Originally Posted by
barry lloyd
KnC, you understand incorrectly that the aircraft sold to the Airlines of Britain Group were heavily discounted. I was the person who did that deal - yes I will now confess that I was on the sales team at Woodford. However, I too deal in reality and there was no major discount. What we did (reluctantly) agree to do was to take the Viscounts stored at MME in part exchange, because Mike Bishop had retired them and wanted them off the books. I cannot speak about the BA deal because I was not involved in it, however, as we both know, even the much-loved Boeing offer discounts on their products if they are trying to promote a new type.
I flew on it many times, but was never aware of any vibration above the norm for a turbo-prop. With regard to your litany of complaints about the aircraft and the support it received, I can only put the side of the story I know. I also sold the aircraft to SATA and made regular visits there, but rarely heard a complaint about the aircraft from their engineers. We did of course have a product support engineer who lived on the Azores and worked with them, as we did for all operators.
One other point which should be mentioned is competition. Before you spray your drink of choice over the screen, allow me explain. I knew a few of the salesmen in ATR and initially at least there was great concern about the ATP. Selling aircraft can be a dirty business and ATR wasted no time in looking for every opportunity they could to disparage the ATP. They didn't have to work too hard, but the story about the airbridges was a classic. In the early days of selling the 146, Air UK were told by Fokker that the sill on the 146 was too low for the airbridges at AMS. We knew they weren't - we'd already done the sums. It took us three months and the intervention of the British Embassy to get permission to use the airbridges at AMS for a trial and prove that we were right. The fact that Fokker were based at Amsterdam was purely a coincidence of course...
If you want to know more about how competitive selling aircraft is, feel free to order a copy of my book, 'Wings for Sale'.
First, my apologies for the delay in replying.
Thank you for qualifying the deal with BM, however, I remain "open minded " as to the one with BA given the obvious marketing value of a tail / brand of the national flag carrier.
I think it would be safe to say, even if not or ever involved in sales, most of us would be aware of inducements and competitor disinformation. However, there was no need to be disparaging because the aircraft did that all by itself.
I have, strangely enough, also flown in other turboprops. I used to make a point of sitting at the rear whenever possible, unless jumpseating which was far more interesting of course, and I can assure you the vibration of the stab was "disconcerting " to watch, as was a meal tray crossing the table. Always open to being informed otherwise, I understand the vibration level caused some "concern " during certification.
I am not being disparaging for the sake of it, but, as an engineer, the maintainability and product support was, politely, abysmal. The hyds have been justifiably mentioned, now lets have a look at the belly access panels. They may have fitted, but, they were far from simple to remove and refit. Also, the location of components within the belly. Now I can't recall if it was the airframe or engine anti ice module, but one of them, replaced all too frequently, was located so far forward of the hatch you could lose an awful lot of time just trying to access it. The baggage hold...hardly spacious and even less so with all the external locks and restraints inside. The A/P..."Smiths " I believe, expensive, and had a few issues which the drivers may wish to comment on. I understand WestAir replaced this item. Gust locks...another area and I'm sure there was an incident in Scotland on take off which came close to ending the run there and then involving said locks.
Then there was the afterthought of a reinforcing external patch opposite the props due to ice ....yes, I know, this is not uncommon on props. And Loganair hold perhaps the most unenviable record for IFSD..dep Woodford on two, arr MAN on one. .
I appreciate your perspective and support for the aircraft, but, I'm hardly alone in having a factually based opinion as to the poor standard of the aircraft.
Finally, if any former "British World " engineers are reading this and recall the AOG evac slide provision requirement, all I can say is you did nothing wrong and were a credit to yourselves with the efforts you made to get the contract. Unfortunately, Woodford procurement were "impressed " with BS and pretty ./ glossy advertising. I loved your APU test rig by the way.