Flybe close to firming Q400 options!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im afraid (as i mentioned in earlier posts on this) im one of the people who hate flying on the Q400.
They must have turned off the noise supression system when i was on it too. Not only that but the whole experience was weird, cramped, disorientating and scary.
They must have turned off the noise supression system when i was on it too. Not only that but the whole experience was weird, cramped, disorientating and scary.
Nakata.............maybe you should drink more/less (use as appropriate) before travelling in the -400 
I cannot comment on the noise levels, but the a/c I have sat in on the ground seemed to be fine with regard to available leg and shoulder room, and I am not a slightly built short a@se either!
How can you be disorientated Nakata? They're not that big!!
I cannot comment on the noise levels, but the a/c I have sat in on the ground seemed to be fine with regard to available leg and shoulder room, and I am not a slightly built short a@se either!
How can you be disorientated Nakata? They're not that big!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Work associated address
Age: 42
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stick my two pennies worth inn,
My experience of the Q400 has been that it is indeed a very quiet machine even near the props.I'd certainly take a Q400 over a CRJ200 anyday unless you get the overwing emergency exits
BUT I would agree that I don't think I'd like to sit on one for more than an hour or so as each time I travelled I began to get a sore back and generally was uncomfortable.But super a/c for getting peeps to where they want to go on low fares!!
oh and there climb performance still impresses me
Regards
My experience of the Q400 has been that it is indeed a very quiet machine even near the props.I'd certainly take a Q400 over a CRJ200 anyday unless you get the overwing emergency exits
BUT I would agree that I don't think I'd like to sit on one for more than an hour or so as each time I travelled I began to get a sore back and generally was uncomfortable.But super a/c for getting peeps to where they want to go on low fares!!
oh and there climb performance still impresses me
Regards
Speaking only as a pax, I found the Q400 quiet and roomy (but I have done a lot of flying in Hercs, so was probably expecting similar levels of noise and vibration!). There is a slight "hanging" sensation on finals, I guess due to the high prop rpm, relatively low speed and nose down attitude, but in no way was it unpleasant.
My kids liked the aeroplane too, especially that you could see the undercarriage being raised and lowered.
Our next flight a few months after our trip in the Q400 was 10 hours squeezed into an AMM/FCA 763 - far less room! (although I know they are chaning that this year).
My kids liked the aeroplane too, especially that you could see the undercarriage being raised and lowered.
Our next flight a few months after our trip in the Q400 was 10 hours squeezed into an AMM/FCA 763 - far less room! (although I know they are chaning that this year).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: belfast
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
The tone of your posts suggest that perhaps you work for some of the other locos who haven't yet realised (or are not prepared to admit) that there might just be a more suitable and more cost effective aircraft than a clapped out 737 for some routes.
My experience as a pax has shown that there is at least sufficient legroom for someone of average height - can you say that about other locos?
The tone of your posts suggest that perhaps you work for some of the other locos who haven't yet realised (or are not prepared to admit) that there might just be a more suitable and more cost effective aircraft than a clapped out 737 for some routes.
My experience as a pax has shown that there is at least sufficient legroom for someone of average height - can you say that about other locos?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALLMCC
Not at all, it is wonderful from the point of view of turning a profit, particularly on thinner routes, and that's why I said above that flybe were very astute in their choice of aircraft. There is no doubt in my mind that the other lo-cos were initially dismissive, but are now somewhat envious.
All I am saying is that I personally, having spent many hours as a pax on the Q400, find it noisy, cramped, and generally unpleasant compared to the 146.
The noise and vibration are supposed to be fixed by the noise cancellation system, and carefully balanced props. However my experience was that the noise cancellation systen seems to break a lot, and props "lose" their balance quite quickly. These defects then sit in the tech log for weeks, and the aircraft are not very pleasant to fly in as a result.
Add to that the number of times I have sat on the ramp, engines running, in the dark because the flight deck have had to turn off all the electrics in an attempt to get the computers to talk to each other, and I am even less impressed.
It isn't unsafe, or dangerous in any way - I just don't like to fly in it. Given the choice, I would never set foot in one again.
Flybe is a great company, and I thoroughly enjoyed working there. There were one or two complete charlies in management roles whilst I was there, but they have all gone now and I think flybe will be one of the major success stories of the new(ish) millenium. Theyt have welded their future to the Q400 - and good luck.
OK?
Meeb
Not at all, it is wonderful from the point of view of turning a profit, particularly on thinner routes, and that's why I said above that flybe were very astute in their choice of aircraft. There is no doubt in my mind that the other lo-cos were initially dismissive, but are now somewhat envious.
All I am saying is that I personally, having spent many hours as a pax on the Q400, find it noisy, cramped, and generally unpleasant compared to the 146.
The noise and vibration are supposed to be fixed by the noise cancellation system, and carefully balanced props. However my experience was that the noise cancellation systen seems to break a lot, and props "lose" their balance quite quickly. These defects then sit in the tech log for weeks, and the aircraft are not very pleasant to fly in as a result.
Add to that the number of times I have sat on the ramp, engines running, in the dark because the flight deck have had to turn off all the electrics in an attempt to get the computers to talk to each other, and I am even less impressed.
It isn't unsafe, or dangerous in any way - I just don't like to fly in it. Given the choice, I would never set foot in one again.
Flybe is a great company, and I thoroughly enjoyed working there. There were one or two complete charlies in management roles whilst I was there, but they have all gone now and I think flybe will be one of the major success stories of the new(ish) millenium. Theyt have welded their future to the Q400 - and good luck.
OK?
Meeb
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa Del Solent
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR has his opinion and is entitled to it, as is everyone. At least he can back up his comments with proper reasons, unlike some here.
Personally I and my other cabin crew colleagues at flybe think it's a fantastic a/c to work in, and that's now working in it almost every day after having worked in the dated 146 almost everyday! Sure it takes some getting used to, but overall the aircraft is liked by the majority of pax and crew we have fly in it.
Tri
Personally I and my other cabin crew colleagues at flybe think it's a fantastic a/c to work in, and that's now working in it almost every day after having worked in the dated 146 almost everyday! Sure it takes some getting used to, but overall the aircraft is liked by the majority of pax and crew we have fly in it.
Tri
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in bricks
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nakata77
A rather brave opinion that can only be backed up from your personal experience....
Fine, if you don't like it... don't fly on it. i'm assuming if everybody was that 'scared ****less' they wouldn't come back? The load factors that i see when I fly around the UK on the 400 and with FlyBE would indicate otherwise...
If it was meant to be funny... it wasn't.
Please keep unfounded sweeping generalizations to yourself, and as Trilander says.. back up comments with proper reaons.... Thanks.
0[]
because all the pax are scared ****less and aint moving or getting up to walk around the cabin for fear something might happen.
Fine, if you don't like it... don't fly on it. i'm assuming if everybody was that 'scared ****less' they wouldn't come back? The load factors that i see when I fly around the UK on the 400 and with FlyBE would indicate otherwise...
If it was meant to be funny... it wasn't.
Please keep unfounded sweeping generalizations to yourself, and as Trilander says.. back up comments with proper reaons.... Thanks.
0[]
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've only had the pleasure of using a Q400 once, and think it is a fantastic little machine!
I couldn't believe how quiet it was inside - when it was taxiing, it didn't feel like the inside of a plane (noise wise) at all.
From a window seat lover's point of view, they are great - how many other locos give you just 4 abreast?
Had best ever view of EDI going up there on New Year's eve - I can't credit the Q400 for that, but it does have the advantage of being able to see out of both sides.
For the regular punter, the Q400 has one key asset, as already pointed out - it enables loco operations from regional airports which other airlines wouldn't touch.
Well done to Flybe for taking this niche, I don't know why they need to bother with the 146 (which everyone else seems to hate), or the 737 (which most of their rivals operate).
Let us not forget too that the Q400 is a "good neighbour", with a noise footprint 1/20th of a 737-200. As already pointed out, it "sips" fuel, relative to regional jets. As Jim French has regularly stated, if environmental ratings were given to aircaft, the Q400 would get an A* rating.
In this age of increasing environmental concern (genuine or otherwise), aircraft like the Q400 represent an important step forward towards leaner, cleaner flights.
I couldn't believe how quiet it was inside - when it was taxiing, it didn't feel like the inside of a plane (noise wise) at all.
From a window seat lover's point of view, they are great - how many other locos give you just 4 abreast?
Had best ever view of EDI going up there on New Year's eve - I can't credit the Q400 for that, but it does have the advantage of being able to see out of both sides.
For the regular punter, the Q400 has one key asset, as already pointed out - it enables loco operations from regional airports which other airlines wouldn't touch.
Well done to Flybe for taking this niche, I don't know why they need to bother with the 146 (which everyone else seems to hate), or the 737 (which most of their rivals operate).
Let us not forget too that the Q400 is a "good neighbour", with a noise footprint 1/20th of a 737-200. As already pointed out, it "sips" fuel, relative to regional jets. As Jim French has regularly stated, if environmental ratings were given to aircaft, the Q400 would get an A* rating.
In this age of increasing environmental concern (genuine or otherwise), aircraft like the Q400 represent an important step forward towards leaner, cleaner flights.
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of us on here are aviation enthusiasts and perhaps look at flying differently to the majority of people.
I enjoy flying on turbo props and think that short hops, say EXT to BHD, are very pleasant.
However, there are members of the public for whom flying is a bit of a trial anyway who will baulk at anything they see as adding to their discomfort.
I was talking to a late middle aged couple of my acquaintance back in the autumn who, knowing of my interest in aviation, told me they had flown from Bristol to Jersey in the summer and had never before experienced such a frightening flight.
Expecting a tale of a missed approach or very strong winds or an engine problem I listened with interest.
Their 'fear' was based on flying on "an old aeroplane with propellers that rattled and shook so much we thought it would fall out of the sky". I established they had flown with Flybe on a DH-8-400 and explained that far from being out of the ark the machine was a new one.
They said they had seriously considered returning by sea but went to Jersey Airport instead in a state of near panic. They said their relief was indescribable when the 'plane appeared to take them home and it turned out to be a jet (a 146).
Of course they blamed Bristol Airport as much as the airline for being a "small airport that doesn't provide proper aircraft". I gave up on any further explanation at that point.
BRS, FLYbe and aviation in general have lost two customers on the BRS-JER route because my 'friends' have vowed to go by sea in future.
I enjoy flying on turbo props and think that short hops, say EXT to BHD, are very pleasant.
However, there are members of the public for whom flying is a bit of a trial anyway who will baulk at anything they see as adding to their discomfort.
I was talking to a late middle aged couple of my acquaintance back in the autumn who, knowing of my interest in aviation, told me they had flown from Bristol to Jersey in the summer and had never before experienced such a frightening flight.
Expecting a tale of a missed approach or very strong winds or an engine problem I listened with interest.
Their 'fear' was based on flying on "an old aeroplane with propellers that rattled and shook so much we thought it would fall out of the sky". I established they had flown with Flybe on a DH-8-400 and explained that far from being out of the ark the machine was a new one.
They said they had seriously considered returning by sea but went to Jersey Airport instead in a state of near panic. They said their relief was indescribable when the 'plane appeared to take them home and it turned out to be a jet (a 146).
Of course they blamed Bristol Airport as much as the airline for being a "small airport that doesn't provide proper aircraft". I gave up on any further explanation at that point.
BRS, FLYbe and aviation in general have lost two customers on the BRS-JER route because my 'friends' have vowed to go by sea in future.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MV
did Flybe have some of the older Dashes then? I thought they only just got shot of the last of the -200/-300. Might have been one of those...
did Flybe have some of the older Dashes then? I thought they only just got shot of the last of the -200/-300. Might have been one of those...
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MarkD
No, it was a 400. Flybe were using 400s from BRS last summer on all their routes with some 146 appearances at times as well.
I also asked the couple what colour the aircraft was painted and the man said that 'Flybe ' was written along the side in big blue lettering. I don't think the 300s and 200s were repainted in this livery.
surely not
Absolutely. This story was posted to illustrate the way some 'ordinary' airline passengers view things and certainly do not represent my views about Flybe, the 400 or flying in general.
I told them if they wanted a jet from Bristol to Jersey they should go with BACx on one of their ERJ 145s, but they seemed to have decided it is the briny next time. Until they encounter a force 8................
No, it was a 400. Flybe were using 400s from BRS last summer on all their routes with some 146 appearances at times as well.
I also asked the couple what colour the aircraft was painted and the man said that 'Flybe ' was written along the side in big blue lettering. I don't think the 300s and 200s were repainted in this livery.
surely not
Absolutely. This story was posted to illustrate the way some 'ordinary' airline passengers view things and certainly do not represent my views about Flybe, the 400 or flying in general.
I told them if they wanted a jet from Bristol to Jersey they should go with BACx on one of their ERJ 145s, but they seemed to have decided it is the briny next time. Until they encounter a force 8................
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Work associated address
Age: 42
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny story and not uncommon,have heard a few times of person remarking about travelling on "old" propeller aircraft,yet whereas in actual fact the Q400's are new,and certainly newer than their 146's.But it is always a good laugh.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MV,
I hope they enjoy the sea trip. Which side of BRS are they based? They could take a "proper" jet with another airline from LGW, CWL, CVT etc.
I am sure that those Q400s will have gained Flybe far more customers than they have lost them, not to mention that they will have grown the market.
On many of these routes, the Q400 will be taking pax off the roads and off the railways, not off other airlines, especially as there are a good number of routes / bases in which Flybe don't really have any air based competition (EXT, NWI etc, but also LPL to GLA / EDI).
On the environmental front, the traditional mantra is that trains are "greener" than flying, especially on short hops. My understanding is that the Q400 doesn't need to climb as high as other jet a/c, presumably saving on a lot of fuel, yet can still cruise very economically at this lower altitude. Has anyone ever done a comparison between, say a Q400 and one of Virgin's new Pendolinos or Voyagers, especially as (a) I'd expect Flybe's occupancy level to be about double that of Virgin Cross Country, and (b) trains tend to be getting heavier these days, rather than lighter. For electric trains, generation and transmission have to be brought into account. The train may still win, but I doubt the gap is anything like as much as some people would like to claim.
I hope they enjoy the sea trip. Which side of BRS are they based? They could take a "proper" jet with another airline from LGW, CWL, CVT etc.
I am sure that those Q400s will have gained Flybe far more customers than they have lost them, not to mention that they will have grown the market.
On many of these routes, the Q400 will be taking pax off the roads and off the railways, not off other airlines, especially as there are a good number of routes / bases in which Flybe don't really have any air based competition (EXT, NWI etc, but also LPL to GLA / EDI).
On the environmental front, the traditional mantra is that trains are "greener" than flying, especially on short hops. My understanding is that the Q400 doesn't need to climb as high as other jet a/c, presumably saving on a lot of fuel, yet can still cruise very economically at this lower altitude. Has anyone ever done a comparison between, say a Q400 and one of Virgin's new Pendolinos or Voyagers, especially as (a) I'd expect Flybe's occupancy level to be about double that of Virgin Cross Country, and (b) trains tend to be getting heavier these days, rather than lighter. For electric trains, generation and transmission have to be brought into account. The train may still win, but I doubt the gap is anything like as much as some people would like to claim.