 are only "marginally" compliant with Chapter 4. I take marginally to mean in this case that there may need to be operating restrictions to remain within the spec.
I live under the flightpath of BHD and the transition from full power to climb is very noticeable. The annoyng feature of the noise, the buzz, worsens. For my money if they are backing off to reduce noise impact they shouldn't bother.
I can pretty much tell the A320 from the A321 too. We had a quiet winter last year with only the A320 in service.
For a long time I had only flown (as a passenger) on A320/321 of bmi and BA. I couldn't believe the difference when I first flew in a CFM engined A321 of Aer Lingus. The fan buzz being significantly less during full power and climb. I've confirmed this with easyjets new A319s.
I'm quite prepared to accept that it's subjective, but then perception is what matters with noise, figures mean nothing.
The article of the supposed superiority of the V2500 is interesting. I recall reading recently that A321 with V2500 are only "marginally" compliant with Chapter 4. I take marginally to mean in this case that there may need to be operating restrictions to remain within the spec.
I live under the flightpath of BHD and the transition from full power to climb is very noticeable. The annoyng feature of the noise, the buzz, worsens. For my money if they are backing off to reduce noise impact they shouldn't bother.
I can pretty much tell the A320 from the A321 too. We had a quiet winter last year with only the A320 in service.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Down a Tin mine......
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hudson - i would like to know where your source of this rumour is from as i doubt very much that you work company and i very much doubt that you would be told of this before anyone else.
The company are EVALUATING both 737-700's and A319's with a decision to be made before the end of the financial year.
Allthough i very much would like to see the company with the A319's even if we did have them they would not be 154 or 156 seat version's they would be fitted to 150 seats - this has 2 advantage's - 1. The passenger's would have a more generous seat pitch and 2. we would not have to increase our cabin crew compliment on the as 1 hosty is needed for each 50 seats therefore we would have the same number as cabin crew as are currently carried on the 146.
It will be sad to see the 146 go - nice a/c in it's day but unfortunatly now passed it's best and is getting harder and harder to keep them servicable and more expensive to run.
Just for comparison a 737-300 burn's only 700kg's more fuel than a 146 on a route such as EXT-AGP and carry's an extre 30 odd passenger's....
brgds
W.G
The company are EVALUATING both 737-700's and A319's with a decision to be made before the end of the financial year.
Allthough i very much would like to see the company with the A319's even if we did have them they would not be 154 or 156 seat version's they would be fitted to 150 seats - this has 2 advantage's - 1. The passenger's would have a more generous seat pitch and 2. we would not have to increase our cabin crew compliment on the as 1 hosty is needed for each 50 seats therefore we would have the same number as cabin crew as are currently carried on the 146.
It will be sad to see the 146 go - nice a/c in it's day but unfortunatly now passed it's best and is getting harder and harder to keep them servicable and more expensive to run.
Just for comparison a 737-300 burn's only 700kg's more fuel than a 146 on a route such as EXT-AGP and carry's an extre 30 odd passenger's....
brgds
W.G
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: East Midlands Airport (EMA)
Posts: 906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they operated the 737-700 or the Airbus 319, I wouldnt be surprised if they chose to operate the seat configuration the same as the American no-frills airlines who tend to offer a bit more seat pitch, especially as flybe do advertise that they have the best seat pitch of any no-frills airline. Perhaps a -700 in a 138-seat configuation like Southwest, or a 132-seat 319 like Fronteir.
I'm looking forward to seeing the outcome of it all. I'm surprised that they havent looked at Bombardier's new C-series of 100 - 150 seat jets.
I'm looking forward to seeing the outcome of it all. I'm surprised that they havent looked at Bombardier's new C-series of 100 - 150 seat jets.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been "flybe are about to sign..." rumours for the last five years. All nonsense, just like this one. They usually follow a "Jack Walker/Barry Perrot/Jim French was seen in Toulouse yesterday" stories. But were they buying an Airbus, or a couple of cases of decent wine?
Besides, these rumours are usually posted by some pilot on a six-hour "positioning" layover, or a BHX airport standby (in other words, lots of time on their hands and nothing to do, so why not start a juicy rumour).
The wet-lease 737's bound for BHX are being used specifically to evaluate the 737 as the next aircraft for the company, so it seems a little unlikely that they would then order Airbii, n'est pas?
Keep fishing, though...
Besides, these rumours are usually posted by some pilot on a six-hour "positioning" layover, or a BHX airport standby (in other words, lots of time on their hands and nothing to do, so why not start a juicy rumour).
The wet-lease 737's bound for BHX are being used specifically to evaluate the 737 as the next aircraft for the company, so it seems a little unlikely that they would then order Airbii, n'est pas?
Keep fishing, though...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To clarify...
Whispering Giant,
156 seats is the maximum number that will fit in the 319. More seats, more bums, more cash.
As for the seat pitch, the seats that Airbus produce are so well ergonomically designed 28" feels bigger than 32". I challenge you to try it.
The 319 under an exemption can operate with 3 wagon dragons as long as it has the extra two self help exits fitted in the centre of the cabin. (Easyjet has succesfully applied for this exemption even with all 156 seats full)
The 737 300 can operate without restriction at SOU. However it was confirmed last week that a 319 was being sought on a damp lease basis to operate from SOU next summer. This would run along side the two 737's operating out of BHX.
My source? Would Shep tell you where he burried his bone?
Whispering Giant,
156 seats is the maximum number that will fit in the 319. More seats, more bums, more cash.
As for the seat pitch, the seats that Airbus produce are so well ergonomically designed 28" feels bigger than 32". I challenge you to try it.
The 319 under an exemption can operate with 3 wagon dragons as long as it has the extra two self help exits fitted in the centre of the cabin. (Easyjet has succesfully applied for this exemption even with all 156 seats full)
The 737 300 can operate without restriction at SOU. However it was confirmed last week that a 319 was being sought on a damp lease basis to operate from SOU next summer. This would run along side the two 737's operating out of BHX.
My source? Would Shep tell you where he burried his bone?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: peoples republic of EU
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to correct you, Hudson, Easy's 319's have 4 cabin crew..there is no exemption. Management are considering removing the 6 seats..apparently it would be cheaper overall to do that. Hmm
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa Del Solent
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason for the extra emergency exits on EZY's A319's are so that all 156 of the pax can evacuate the aircraft in the regulation 90 seconds, it has nothing to do with less cabin crew!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR - I beg to differ. The damp-leased 737s will be used more to test the water with 150 seats rather than the aircraft itself.
Hudson - It is my belief that the Company does not intend to operate whichever type we choose (A319 or 737-700) out of SOU, so SOU will not influence the final decision, another type is being sought specifically for this purpose. Additionally, it is a CAA regulation that there for every aircraft that carries in excess of 19 pax, there will be 1 cabin attendant for every 50 pax on board. As Trislander states, the number of cabin attendants carried has nothing to with the number of emergency exits.
Hudson - It is my belief that the Company does not intend to operate whichever type we choose (A319 or 737-700) out of SOU, so SOU will not influence the final decision, another type is being sought specifically for this purpose. Additionally, it is a CAA regulation that there for every aircraft that carries in excess of 19 pax, there will be 1 cabin attendant for every 50 pax on board. As Trislander states, the number of cabin attendants carried has nothing to with the number of emergency exits.