Flybe's Fleet Replacement Collapsed Again
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Spagiola, lets not split hairs
I was talking pre the LH deal when Flybe would have been negotiating on the RJ's, at that point they could have had quite a choice of 146-300's.
You are quite right though, there are now few 146-300's left. The old dog has been finding itself new homes of late! (I mean that in the nicest possible way!)
Cheers Jobs!
I was talking pre the LH deal when Flybe would have been negotiating on the RJ's, at that point they could have had quite a choice of 146-300's.
You are quite right though, there are now few 146-300's left. The old dog has been finding itself new homes of late! (I mean that in the nicest possible way!)
Cheers Jobs!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
er82
Still doesn't make it a good aircraft, just makes it a cheap aircraft. What else could they buy now?
Unlikely, as the 146 wasn't built to a price (as the Q400 definitely is). I would expect the 146 to outlast the Q400 with some ease.
Doubt it, but if it were to happen, expect the 146 crews to be heading out the doors rather than fly the Q400. I certainly will.
Whatever the reasons for FlyBE initially going for the Q400, they've certainly found their niche and are keeping the company going. Which is probably why they've ordered 20 more.
That is until they come to the end of a 'serviceable' life
you'll find that they'll end up chaging to a one-fleet company.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 146 crews may well head out the door, but it won't be a new situation! Having lost 1/3 of the flight deck crew they've managed to get lots of low-hour guys/gals to hop into the company, parting with cash up-front.
For the routes that it does, it is a good aircraft. I'm not entirely sure why you have to slate it so much when you don't even fly the thing. It's kept the company going - you should be grateful for that otherwise you wouldn't have a job!
For the routes that it does, it is a good aircraft. I'm not entirely sure why you have to slate it so much when you don't even fly the thing. It's kept the company going - you should be grateful for that otherwise you wouldn't have a job!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a well rounded last post!
I'm afraid some peolpe look at their aircraft they fly as some form of extension to their body! The Q400 has its faults and some very good things about it. I guess it ain't as much a pilots aeroplane as the 146. BUT it is doing what the bean counters wanted so its ok in my book. Yes I fly it so I'm biased. But I fly aeroplanes cos I enjoy it. I could'nt care a flying fa**y what it is I fly as long as it fun......the Q400 is very much that. I see it as the 757 of the turboprop world, long and thin with long legs and two big pairs......!
If people were that fed up with it, then why do we still fill the seats? Yes a lot of people get on and think, blimey whats this thing? They generally get off and say, that was a really nice flight. And they love the cabin as its small enough to feel like a familiar sociable environment.
Granted, some pilots just don't have a feel for an aircraft and fly it like a robot. If you are sympathetic with it, you can get smooth results in the cabin for the pax. Just takes a little thought from up front.
Above all, it makes money which keeps me employed, for which I am truly grateful. Shame others could'nt admit it.
Oh and MOR if and when you do fly the thing, just remember, you will be on a jet salary flying a turboprop...............oh no! How lucky you are sir!
I'm afraid some peolpe look at their aircraft they fly as some form of extension to their body! The Q400 has its faults and some very good things about it. I guess it ain't as much a pilots aeroplane as the 146. BUT it is doing what the bean counters wanted so its ok in my book. Yes I fly it so I'm biased. But I fly aeroplanes cos I enjoy it. I could'nt care a flying fa**y what it is I fly as long as it fun......the Q400 is very much that. I see it as the 757 of the turboprop world, long and thin with long legs and two big pairs......!
If people were that fed up with it, then why do we still fill the seats? Yes a lot of people get on and think, blimey whats this thing? They generally get off and say, that was a really nice flight. And they love the cabin as its small enough to feel like a familiar sociable environment.
Granted, some pilots just don't have a feel for an aircraft and fly it like a robot. If you are sympathetic with it, you can get smooth results in the cabin for the pax. Just takes a little thought from up front.
Above all, it makes money which keeps me employed, for which I am truly grateful. Shame others could'nt admit it.
Oh and MOR if and when you do fly the thing, just remember, you will be on a jet salary flying a turboprop...............oh no! How lucky you are sir!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drifting slightly off topic, tonights BEE784 EGHI-EGPH made an emergency (precautionary?) landing at Birmingham due to excessive vibrations in the No2 engine (I believe it was a 146). Not sure if the pax were switched to other flights at Birmingham.
Fried Chicken
Fried Chicken
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One shouldn't rise to MOR's opinions of the 400. His tired old comment of "....I've had conversations with pax who think it's an old aircraft and the 146 parked next door is newer... blah blah blah ...tech problems... blah blah blah" have appeared many times before, and it tends to be followed by posts from passengers who have flown on the 400 and found it a pleasant experience. His mind is made up, so let him carry on.
CaptAirProx -
A wise and accurate comment indeed sir. A little thought from those up the front is exactly what it takes, be a little less 'agricultural' is what I say.
I think one thing that should be sorted out is the 'apparent' power change on final. For the benefit of the pax who commented above, this unnecessary (in my opinion) increase in noise (caused by the props increasing to their 'take off' rpm setting) is indeed for peformance reasons, it's nothing to do with the landing, but it's just in case the aircraft has to go around. SAS have a software modification to the Go Around button on the power levers which brings the props up to max when pressed, and this means much quieter landings at an 850 rpm setting.
On the subject of RJ availability, I believe BA want to get rid of their entire fleet. You can bet they're in top notch condition, but I guess they must be too expensive for us.
CaptAirProx -
...some pilots just don't have a feel for an aircraft and fly it like a robot. If you are sympathetic with it, you can get smooth results in the cabin for the pax. Just takes a little thought from up front.
I think one thing that should be sorted out is the 'apparent' power change on final. For the benefit of the pax who commented above, this unnecessary (in my opinion) increase in noise (caused by the props increasing to their 'take off' rpm setting) is indeed for peformance reasons, it's nothing to do with the landing, but it's just in case the aircraft has to go around. SAS have a software modification to the Go Around button on the power levers which brings the props up to max when pressed, and this means much quieter landings at an 850 rpm setting.
On the subject of RJ availability, I believe BA want to get rid of their entire fleet. You can bet they're in top notch condition, but I guess they must be too expensive for us.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See what I mean about all the Q400 crews with the "best thing since sliced bread" lobotomy... 
Probably because they don't have a choice, or because they prefer a low price to comfort.
What a load of twaddle! They are more likely to find it claustrophobic. You're right about one thing, though, it certainly is small...
Perhaps you guys need to think a little harder then, because none of you seem to be able to land it gently...
I really don't care whether you do or don't, I'm just expressing an opinion, which is at least as valid as yours - although I realise that you think your opinions are the last word, being as you are the self-appointed company spokesman on all matters flybe. Bring back Raw Data, at least he had a backbone...
If people were that fed up with it, then why do we still fill the seats?
And they love the cabin as its small enough to feel like a familiar sociable environment.
If you are sympathetic with it, you can get smooth results in the cabin for the pax. Just takes a little thought from up front.
One shouldn't rise to MOR's opinions of the 400.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oooooooohhhhh BITCHY!
And I thought it was just the girls!
Flybe.com - as far as I know, we'll be getting the mod to land with props at 850rpm. Who knows when, but I heard it's on its way.
MOR -as far as landing the thing nicely - just remember that it's due to the undercarriage. We don't have a nice trailing-link like the 146 which means we actually have to put it down nicely to get a nice landing, unlike you lot who can slam it in, let the undercarriage do all the work, and then accept the compliments of a nice landing when it wasn't really down to your skill!!!
Unfortunately you seem to be one of the typical "my jet is better than your turboprop" lot. If the Q400 wasn't such a 'threat' to the future of the 146 in the company, maybe you wouldn't be so bitter about it! It's a great aircraft for the routes it operates; it's spacious in the cabin, nice and airy with a decent pitch ; it's performance is outstanding for a turboprop; it has a MUCH better set-up in the flight deck than the 146 -ok so we don't have as much room but our nice EFIS screens are way better than your old dials and our FMS will hold the aircraft while we sit and drink tea instead of constantly turning a heading bug.
I'm not really sure why you have to get so heated about an aircraft that is keeping the company afloat. If you're not flying it, why complain so much????? And as far as >>See what I mean about all the Q400 crews with the "best thing since sliced bread" lobotomy... << - well we only ever defend ourselves and our aircraft when pedantic old jet jockeys like yourself constantly put it down....
And I thought it was just the girls!
Flybe.com - as far as I know, we'll be getting the mod to land with props at 850rpm. Who knows when, but I heard it's on its way.
MOR -as far as landing the thing nicely - just remember that it's due to the undercarriage. We don't have a nice trailing-link like the 146 which means we actually have to put it down nicely to get a nice landing, unlike you lot who can slam it in, let the undercarriage do all the work, and then accept the compliments of a nice landing when it wasn't really down to your skill!!!
Unfortunately you seem to be one of the typical "my jet is better than your turboprop" lot. If the Q400 wasn't such a 'threat' to the future of the 146 in the company, maybe you wouldn't be so bitter about it! It's a great aircraft for the routes it operates; it's spacious in the cabin, nice and airy with a decent pitch ; it's performance is outstanding for a turboprop; it has a MUCH better set-up in the flight deck than the 146 -ok so we don't have as much room but our nice EFIS screens are way better than your old dials and our FMS will hold the aircraft while we sit and drink tea instead of constantly turning a heading bug.
I'm not really sure why you have to get so heated about an aircraft that is keeping the company afloat. If you're not flying it, why complain so much????? And as far as >>See what I mean about all the Q400 crews with the "best thing since sliced bread" lobotomy... << - well we only ever defend ourselves and our aircraft when pedantic old jet jockeys like yourself constantly put it down....
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Glasgow
Age: 43
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Dispatch Perspective
Thought i'd add to this,
I'm a Dispatcher for Swissport at NCL and we have both types operating (146 to EXT and the Q400 to BHD and SOU).
The 146 is a bi*ch to turnaround in comparison to the dash -
No Airstairs means it's a pain in the ass getting ours on the aircraft quickly and correctly without the c/crew complaining that there's a 2cm gap and that they want them repositioned. These then have to be removed if there are WCHR pax to board from the cabin lift.
As for the cabin, I find the q400 light and airy and far less cramped than the 146, lets not forget the 146 is 6 abreast seating the only a/c in its category with more than 5. The cabin is dark and dingy and god forbid if you're sat under the wing with the laughable overhead baggage bins there, usefull for maybe an A4 folder to fit into. These are also the emergency exits so forget about the seat infront for your bag.
The Q400 does take getting used to but after a couple of turnarounds it's easy as p*ss.
The pax figures on the EXT service don't at the moment exceed the Q400 capacity so maybe FlyBE will redeploy the a/c to a more suitable sector and save us the headache.
Rant over,
Sharky
I'm a Dispatcher for Swissport at NCL and we have both types operating (146 to EXT and the Q400 to BHD and SOU).
The 146 is a bi*ch to turnaround in comparison to the dash -
No Airstairs means it's a pain in the ass getting ours on the aircraft quickly and correctly without the c/crew complaining that there's a 2cm gap and that they want them repositioned. These then have to be removed if there are WCHR pax to board from the cabin lift.
As for the cabin, I find the q400 light and airy and far less cramped than the 146, lets not forget the 146 is 6 abreast seating the only a/c in its category with more than 5. The cabin is dark and dingy and god forbid if you're sat under the wing with the laughable overhead baggage bins there, usefull for maybe an A4 folder to fit into. These are also the emergency exits so forget about the seat infront for your bag.
The Q400 does take getting used to but after a couple of turnarounds it's easy as p*ss.
The pax figures on the EXT service don't at the moment exceed the Q400 capacity so maybe FlyBE will redeploy the a/c to a more suitable sector and save us the headache.
Rant over,
Sharky
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see bothe sides of the story, but lets not get distracted from the main reason this thread is here - the cancelation of the RJ100's and the consideration of the ERJ 170/195's.
Great opportunity for Flybe to leave the mainstream low-costs and fight thier corner and niche in the regional / low cost market.
Lets just hope they follow it through.
Great opportunity for Flybe to leave the mainstream low-costs and fight thier corner and niche in the regional / low cost market.
Lets just hope they follow it through.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately you seem to be one of the typical "my jet is better than your turboprop" lot.
The best fun I had in aviation was flying the F27 ( a much better built aircraft than the Q400, as it happens).
I never, in any of my posts, use the term "better than". The 146 isn't "better than" the Q400, as it is a different class of aircraft. What it is, though, is more solidly built, quieter, and more reliable.
The Q400 isn't a "threat" to the 146, the next jet is. The company has a clear objective to operate an aircraft in the 150-seat class.
I don't know where you get the idea it is "spacious", it simply isn't, even "for a turboprop".
but our nice EFIS screens are way better than your old dials and our FMS will hold the aircraft while we sit and drink tea instead of constantly turning a heading bug.
Of course you have no idea what you are on about, I just tell the GNS-X where I want to go, sit back and watch the map scroll down the EFIS. No heading bug manipulation required. I do all this in the relative quiet and spaciousness of the 146 flight deck. At least we have a bit of space for our coffee and crew meals.
I'm not really sure why you have to get so heated about an aircraft that is keeping the company afloat.
The Bombardier order book tells the real story. Really popular aircraft, the Q400. Airlines are fighting each other to buy some... NOT.
Of course all the Q400 pilots desperate to defend their toy are all applying to fly jets... guess they must really love it to bits!
This is great fun... who's next...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR, people do have a choice . If they don't like it then go with another carrier from say Gatwick if we were to use SOU as an example. Or indeed BOH. Do you really think an airline should put two a/c on a rotation so that people can choose their mount! Hardly.
As to the cabin size, my point being that often on the longer trips to say Salzburg, Geneva, Bergamo, Berne, Verona etc. The cabin crew would always comment on how the pax thought there was a much more family spirit in the cabin as everything was closer to the aisle and they could talk to the cabin crew. When full on these trips it does bring people together and be more sociable as if its their own private chartered a/c.
I like the 146, think it was a great invention. Shame it never got the modernisation as promised.
As our late fleet manager once said " This is not a flying club but an airline"
So if you don't like the aircraft that you work along side or indeed fly in as pax or as crew, then take a walk elsewhere where they have a mount that you can be seen in. As much as you hate it, I feel the Dash has been an important factor in our turnaround. We may need to grow into something bigger but until then it keeps us going. That said I am sure the 146 makes money on many routes but we all can't operate down to Malaga etc.
Its interesting to note that the Chief Test Pilot of the CAA is coming on line shortly as a Captain on the Q400. He is very excited to see what its all about. And guess what, he has flown fast jets to L1011's/757/767 etc etc. He has no problem with flying a turboprop.
As to your appraisal of the landings. Yes they can be firm. And yes they are a bitch to master. Sometimes you have it in the bag to be rewarded with a shudder! I wasn't specifically refering to the landings. More the use of props, flaps, taxiing with disc, I could go on. You have to remember that although our Tech officer is trying his hardest, he doesn't have the experience of the Dash that some earlier pilots have on the fleet. So some of the advice we get now is duff as are the supposed new SOP's. Written with no understanding of the problems we've had from the beginning and experience of operating on the line.
I agree the Dash probably isn't built aswell as the 146. But then what new aircarft is? Do we care? We lease them. Just lease a load more. But by then we may be a totally different company not requiring them anyway.
I do find it odd that you publicly slate your employers equipment when clearly this could have an adverse affect on your livelyhood. Shame on you sir. At least try and be a little evenhanded with your comments.
Oh and MOR the reason why we come on here and defend our aircraft is because your opinions do little justice to our business. This is a public forum.
And you now admit that the 146 and Dash have different missions...............At last!
And no the company have now stated they are looking at 120 seat aircraft, have you not read the notice. OR are you too busy in the mirror!
As to the cabin size, my point being that often on the longer trips to say Salzburg, Geneva, Bergamo, Berne, Verona etc. The cabin crew would always comment on how the pax thought there was a much more family spirit in the cabin as everything was closer to the aisle and they could talk to the cabin crew. When full on these trips it does bring people together and be more sociable as if its their own private chartered a/c.
I like the 146, think it was a great invention. Shame it never got the modernisation as promised.
As our late fleet manager once said " This is not a flying club but an airline"
So if you don't like the aircraft that you work along side or indeed fly in as pax or as crew, then take a walk elsewhere where they have a mount that you can be seen in. As much as you hate it, I feel the Dash has been an important factor in our turnaround. We may need to grow into something bigger but until then it keeps us going. That said I am sure the 146 makes money on many routes but we all can't operate down to Malaga etc.
Its interesting to note that the Chief Test Pilot of the CAA is coming on line shortly as a Captain on the Q400. He is very excited to see what its all about. And guess what, he has flown fast jets to L1011's/757/767 etc etc. He has no problem with flying a turboprop.
As to your appraisal of the landings. Yes they can be firm. And yes they are a bitch to master. Sometimes you have it in the bag to be rewarded with a shudder! I wasn't specifically refering to the landings. More the use of props, flaps, taxiing with disc, I could go on. You have to remember that although our Tech officer is trying his hardest, he doesn't have the experience of the Dash that some earlier pilots have on the fleet. So some of the advice we get now is duff as are the supposed new SOP's. Written with no understanding of the problems we've had from the beginning and experience of operating on the line.
I agree the Dash probably isn't built aswell as the 146. But then what new aircarft is? Do we care? We lease them. Just lease a load more. But by then we may be a totally different company not requiring them anyway.
I do find it odd that you publicly slate your employers equipment when clearly this could have an adverse affect on your livelyhood. Shame on you sir. At least try and be a little evenhanded with your comments.
Oh and MOR the reason why we come on here and defend our aircraft is because your opinions do little justice to our business. This is a public forum.
And you now admit that the 146 and Dash have different missions...............At last!
And no the company have now stated they are looking at 120 seat aircraft, have you not read the notice. OR are you too busy in the mirror!
If I may put in my pax point of view re flying in the 400 or 146: I have no problem flying in the 400 (or any turboprop) for an hour or so, same as the CRJ or ERJ commuter jets. Anything over that sort of sector length and I prefer something a little larger. I will (and do) modify travel plans so as to avoid flying long sectors on "commuter" type aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>Of course all the Q400 pilots desperate to defend their toy are all applying to fly jets... guess they must really love it to bits!<<
Now that really is a silly comment. It's called career progression. It's what you did to get onto the 146.
Now that really is a silly comment. It's called career progression. It's what you did to get onto the 146.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
I really am getting a giggle out of this thread
MOR really has struck a rich vein of form here.......
Come on all you Q400 drivers..lighten up a bit would you? surely there are better things in life to be upset about?...have you seen the price of a pint lately?...mayby you havent tried to call BT customer service recently
My point is this Q400, 146, 737..whatever..it sure as hell beats working for a living...just confirms how childish and churlish people can be over petty things...dear dear
MOR really has struck a rich vein of form here.......
Come on all you Q400 drivers..lighten up a bit would you? surely there are better things in life to be upset about?...have you seen the price of a pint lately?...mayby you havent tried to call BT customer service recently
My point is this Q400, 146, 737..whatever..it sure as hell beats working for a living...just confirms how childish and churlish people can be over petty things...dear dear
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Offshore
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line with all this is that the 146 costs 4 times more in maintenance than modern a/c such as the later 737s and 319/318s. For that reason alone it must be replaced sooner rather than later. What with? - no idea but the Co has often said that it needs a 110/120 seat a/c as it can't run the network efficiently with just a 78 seat one and a 150 seat one.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so much "nibble nibble" as CHOMP CHOMP"...
You really don't get it, do you? Of COURSE nobody is going to do that. However, try putting a Q400 on the same routes as one served by, say, Easyjet, and see how long you last. Nobody will fly on the turboprop if they have the choice of a jet on the same route, for similar money. Why do you think it is that Mike and Ray don't really care what we do with the Q400?
Oh great, let's get some Jetstreams then, now there is an intimate cabin... you really are living in your own private little world, aren't you?
Quite frankly I think the company should hand out medals to the pax that have survived a Bergamo in the Q...
Oh, I don't mind being seen in it, I just hate having to fly in the thing... silly boy, this isn't about pride, it's about comfort.
Yes, it has. Did I ever say it hadn't? Still an awful aircraft, though.
Well whoopie do...
Nor do I... as long as it isn't that god-awful Q400. Give me an F27, now there is an aircraft that isn't built out of tissue paper.
CAN be... lol
Well, I do. So should you if you are heading down thunderstorm alley in an aircraft so lightly built it had to be "remanufactured" to stop the flight deck dropping off. Give me a nice strong 146 (or F27, or Shed, etc).
Not caring how strong your aircraft is gives a good indication of your inexperience...
Ya think? Nah, the rampies love it so it must be OK... even the one with "pilot" experience, whatever that is.
IT'S - A - DOG! (how was that?)
Have a little think about that, you may wish to re-word it, seeing as how I have made no adverse comment at all on the business, the company, or how much money the Dash makes...
Always have. Now please explain why we send the "pencil" off on epic voyages to places like Bergamo...
Oooh, nasty! Where's my handbag...
MarkD
No, the original Dashes are fine aircraft. Strong, good performers, and so on. By contrast, the Q400 is under-engineered , released well before it was ready, and technically deficient. The noise cancellation system is a joke, the props vibrate if they are even slightly out of balance, the electrics are somewhat less than robust, etc. It was a good idea, but poorly executed, which is unusual for DHC. It is, in many ways, like the BAe ATP was.
er82
But you are being paid a "jet" salary to fly the 400... so what is your incentive?
NEXT...
MOR, people do have a choice . If they don't like it then go with another carrier from say Gatwick if we were to use SOU as an example. Or indeed BOH. Do you really think an airline should put two a/c on a rotation so that people can choose their mount! Hardly.
When full on these trips it does bring people together and be more sociable as if its their own private chartered a/c.
Quite frankly I think the company should hand out medals to the pax that have survived a Bergamo in the Q...
take a walk elsewhere where they have a mount that you can be seen in.
I feel the Dash has been an important factor in our turnaround.
Chief Test Pilot of the CAA is coming on line shortly as a Captain on the Q400. He is very excited to see what its all about.
He has no problem with flying a turboprop.
As to your appraisal of the landings. Yes they can be firm.
I agree the Dash probably isn't built aswell as the 146. But then what new aircarft is? Do we care?
Not caring how strong your aircraft is gives a good indication of your inexperience...
this could have an adverse affect on your livelyhood.
At least try and be a little evenhanded with your comments.
Oh and MOR the reason why we come on here and defend our aircraft is because your opinions do little justice to our business.
And you now admit that the 146 and Dash have different missions...............At last!
OR are you too busy in the mirror!
MarkD
did you dislike the -8-200/300 in flybe service or is it features of the Q400 that you find particularly annoying?
er82
Now that really is a silly comment. It's called career progression. It's what you did to get onto the 146.
NEXT...