flybe more q400's?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boys, boys - CALM DOWN!
Let's not get too heated up over this.....
It's simple. Jet boys like their 146 and think the Q400 is a pile of poo, and Q400 boys happen to like their toy and thoroughly enjoy flying it, and see the 146 as rather antiquated.
Smooth landings on the Q400 are not rare - actually those of us that fly the thing every day manage to get some nice greasers out of the thing, and at least we can put that down to skill as opposed to the 146 doing it all for you!
>>I used to position on them a lot, and I used to find my "outside" foot would go numb with the constant buzzing vibration coming from the cabin side mouldings<<
I'm guessing that might be a slight exaggeration otherwise we'd have all sorts of complaints from the passengers - and quite simply we don't!
>>Then there were the days when we would push back, only to be told that everything was about to go "dark", as all the electrics had to be turned off to reset some errant computer. Wonderful stuff.<<
The first five words of the above statement says it all - yes it used to be a regular occurence, but such incidences are decreasing as we get all the problems sorted.
We do actually have to pull the throttles back in the cruise to avoid it overspeeding - I do it every day!
Flight time wise - on the JER-LGW route we actually have the same flight time as the 146.
Noise wise - positioning quite a lot on both the 146 and 400, the jet actually seems to be noisier on most occasions....
Let's face it - the majortity of guys moving from the 146 to the Dash fall into two categories -
1) 'Older' Captains who actually have no intention of leaving the company, therefore the last a/c type on their CV is of no use to anyone. They seem to be enjoying the Dash, and certainly have made no complaints about keeping their jet salary and earning more than other Dash Captains.
2) First Officers from the 146 who have been offered a command on the Dash. In a lot of cases they have the required 1500jet hrs to move to a company that would offer long haul (i.e. Virgin), but are taking the opportunity to get time in the LHS which also is 'eye-catching' on the CV.
146 and Q400 drivers will never agree on which a/c is best, and that's what makes all this banter amusing. There is only one thing to realise - the Q400 is more difficult to fly therefore we should be paid more!
Let's not get too heated up over this.....
It's simple. Jet boys like their 146 and think the Q400 is a pile of poo, and Q400 boys happen to like their toy and thoroughly enjoy flying it, and see the 146 as rather antiquated.
Smooth landings on the Q400 are not rare - actually those of us that fly the thing every day manage to get some nice greasers out of the thing, and at least we can put that down to skill as opposed to the 146 doing it all for you!
>>I used to position on them a lot, and I used to find my "outside" foot would go numb with the constant buzzing vibration coming from the cabin side mouldings<<
I'm guessing that might be a slight exaggeration otherwise we'd have all sorts of complaints from the passengers - and quite simply we don't!
>>Then there were the days when we would push back, only to be told that everything was about to go "dark", as all the electrics had to be turned off to reset some errant computer. Wonderful stuff.<<
The first five words of the above statement says it all - yes it used to be a regular occurence, but such incidences are decreasing as we get all the problems sorted.
We do actually have to pull the throttles back in the cruise to avoid it overspeeding - I do it every day!
Flight time wise - on the JER-LGW route we actually have the same flight time as the 146.
Noise wise - positioning quite a lot on both the 146 and 400, the jet actually seems to be noisier on most occasions....
Let's face it - the majortity of guys moving from the 146 to the Dash fall into two categories -
1) 'Older' Captains who actually have no intention of leaving the company, therefore the last a/c type on their CV is of no use to anyone. They seem to be enjoying the Dash, and certainly have made no complaints about keeping their jet salary and earning more than other Dash Captains.
2) First Officers from the 146 who have been offered a command on the Dash. In a lot of cases they have the required 1500jet hrs to move to a company that would offer long haul (i.e. Virgin), but are taking the opportunity to get time in the LHS which also is 'eye-catching' on the CV.
146 and Q400 drivers will never agree on which a/c is best, and that's what makes all this banter amusing. There is only one thing to realise - the Q400 is more difficult to fly therefore we should be paid more!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'MOR' and 'Gear up shut up' are spot on with their comments although you will never change the minds of many FlyBE Q400 pilots as it is natural for most pilots to defend the type they are on.
Basically the Q400 is the new kid on the block, it is a very good turbo-prop - burns half the fuel of the 146 for 78 pax as apposed to the 146's 112 pax. It is also quick for a turbo-prop and therefore well suited to the short U.K./European routes that FlyBe do.
Unfortunately it is proving to be a little unreliable but for now at least we still have the old 146 to pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong.
Basically, the FlyBe management have taken a big risk acquiring the Q400's. It has proved to be unreliable with other operators in the past and because not many other operators have chosen it FlyBe are having to tackle the teething problems alone. Because of this they are keen to promote the aircraft. i.e. show it to be more reliable than it really is, do feature's on it in the in-flight magazine, increase the Q400 salaries by 30% over the last few years whilst giving the 146 pilots the minimum increase to attract more 146 pilots to convert to it.
Even our own Balpa/CC are keen to promote it to the point of calling a conversion from a Q400 to a 146 a TRANSFER Not a PROMOTION !!
Management will always do what they can to make it seem like they have made the right decision - only time will tell.
Basically the Q400 is the new kid on the block, it is a very good turbo-prop - burns half the fuel of the 146 for 78 pax as apposed to the 146's 112 pax. It is also quick for a turbo-prop and therefore well suited to the short U.K./European routes that FlyBe do.
Unfortunately it is proving to be a little unreliable but for now at least we still have the old 146 to pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong.
Basically, the FlyBe management have taken a big risk acquiring the Q400's. It has proved to be unreliable with other operators in the past and because not many other operators have chosen it FlyBe are having to tackle the teething problems alone. Because of this they are keen to promote the aircraft. i.e. show it to be more reliable than it really is, do feature's on it in the in-flight magazine, increase the Q400 salaries by 30% over the last few years whilst giving the 146 pilots the minimum increase to attract more 146 pilots to convert to it.
Even our own Balpa/CC are keen to promote it to the point of calling a conversion from a Q400 to a 146 a TRANSFER Not a PROMOTION !!
Management will always do what they can to make it seem like they have made the right decision - only time will tell.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nilfurther,
The balance sheet is showing an operating profit for the first time in 5 years. Surely this is evidence enough of the strides Flybe has made and indicates the current growth strategy and plans to be correct. There are not many airlines recording any increase in yields.
The reason for the change in financial performance is directly related to the change over to the Q400, which yes may be a little unreliable at times, but is infact comparable to the 146 in dispatch reliability, and new routes that are already recording profits.
The 737's to be launched at BHX will be damp lease as previously advised. There is, as yet, no final decision yet made on either 737/319. There is little point in being forced into retraining 146 drivers onto 737 yet until this decision is final. Using damp lease aircraft will also allow the schedule to be flown whilst some 146 drivers are retrained onto the new type being ordered. Flybe's hand at BHX appears to have been forced somewhat by BMIBaby and hence the reason for using a damp lease provider.
The recent investment of some £4.5million in new maintenance hangars in Exeter that can accomodate 737/319 aircraft also indicates the planned move to larger aircraft is not just a pipe dream.
There is no question that the LGW slots are valuable however Flybe now have defendable bases for the first time, demonstrated by their recent commitment in BHX. Flybe may have struggled in their past incarnations to find their niche, but that is quite clearly not the case any longer.
The balance sheet is showing an operating profit for the first time in 5 years. Surely this is evidence enough of the strides Flybe has made and indicates the current growth strategy and plans to be correct. There are not many airlines recording any increase in yields.
The reason for the change in financial performance is directly related to the change over to the Q400, which yes may be a little unreliable at times, but is infact comparable to the 146 in dispatch reliability, and new routes that are already recording profits.
The 737's to be launched at BHX will be damp lease as previously advised. There is, as yet, no final decision yet made on either 737/319. There is little point in being forced into retraining 146 drivers onto 737 yet until this decision is final. Using damp lease aircraft will also allow the schedule to be flown whilst some 146 drivers are retrained onto the new type being ordered. Flybe's hand at BHX appears to have been forced somewhat by BMIBaby and hence the reason for using a damp lease provider.
The recent investment of some £4.5million in new maintenance hangars in Exeter that can accomodate 737/319 aircraft also indicates the planned move to larger aircraft is not just a pipe dream.
There is no question that the LGW slots are valuable however Flybe now have defendable bases for the first time, demonstrated by their recent commitment in BHX. Flybe may have struggled in their past incarnations to find their niche, but that is quite clearly not the case any longer.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JobsaGoodun
It is also directly related the dozens of new (146) routes from places like SOU. To attribute the more recent financial performance to the Q400 is naive in the extreme, particularly as the most recent balance sheet doesn't show that to be the case.
Or, for that matter, the EMB170.
That hangar was designed to accomodate third party work, and shouldn't be seen as an indicator regarding the acquisition of new jets.
Until somebody gets serious at CVT...
er82
Actually, you do (or did).
Try this. Ask your pax what they would rather fly on, the Q400 or the 146. Then understand that the public prefer jets. Most everybody knows this.
The amusing thing about being called out from standby to fill in for a tech Q400, was all the pax going on about how happy they were at the "upgrade" to the jet.
Flybe don't use the Q400 because it is better than the 146, or even particularly good. They did it because it was cheap, at a time when there was no spare money to be had in the company. They took a huge risk, and for my money the jury is still out. BTW, they re-signed some 146 leases for the same reason (cheapness).
If you are talking schedule times, of course you do - the schedule time has little bearing on reality, and it is in the interest of the company to show the same flight time, for obvious reasons.
The only way the flight time is actually the same is if you fly the 146 with the brake open...
Now how about SOU - Malaga...
The reason for the change in financial performance is directly related to the change over to the Q400, which yes may be a little unreliable at times, but is infact comparable to the 146 in dispatch reliability, and new routes that are already recording profits.
There is, as yet, no final decision yet made on either 737/319.
The recent investment of some £4.5million in new maintenance hangars in Exeter that can accomodate 737/319 aircraft also indicates the planned move to larger aircraft is not just a pipe dream.
Flybe now have defendable bases for the first time, demonstrated by their recent commitment in BHX.
er82
I'm guessing that might be a slight exaggeration otherwise we'd have all sorts of complaints from the passengers - and quite simply we don't!
Try this. Ask your pax what they would rather fly on, the Q400 or the 146. Then understand that the public prefer jets. Most everybody knows this.
The amusing thing about being called out from standby to fill in for a tech Q400, was all the pax going on about how happy they were at the "upgrade" to the jet.
Flybe don't use the Q400 because it is better than the 146, or even particularly good. They did it because it was cheap, at a time when there was no spare money to be had in the company. They took a huge risk, and for my money the jury is still out. BTW, they re-signed some 146 leases for the same reason (cheapness).
Flight time wise - on the JER-LGW route we actually have the same flight time as the 146.
The only way the flight time is actually the same is if you fly the 146 with the brake open...
Now how about SOU - Malaga...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's strange....... I had a 34min flight time to LGW the other day. Don't think the jet does it much quicker - and if it does it'll only be by a minute or two - which makes not much difference to pax when we had them in 15mins early anyway...
Nothing to do with performance, but the 400 is much nicer and brighter inside.
And having flown goodness how many pax over the past 18months on the 400, I've heard not one complaint about the noise or vibration, although maybe I have had the odd one about a nice 'hard' landing!
Nothing to do with performance, but the 400 is much nicer and brighter inside.
And having flown goodness how many pax over the past 18months on the 400, I've heard not one complaint about the noise or vibration, although maybe I have had the odd one about a nice 'hard' landing!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you could bring Concorde out of retirement and use it on the JER-LGW the flight time STILL wouldn't be much different than what a Q400 could do it in. Indeed it might even be quicker if you were to do a tight visual circuit at destination.
The point is these are tools for different jobs. The Q400 is IMHO the best tool for short sectors whilst the 146 does a better job of the long sectors - Period
Those Q400 pilots who feel the need to make out that the Q400 goes as fast as the 146 etc.etc. need to understand that -
a) it doesn't
b) it doesn't matter anyway
c) the Q400 is good at what it does so stop walking around with a chip on your shoulder.
d) dispatch figures are fudged in the favour of the Q400 for reasons I have given earlier.
e) the 146 makes the company a lot of profit on the Spanish routes, just try and travel standby on one and you will appreciate this.
The point is these are tools for different jobs. The Q400 is IMHO the best tool for short sectors whilst the 146 does a better job of the long sectors - Period
Those Q400 pilots who feel the need to make out that the Q400 goes as fast as the 146 etc.etc. need to understand that -
a) it doesn't
b) it doesn't matter anyway
c) the Q400 is good at what it does so stop walking around with a chip on your shoulder.
d) dispatch figures are fudged in the favour of the Q400 for reasons I have given earlier.
e) the 146 makes the company a lot of profit on the Spanish routes, just try and travel standby on one and you will appreciate this.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not have a chip on my shoulder! My original post was just trying to explain that whilst the odd one or two might see moving from the 146 to the 400 a 'demotion' many that have done it haven't felt like this.
Yes, the two a/c are completely different, and each are very good for the routes they operate. The 146 is faster, the 400 has a nicer flightdeck with more advanced systems.
Yes, the two a/c are completely different, and each are very good for the routes they operate. The 146 is faster, the 400 has a nicer flightdeck with more advanced systems.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jobsagoodun
You missed my point , the first thing i mentioned was that i am hugely impressed by the way JF has kept the company alive for the past 2 years .
Re the balance sheet , net profits are not shown on a balance sheet , i was refering to the sale value of the company which i believe is the stated intention of the owners .
All the Q400 v 146 arguments are missing the point , these days its all about cost per revenue seat km and the real chalenge for everyone in the short haul market in Europe is competing in cost terms with Mr O Leary and EZY.
Are airline trickets not just a commodity now ? especially short duration sectors of c. 1 Hour . If you are flying GLA - BHD or BFS , all you are interested in is availability and price at the time you wish to travel . I politely suggest that the average customer neither knows nor cares wether its a Q400 ,ATP , 146 , Airbus or whatever ; so long as it arrives and departs on time and doesnt crash in the middle.
NF
You missed my point , the first thing i mentioned was that i am hugely impressed by the way JF has kept the company alive for the past 2 years .
Re the balance sheet , net profits are not shown on a balance sheet , i was refering to the sale value of the company which i believe is the stated intention of the owners .
All the Q400 v 146 arguments are missing the point , these days its all about cost per revenue seat km and the real chalenge for everyone in the short haul market in Europe is competing in cost terms with Mr O Leary and EZY.
Are airline trickets not just a commodity now ? especially short duration sectors of c. 1 Hour . If you are flying GLA - BHD or BFS , all you are interested in is availability and price at the time you wish to travel . I politely suggest that the average customer neither knows nor cares wether its a Q400 ,ATP , 146 , Airbus or whatever ; so long as it arrives and departs on time and doesnt crash in the middle.
NF
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nilfurther - I couldn't agree with you more, and apologies if I misinterpreted your post.
MOR - I beg to differ. The jet versus prop argument simply makes very little difference now. The first priority in most cases is simply the price. Consumers simply want to get from 'a to b' at the lowest possible fare. Flybe know that they would struggle to compete directly with the likes of EZY or FR and so they introduce a differentiator, (ie) BHD iso BFS. Some people are prepared to pay a little more for the convenience of BHD, this is clear.
I have by no means attributed the recent financial results solely to the Q400 and agree that the routes into Spain have contributed to the cause, however without the Q400 many of the new routes would not be operating simply due the high costs of the 146 in comparison. You would never have seen Flybe competing with EZY on BHD-EDI/GLA/NCL/BRS and now LPL if it wasn't for the Q400.
The EMB170 is a very nice aircraft, (I flew on the demonstration flight when it came to EXT,) and it would be possible that an order may be placed, but that is unlikely in the short term. The 146 and AVRO RJ are likely to be in the fleet for the foreseeable future with some routes like SOU/EXT - AGP/ALC/MJV being handed over to larger jets. Far more likely would be an order for Bombardier's C Series if/when released for service in 2008. As for CVT I would envisage that the largest tour operator in Europe would be seen to be significant enough as a serious operator - do you seriously expect them to open their doors to other airlines when TUI own the airport aswell???
On sectors up to and around an hour, the difference in flight duration between 146 and Q400 is negligible. It comes in as minutes. The main fact is that some routes will only be viable on the 146 and others will only be viable on the Q400.
Many of Flybe's new routes are ones where the passenger has no other option - few people out there will travel from Hampshire to STN simply to fly on a jet to LRH/EGC.
MOR - I beg to differ. The jet versus prop argument simply makes very little difference now. The first priority in most cases is simply the price. Consumers simply want to get from 'a to b' at the lowest possible fare. Flybe know that they would struggle to compete directly with the likes of EZY or FR and so they introduce a differentiator, (ie) BHD iso BFS. Some people are prepared to pay a little more for the convenience of BHD, this is clear.
I have by no means attributed the recent financial results solely to the Q400 and agree that the routes into Spain have contributed to the cause, however without the Q400 many of the new routes would not be operating simply due the high costs of the 146 in comparison. You would never have seen Flybe competing with EZY on BHD-EDI/GLA/NCL/BRS and now LPL if it wasn't for the Q400.
The EMB170 is a very nice aircraft, (I flew on the demonstration flight when it came to EXT,) and it would be possible that an order may be placed, but that is unlikely in the short term. The 146 and AVRO RJ are likely to be in the fleet for the foreseeable future with some routes like SOU/EXT - AGP/ALC/MJV being handed over to larger jets. Far more likely would be an order for Bombardier's C Series if/when released for service in 2008. As for CVT I would envisage that the largest tour operator in Europe would be seen to be significant enough as a serious operator - do you seriously expect them to open their doors to other airlines when TUI own the airport aswell???
On sectors up to and around an hour, the difference in flight duration between 146 and Q400 is negligible. It comes in as minutes. The main fact is that some routes will only be viable on the 146 and others will only be viable on the Q400.
Many of Flybe's new routes are ones where the passenger has no other option - few people out there will travel from Hampshire to STN simply to fly on a jet to LRH/EGC.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems a shame to be discussing flybe without the mighty Raw Data , whatever happenned to him ?
He would have been able to tell us the answer to all these points.
Aaaaaahh
He would have been able to tell us the answer to all these points.
Aaaaaahh
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty much agree with you, with the proviso that if what I have heard is correct, the recent re-leases of the 146s are significantly less than the Q400 lease costs (of course fuel is more), so the cost difference is negligible too.
I'm not suggesting that pax will choose to pay more for a jet (although some clearly do), but simply that, all other things being equal, they prefer the jet to the turboprop. Who wouldn't?
Try operating on a route with excess capacity, against Easy, using a Q400. It would be empty most of the time.
The point of the argument is the assertion by our loyal Q400 driver that the Q400 is as quick as the 146. It isn't. Does it matter? Not really.
I'm not suggesting that pax will choose to pay more for a jet (although some clearly do), but simply that, all other things being equal, they prefer the jet to the turboprop. Who wouldn't?
Try operating on a route with excess capacity, against Easy, using a Q400. It would be empty most of the time.
The point of the argument is the assertion by our loyal Q400 driver that the Q400 is as quick as the 146. It isn't. Does it matter? Not really.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wherever its hot and sunny
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly un biased view here. I have to fix the things when they go wrong.
Reliability through a normal day is about the same. Rarely get called out to either.
When it comes to nigtstops however.
The 146 has an interior that is showing its age especially in the customers eye. I don't often have to fix things on the 400 that fell off onto someone's head.
The 400 takes about half the time of a 146 to put to bed if there are no defects.
Only have to put oil in two engines as opposed to four. and the 400 apu seems to me much more reliable that the 146.
With respect to the comment of the 400 being around as long as the 146. There is no way on earth. But that does have its good sides as many faults are down to the age of the 146. this will not be a problem on the 400 as it wont get there. it is a disposable aircraft.
And lastly many normal tasks such as wheel and brake changes are much easier on the 400 down to the design. The 146 was built in the age old British way over complicated and therefore labour intensive.
So my view is going towards the 400. But having said that the 146 has taught me a lot and made me a lot of money in the past, but I would still rather have the best of both worlds and be home three hours earlier and working the CRJ.
Bring on something new.
Reliability through a normal day is about the same. Rarely get called out to either.
When it comes to nigtstops however.
The 146 has an interior that is showing its age especially in the customers eye. I don't often have to fix things on the 400 that fell off onto someone's head.
The 400 takes about half the time of a 146 to put to bed if there are no defects.
Only have to put oil in two engines as opposed to four. and the 400 apu seems to me much more reliable that the 146.
With respect to the comment of the 400 being around as long as the 146. There is no way on earth. But that does have its good sides as many faults are down to the age of the 146. this will not be a problem on the 400 as it wont get there. it is a disposable aircraft.
And lastly many normal tasks such as wheel and brake changes are much easier on the 400 down to the design. The 146 was built in the age old British way over complicated and therefore labour intensive.
So my view is going towards the 400. But having said that the 146 has taught me a lot and made me a lot of money in the past, but I would still rather have the best of both worlds and be home three hours earlier and working the CRJ.
Bring on something new.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa Del Solent
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working as a CA1 for flybe I think I would have reasonable knowledge of passenger perception of the a/c.
When the EGC flights were changed over from the 146 to the DH4, regular pax actually told me that they preferred it to the 146 because of its light, airy, modern interior. I have heard few comments regarding the fact that 'it's got propellors', those I have heard were not disapproving either, more out of interest.
The only cabin buzzing I have experienced is around the lockers near the engines where a couple of panels have not been attached particularly well, a couple of entries in the CDL should have got those sorted.
Any brand new a/c has it's teething problems, I'm sure when the 146 first entered service in the early 1980's it had some glitches that needed sorting.
Not entirely defending the DH4 or saying it's a better a/c. The 146 is a great a/c, but the DH4 does get some un-fair 'stick' IMHO.
Plus-
*The Q400 does have an APU
*It is definately quieter in the cruise than the 146
*It is rumoured that the Airbus being considered is the A319 with more powerful CFM engines from A320 (not same as EZY) A318 is too small
*RawData is currently in NZ for a while.
Tri
When the EGC flights were changed over from the 146 to the DH4, regular pax actually told me that they preferred it to the 146 because of its light, airy, modern interior. I have heard few comments regarding the fact that 'it's got propellors', those I have heard were not disapproving either, more out of interest.
The only cabin buzzing I have experienced is around the lockers near the engines where a couple of panels have not been attached particularly well, a couple of entries in the CDL should have got those sorted.
Any brand new a/c has it's teething problems, I'm sure when the 146 first entered service in the early 1980's it had some glitches that needed sorting.
Not entirely defending the DH4 or saying it's a better a/c. The 146 is a great a/c, but the DH4 does get some un-fair 'stick' IMHO.
Plus-
*The Q400 does have an APU
*It is definately quieter in the cruise than the 146
*It is rumoured that the Airbus being considered is the A319 with more powerful CFM engines from A320 (not same as EZY) A318 is too small
*RawData is currently in NZ for a while.
Tri
I agree er82 - the Q400 is a much better a/c than the 146 - and as quick on the LGW route......
it's a great a/c which is fun to fly.... but your arguments become very hard to swallow when you're busy applying to everyone else so you can stop flying it......??
BPM x
it's a great a/c which is fun to fly.... but your arguments become very hard to swallow when you're busy applying to everyone else so you can stop flying it......??
BPM x
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is 146 cheaper to lease than Q400? More of them lying around to lease is why - Ansett going down, Aer Lingus chopping theirs etc. It's an older aircraft and thus has most of its capital value written off.
It is reduced to specialist hot/high roles or for places like LCY, while 717s start replacing them in mainstream use.
As for Q400 orders vs CRJ - when Air Canada starts buying EMBs as well as CRJs rather than flying the flag and giving Bombardier the entire RJ order it makes you wonder, plus Bombardier shares are depressed by the fact that a lot of outstanding CRJ orders are with US airlines in/near Chapt.11.
With NIMBYism rampant, runway extensions for RJs are not going to be easy to come by, and Q400s can get away with about 4600ft field length as opposed to 6,000 for CRJ and more for the smaller EMBs.
It is reduced to specialist hot/high roles or for places like LCY, while 717s start replacing them in mainstream use.
As for Q400 orders vs CRJ - when Air Canada starts buying EMBs as well as CRJs rather than flying the flag and giving Bombardier the entire RJ order it makes you wonder, plus Bombardier shares are depressed by the fact that a lot of outstanding CRJ orders are with US airlines in/near Chapt.11.
With NIMBYism rampant, runway extensions for RJs are not going to be easy to come by, and Q400s can get away with about 4600ft field length as opposed to 6,000 for CRJ and more for the smaller EMBs.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR said...
Not really, in fact before posting my earlier response, I picked out and corrected the inaccuracies contained within the comments from yourself and Gear up, but then decided there was absolutely no point turning this thread into a 'mine is better than yours' argument. All I would ask is that if you're gonna make negative comments about the 400, and I don't mind if anyone does, then make sure you get the facts right. ie. a) noisy flightdeck - 300 maybe, 400 definitely not, b) inop prop synch - 300 maybe, 400 doesn't have it!! c) APU - 300 no, 400 yes. Also, how can Gear up state that he's flown the 400 and 'rarely' had to throttle back in the cruise when this happens almost every day (well, 99 out of a 100) as er82 pointed out.
As far as the jet/tprop argument affecting future prospects is concerned, for now I enjoy flying the 400, simple as that, and if XYZ Airlines won't give me a 2nd glance because I fly the 400 and not the 146, then fine, I'll try somewhere else.
However, all in all, I am thankful to er82, corporate kid, Trislander etc for challenging and straightening out some of the inaccuracies quoted, which, because they are put forward by someone who appears to give an 'inside' view, (which may or may not be the case) they serve only to misinform those who are not.
Numb feet? passengers happy about being "upgraded" to the jet? god what tosh!!
Nil Further/Trislander - RD may be closer than you realise.
The reason you don't want to answer the points here is that, well, you can't.
As far as the jet/tprop argument affecting future prospects is concerned, for now I enjoy flying the 400, simple as that, and if XYZ Airlines won't give me a 2nd glance because I fly the 400 and not the 146, then fine, I'll try somewhere else.
However, all in all, I am thankful to er82, corporate kid, Trislander etc for challenging and straightening out some of the inaccuracies quoted, which, because they are put forward by someone who appears to give an 'inside' view, (which may or may not be the case) they serve only to misinform those who are not.
Numb feet? passengers happy about being "upgraded" to the jet? god what tosh!!
Nil Further/Trislander - RD may be closer than you realise.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am, in fact, nowhere near! I'm in sunny NZ where the temperature is 23C and there is a gentle breeze from the northwest. Sipping a nice cool beer. Heaven.
But I am keeping an eye on you lot, never fear.
As far as this debate is concerned, who really cares? The 146 is great to fly, but it is old, slow, complicated, and increasingly unwanted.
The Q400 might be light and airy, but it is also "buzzy", and in my experience positioning on the jump seat (when you could), it is a lot noisier than the 146. I too have experienced the vibes MOR speaks of, but it only seems to happen in a few rows near the prop.
The 146 is faster, no debate there. Also, in the 146, I have never been able to cruise without reducing the power quite a long way. But for me the telling point is that, given that the technology in the 146 is at least 25 years older than the Q400, you would expect the Q400 to be miles better than the 146 - and it isn't. As noted above, it is a disposable revenue earner.
But the real point is - and I think this is more important - the Q400 was at least partly responsible for saving the company. Who really cares about the 146 v Q400 argument, the important thing is that the company is moving on from the hard times of a few years ago, you all still have jobs, and your futures are assured.
I like the 146, but I recognise the value of the Q400.
But I am keeping an eye on you lot, never fear.
As far as this debate is concerned, who really cares? The 146 is great to fly, but it is old, slow, complicated, and increasingly unwanted.
The Q400 might be light and airy, but it is also "buzzy", and in my experience positioning on the jump seat (when you could), it is a lot noisier than the 146. I too have experienced the vibes MOR speaks of, but it only seems to happen in a few rows near the prop.
The 146 is faster, no debate there. Also, in the 146, I have never been able to cruise without reducing the power quite a long way. But for me the telling point is that, given that the technology in the 146 is at least 25 years older than the Q400, you would expect the Q400 to be miles better than the 146 - and it isn't. As noted above, it is a disposable revenue earner.
But the real point is - and I think this is more important - the Q400 was at least partly responsible for saving the company. Who really cares about the 146 v Q400 argument, the important thing is that the company is moving on from the hard times of a few years ago, you all still have jobs, and your futures are assured.
I like the 146, but I recognise the value of the Q400.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: england
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to hear from you RD...I don't understand why there is such a debate...there is a need for both types/sizes of aircraft in the flybe fleet and both aircraft and have contributed to the turn round of the company. Not to mention alot of hard work by all employees.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now theres a blast from the past! Derbyram and Raw data! This feels like a re-union!
As for the 400 v 146 debate IMHO there is none. It's a boy thing. I personally do not want to fly one. I've had to fly props in the past and going back to it would feel like a step backwards. If I was forced to go onto it by the company then I would either wear a bag over my head or leave. That does not mean I am totally against the Dash, I think Jim French has got it spot on. He is one of the few that is operating equimpent for what it was designed for. Just look at the profits that the company has announced today. Interim profits of nearly 20 million!
It is a fact Pilots want to fly Jets not props. It is also fact that props can make alot of money.
Come on chaps, serve your time on the props as most of us have, it's only time before your on the jet and earning loads of cash. Look at Raw Data, 10 years flying jets and he's retired to NZ sipping beer in the sun.
As for the 400 v 146 debate IMHO there is none. It's a boy thing. I personally do not want to fly one. I've had to fly props in the past and going back to it would feel like a step backwards. If I was forced to go onto it by the company then I would either wear a bag over my head or leave. That does not mean I am totally against the Dash, I think Jim French has got it spot on. He is one of the few that is operating equimpent for what it was designed for. Just look at the profits that the company has announced today. Interim profits of nearly 20 million!
It is a fact Pilots want to fly Jets not props. It is also fact that props can make alot of money.
Come on chaps, serve your time on the props as most of us have, it's only time before your on the jet and earning loads of cash. Look at Raw Data, 10 years flying jets and he's retired to NZ sipping beer in the sun.