OK, time for someone who travels as SLF to respond to this.
The 400 is not unpleasant.
I've flown on SD330's, 360's, F27's. F50's. Swearingen Metros, SAAB 340's ATP's ATR42's, Dash7's as well as the various flavours of Dash 8's. I can also add to that jets from a 737-200 up to 747-400. with most of the varieties in between, including L1011 & DC10s.
I've also got enough pilot experience to know what's going on, and when I'm comfortable with the way the aircraft is doing things, and equally to know when I'm not.
The 400 is a lot quieter than some of the other Turboprops I've been on, and in the FlyBE configuration, which I have travelled on, it's comfortable enough, I've been on worse long haul flights with less space than the 400's, so let's be realistic here. It's a short sector turboprop which is being used on skinny routes, and for that, it's pretty good, and seems to have made a difference to FlyBE, which I for one am happy to see happening.
It's pressurised, which means it can go over the top of the weather, unlike some of it's predecessors, and from the block times I've seen, it's fast enough.
I've also handled it as a rampie, and it's a lot nicer to deal with than some of the other aircraft of similar size.
So, what's the problem? I've not seen it, and so far, while I'm aware that the early days of the 400 were not exactly problem free, that's true of most types. From what I'm seeing now, the initial snags have been ironed out, and it's performing as well as any other turboprop type.
OK, so some people don't like the power changes on final. That's relatively easy to deal with by telling people on the PA that there will be a change in the engine noise shortly which is to assist with the aircraft performance. Not a lie, and if people know it's going to happen, there's no issue. It's not unique to the 400, so why are some making such an issue of it?
OK, so there's a problem now for FlyBE with the replacement of the 146, and I've handled a good few of them in my time too. There's not an easy off the shelf replacement for the 146, there are aspects of it's performance that are not easy to find in the newer aircraft, so what's an operator supposed to do? Get something else that won't replace the 146 in all locations, and then change the route structure to suit the new type, having spent time and money developing a route structure? That doesn't sound too clever to me, if something is working, it makes a lot of sense to leave it that way. OK, the 146 is old. So? Given the way it's built, it's probably still going to last longer at less maintenance cost than some of the competitive aircraft. A long time ago, an engineer friend of mine commented that where corrosion was concerned, the British aircraft were streets ahead of some of the equivalent American aircraft. ( And before someone jumps on me from a great height, he was specifically talking about the BAC 1-11 and the Boeing 737-200)
So, where are we going? I suppose I'm looking at some awfully sour grapes that seem to be rooted in some very bitter feelings about the fleet replacement policy of FLyBE, and I'm sitting here thinking to myself that it's time some of the people that are involved in keeping the FLyBE fleet in the air said something. If we all stop using them, then some of the people whinging in this thread will really have something to whinge about. If however, FlyBE have at last managed to get a few things going right for them, then this SLF at least is very happy to see that continue.
And, just to make sure that no on accuses me of being FlyBE management, or biased, (a) I don't work for Flybe, and (b) in recent days, I've sent 2 somwhat less complimentary E-mails to customer service about other aspects of the organisation that do need some attention, so I'm not wearing rose tinted specs.